Buy this track on iTunes ADD Add Favourite

blog post Live On Web Radio: Grant Lawrence 10/03/07

posted by Chris Kelly on Oct 03, 2007

related genres
Radio 3

likes
0

This is Grant's last web radio show of the week before he heads off to Pop Montreal for the weekend. If you have any recommendations for shows to see or things to do in Montreal, let us know, otherwise Grant is liable to spend the entire time in the hotel room, naked in the fetal position, watching the Canucks' opening weekend.

Today's Poll Question:

Is Feist over-exposed?

NO - 63%
YES - 37%

Is there even such a thing in rock n roll? Nonetheless, we can't turn around without hearing - or hearing about - the chirpy Calgarian. Her Nano ad is a smash, she's #1 on iTunes Canada, and Perez Hilton says boycott Britney, and fan the flame of Feist. Or is this kind of fame what we cheer for (mainstream acceptance) even though we know she's left "the nest" for good and we'll never have a chance to see her at an intimate venue again unless we win a trip to a Swiss spa from a silent auction?

Tune in 12 noon PT / 3PM ET and post your comments below and we'll discuss them on today's show.

posted by Chris Kelly on Oct 03, 2007

Share Like

Comments

display Oldest First | Newest First

COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED FOR THIS POST!

#1 posted by
John Paolozzi
on Oct 03, 2007

Is Feist over-exposed? Not if she wants to make money in this business, but if me standing around a soggy campfire chatting about her latest nano commercial with a 70 year old German guy named Herbie this past weekend is a sign of “over-exposure”, then yes. Yes she is.

#2 posted by
Phil Rabin
on Oct 03, 2007

The fact that as soon as a Canadian artist manages to quit her serving job and can pay her bills, we too-quickly accuse them of "selling out", or being "over exposed". How come we never ask "are our hockey players scoring too many goals?", or "are our scientists curing too many diseases?". Success is good, making money is good, and being exposed to the world is GREAT for Canadian music. What's with this inherently Canadian trait that leads us to strive for mediocracy?

#3 posted by
blurasis
on Oct 03, 2007

Feist is not over-exposed.
Maybe overplayed because of the Apple ad or HSBC ad.
If she was she would be on every magazine stand or stupid entertainment trashy TV shows.
Her music is what she does best.

She is putting Canada on the map since we are good with our talents in the arts.

At least she isn't singing or using sex to prove a point IE Nelly Furtado.

When she released Let It Die, it did alright
She didn't become famous in an instant just because she sang the cover Inside & Out.

She took her time and she deserves it for the dues she has paid.
That's it

#4 posted by
John Paolozzi
on Oct 03, 2007

Because seizing mediocrity from the jaws of excellence is our millieu?

#5 posted by
justinlee
on Oct 03, 2007

naw....a spike in popularity is no reason to call someone overexposed.

now...if this spike in popularity leads to 4 different car commercials using her music for 'inspirational' fall driving to show you how safe your 2 year old is in the backseat....
THEN i'd say she's overexposed

#6 posted by
Mark MacArthur
on Oct 03, 2007

Alright Phil! Everything you said is right on button.

A good song is a good song. Why are we all of a sudden concerned that too many people in the world might be appreciating it at once?

Are other art forms this exclusionary? Were there people that enjoyed Van Gogh right up to the point that everyone else did?

#7 posted by
JenUnderscore
on Oct 03, 2007

It would all depend on how easily you are influenced by the media.

Some people adopt popular artists as their new faves, others drop them as soon as they hit the mainstream.

I like to think that my taste in music is defined by what I like and not by what other people do or don't like or how advertized they are. As such, Feist will forever be "mine".

Hmmm... that COULD be a creepy statement ;)

#8 posted by
tb3
on Oct 03, 2007

Is she over exposed, hell no!

How long has she cut her teefs in this country? Its very Canadian (and/or Indie) to worry about bands getting too big or "selling out" when they take off from the island of obscure as the secret band you used to be "the only one who knew" about.

But, me, I think I am in the few who actually sit back and smile contently when I see a band I like get great international exposoure and even better mad papes (cash) and have to worry less between rent payments. Cause that's what it's all about. Making a living, doing that which you love, and I love to hear. And if I want her to keep making music, I need her to not have to pump gas to afford to be creative.

So… let me re-answer the question: Is she over exposed? Fuckin'–Eh–Right she is. And it's about time. Better her than crap, right?

#9 posted by
skram
on Oct 03, 2007

I agree with everything expressed by Phil.

I think we get confused by the difference between the over-exposure of an artist and the over-playing of one song.

Over-exposure would involve a lot more and seeing the artist everywhere and in venues other than music (look at Gwen Stefani - clothes, jewerly, etc...) and the degradation of the quality of the music (and the other products).

It could be argued that the iPod commercials are leading to over-playing of 1234, but I don't think it's quite that extreme yet. You don't hear her music over-played on conventional radio.

An remember that popularity is not always a bad thing. I wouldn't argue towards over-playing or over-exposure until it gets to the point where it starts affecting the quality of her work.

#10 posted by
Lisa Christiansen
on Oct 03, 2007

How does one measure over exposure? And really - what is that? Should Feist be measured differently because she started as an indie artist? I would still say there are a lot of people who don't even know who Feist is, even with an ipod commerical.

My answer is No. Feist is a working musician hoping to have her song played as much as possible. And if you hear it a lot it's because it's good and people like it.

#11 posted by
John Paolozzi
on Oct 03, 2007

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second...

Okay, let's say that people who are trying to sell us stuff that we ostensibly don't need are "The Man", and that by handing over her songs in exchange for buckets of dough, Feist, and other artists are essentially giving their consent to corporate strategies that only seek out counter-culture music to exploit it as a jingle for their own purposes, and art be damned.

Marrying music to moving images is not something that should be done lightly, as it can forever colour how people remember your music. For me, it’s not so much an issue of over-exposure as what kind of exposure she’s receiving.

I guess it’s good that she refused McDonald’s request to use “Mushaboom”, but is there really any greater virtue in loaning your music as the soundtrack for some dude prancing about by the sea-side to sell smelly liquids for your body? I don’t know, but chances are if somebody drove a dump truck up to my house in exchange for something I’d created… I’d probably sell-out as well.

#12 posted by
rdickie
on Oct 03, 2007

Until the big labels start paying off the radio stations so they can start lighting cubans with $100 bills there is no way she can be over-exposed.

Selling her music to corporations is an entirely different matter. That falls into a moral and ethical domain. If she is comfortable with the company and the product then more power to her. If she is just selling music for whatever then I believe that is when you can start calling her a sell-out.

#13 posted by
tb3
on Oct 03, 2007

I think the McMushaboom Burger was doomed before Leslie ever turned down the campaign.

I mean everyone knows the best Portabello burger is had at the Malahat Mountain Inn on the they way out of Victoria BC!

#14 posted by
Grant Lawrence
on Oct 03, 2007

What I am wondering is... can over-exposure of your favourite artists turn you OFF that artist, creating a bizarre catch-22...??

You love the artist, but if you hear that song one more time you'll shoot your computer?

How do you temper that? How do you deal with that?

#15 posted by
John Paolozzi
on Oct 03, 2007

Two things going on here...

If I hear a piece of music too often I experience burn-out faster than I normally would.

When I see a piece of music attached to specific visuals, be they advertising, or in a film, I can experience a different kind of turn-off, but it depends on the visuals.

#16 posted by
rdickie
on Oct 03, 2007

Take the tragically hip. I think they have talent and i like their music but I can't really stand to hear any of their music anymore because it has been burnt into my brain like a bad dream. Thank you <vancouver's classic rock radio station>

#17 posted by
skram
on Oct 03, 2007

On the question of loving an artist, but can you hear a song too often that it makes you want to scream - I would have to say a resounding yes.

I do find that happens often. It usually doesn't turn me off the artist, jut that particular song.

This is the difference between over-exposure of the artist - which can make you start to dislike the artist and the over-playing of a song- which makes you start to dislike/hate the song. However, with the later you can still enjoy the artist, just makes you avoid the particular song.

I would have to say this happens often as the nature of a song hitting a chart means it gets a lot of airplay. Add that to listening to your own copy and you can quickly start to get tired of it.

How do I deal with it? For one, get a PVR and start skipping commercials! Trying to mix up listening habits and stations and going back to your older CD collection can help.

#18 posted by
Vannie
on Oct 03, 2007

I'm not really upset that Fiest is getting popular exposure, good for her. Yet, to my ear she is overexposed. Last summer at my tree planting camp our camp cook felt the need to play Fiest every single morning for a good month. Even the sacred dinner hour was inflitrated by the lovely crooner. I once loved her music, but this beaten over the head exposure was enough to make a fan say 'no more'! Strangely enough there is some resemblance between our cook and Fiest. Mmmm... ?

#19 posted by
tb3
on Oct 03, 2007

I guess how quickly you tire of an artist or a song depends really on how much you like them. If hearing it a lot turns you off quickly, I guess you learn how much lurve you had vested in them.

Eventually yes, everyONE of us can tire of anyTHING if you get too much of it. The line in the sand ultimately comes down to your limits and the artist in question.

I think most of us here agree we'll give Fiest a little more latitude than we would say, a Nickelback, right?

I think John P has nailed it when he alludes to the caveat being the product/campaign the song is Velcro'd too. And how far of a stretch it is, and how obvious the currency grab is.

#20 posted by
TheRadioHead
on Oct 03, 2007

Absolutely, Feist is the perfect example of an artist that has gotten too popular for me. We saw her maybe 3 years ago in a little 200 seat club, upclose and personal, fantastic! Saw here again in an 1,100 soft seater, and know I'll never pay to see her again. I figure she doesn't need my money anymore, she's doing well. There are many more young up and coming bands that I'll give my 20 bucks to.

#21 posted by
nwild
on Oct 03, 2007

I absolutely love live music, and when it gets to the point where a ticket is greater than 50 bucks, and other members of the audience just can't wait to hear "feast's" set (not a typo, someone called her FEAST). Then I long for the days where her shows were 20 bucks, in intimate venues, with the fan base that really launched her to where she is today.
I'm happy for her success, but I no longer think she's in need of my support, nor can I afford it, I'll let Steve Jobs carry her now.

#22 posted by
Lisa Christiansen
on Oct 03, 2007

I understand that I seek out new music. I am excited to hear something I have never heard before. I know where to look for it. Many people don't. So if an artist like Feist is brought to the kind of people who wait to have ipod commercials introduce them to new music, I am okay with that and know that it means I may have to hear one of my faves played a few more times than I may have on my own.
Feist is enjoying a whole new group of fans. Each time her music is played new people come on who have never heard her before. This is how marketing works and it's hard for people who like the new.

Am i sick of her. Not yet. But then again I'm not sick of hearing Back in Black so I'm not a good person to ask.

#23 posted by
prolepessa
on Oct 03, 2007

I had that happen to me right before i turned 14 in the summer of '96, with the at-that-time extremely prevalent Nirvana.

Here's how I tempered it, I stopped listening to the band for a good 8 years, and stopped lisening to the fox (for good), then, one day, I found my old bleach cd and popped it into my old ghetto blaster, and I rocked out. And it was great. Obviously, when the artist is alive, you can just wait for new stuff, but cut out some media exposure and give yourself time to recoup. No one is forcing you to watch tv, and noone is forcing me to listen to the wet secrets over and over and over again. These are decisions that you and I make, and if we are overexposing ourselves, well then, we just need to make different decisions. Like listening to the grow your own f-ing moustache song only once a day.

#24 posted by
cheruboo
on Oct 03, 2007

Im so glad everyone is very PRO fest and am somewhat pissed this question what even asked as a poll (though I understand why)

#25 posted by
Grant Lawrence
on Oct 03, 2007

yeah Chris, why would you ever ask such a question???

#26 posted by
Chris Kelly
on Oct 03, 2007

Hey, we asked it because we knew it was blasphemous enough to spur on conversation and it did.

#27 posted by
Colin Medley
on Oct 03, 2007

No, she's simply exposed. I have no problem with her being in the mainstream because as far as I'm concerned she hasn't had to change her music to achieve it. When she starts having dance routines on-stage and stops playing guitar (I'm talkin' live, not in a music video), then I'll be worried.

#28 posted by
cheruboo
on Oct 03, 2007

see title........too much boredom at work = brain stops functioning, I assure you I AM literate

#29 posted by
allfornaught
on Oct 03, 2007

Yes she is over exposed but so what? Why is that a problem? I think that what this question alludes to is that she is getting to mainstream and when that happens, like Chris mentions, we start to "get worried". I think all that matters is that she remains true to her art ans true fans will admire her for it.

#30 posted by
suuzachka
on Oct 03, 2007

Here I thought I was going to have to defend Feist against pretentious, savage indiemusic lovers who think she's gone too mainstream. I'm surprised and REALLY happy to find out that most people here share my opinion: she's fantastic, she's Canadian, she DESERVES to be overplayed.
Maybe the world will now finally realize that Canada is home to some (ie most) of the best music ever?

#31 posted by
krlsta
on Oct 03, 2007

I can see why you would pose a poll like this. We're always thinking of it when a new "star" comes out with a signiture purfume, clothing line, "I'm lovin' it" pitch. But what's been emphasized already is that Feist falls into a category that has taste.

She's still maintaining the music that made us draw an ear in the first place, and if more people draw nearer too, all the power to them! Actually while watching that nano commercial, it reminded me of what I would possibly do if I had that nano - pass it to a friend and say "check this out, she's amazing".

Good marketing and great music. I just looked over to the lovely radio playlist and I'm listening to The Consumer Goods. Ironic?

Well, Feist deserves the exposure and I don't think she'll "sell out" anytime soon.

#32 posted by
Sularetal
on Oct 04, 2007

I agree with Phil on this.
She's not only a great artist, but she's helping canadian music reach a broader audience. I saw her first at Hillside '06 and it was a great show. I'm not sure I'd go out and spend big bucks to see her play, say, an ACC show, but there are plenty of others who will.
Good for her and her blooming popularity.

#33 posted by
tb3
on Oct 04, 2007

You know what I forgot about this discussion? People brought up the point about tickets for her being over $50…

I am going to see her for the low, low introductory price of $37.50. And the best part, the opening act, is the Great Lake Swimmers! I consider that a mighty nice bargoon, for someone who may or may not be getting too much exposure. Especially since the locale here in London is just down the street.

Just thought I'd add that to the equation.

#34 posted by
Jill Angel Stafford
on Oct 08, 2007

Like The Picture I Don`t Know What To Say? I heard part of one song, and that is where my field of expertise ends!!! I did write a blog related to her see below link for SOCAN Magazine cover: http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/word_music/Summer_2007.jsp
I won`t give you my blog address but you can find me if you search Amanda Saint below. All I can say is you compare pictures and be the judge!!!!

display Oldest First | Newest First

COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED FOR THIS POST!

web radio stations
music on demand
my saved items

Live Radio

CBC Radio 2
(5 stations)

CBC Radio 3

Genre Streams

Centre Ice Songs(1 stations)

Classical(10 stations)

Jazz(5 stations)

Singer-Songwriter(3 stations)

World(1 stations)

Rock(4 stations)

Pop(6 stations)

Blues(2 stations)

R&B / Soul(1 stations)

Hip Hop(1 stations)

Country(3 stations)

Aboriginal(1 stations)

Electronic(2 stations)

Login required

Oops - you have to be logged in to add to My Saved Items.

User Name

Password

Forgotten your password?

Don't have a CBC Music account?

Join Now for free