Rachel And The PopJustice Prophecy

[Kirkland]

Rachel And The PopJustice Prophecy

I was reading with great interest the comments of all the Rachel fans on this forum and, if you believe, a leaked statement from one of “Rachel’s People” which found itself onto Rachel Stevens Online of all places, a statement that suggested that this time next year we “won’t see Rachel in the same way,” or some such rubbish. What? We won’t see her as a dull useless pop princess? I doubt it. There is nothing more horrible that calculated controversy and if that’s all Rachel has to offer then she might as well just quit while she can. Her album has bombed anyway! Why has she been given another chance? There are plenty of other worthier pop acts out there that deserve another chance and they won’t get it because they aren’t Simon Fuller’s ‘special project’.

Now please don’t take this as an anti Rachel thread, it’s a little bit more complex than that as you will see when I state why I’ve written this thread…

It was when the sales figures for I Said Never Again (But Here We Are) came out that prompted PopJustice to comment that ‘Rachel deserved better’, and that she didn’t need to degrade herself in the same way as Lisa Scott Lee, which I agreed with. Despite my distaste for Rachel (checking through all the old posts on this site I found that, as Dr Bastard, I was the first to state that Rachel was boring and had no personality) I still maintain that Some Girls is a fab pop song and every now and then Rachel does those but for every Some Girls there is a Spin That Bottle or a Funky Dory. It just isn’t good enough. Now Rachel is going the same way as Lisa Scott Lee just as PopJustice predicted – Rachel should attempt to salvage something out of this pop disaster and quit. Revisionists may look back and see her new album as a pop classic but the chances of that happening when she’s bogged down in all her baggage are so remote as to say impossible.

Also, the leaked statement (whatever it is) claims that Rachel’s next album won’t be as ‘experimental’ and will be more like a Girls Aloud album. Excuse me but wasn’t that the point of Come And Get It? And what the hell is so experimental about that record? It’s okay, I like some songs on it but it takes more than throwing in a few bleeps and bloops to make a pop record experimental and taking an Adam and the Ants backing track isn’t experimental either. It’s fucking lazy. Everything on that album has been done before and done much better, I must add, much better. Freak Like Me (which sampled a miserable 80s group before All About Me did) is experimental pop. Arular is experimental pop. Manchester’s Revenge is experimental pop. Come And Get It is not. It’s just a good pop record.

Poor Rachel, she’s been degraded so much she now finds herself doing gigs in student unions (and not even selling the venues out) which, as we all know, is the sole preserve of soap dodging indie bands and NOT pop princesses. Pop princesses should have dancers, fireworks and be a genuine spectacle and not a badly mimed mess. But Rachel's fans insist don't they?

I pray something is done to save her from her selfish, greedy fans. They expect too much of the poor girl.

[gazbo]

won’t see Rachel in the same way

I was hoping that would mean she'd do topless

In all likeliness, though, it's just an exciting soundbite that will mean nothing when (if?) the new songs actually come out. You know, like how bands talk about how exciting, different and full of surprises their next album is going to be, before releasing generic boyband tosh.

[Kirkland]

It's a shame as she does have some okay songs. I do like All About Me, like I earlier stated, I love the lush Cure sample. But her label, in their numerous attempts to revamp her, fail to see that the problem isn't her 'sound' (there's nothing wrong with her songs, they just all flop) but rather Rachel herself is the problem. You can't force people to like her and any attempts to do so will result in the poor girl looking like a fool.

[Pierre]

There is something quite sad for any (pop)music fan in the way that Rachel's career flops. It proves by 1+1=2 that most people don't really care about the music they buy. They only care about the package surrounding it, be it prancing pretty boys, pretty boys on stools, gyrating buttocks in lycra or reality-TV real-life vernis.

Come And Get It is for me undoubtedly one of the best albums of the year. It has been clinically engineered to sell by the bucketloads and explores the commercial genre of choice of the last 20 years (synth-pop). The album is everything we could ever dream it to be. Still, it flops miserably because "she's boring in interviews". At the same time, people can't stop buying James Blunt's album although it's quite thoroughly unlistenable and he's roughly 15,484 times more boring in interview than she's ever been.

Why are pop stars making good records required to be fun and interesting in interviews while guitar-strumming charisma-free balladeers just have to write half-baked songs about unrequited love to be seen as the saviours of music?

[stalin]

kirkland said:

Also, the leaked statement (whatever it is) claims that Rachel’s next album won’t be as ‘experimental’

I must have read it wrong because I'm sure that when I read it it said this:

" Some of the song choices she is looking at are highly experimental"

After predicting that She will be dropped it seems to be a case of sour grapes here.

I dont know what the future holds for Rachel any more than you do but It looks like She might be getting another chance and I'm glad about that.

Its interesting that you admit you like "Some Girls". There are plenty of artists who I would love to see the back of because they have never released a song that I like but I find the idea of getting rid of an artist whose material I have liked in the past a bit strange.

[Kirkland]

Not really. I don't want 'rid' of her as such but I am shocked that she's been given more chances than even she deserves. Like I said, for every Some Girls there is at least four songs as dire as Funky Dory.

For Rachel to keep the public interest, she's going to have to demean herself a la Lisa Scott Lee. That's my other point.

[stalin]

kirkland said:

For Rachel to keep the public interest, she's going to have to demean herself a la Lisa Scott Lee. That's my other point.

Is she though? We will just have to wait and see but from the way she refused to splattered with crap on the Dick and Dom show I dont think we will be seeing to much demeaning going on.

[Maureen]

pierre said:

Still, it flops miserably because "she's boring in interviews". At the same time, people can't stop buying James Blunt's album although it's quite thoroughly unlistenable and he's roughly 15,484 times more boring in interview than she's ever been.

Rachel's not flopping solely because of her interview technique. She's flopping because the public aren't buying into her image or sound.

She's missed the 'electro' boat by a good year or two and has gone from S Club bubblegum to potential anal sex recipient at such breakneck speed that even the dumbest of 'Nuts' readers aren't convinced.

In addition, she's the kind of girl that other girls just don't like that much. For whatever reason, a lot of the female audience aren't getting her at all; probably because of all of those FHM spreads we've seen her in.

She has made a couple of good tunes, but was never going to be an albums artist. But when your singles aren't selling either, it's not good news.

She deserved her second chance because not everyone gets it right first time and she did put the hours in, but after a second misfire, I find it strange that she'll be given another punt at pop success. Let's hope it's third time lucky for her and she doesn't cost a record co any more cash. While Rachel flails, there are a few new artists who might just be the real saviours of pop languising in a cash-free limbo

James Blunt's success can be attributed to one very massive single. It's certainly not my cup of tea, but he's shifting units and getting people who don't normally buy a lot of records into the record stores (a.k.a. the Dido Effect) so we mustn't grumble.

[Kirkland]

Eloquent and right as usual Maureen.

[Pierre]

maureen said:

Rachel's not flopping solely because of her interview technique. She's flopping because the public aren't buying into her image or sound.

So she can't get any kind of success because she's not "real" enough. Since when are popstars supposed to be "real"? To have coherent and credible careers? I seem to be alone on this but if I like an album I'll enjoy it regardless of who made it or of what their previous album sounded like.

But that impression comes probably from the fact that I know Rachel Stevens only from her recent work. I never got to see any of the SC7 shows. The band was completely unknown over here (except for the quite nice Don't Stop Moving, which got a bit of airplay).

So I have no preconceived view of what she should do, sound like or look like (we don't even get the British FHM over here). For me Rachel Stevens is just a British pop singer making her second album. It is far better than the first one and stylistically not that different. Sweet Dreams My LA Ex and Some Girls could have been on the first one (the latter actually was, at one point).

From that limited knowledge of the Rachel Stevens phenomenon I can only be disappointed by the lack of response of the buying public. For me, it's sad to think that an album's lack of success is down to factors which aren't related in any way to the music itself. I must be naive.

[Maureen]

Er, it's nothing to do with her being 'real'. She breathes, walks, talks etc. and is thus real.

When I say that people aren't buying into her image or sound, I mean that rather than people rush out and buy her shit just because it's her (like people do with Madonna, Kylie, Westlife, Robbie and many, many others), she's judged on a song-by-song basis because nobody really gets what she's about. There's not enough interest there; no backstory; no excitement; no buzz- just 'material', and not brilliant material at that.

She has yet to successfully make the transition from pop puppet in S Club to bonafide solo star, and based on what I've seen, she's got a long way to go.

[Kirkland]

When prices are slashed on a Uni Tour you know how low you are in the pop ladder. Geri Halliwell could probably sell more, more, more tickets than Rachel. I suppose some girls don't always get what they wanna, wanna...






(I'll get my coat. Sorry.)

[Ronald Parisi]

I need a shower after that post, Dr. B...

I really still wish she'd come to the USA. Although I'm feeling like I should be getting out the white flag soon. It's dis-heartening. I wonder what's going to be of Tina Barrett's solo material? It would be the ironic thing if Tina was the one to actually sell the most.

PS Bradley's solo song (the 1:30 second clip) is effing amazing. Find it online.

[drbeat]

She played at my Xmas Ball in Uni but I decided not to go because of 3 reasons
1. It was 27 quid which I assume is just because she was playing because the last ball which cost 15 quid starred Natasha Hamilton
2. I knew she would mime and she infact did mime
3 I always pass out from being too drunk if I wear a suit (it always happens)

I even think she got booed!

[discolemonade]

maureen said:

When I say that people aren't buying into her image or sound, I mean that rather than people rush out and buy her shit just because it's her (like people do with Madonna, Kylie, Westlife, Robbie and many, many others), she's judged on a song-by-song basis because nobody really gets what she's about. There's not enough interest there; no backstory; no excitement; no buzz- just 'material', and not brilliant material at that.
.

I think the word you're looking for is 'charisma'.