POP POV: Pulling a Beyoncé (Part ‘U’2)

The following are thoughts continuing from a previous article, Pulling a Beyoncé: Why are artists releasing ‘surprise’ albums?” I recommend reading that post before viewing part two, but who the hell am I tell you what to do? Enjoy.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been invaded. On September 9, a 54-year-old man who refers to himself as Bono sneaked into computer and left something. Bono, along with his cohorts (a 53-year-old man who answers to the name The Edge, a bass player named Adam, and a drummer named Larry), left a steaming pile of Innocence, stamped with a familiar Apple, on every Itunes user’s doorstep. The practical joke in question revolves around the intrusion of U2’s Songs of Innocence in the library of anyone with an Itunes account. U2 released the “surprise” album in conjunction with Apple’s unveiling of the Iphone 6 and Apple Watch. If you’d like to, you can read more up on partnership here.

u2

Writer’s Note: I understand there are endless blog posts and Internet comments bashing U2. Personally, I have never shared that hateful sentiment; there are many U2 songs I enjoy, and I think they’ve made some very important albums. Go listen to Pop, a commercial failure largely due to the addition of electronica and dance elements, but an album that by today’s standards was completely ahead of its time. This is just one often overlooked landmark in the band’s catalog.

Okay, back to reality. Now, I haven’t listened to Songs of Innocence, so I can’t accurately judge whether or not the music is comparable to dog excrement. But many of the reactions I’ve seen to album’s unexpected, or should I say “surprise,” presence has been less then welcoming, a reception completely opposite from Beyoncé’s “surprise” release. Here are my two possible explanations as to why.

The first is a bit obvious. U2’s “surprise” album was not offered as a gift; it was placed without our notice on our phones and in our computers. Additionally, you may not delete the album. This unwanted placement makes Songs of Innocence another Apple IOS update that everyone hates. It’s like if someone were to come over to your house, and just left something in your bathroom for you to see every time you shit. It’s what I imagine anyone in a popular band feels when someone hands them a demo, “Here’s some free music.” *wink*. It’s obtrusive because you weren’t given a choice.

u2z

Point two. As I mentioned in the former article, music fans adore surprise releases because they feel special. You imagine that the artist had just finished the album and couldn’t wait share it with you. Logic would say the artist stands to lose money with no prior campaign, but money seems like a lesser thought. It feels genuine.

But Songs of Innocence is the complete opposite of that. Apple paid U2 an ungodly, but disclosed, amount of money for the right to releaseThe marketing budget alone was over $100 million! For decades, U2 have been the epitome of corporate rock, and now they’ve chosen to team with the poster child for big business. Therefore, the release of Songs of Innocence comes across as nothing but pandering. From this point on, any semi-popular artist who releases a surprise album will appear a little more calculated, a little phonier. And that’s all I have to say about that.

“I can’t live with or without you.” 

Pulling a Beyoncé: Why are artists releasing “surprise” albums?

Beyoncé. Wolfmother. Death Grips. The Raveonettes. Kid Cudi. Skrillex. 
A seemingly arbitrary list of artists, differing in both genre and status, are among a growing population of musicians who have chosen to release an entire album with absolutely no warning or promotion. This trend received its unofficial title of “pulling a Beyoncé,” after BB releasing her unannounced self-titled album on December 13, 2013. The Internet was driven towards hysteria. In its first three days, having no prior release date or singles, Beyoncé sold almost 800,000 copies. Although Beyoncé was not the first to try this unorthodox release, her great success using it has inspired others to do so. But, is it really all “About the Money,” or do artists have their own reasons behind the “surprise” album? Why is “surprise” in quotation marks? Enjoy.

beyonce

One thing that is for sure, fans, myself included, go absolutely nuts when one of their favorite artists pulls a card out of Mrs. Carter’s playbook. Even the press seems to be intoxicated by these mass influxes of new material. While doing research for this article I ran across posts about: who should release a surprise albumwho shouldn’t release surprise albumwho is most likely to release a surprise album; and whether or not this approach even works. Sorry Wolfmother, for you, it does not.

So, we know that in most cases fans flip over surprise albums. And perhaps artists see the unexpected release as a gift to their supporters. Everyone knows waiting for an album to drop can be torture. Maybe musicians reward fans by attempting to break up the monotony that is the typical year long cycle of an album’s campaign. It’s a tried and true method that never ends: tease first single, release single, announce album release date, tease single’s music video, release video, debut more new tracks, appears on Fallon promoting the single, video, and album, so on and so forth. Instead of months spent digesting how much they need to hear the album, the listener can actually hear the album. Different. Weird. Exciting.

This brings me to my next point: releasing a surprise album has proven to make a musician or band more reputable. It’s simple. By abstracting the norm, the action appears defiant. When experimental hip hop outfit Death Grips was dropped from Epic Records for leaking their second album No Love Deep Web, they came off looking like fucking renegades. So much so, that they did so with both their third and fourth albums. This group was about music! Their label was standing in the way of them delivering music to the fans, so they said “Fuck it. We can do it ourselves.” Now, doesn’t releasing an album without any release date or promotional campaign seem like rebellious thing to do?

deathgrips

But, I will give it to Death Grips. They were an authentic act. But this is where the surprise ends. Lets take Beyoncé for example. Beyoncé is on Columbia Records. Columbia is the largest flagship label owned by Sony Music, a company worth almost $5 billion. With Beyoncé being one of their highest-grossing artists, do you really think Sony would be happy if just one day she said, “I think I’ll release my album today.”? An album that cost millions of dollars to record? Try looking at Kid Cudi and Skrillex. Both are on huge record labels. Do you think their bosses – and yes, they have bosses – would be okay if they decided to release an album with zero promotion, and not consult them?

There is no surprise. The release of a “surprise” album is just as calculated as the typical promotion cycle. The story is that there was none. The resulting media frenzy is promotion enough, and the artist appears more genuine for doing something “different.” The record label executives ride the independent wave right to the bank. The action appears nice, but the thought behind it is corrupt. They capitalize on the actions taken by artists like Death Grips, artists who actually want fans to experience their art. This greed could eventually lead to diminished feelings towards these pure artists. One day their actions may appear more calculated and less authentic.

But what do you think? Why are artists releasing “surprise” albums? These are just my opinions. I’d enjoy hearing yours.

Musical Ramblings: The Grammys

If you were unaware, or like most people you didn’t care, “music’s biggest night” was last night. But, I did watch The Grammys, and found it a, more or less, entertaining evening. So here are some of my thoughts about the winners, the performances, and The Grammys as an institution. Enjoy.

Follow The Vinyl Warhol on Facebook and Twitter for more music updates.

Who got lucky?

Every year I feel like The Grammys slip more and more into irrelevance. With the explosion of the internet, there has never been more accessible music, and 99% of it is excluded from Grammy nominations. Even some the most praised albums of last year (ie. Yeezus, Modern Vampires of the City, Reflektor, … Like Clockwork) received little recognition from The Recording Academy. That, along with the fact that “artists” like The Baha Men, Katy Perry, and Lil Wayne are all Grammy winners, makes The Grammys reputation for good music go right down the toilet. Okay, enough ranting, let’s get to the show.

Despite the paragraph above, I actually really enjoyed The Grammys this year. The night started off with Beyonce and Jay Z performing a steaming rendition of “Drunk in Love”. The two of them had multiple cute moments throughout the evening, the best being Jay’s acceptance speech, where he thanked his wife for bringing Baby Blue into the world. Feels for days.


Throughout the rest of the night, there were performances of varying levels of boredom, peaking with Taylor Swift’s performance, which made me want to eat a gun. Even the “oh so amazing” Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr performance was pretty lame. They didn’t even play a Beatles song, and Ringo wasn’t even the only drummer on the stage. Oh Ringo.

By far the best everything of the night was Daft Punk. Their performance with Pharrell, Stevie Wonder, and Nile Rodgers was incredible. I’m pretty sure it’s the only moment in history where Paul McCartney, Katy Perry, and John Legend were dancing to the same song. Remarkable.


I want to quickly mention the “What the Fuck?” Macklemore & Friends performance. When the gates of heaven opened up, revealing Queen Latifah and Madonna I lost it. The wedding ceremony was sweet, but even more amazing is the fact that Queen Latifah is a licensed reverend and there is a person that goes by the name of Trombone Shorty.

Oh yeah, and people won awards. Robot Rock.