The Guardian chose to eviscerate James Bay (twice) last week
partly for the crime of being ‘the boy most likely to’.
In doing so they repeated my belief about the BBC’s Sound Of
and Brit Awards newcomer garlands being artless self-fulfilling prophecy. The
problem is actually one of how the question is phrased. If we’re asked to
choose a bunch of acts that are going to be successful then naturally we’re
going to pick ones that have major label backing and are in the same territory
as other acts that have already proved successful. We can see there’s an
appetite for that kind of shtick and that there are many record companies
willing to meet that demand. Backing a winning horse is about studying form
rather than pointing to the one you like the best.
The music business is just that, it’s an industry that tries
to pander to existing tastes. It may occasionally try to develop them but
rarely from scratch. James Bay’s crime is simply that he is unremarkable: an
identikit white pop-soul boy with some nice songs to suit his unthreatening, above-average-looking,
boy-next-door persona.
I have long wondered why and how some acts break big leaving
others unjustly unheard by the masses. It is often a matter of luck, timing or
contacts. Do I believe that James Bay or George Ezra are better than, say, Dan Whitehouse
or George Barnett? Some may consider them so; I suspect
they are just luckier. Right time, right place, right representation.
We can kick James Bay (and The Guardian continues to do so)
but he is simply a product of these times. Bland times, take-no-risks times,
identikit times, follow-the-leader times – whatever you want to call them it
doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.
Comments