Sunday Essay: Dear RCA Records, Gold is NOT The New Platinum, and Here's Why

This past week, the CEO of RCA Records, one of the largest record companies in the world, made the argument for changing the certifications by claiming that "Gold is the new Platinum."

For those unfamiliar with sale-to-certification talk, a Gold certification means that 500,000 copies of an album have been shipped to retailers, while Platinum means that 1 million copies have been shipped.

So essentially, RCA, home to acts like Ke$ha, Usher, Christina Aguilera, Pink, Alicia Keys, and more, believe that the current certification system is obsolete, and that Platinum awards should be given to artists who only ship half a million copies.

Nope, that won't work.

While it comes to no surprise that record labels are trying to justify the truly abysmal music sales climate we are in right now, nothing screams "cop out" more than downgrading the certifications, just because artists are generally under-performing.

At the end of the day, selling 1 million copies and more is still an accessible achievement. Adele has proven that, going Diamond with both her album 21 and her live DVD. Taylor Swift is another one who consistently opens big and sells consistently above 3 million with each release. Even Lady Gaga, despite the relative under-performance of her singles, scanned 2 million copies of Born This Way.

So if they can do it, why can't the others? As in, how does Katy Perry have five number-one singles from Teenage Dream and only scan double platinum? How does it take Rihanna seven albums to finally go #1? How, despite huge hits and plenty of buzz, do Ke$ha, Alicia Keys, and Bruno Mars, sell less than 200,000 in their first week?

I think it lies with two important aspects: the music quality and a genuine failure by record labels to help develop and promote a artist and their fan base.

Granted, both don't apply to the artists I listed (and didn't), but I believe that at least one has plagued all of the artists who have spurned the certification talk.

Sunday Feature: It's Time To Change The Rihanna/Chris Brown Narrative

Yup, Rihanna posted this on Instagram last night...

 If you have read my Hot Mess Alert from last night, or just happen to be on Twitter, you know that Rihanna posted a photo of a shirtless, presumably sleeping Chris Brown on Instagram.

Mind you, she famously told Oprah a few months ago that she and Brown were "just friends".

Sure, okay.

Now, you're probably wondering (especially if you are a fan of either of the two) why it matters to me, or anyone for that matter, what they do in their private time. As they say in their new duet off of Rihanna's album Unapologetic, it "ain't nobody's business."

Actually, when you do things like post photos on Instagram or tweet slick messages or pop off at the mouth on Twitter, then it does become the public's business, because you are doing those things in public.

It's obvious at this point that Rihanna simply doesn't care what anyone thinks about her relationship with the man who shockingly and famously beat her face in four years ago. Fans, experts, and even random people on the street supported her and vilified Chris Brown for the incident. The effects of that vilification have lasted so long that people in Sweden have boycotted his concert there, posting the infamous police photo of Rihanna after the beating on buildings. Back in 2008, I made a promise to never support Chris on this site again, in support of the battered pop princess.

Well, no more.

Don't get me wrong. I still think what Chris Brown did was inexcusable, and his insistence on behaving like a petulant, immature brat with a tattoo complex is absolutely pathetic to me. But at this point, the ball has been in Rihanna's court, and she has dropped it. She was given a restraining order to protect herself from him, she removed it. She exploits the abuse for 2009's Rated R and Eminem's "Love The Way You Lie". Chris found himself a new girlfriend, and Rihanna still found a way to slide herself back into his life. She records two remixes with him that didn't need to exist. She then foes on Oprah and proclaims him as a victim, as if she beat him in the face in a blind rage. And now, on her album release week, she publishes a half-naked photo of him to her social media followers.

Some can argue that her behavior can be explained by Chris Brown's "hold" on her, a symptom of the domestic violence that two have shared. I find that hard to believe now; I don't think Chris Brown is smart enough to be that emotionally manipulative. Others will call it love, but that's over-romanticizing a truly disturbing situation going on.

I think it's time that Rihanna takes some responsibility for her part in this public, four year-long soap operatic fiasco that the world has been subject to. Good for her for being so secure in herself that she doesn't give a single damn what anyone thinks, but maybe she should consider, for a second, the message she is sending to people, and it's a bad one. Maybe she should think about what Oprah once said about her situation: "If he hits you once, he will hit you again." Maybe she should watch any Tyler Perry movie since 2006.

What she does, it's time for her, and us, to realize that whatever happens from this point onwards is all on her. I hope that Chris Brown doesn't ever get as angry as he did that night in 2008, but if he does, it was Rihanna who put herself in the position to be in his path. I'm not saying she deserves it, but she does, this time, share some of the responsibility for its occurrence, because she had a way out. Hell, she was out. She walked right back in. She made her bed, literally, and she's going to have to lie in it.

Good luck to them both, but if something happens between the two of them, I won't vilify Chris Brown. I will just shake my head and simply say, "I told you so".

Sunday Feature: How Lady Gaga and Born This Way's Promotional Blitz Should Change The Music Industry

Today marks the return of the Sunday Feature, where I recap on an important topic of the past week and offer my own thoughts. While I say this for every post I make, I would greatly appreciate any comments you have. Please feel free to discuss or debate this any future Sunday Feature topic with me!

Billboard is projecting that Lady Gaga's Born This Way will sell above 1.15 million copies by the end of business today. This means she will have the biggest first week sales of a pop artist since NSYNC's 2001 album Celebrity. Note that I added "pop" to the superlative, because there is something to be said about how pop music sells these days.

Unlike in the early 2000s, current music sales, especially of pop, are abysmal. Even with #1 singles and radio play, many pop stars are lucky to cross 250,000 in their first week. Case in point, Katy Perry had two of the biggest hits of last year, and sold 192,000 copies in her first week. Taio Cruz had two of the biggest hits of last year with "Break Your Heart" and "Dynamite", sold a paltry 24,000 copies in its first week.

And yet, Lady Gaga is about to cross a threshold that only a few artists have, even with the relative flop of "Judas" under her belt.

Some detractors of Gaga will try to asterisk her accomplishment because of the 99-cent Amazon deal. Yes, it is a highly unorthodox move on Amazon's part (since they are the ones who cut the price, not Gaga or Interscope), but it's a no-lose situation for all parties involved.

Considering the dire straits the industry is in at the moment, labels and artists should be looking towards Lady Gaga for inspiration to revitalize album sales.

What's quite funny is that, just like her music and fashion, Gaga isn't doing anything particular new or special. She is using the technologies and trends of now to reinvent the promotional practices of the past.

Let's explore what I call the "Gaga Model".

Me to the Obama-Bashing "Birthers": Either Get Lives and Shut Up, Or Admit You're Racist

When I first heard rumors that Obama wasn't a legitimate United States citizen during the campaign, I tossed it aside as pointless garbage drummed up by lame people desperate to tear him down.

Six months into the presidency of the first ever African American to hold the title, the rumors have seemingly gained a second wind. A woman at a GOP town hall accused both Obama of hiding his birth certificate and the government of ignoring it. A congressional bill that requires presidential candidates to show their birth certificates has been co-sponsored by GOP House and Senate members. Various commentators, ranging from Lou Dobbs to Rush Limbaugh have discussed the topic, either denouncing the rumors or fueling them.

The "birthers", as they are apparently called, refuse to look at the cold hard evidence; Obama's birth certificate confirms that he is a United States citizen. They refuse to acknowledge that numerous legitimate (there's that word again) news services have confirmed the certificate's authenticity. They even ignore a news clipping from a Hawaiian newspaper published in 1961 announcing his birth (his name is not listed, just his parents).

No, instead they circulate a ludicrous rumor that Obama was actually born in Kenya and that there is a massive conspiracy to hide it. Forget the fact that, if this was true, the validity of this country's entire government would be shattered, since a conspiracy of this nature would require cooperation from virtually every single governmental agency in the country. They would rather believe that Obama was not born in this country, despite numerous evidence to the contrary. Why?

These "birthers" and their supporters should be ashamed and embarrassed by their blatant idiocy and disrespect of the president. It is one thing to disagree with the president, but it is a whole different situation to attack a man's integrity with baseless accusations. These charges against Obama by these people are not only stupid, they frankly reek of racism.

I am not someone who throws the idea of racism around carelessly. As a young African-American man living in New York City, I have encountered many racial situations, and I take pride in my ability to identify racism when it is truly present. This is one of those times. This is the first time that I have heard accusations about a president's citizenship. John McCain, who wasn't born in any of the 50 states but in the Panama Canal Zone, wasn't subjected to such ridiculous speculation. He, nor any of the 43 presidents before Obama, received demands to reveal their birth certificate. Why is it that Obama is being accused? Is it because his father was African, and therefore couldn't possibly be a US citizen himself? Maybe it's the similarly baseless accusations that he is a Muslim that inspire the ire of these people.

There could be another reason, but it is most likely rooted in racist intentions. I am beginning to believe that these people, under the guise of fairness, are so terrified at the idea of a non-white Christian person as president that they will concoct absolute garbage. These people have already proven their racism by implying that Muslims were bad as they accused Obama of being one. If that wasn't bad enough, now they are implying that people with direct ties to Africa can't legitimately hold high government office.

It's time to stop this. These birthers need to get over this bullshit they are on, because it is embarrassing to everyone. Accept the fact that Barack Obama, not John McCain or even Hilary Clinton, is the president. If you seriously can't, then at least stop hiding behind moralistic shields and admit that you are scared of an African-American president, or that you don't think that an African-American president can do as good a job as a Caucasian president can. Either way, you would ultimately admit that you are a racist. It doesn't make you a good person at all, but at least it's honest, something that you hypocritically demand from the president.

Sunday Feature: The Chris Brown/Rihanna Aftermath: What He MUST Do

Hello readers!

After a 10-month hiatus, in honor of my blog-aversary, I have decided to revive my Sunday Feature post. If you aren't aware of what that is, it is the post where I deliver my full opinion on any major event or issue that occurred over the past week. It's my way of saying my peace on the subject and moving on to the next week. To start off, I decided to cover the Chris Brown/Rihanna scandal thios week. Don't forget to check back every Sunday for the Sunday Feature.

It has been a full week since the alleged Chris Brown/Rihanna altercation was first reported.

Since then, there have been cover-ups, emerging details every hour, celebrity reactions, and most interesting of all, fan outrage, defense, and denial.

What we have yet to hear is the full story from the two people who truly know: Chris and Rihanna themselves.

We do know that something serious did happen; there is too much evidence to ignore it. He surrendered to the LAPD, he was charged with a felony, Rihanna was in the hospital, and apparently both have left LA to be with their loved ones. What is up to interpretation is how serious the injuries were and what caused the altercation in the first place.

Still, with all of the confusing, conflicting details, the impact this story can and should have is undeniable.

Chris and Rihanna are two of the biggest pop stars in the world. They have millions of fans in many countries. Their profile is as high as a celebrity in this day and age can get. And they are embroiled in an serious domestic violence situation that could possibly wreck one's career. As tragic as the situation is, it brings to light the relevance that domestic abuse has to young people. As the couple proved, you do not have to be old or married to be in an emotionally or physically abusive relationship.

The implications of this situation makes what both say all the more important, particular Chris. As Carrie Underwood told US Weekly about the numerous rumors, "you hear a new one every five minutes, and some of them are getting kind of ridiculous". This situation needs clarity, and since Chris is the alleged perpetrator and least emotional of the two, I think it would be appropriate to have him speak on the situation.

In speaking, he needs to make sure these three elements exist: realism, humility, and genuine regret over his alleged actions.

In terms of realism, Chris's statement has to be his. It cannot be some carefully worded, vague, and empty statement from his publicist. That would work in situations like drug use, where he could say he participated in "behavior that was inappropriate". This is a case of violence against women, and considering his large fanbase is mostly made up of young women, he particularly has to speak to them, from the heart. It is possible that these young girls have experienced abuse in their lives and look to Chris Brown for hope. How would it look to have him deliver some trite statement to those impressionable young girls? It is bad enough that their hero abused anyone, but then he's not man enough to make his own statement?

Humility is an absolute must, and any kind of cockiness will not only render the statement useless, it will further tarnish his image. He must show that he isn't a complete ass and that he really is the sweet, nice kid that people still have a hard time believing would do this. There cannot be any posturing or attempts to gain street cred from this. In his statement, he needs to appear sorry for his actions and grateful for the blind support he still receives from some of his fans. If he even thinks about pulling some "I'm a G, I know how to keep a woman in line" misogynistic crap, he is done.

Then, there is genuine regret. What he did was WRONG, and if he does not understand that, then maybe a stint in jail will straighten him out. In his statement, he needs to acknowledge that what he did was unequivocally unacceptable, regardless of what his die-hard fans try to say. There is no whitewashing this incident, sweeping it under a rug and hoping it goes away. Look what happened to his idol Michael Jackson, and there was no finite evidence of any wrongdoing in that case. Despite his alleged attack on Rihanna, he needs to be a man and face this problem head on. He cannot flee from this like he did that night, unless he wants to lose everything and become a pariah.

Finally, the most important part of this statement. He needs to tell the TRUTH. While employing all of these elements, he must essentially tell us what the hell happened between the two of them. What caused the altercation? Why did he feel the need to abuse Rihanna? Why did he leave her there instead of calling the police or 911? Is this the first time the abuse has taken place? He really needs to answer these questions and clear the air, not just for his sake, but for the sake of his adoring fans.

What continues from there can only be determined by what he says and the public's reaction to it. If he follows the aforementioned advice, Chris's career can be recovered to a level lower, but acceptable, than he was before. If he lacks one or more of the elements above, more than likely than fans will turn on him. If he says nothing at all, then the situation is completely out of hands as TMZ continues to report on "horrific" details of that night.

At the end of the day, only he and Rihanna know what happens, so, despite his reportedly heinous actions, he should be at least granted the right to explain himself. How he does will determine the rest of both of their careers.

Sunday Feature: Is "Chart Rigging" An Unfair Industry Practice?

Mariah Carey, who currently holds the most #1s for a solo artist, has been accused of it.

The crime she (or more fittingly, her record company) allegedly committed is withholding the releases of her singles to "force" a #1 when it normally wouldn't. Its being called "chart rigging".

The question is, is it actually wrong?

Take for example, Mariah's latest #1 single "Touch My Body". The song was officially sent to radio on February 19th, with some receiving the song on the 12th. The video was released a few weeks later, to much fanfare. Despite the demand, there was no digital release. Many release dates were sent around the internet, but yet, there was no sign of it on iTunes or Amazon.com. Then, on March 24th, a month after it was first released, iTunes put the song on the front page as a new release. Withon an hour, the song shot up to #1 on the iTunes, knocking Leona Lewis off the top and keeping fellow diva Madonna at #2 with her song "4 Minutes". A week later, when the Billboard chart was released, "Touch My Body" easily shot up from #15 to the summit. Some charge that Mariah's 18th chart-topper was easier to attain because of the high-surge downloads caused by a high-surge of downloads. There seems to credibility to the argument; after two weeks at the top, TMB fell to #5. The song saw a significant decline in iTunes sales a week earlier. Apparently, both of her record companies (Sony BMG and Island Def Jam) have used the practice of suppressing a single's release before. Despite low airplay chartings, singles like "Heartbreaker" and "My All" hit #1 based on high sales.

If it is a real practice, then Mariah certainly isn't the only one. Rihanna's single "Take a Bow" was sent to radio in mid-March; its now late April and there is no download available. The single is currently rising on the Mediabase radio chart, and chances are, when the single is available to download, Rihanna will get to #1 again.

From what I've learned and observed, I wouldn't call "chart rigging" necessarily unfair. It makes good business sense; letting a song build in radio and video popularity before releasing the single would most likely yield a #1 chart position. However, another question is then asked. Why would the record companies use this type of practice if they had faith in the music they're putting out? Mariah is one of IDJ's most successful artists (her last album sold 10 million worldwide). Why would they hold back a single release to gather the most sales instead of just release it outright. Logic and history dictate that it would've gone to #1 either way. Then again, Mariah's single "Bye Bye" has apparently flopped on the iTunes chart.

I think "chart rigging" is a form of insurance to guarantee a successful single. It may seem unfair to artists who do a regular release, but at the end of the day, the song is still being bought. In fact, I think that the practice gives other releases a bit of an edge. A delay-released song is one that people have hear for weeks and weeks. In the fickle music industry, its terribly easy to get tired of a song. A fresh release to both radio and internet would more likely inspire higher interest and higher downloads because of it. True, had Mariah not delayed TMB's release, Madonna would've scored her 12th #1 single. That still didn't stop the success of "4 Minutes"; it was Madoona's highest charting single in 8 years.

"Chart rigging" definitely exists, but I don't believe it is as unfair as people are making it.

For more on the issue, visit Payola, Chart Rigging Or Both? You Be The Judge!

SUNDAY FEATURE: How Will The Clive Davis Ouster Change the Music Industry?

First of all, let's call Clive Davis' demotion from CEO of the RCA Music Group what it really is; a firing.

Let's also call his firing what it means for the music industry; scary.

Sure, he was alive when Lincoln was shot, but he was a pro at finding talent; that kind of talent that we are still talking about to this day. Without Clive, there would be no Bruce Springsteen, no Chicago, no Alicia Keys, no Whitney Houston. His knack for catching powerful artists has made him a legend. There really is no one like him.

Therein lies the industry's problem.

Thanks to the internet, which has brought along with it file-sharing, torrenting, and LimeWire, music sales have been lower than ever before. Only 8 years ago, 'NSYNC was making history for selling a back-breaking 2 million copies in their first week. Nowadays, most artists would be lucky to sell 10% of that to top the charts. These drastic numbers have sent the record companies into a frenzy. They are so desperate that they have begun to slap together acts with questionable talent, producer the bejesus out of them, and then send them out to score a #1 single, before fading into obscurity a year later. This phenomenon is more obvious in the R&B/Hip-Hop market, which has been oversaturated with short-term acts. Examples: Soulja Boy, MIMS, D4L (with their song Laffy Taffy).

Now comes news that Barry Weiss, who has helped everyone from Britney to T-Pain hit the top of the charts, is the new head of RCA. The argument for his succession? He's younger (49) and has an understanding of the new market. This may be undoubtedly true, but have his artists maintained longevity? The Backstreet Boys are over, Britney has collapsed under the weight of her celebrity, and its too soon to tell for T-Pain and Chris Brown.

What worries me, as a music fan, is how will he handle the next surge of pop music. Will he diligently search for the next big thing, and then help them develop their own image, style, and music that will make them megastars? Or, will he pull out the next generic pop star, rush-release a single, watch it go to #1 for a week, and then after the album flops, throw them away like spoilt milk?

Most record companies these days tend not to look for genuine talent, but the next quick buck. What set Clive apart was his ability to find that special singer or band or whatever and bring them to worldwide success. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Maybe, Barry Weiss will follow in Clive's footsteps and search for that special talent that will sell millions and attain that decade long popularity, a la Mariah or Whitney or Usher. Maybe others will follow suit. That, would save the floundering music industry.

However, I have a bad feeling that my ideal set-up won't come to fruition. If that's the case, Adios Whitney and Michael, and Hello "What's her name" and "Where did they go".

Note to Barry Weiss: if you mess with Leona Lewis' career and don't let Clive work with her, I will NEVER buy anything from Sony BMG again!

 

 

Comments, questions, and feelings are very welcome.

Sunday Feature: Racism in Celebrity Tabloids?

The wedding of Jay-Z and Beyonce was probably the most talked-about event of the year so far. Everyone wanted to know, were they or weren't they?

Everyone except the celebrity magazines apparently.

Save for People Magazine and US Weekly, the celeb rags including OK! pushed the megastar wedding to the sidebar, deciding to report about other celebrities including Britney and Jennifer Aniston's relationship with Orlando Bloom.

You would think that the tabloids would go crazy about this, filling the magazine with every down-to-the-minute detail about the not-so-secret nuptials. I was expecting at least 4 covers about the wedding. Instead, most of the magazines would rather reheat old news or overanalyze a couple's friendship instead of write about Beyonce's big day.

It begs the question, why?

A tabloid editor speaking to the New York Daily News sums up the answer rather bluntly: "African-Americans don't sell covers." According to the New York newspaper, which heavily reported about the wedding, another reason why Beyonce and Jay-Z didn't receive top billing is because of the lack of photos of the event. Speaking to another insider, they report that "none of the magazines landed an exclusive on wedding pictures, which would have made the story bigger". Even still, another tabloid editor revealed that "Eva Longoria can get $1 million for wedding photos, but without the expectation of cover sales, Beyoncé might have gotten as little as $250,000 if she had sold hers".

It really is unsettling that racism could still exist in such a large form of media. Beyonce is easily one of the biggest pop stars on the globe, and if even she can't generate more than a cover, what does that say about the journalism media as a whole?

Another argument is that the Beyonce/Jay-Z nuptials were left alone on purpose; obviously they didn't want anyone to know, so the tabloids respected that wish.

Then again, this is the same media who developed the infamous "Wacko Jacko" moniker for embattled Michael Jackson and hired photographers that chased Princess Diana to her death.

The media has never been known for being nice or considerate to its famous subjects; apparently they aren't equal either. 

Note: Mediatakeout.com contributed to the creation of this post.

Sunday Feature: Leona Lewis and the Personality Issue

I am getting very sick of people saying this.

The biggest argument by far against Leona Lewis, despite all of her success, is that she has no personality in any aspect, whether its her voice or her demeanor.

It's an issue that has arisen from the very beginning when she was on the UK's X Factor show. Her shy personality was mistaken for lacking one, overshadowing the powerful vocals she delivered EVERY week. Now, there are those claiming that her voice lacks any personality as well. When compared to the voices of Mariah or Whitney or Aretha, as done in an article by the Chicago Sun-Times, Leona is said to lack distinction.

Why if that isn't the biggest pile of bull I have ever heard in my life!

Leona is a shy girl. It's really that simple. Apparently, people have forgotten that being shy isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't make someone boring. She is also a very grateful person; that doesn't make her fake.

Apparently, having a personality means either acting like a diva bitch or being a drug addict. Is Leona boring because she doesn't run around London in her bra with white powder on the edges of her nose (no offense Amy)? Is she bland because she doesn't cancel interviews because she's not a morning person (sorry Mariah)? Or, is she fake because doesn't insult other performers who haven't done anything to her (yes, Kate)? Why is it that people are branding Leona all of these things because she refuses to participate in the negatives of the music business? That is something we should be admiring, people! After Hurricane Britney assaulted the headlines in 2007, we need a nice, responsible, classy artist who has one of the best voices of her generation.

As for her voice insults, those are absolutely stupid. You have to be deaf or incredibly dense not to hear the passion in that girl's voice. "Bleeding Love" wasn't #1 last week just because of Oprah. It was #1 because it resonated with those viewers who went to iTunes and downloaded it. That wasn't even her best performance of the song, and yet she still could send shivers down people's spines. Are we so used to passionless voices that are flooding the airwaves and MTV that when the real thing comes around, we can't recognize it?

Leona Lewis is THE real deal. She is not some studio-made artist. She is one of the best voices that the world has heard in years. She is also one of the sweetest, nicest, and most down-to-earth artists I have ever seen. Instead of nitpicking the hell out of her, just accept what you hear whenever those chords come on the radio.

Sunday Feature: Can There Be A Long-Lasting Girl Group?

Over the weekend, rumors began to surface of heavy tension between UK group the Sugababes. The two principal members, Heidi Range and Keisha Buchanan were reportedly not speaking to each other during a party, straight up refusing to. Just a few days ago, I reported of Girls Aloud member Nadine Coyle denying exit plans. With all of the girl group catfight drama, it leads one to ask, can a girl group last?

Honestly, no.

This is not the first time a girl group has been plagued with infighting. Since the girl group peak in the 60s, there has always been some tension between group members, and it tends to last. There was the infamous Diana vs. Mary war with The Supremes. Mary Wilson always fought with the lead singer Ms. Ross over what she thought was unfair treatment. She constantly accused her and Motown head Berry Gordy of treating Diana better than the others. The animosity hasn't let up since then. In the 80's, during the Motown Anniversary Special, Diana infamously pushed Mary out of the way (the footage was cut from the broadcast). When The Supremes planned a tour in the late 90s, Diana was reported receiving 4 times as much as Mary, leading Mary and fellow member Cindy Birdsong to quitting the tour. There have been no signs or reports of a reconciliation.

90's icons The Spice Girls promoted girl power, but the movement only lasted two years; Geri "Ginger Spice" Halliwell left the group surprisingly in 1998. The departure sent the group into a tailspin, and they disbanded three years later. They reunited in 2007, and held a 40-plus date World Tour. They appeared in UK commercials and even released a single (which flopped on both sides of the Atlantic), and it seemed like the group would actually remain together. Those hopes were dashed when the Spice Girls surprised everyone and cut their tour shut, angering fans in canceled cities like Sydney, Bueno Aires, and Cape Town. The cause this time? Reported fighting, although Victoria Beckham revealed she was the real cause (she wanted to be a fashion designer). Melanie C insists that the Spice Girls are still "together", but any chances of finishing their tour are slim to none.

Now, the two premier UK girl groups are rumored to be calling it quits; 10 years for the Sugababes and 6 for Girls Aloud. Their reigns are truly something to beheld; their bevy of top 10 singles and albums put them both in the record books. If what they insist is true and the groups aren't disbanding, it only leads to the questions of when. Unfortunately, it's not realistic to believe they will last like the Rolling Stones. Whether it's jealousy or creative differences, something tends to destroy the unity first formed in a girl group. History has dictated it, so as we enjoy when they push our buttons or call the shots, the writing is on the wall for them and all future girl groups.

Sunday Feature: A Spitzer Wrap-Up

Usually, I'll do one "Sunday Feature" post, discussing one important issue that I've either written about in the last week, or something I've recently discovered. This week, however, I'm planning two.

My first "Sunday Feature" is focused on the Eliot Spitzer sex scandal.

On Monday afternoon, around 2 pm, the New York Times published an article on its website about Eliot Spitzer meeting with his senior aides about his involvement in a prostitution ring. I like to believe i was one of the first teo hear about. I was downstairs at my school's computer lab, with two senior friends of mine, when we first accidentally stumbled upon it. One of my friends actually worked in Spitzer's office, so he was frantically trying to find information about it. I originally thought Spitzer probably helped the prostitution ring financially, because of the Times article's vagueness. I couldn't conceive of another political figure getting caught with his pants down, so to speak. Yet, at 3 pm, Spitzer held a conference admitting his inappropriate behavior. Surprisingly, his wife Silda stood by his side. Unsurprisingly, she looked like she wanted to die up there; it almost seemed like she was forced to stand by her cheating husband. By the time I came home, every news channel was focused on it, with even more information being revealed. It seemed like, with every blog post I made, a whole new torrent of revelations was released onto the salacious public.

The next 4 days could only be described as chaos. Reporters were stationed outside of his NY apartment, the Capitol in Albany, and outside of David Paterson's residence. It's nothing atypical of a scandal; whenever a public figure makes a public gaffe, of course there will be interest. This was significantly different, however. Eliot Spitzer was known in New York as "The Steamroller". He made a career out of taking down corruption in Wall Street and prostitution rings. He made indignant statements about the evils of bad business and immoral behavior. He was lauded for his efforts by the press; he was hated by Wall Street. Here was the man who took down crime, not participated in it. "The higher they rise, the harder they fall."

I have heard many people, from reporters to politicians, call this a tragedy. Unfortunately, it really isn't. I definitely feel for his wife and three kids, whose lives have been completely destroyed as they knew it, but I definitely wouldn't call this scandal tragic. A man, in a position of power, decided that he was above the law he spent years trying to serve. He decided his family and his job was worth the risk and participated in many illegal affairs that cost him (or the state?) tens of thousands of dollars. It is not a tragedy because situations like this have happened before. Jim McGreevey, Larry Craig, President Clinton, to name a few. He knew the consequences his actions could have caused, but he didn't care. Chances are, had he not been caught, he would've continued. But the fates were against him, and the consequences, greater than he could've ever imagined. Cameras everywhere, a state government frozen, impeachment threats, a humiliating resignation. So, how can Eliot Spitzer's scandal be classified? Just like other politician sex scandals.

Unlucky.