Simon Varwell, like a sociopathic Apache with highly specific depilatory tendencies, collects mullets.
How does one go about doing that without incurring the wrath of the judicial system? His new book explains all.
Simon is a travel writer, and is also a friend (and occassional photographer) of the Jiggers Ceilidh Band. This, I believe is reason enough for you to consider buying his book.
Paul Morley, on his "Showing Off..." series talks to Pete Waterman about Simon Cowell and the x-idol-pop-factor phenomenon.
Pete Waterman is experienced in the mechanisms of music and business, so I'm always interested to hear what he says. The work Stock, Aitken and Waterman produced in the 80s and 90s is a brilliant example of people who knew how to work the music industry.
One thing that frustrates me, though, in conversational interviews is that a question gets asked, but rarely answered properly. Waterman, seems to struggle with decisively articulating the nature of the x-factor show, or the role of Simon Cowell. He talks, certainly, but after 15 minutes, I'm still not sure of much of what he was trying to say... He doesn't sound like Bob Dylan or anything, but I'm not sure I'm enlightened by this discussion.
This is strange to me, as I would assume that a key to success in one's own industry is the ability to define it with precision. But perhaps that's not the case with media-related enterprises. Maybe that mystery and ambiguity is at the root of success, and why they even named the show "X-Factor". People talk about Simon Cowell being the only star of his show, and I believe they're right. Every interview he does simply reminds us of his mystery: the part he doesn't reveal about himself.
When I read or watch interviews with masters of industry,I often find they are rarely capable of holistically encapsulating the nature of their job. They give examples of "lessons", describe "behind the scenes" events, but rarely is there an overall guiding principle, a law by which they are governed.
They seem like specially engineered products of their environment, with their subconscious senses guiding them, but often without the intellectual capacity to fully rationalise their environment, or explain their actions. Perhaps this is true: maybe they are like the unthinking popstars that are so valuable to the likes of Waterman and Cowell, and that's why they themselves are so successful.
But perhaps these people, when being interviewed, are not concerned with revealing their own secrets? I wonder whether exposing the true motivations of their heart is too uncomfortable? Each interview becomes an opportunity to propagate their own mystique, so why should they make themselves smaller by articulating themselves into a box? They may have made their millions, but they still have their mystique to lose. The magic trick is forgotten about once you understand how it is done.
Recent Comments