Manics on X Factor NZ - thoughts?

[Bathtub]

Originally Posted by Porco

The lyric is 'if you tolerate this then your children will be next' and the context of its performance here was a show well known for featuring children on

Is it?

Children aren't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of The XFactor. Children are on the XFactor, but I wouldn't say that that is what it's well known for.

Also how many under 18s have won the XFactor (UK)? I can think of possibly one, the blonde one off Little Mix.

I would wager that there are as many entrants over, and well over, the age of 18 as there are below, so the irony in that seems tenuous at best.

Originally Posted by Porco

Additionally, to Dancing Kirby's point, if there are parents who wouldn't mind / would quite like their kids being on it it's all the more ironic to be listening to a performance of a song called 'If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next' when the vast majority of their children will almost certainly not be next. That part is just maths.

Ditto, tenuous. The irony there relies on what? Hypothetical parents with delusions of grandeur on behalf of their hypothetical children

Originally Posted by Porco

As for the "statement" element… well, they are on a show that is regularly accused of being a shallow, industry-leeching impediment to 'serious' music with meaningful 'real' roots, of being manufactured to create empty pop hits with very little to say.

Yeah, but that accusation is demonstrably not true and nobody gives it any credence. The careers of Cher Lloyd and The Dolly Rockers haven't noticeably impeded those of Godspeed You Black Emperor or Radiohead all that much. Unfortunately it's still The Mumford and Sons headlining Glastonbury not Girls Aloud.

Originally Posted by Porco

Ironic in signifying the opposite route to success, subversive in undermining the X Factor TV show as an established route to success in the music industry, by appearing upon it.

I don't think that the Manics or any "real" or "serious" (whatever those terms mean) band by the very act of appearing on the XFactor are undermining it.

The XFactor is undermined to a far greater extent by the watching public who tune in, vote, attend the live shows, but for the most part show little to no interest in the long term in the contestants/winners.

The XFactor as a process does a more effective job of undermining itself than Manic Street Preachers do. Do they even care about undermining it? I imagine they saw a chance to sell some records/tickets and took it, and people are reading things into it that aren't there. Unlike with Strictly, Wire, to his credit, hasn't tried to present this as some sort of art piece.

Originally Posted by Porco

all the more by doing so whilst singing lyrics that can be thought of as ironic and subversive themselves.

They're apparently ironic in the context of this performance, although we've already established I think that's spurious.

They also aren't really that subversive. They're about a conflict that happened almost 80 years ago on an the other side of the world to the performance on the XFactor NZ.

And if they are so insurrectionary, it relies upon a fair bit prior knowledge of their context and meaning. If you have to work that hard to find the subversion, I'd say there's nothing all that subversive going on.

[hummingbird]

Originally Posted by raven

There is no point in having something worth saying but refusing any platform bar the tiniest most exclusive one with a converted audience of 1 and his dog

Very good idea. Next up, I hope, X Factor over ere

Agreed. Not sure they'll bother with X-Factor here though i'd love to see their songs murdered on a Manics Week

Thought that performance was great

[Porco]

Originally Posted by Bathtub

Is it?

Children aren't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of The XFactor. Children are on the XFactor, but I wouldn't say that that is what it's well known for.

Also how many under 18s have won the XFactor (UK)? I can think of possibly one, the blonde one off Little Mix.

I would wager that there are as many entrants over, and well over, the age of 18 as there are below, so the irony in that seems tenuous at best.

Are you (ahem) kidding? There are always loads of children applying and trying out for The X Factor. How many of them go on to win is not really the point. Actually how few of them go on to win despite how many try to would only support the irony….

Obviously it's not exclusively under-18s (or even under-25s) who appear on the X Factor, but the song isn't called 'If You Tolerate This Your Friends Or Family Of Various Ages Will Be Next', so that's probably why I wasn't referring to them. However, to deny that a significant proportion of both applicants and fans of the show are not children would seem far-fetched… and so I think to call that link 'tenuous' is wrong.

Originally Posted by Bathtub

Ditto, tenuous. The irony there relies on what? Hypothetical parents with delusions of grandeur on behalf of their hypothetical children

Sorry, are you saying there haven't been countless examples broadcast of actual parents with delusions of grandeur on behalf of their actual children?! It is logical to assume there are many more judging by the huge numbers who turn up to the auditions. So again, hardly tenuous I think.

Originally Posted by Bathtub

Yeah, but that accusation is demonstrably not true and nobody gives it any credence. The careers of Cher Lloyd and The Dolly Rockers haven't noticeably impeded those of Godspeed You Black Emperor or Radiohead all that much. Unfortunately it's still The Mumford and Sons headlining Glastonbury not Girls Aloud.

No, you've lost me there… You're saying no-one thinks the X Factor stops more supposedly 'serious' (agreed on that being a fuzzy definition) music from doing better in the charts or on the radio, for example? What?! I must have imagined that big hyped campaign it took for RATM to beat the (just-turned 18-year old winner) Joe McElderry's X Factor single being top at Christmas that time… wait, why was there a campaign again for the issue that no-one pays any credence to?

Originally Posted by Bathtub

I don't think that the Manics or any "real" or "serious" (whatever those terms mean) band by the very act of appearing on the XFactor are undermining it.

The XFactor is undermined to a far greater extent by the watching public who tune in, vote, attend the live shows, but for the most part show little to no interest in the long term in the contestants/winners.

The XFactor as a process does a more effective job of undermining itself than Manic Street Preachers do. Do they even care about undermining it? I imagine they saw a chance to sell some records/tickets and took it, and people are reading things into it that aren't there. Unlike with Strictly, Wire, to his credit, hasn't tried to present this as some sort of art piece.

I agree with most of that, but even if they undermine it a little bit, that's something. They only had four and a half minutes! I disagree about the 'reading things into it that aren't there', as it's perfectly reasonable to say that the effect upon the audience is separate from the band's intentions or motivations, whatever they were.

As I indicated earlier in the thread I think the subversion is inherent in the track as it existed and if the context of them playing that particular track on such a show may have underlined that with some irony (as I think it did - so irony was definitely present for me, even if not for you, sorry) then all the better. But the band's intention is not all that relevant, more so the reception it got from those who saw it, even if it was felt as a small, subtle thing.

Originally Posted by Bathtub

They're apparently ironic in the context of this performance, although we've already established I think that's spurious.

They also aren't really that subversive. They're about a conflict that happened almost 80 years ago on an the other side of the world to the performance on the XFactor NZ.

And if they are so insurrectionary, it relies upon a fair bit prior knowledge of their context and meaning. If you have to work that hard to find the subversion, I'd say there's nothing all that subversive going on.

I wouldn't call it "insurrectionary" at all, I think that would be hyperbole. And I think a song with such lyrics being on The X Factor is subversive for the reasons I gave, regardless of whether anyone watching had pre-existing knowledge, or had read a history book or two or just googled around the subject matter… if even only a few people liked the song and then went on to find out more about the subject matter instead of spending another hour debating/thinking about who is the best X Factor contestant I would call that good work for a few minutes work airtime. I don't think it's all that unlikely given the chart boost the track got over there.

But fine, if you don't find it at all ironic or "all that" subversive, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm not saying it's going to send the entire population of New Zealand out to tear down the TV studio, all clutching history books and demanding that the X Factor never been broadcast again, but I do think there was genuine irony in the choice of song (whether intended or not - though I think probably at least a little bit intended) and I do think that almost any performance by the Manics' of their work would be at least a little bit subversive given its context on a show which to me has, undeniably, a relatively shallow and cynical reason for being compared to a band like the Manics, who for all their faults have at least had a career with songs that have been about more than the typical stuff that comes out The X Factor and fills the charts, obviously preventing other music from doing as well as it otherwise might have.

Aside from all that I'm sure whatever else the intentions were, they also hoped it would boost sales and drum up future business, and I think that's fine. That has rarely ever not been part of what they do from what I can tell, and I don't see a problem with it.

[Hans]

The irony of not playing your instruments on a "talent" show...

Meh.

[autumngirl]

If there was irony involved, it was certainly lost on James - he was asked directly about that in an interview he did with TV3 the next day and said something like "I understand what you're getting at, but I wasn't really thinking about the lyric yesterday". They were definitely going through the motions as a record label plug. Looks like it worked to some degree as well.

Originally Posted by LA ex

Two somewhat related questions:

How popular are the Manics in NZ? Have they ever had what would constitute a hit single there? Did Tolerate even chart out there originally?

What sort of acts does NZ X-factor normally manage to attract? Is it Rhianna followed by Britney, etc. Or do they generally have to scrape the barrel with local acts? (Possibly Rusel Crowe's 'band')

They are not popular or well known here at all. The had their first 'hit' since the 90's here with YLAINE, which went Top 20 (I think!), it was certainly on high rotate here on commercial radio and music TV channels. Consequently most people think there is a girl in the band. And as for your second question, yes, it is mostly local or Australian talent, but they have not yet scraped the barrel with Russ le Roq

[autumngirl]

Originally Posted by Frozendiva

I would assume that they were playing their instruments but that nothing was really plugged in/much sound came out to interfere with the 'perfect' mix.

This. They were playing along, but quietly.

[Takk]

I don't think it's particularly ironic, nor is it any kind of statement. They did it for the publicity, not to be subversive - like they do every tv show that comes along. People like to make out they are making political statements with everything, but presumably all they are doing is trying to shift a few more albums and gig tickets, depending when this aired.

Sure it shows that some acts have longevity, but who doesn't know that there's a big difference between bands established like the manics and the next X factor contestant...if anything it adds legitimacy to the xfactor but i think we're just over analysing this. I voted for the first choice, though I don't think it's a statement - anything that sells them more records without being totally out of character seems fine with me. People are always complaining they never tour places like NZ and then complain when they do things like this which might enable them to again.

I would have thought more the question we should be asking is why the hell did x factor want the manics on?

[autumngirl]

Originally Posted by Takk

I would have thought more the question we should be asking is why the hell did x factor want the manics on?

That's what I was thinking too!

[Frozendiva]

The cost of a lot of artists touring Australia and New Zealand and probably south Asia can be pricey. Unless tour stages and equipment are sent by boat (slightly less expensive), the flying costs to ship the equipment in can be astronomical. The Manics are an internationally acclaimed and successful band. The show's contestants can see a possible future. So why not.

[MSPlover]

What I want to know is what brought Nicky to change his mind after all this time he been slagged the X factor?

[The Gutless Wonder]

Originally Posted by MSPlover

What I want to know is what brought Nicky to change his mind after all this time he been slagged the X factor?

Nicky Wire reserves the right to contradict himself!

[Dancing Kirby]

Motown Junk would have been a statement, ironic and all that shit rolled into one.

[mar]

Originally Posted by The Gutless Wonder

Nicky Wire reserves the right to contradict himself!

Yes, that makes him who he is

[Abstract Unknown Girl]

Originally Posted by autumngirl

If there was irony involved, it was certainly lost on James - he was asked directly about that in an interview he did with TV3 the next day and said something like "I understand what you're getting at, but I wasn't really thinking about the lyric yesterday". They were definitely going through the motions as a record label plug. Looks like it worked to some degree as well.

Agree with this. I see it mainly as a promo opportunity whilst they happen to have been out there. I suppose Nicky might have seen some sort of statement in it, in his usual slightly naive way (I can imagine him sat there thinking performing a song about the Spanish Civil War on X-Factor is them sticking their middle finger up at the music industry, but really, it isn't and doesn't change anything...like Simon Cowell et al give a crap and it's not going to change the viewing/music buying habits of the people who watch the show week in week out), but I doubt James, Sean or the record label saw it as much more than a plugging opportunity. Nothing wrong with that in a country they very, very rarely visit. Why wouldn't they try to reach out to a wider audience? It's nothing new; they've performed on many commercial TV shows before, even in the early part of their career. But I don't think they've done much more than temporarily slightly raise their profile and got some downloads of Tolerate off the back of it (and maybe I'm just hugely cynical, but I can't imagine a lot of the people who downloaded the track rushed to the internet to find out the meaning behind the lyrics...maybe some did and good for them if they did). But really, what more can you expect from such a performance? Mission accomplished as far as I can see. I'm not attaching any more significance to it than that.

And as for your second question, yes, it is mostly local or Australian talent, but they have not yet scraped the barrel with Russ le Roq

That's interesting, because the UK X-Factor tends to have quite high profile acts, like Lady Gaga and Rihanna (I don't watch X-Factor and never have, but those are two names that I can think of off the top of my head that I know have performed on the show). So the Manics appearing on the New Zealand version isn't really that shocking if the usual sort of acts on it aren't massive anyway. I'd be more surprised if they appeared on the UK version.

Originally Posted by autumngirl

This. They were playing along, but quietly.

Yeah they were effectively miming though (at least you can't hear them in the mix and I'm sure there's at least one moment where James isn't strumming his guitar when he should be), which is what I meant when I said the only true 'live' part of the performance was James' vocals. But that's pretty standard for a TV performance like this.

[hummingbird]

are people over-analyzing this? Didn't they play The Big Day Out festival in 1999 in Australia somewhere? They would've been promoting the truth album. Tolerate is probably their best known song probably and that's why they played it