Passive Aggressive Pop: The New Frontier

So the other day I was sitting around in my pyjamas watching music videos (I work in the industry! It’s RESEARCH) and was somewhat taken aback by the opening lines of One Direction’s What Makes You Beautiful. The song, which won the 2012 Brit award for Best single, begins "You're insecure...." and goes on to tell the unfortunate female that she's attractive, because she thinks she isn't. Apparently the number one trait that 15-year-old boys look for in girls is low self esteem. If you want to bag a mini pop star, ladies, just "smile at the ground".

Maybe Harry got annoyed at her for being too darn happy and confident.

Bruno Mars had a huge hit with Just the Way You Are; ostensibly a really sweet, romantic song about thinking his girlfriend is perfect. "I know, when I compliment her she won't believe me, and it's so, it's so, sad to think that she don't see what I see...." It is sad, Bruno, and we appreciate the effort you're making here. But isn't it also sad that a million squealing girls can so easily relate to lyrics about a girl who hates her own laugh?

It's a bit like those magazine spreads which show pictures of celebrities on their fat / ugly days. It's meant to make us feel better: "See how awful they look! Not so perfect without the airbrushing!" but actually, it's just a toxic message which basically points out that, even if you look amazing 99% of the time, you can never be good enough.

Songwriters may think they're benefiting the youngsters listening to these lyrics; "You're insecure? Even girls who date superstars are insecure!" but it just makes it seem NORMAL to hate yourself. Teenagers generally don't need anyone's help to do that.

At least some lyricists are trying to be constructive. In contrast, a N.E.R.D track features Pharrell's description of a woman with "Nice long hair, Nice ass lips, I know insecure, When I pointed out the size of her hips." Which is lovely, isn't it? What a gentleman.

If neg hits aren't your thing, you might enjoy the other end of the spectrum – all the biggest female names have had great success telling fans they're pretty much flawless. You could see this as a cynical attempt to cash in on the self-doubt of the young, but at least they're trying to have a positive impact, rather than telling kids "Stay anxious! It makes boys like you!" 

India Arie was doing it years ago with Video. 
"My worth is not detemined by the price of my clothes," indeed.

Christina Aguilera told us "You are beautiful, no matter what they say," Lady Gaga created an anthem for "the religion of the insecure" with Born This Way. Pink points out "you're so mean when you talk about yourself," before pleading with us to believe that we're perfect. Katy Perry gets in on the act, telling us "You just gotta ignite, the light, and let it shine" in Firework. Kelly Clarkson has made a career out of power anthems, the most recent being What Doesn't Kill You (Makes You Stronger), and Jessie J assures us that "tears don't mean you're losing" and "It's ok not to be ok" in Who You Are.

Some people blame lyrics like this for the kind of entitlement freaks who turn up on audition shows with their self-belief set in stone. However, I would suggest that over the top "I'm brilliant, me!" proclamations never come from a deep sense of self-assuredness. If you're ever "accidentally " channel hopped over to "Snog Marry Avoid" you'll have noticed that every make-up plastered, drag queen-esque female who starts off by saying "I look great, I don't care if you think I look like a skank" will, within minutes, say that she doesn't want to scrape off the slap because she thinks she's ugly. It happens every.single.time. (So don't tell me that trash TV isn't a brilliant school for human behaviour, because it's very nearly an open university psychology degree.)

In other news, may I just say that I find Tulisa's video for Young irritates me, with its shameless promotion of her fragrance "The Female Boss." I find it unbelievably sad that a 23-year-old woman would come up with this name, obviously still stuck in the 1950s mindset that if she'd just called it "The Boss" that would mean "male boss" by default. Because female bosses are just SO unusual! Get with the programme, love.

We can see you're female. Now start bossing and salute no-one!

Everyday I'm shuffling

There is nothing more Saturday morning-ish than lazing around with a bowl of cereal and MTV, is there? Music videos are one of my favourite art forms, which is why I sometimes feel fatigued by the boring old fail-safes – normally girls in bikinis writhing around a rapper (who will invariably be wearing a fur coat. The poor loves feel the cold, obviously). 

Which is why I LURVE the video for Party Rock Anthem by LMFAO.  I think it's a really clever and original use of the old "Zombies have taken over the world!" genre – and an example of when it's ok to shamelessly rip off 28 Days Later. Not to mention the fact that it’s a top tune.

So why can’t everyone come up with funny, quirky, memorable videos that bear repeat viewings? I work “in the media” as a wardrobe and art stylist, and I’ve been involved in some pretty dreadful productions. Even when you can see something is a terrible idea (or more commonly, that the “concept” makes no sense) you somehow hope that the director knows what he’s doing. Perhaps the miracle of post-production will make it all magically come together? Sadly, no. (In these cases, all I can do is try to fit clothes on the size 12 starlet who insists that she's a size 8, and hope for the best.)

For some reason I always used to think that music videos that were suspiciously similar to each other were the result of accidental copying. Say for instance Beyoncé’s Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It) – I would have guessed that maybe the director’s favourite movie was West Side Story and he subliminally added bits from that. Then when they watched the music video back they'd be like "Hey, it IS kind of similar, how about that!" 

Wasn’t I naive? 

I realised the truth when directors would sent me a youtube link to a music video or advert and say "This is our reference" and then proceed to copy it unashamedly. ("Can we try to find a lamp like the one they used?")

This has made me watch videos more closely – it becomes obvious when they are derivative. For example, compare Christina Aguilera’s Fighter with Girls Aloud’s Sexy! No No No. The girls blatantly rip off the creepy giant moth motif, before moving on to Britney’s Toxic, complete with catsuits and lasers.

Katy Perry’s video for ET veered into Lady-Gaga-style weirdness, but what’s this? A Wall-E style junkyard? The exact same shots used in the True Blood credits? Wondering if anyone else agreed with me, I found this wonderful website which delves into every reference used in the video! Bravo!

 Gaga : Creative trail blazer with a penchant for poison.

When Britney, Christina et al were emerging in the late 90s, the emphasis was most definitely on conventional cheerleader attractiveness. The modus operandi was to be blonde, wear bikini  tops and sing pretty little songs about having a boyfriend. OK, so Britney liked to mix it up with her oh-so innocent school uniform ("People think it's sexy, really? No, that had never occurred to me...” – who was she kidding, the little minx) and Christina was already working her "promiscuity empowers" tagline. Being pretty and scantily clad never goes out of fashion, but these days the emphasis is much more on being quirky. Adele = not blonde, not skinny, not a cheerleader and no trace of a California accent. Katy Perry = relying on cheeky lyrics as well as a slightly mad persona. Amy Winehouse = drunkard. All these people are, ahem, doing it "their way" and this is what we now look for in performers. 

Which is perhaps why the mould of the traditional bimbette is crumbling. If you’re not as creative as Gaga, as pornographic as Rihanna or as ladette-ish as Ke$ha, you’re sunk. 

Check out Britney’s video for Hold it against me. The disappointingly dull track (freely recycling lyrics from an ancient country song) is accompanied by a video which is evidently high budget. Despite all the effort put into it, it’s boring and makes no effort to connect with the lyrics. The fight with herself is probably the most memorable part, and might have been appropriate if it had been more of a soul searching song – it's something you can imagine Gaga or P!nk doing if the song was about fighting their inner natures etc. With Britney it's just a gimmick, teamed with the wrong kind of song.

Speaking of gimmicks.... one such gambit is the wearing of different coloured wigs: Britney made this look iconic in her classic Toxic video; Xtina pulled the same trick for Candyman.  Then Britney repeated it for Womaniser... unfortunately by the time Pixie Lott had got involved with her vid for Gravity, it all became a bit old and tired. To see it now would be to know that the director had no strong vision for the video and thought they could add some interest with frequent changes of hair colour and /or outfits. 

So what else makes for a cheesy, soulless video? Brands often get namechecked in lyrics, and videos regularly show phones and other fancy gadgets in loving close up, which I find bizarre.

Matching the words to what you’re seeing on screen: Ugh. This is a ploy often used in country music, where it is forgivable because their lyrics are more of a storytelling device (The Dixie chicks’ “Goodbye Earl” is a good example of this). In a mainstream pop video, you will rarely see an on-screen kiss coincide with a lyrical one – but it's obligatory in youtube fan vids and cheap homemade music videos. Nothing marks you as an amateur faster than this. 

And the final sign that the director has given up on life and has no imagination: Toilets are used as props. Check out Taio Cruz ft Ke$ha: Dirty Picture, and the Sugababes’ aptly named Easy. I can imagine the director convincing the artists just how “fabulous” a public bathroom would look on screen, but there is no getting away from it, toilets are not sexy. At a stretch, they might remind us girls of the fun we have on nights out (where else can we talk about the boys in private?) but they are still where people go to do their poopies, so dancing seductively around them does seem a little incongruous.

The crapper:  Not attractive.

                          

Incidentally, videos that were filmed in the girls' bogs also seem to the most ridiculous in terms of offensive portrayals of women (lying on bars getting drink poured over them etc) and in the Sugababes’ case, hilarious double entendre lyrics such as “I want sex on the beach and I don’t mean on the rocks.” Brilliant!

Finally; women in bikinis are a shameless means of getting extra plays on those request shows, but as a piece of art, will it last the distance? 

Further to video killing the radio star, Christina Aguilera is currently fronting a new audition show called The Voice in which the judges can't see the singers and are forced to make a decision based on vocal ability alone. The way of the future?

The Gaga Saga continues....

The haircuts alone definitely count as a sin

        

Lady Gaga’s new video premiered last week and it is, as always, an interesting watch. (But not one to enjoy with grandma or the kids, I hasten to add.)

It features soldiers in fishnets and heels, and some frankly disturbing cavorting on what look like hospital beds. Gaga pays tribute to Madonna with, among other things, a backdrop of wooden crosses and flames. Is she Joan of Arc? A crusader? Or just a really big supporter of the England football team?

It’s clear there is more than a nod to Cabaret; hints of Madonna also lurk in every corner. One of the reasons Gaga makes such an interesting performer is that she uses her videos as opportunities to play a role, not just flog her wares. Thus she gets to do her very own take on Evita... or whoever else she damn well likes.

Are those soldiers meant to be Nazis? Is the riot footage shown towards the end of the video representative of the Stonewall riots? So many unanswered questions, so many internet dwellers volunteering their opinions.

One person who evidently isn’t a fan of Lady Gaga’s rosary-swallowing performance is the usually good-humoured Katy Perry, best known for a) being a “backslidden” preacher’s kid, and b) her debut single, I Kissed a Girl. Hours after the Alejandro premiere she twittered “Using blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke.” (Shamelessly exploiting pseudo-bisexuality for record sales is fine, obviously.) We can only hope the former pal of Gaga was being ironic; her fiancé Russell Brand has been vocal about her flatulence. Judging from the quality of his work thus far, it figures, really.

Is the video blasphemous? Director Steven Klein (photographer extraordinaire and A-list collaborator) defends himself, "The religious symbolism is not meant to denote anything negative, but represents the character's battle between the dark forces of this world and the spiritual salvation of the Soul. Thus at the end of the film, she chooses to be a nun, and the reason her mouth and eyes disappear is because she is withdrawing her senses from the world of evil and going inward towards prayer and contemplation." He also claimed Gaga’s rosary scene represents "the desire to take in the holy." (Sounds like meaningless waffle to you and me, of course, but in LA this little speech very nearly makes him a theologian.)

In May 2010, Gaga told The Times about the concept of the video: "It's about the purity of my friendships with my gay friends, and how I've been unable to find that with a straight man in my life. It's a celebration and an admiration of gay love – it confesses my envy of the courage and bravery they require to be together. In the video I'm pining for the love of my gay friends – but they just don't want me to be with them."

So far... so likely to upset the Catholic church.

But wait... What’s that, Gaga?

“I recently had this… miracle-like experience, where I feel much more connected to God.”

Caitlin Moran, who was charmed by Miss Germanotta and her cheerful cries of “I’m just going to pee through my fishnets!” questioned what kind of beliefs she had – Catholic, or the more generic label of “spiritual”?

“More spiritual... I don’t want to say much, because I want it to stay hidden until it comes out – but I will say that religion is very confusing for everyone, and particularly me, because there’s really no religion that doesn’t hate or condemn a certain kind of people, and I totally believe in all love and forgiveness, and excluding no one.”

Sadly, sometimes it seems as if she is right. No matter how many times Jesus said “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” it hasn’t quite sunk in yet.

Reading this, I started thinking; Who is closer to emulating Jesus? A ranting, placard bearing, foaming-at-the-mouth hater of homosexuals, or someone who accepts everyone, and uses their considerable power and influence to embrace those who tend to get left behind by society?

I’ve never quite understood why sexual “sins” get people more riled up than any others. If we decide to live by the strict rules of Leviticus, why is homosexuality so much worse than thieving, or disrespecting our parents, or not wearing a head covering? Why aren’t there any protest groups against adultery? Do “Christians” just like bullying easy targets? The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality 5 times; twice in the Old Testament and three times in the New. (There's actually a growing belief that the word used translates not to "gay sex" but "gay rape" which I think we can all agree should be condemned.) In comparison, the sin of adultery is denounced 52 times; hatred gets 21 mentions, lying 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, murder 57, self-righteousness 79 and idolatry 169 times.

So it’s lucky for all of us that “God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.” Ephesians 2:8-9

Jesus’ followers have always been a rag tag and bobtail bunch. (Check out your local church – you will find more than your fair share of weirdos.) If he were here now, who would he be hanging out with? The people who have been rejected by society, guaranteed.

Maybe we need ANOTHER remake of JC Superstar, with the full repertoire of hookers, transvestites, abortionists and pole dancers. Not to mention those who work for the Inland Revenue (some things never change).

Jesus told the Priests in the temple “Corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do,” and made it very clear that only those who have never sinned in their lives (ie, none) are qualified to make judgements on anyone else. So there.

On a lighter note, our lady of pop enjoyed an education at New York's Convent of the Sacred Heart Catholic school. She says “It's interesting because I think everyone assumes that because I went to such a religious school, perhaps they don't appreciate what I'm doing now. But it is quite the opposite. I got a really solid education, in particular how to analyse art, how to make art. So if anything, my teachers are sort of nodding their heads and saying, 'She did a good job of using her artistic abilities to really create a new kind of pop.'"

She may also take solace from the fact that in the 16th century, Michaelangelo was vilified for daring to sculpt nudes for display in churches, and earned the nickname "inventor delle porcherie" (inventor of obscenities). You’re in good company, Gaga.

Battle of the blondes?

Is showbiz really the hotbed of bitching and backbiting that we read about? Or is the media machine just determined to create rivalries between women who have the misfortune to have the same hair colour and profession? Gossip columns can’t get enough of the fact Lady Gaga and Christina Aguilera have the same, er, fringe.

When asked what she thought about the comparisons with Gaga at the launch of her career back in 2008, Aguilera told the LA times "This person was just brought to my attention not too long ago. I’m not quite sure who this person is, to be honest. I don’t know if it is a man or a woman... I really don’t spend any time on the internet, so I guess I live a little under a rock in that respect."

Perhaps casting aspersions Gaga’s gender was a little catty (and illogical – the clue’s in the name), but it must be galling to be accused in various photo stories of copying a look that you had several years ago, even if you haven’t been seen since. Christina was not the first singer to rock the peroxide look, and she won’t be the last. You don’t hear Jean Harlow complaining, do you?

(Of course, there is always a chance that Aguilera genuinely "wasn't sure" – those rumours had been doing the rounds, and I'm sure the last thing she wanted was to refer to Gaga as "she" and instantly have the world's media laughing at her and saying "Get back to your rocking chair, Grandma! Hermaphrodites are where it's at now")

Lady Gaga diplomatically responded that the comments had a positive effect. "Well, it was very flattering when it happened. She’s such a huge star and if anything I should send her flowers, because a lot of people in America didn’t know who I was until that whole thing happened."

Gaga, who dyed her hair blonde in order to avoid confusion with another unruly star, Amy Winehouse, has previously cited her influences as Madonna, David Bowie, Grace Jones, and Freddie Mercury, among others. She has also written for Britney Spears, who she calls "The queen of pop," and mentions "Britney's a real class act in terms of the way she handles herself in the media and embraces new artists. She's always really kind, I've always admired that about her." Let’s hope this wasn’t a barbed comment towards another ex-mousketeer?

Miss Aguilera delicately pointed out in a radio interview in Atlanta, "I’ve been around for over a decade and I think my work speaks for myself. There’s a bigger picture out there. I’ve got my son, my family, my work."

She drove the point home, saying she "Loved" the latest batch of newcomers, saying they were risk-takers. "They’re doing things that aren’t so safe. … I always had the guts and passion to do things like that. … I’m happy to see that people have come full-circle and are now accepting it and are into it and these girls have the guts to do it."

Phew. Crisis averted. (Even if it did involve pointing out "I did it first!") Then in a recent interview, with Out, Aguilera carefully fielded questions: "Oh, the newcomer? I think she’s really fun to look at."

It seems that even this comment was enough to threaten a media eruption, as Xtina felt the need to pen a note to fans on her website.

She stated categorically "I have absolutely nothing against Lady Gaga or any other female artist in this business. I think she is great, and I appreciate any woman fearless enough to go against the norm. She has earned her success with hard work and a clear focus and I have nothing but respect for that."

She ended her note with the words "Can’t hold us down…." A reference to her 2003 single which also featured the message "This is for my girls all around the world, who've come across a man who don't respect your worth, thinking all women should be seen, not heard. So what do we do girls? Shout louder!"

Indeed, Christina has long been vocal about the need for women to support each other."One of my main goals is to try and help women to love each other. I think it's really sad women seem to feel the need to be so competitive and jealous and threatened."

She has also never been shy about speaking her mind – see previous “feuds” with Mariah, P!nk and Eminem. Her frustration with the media is evident in the note, which added "It is very easy for comments to be taken out of context and create unnecessary drama-especially between us women."

It seems that any talented singer must be stacked up against others until a "rivalry" develops – goaded by interviewers determined to produce a quote (preferably derogatory) from one starlet about another.

When Ms Aguilera burst onto the scene with her debut single Genie in a Bottle back in1999, she was instantly compared with pop "rival" Britney Spears. Why not? They were both young, blonde, and blessed with the ability to sing and gyrate simultaneously.

But while Britney coyly admitted to being a virgin, and then pretended to be surprised when people found her schoolgirl outfits provocative, Christina was more honest and upfront from the start, with saucy lyrics which had to be toned down for release to her young fans (How she was EVER described as being "squeaky clean" is a mystery to me). Her gravitation towards all that is raunchy came into its own with her sophomore album, the aptly named Stripped. Armed with leather chaps and dreadlocks, she revelled in sexually explicit lyrics and an eye-popping video to her track Dirrty. (I once saw Topshop grind to a halt as the video was played on a giant screen. Underground boxing clubs have never been so... female friendly.)

It seems the Britney comparisons have fallen at the different routes the young women have taken in the last decade – Britney’s Disney-esque persona obliterated by her marriages, custody battles, break-ups and breakdowns, while the more probable loose cannon Christina has managed to go from career strength to strength, is happily married and has a child.

Enter Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, also known as Lady Gaga. Only 24, she has dominated the pop scene since 2008 with her 3 x platinum selling, award winning The Fame album. Not only does she have strong vocals and the ability to write a catchy hook, she also sees her work as performance art, resulting in controversial and memorable live performances and videos. In an MTV world of bikini clad beauties, Lady Gaga twists expectations and comes up with outrageous performances... not to mention her costumes. She has appeared in nothing more than fishnets and strategically placed bubbles and stunned onlookers at live performances in which she apparently stabbed herself. This death theme continues in music videos which frequently feature her killing people by poisoning them. Not that this has put off Beyoncé or True Blood star Alexander Skaarsgarrd from starring alongside her.

Gaga told Jonathan Ross "I would rather die than have my fans not see me in a pair of high heels....... and that’s showbiz!"

She has moved from relatively low-budget first music videos (cavorting in a paddling pool and a dingy house party) to epic mini-movies. From the start she was not afraid to use the tried-and-tested approach of dressing in skimpy outfits. However, as she became better known she was able to develop her style. Neither she nor Aguilera will ever be happy to make a simple music video where they look pretty and sing in a bikini. The nice thing about Gaga is that she’s not afraid to be WEIRD. Anyone can sing and look good, but how many starlets would be happy to appear as a freakishly bug eyed version of themselves? Similarly, how many of Aguilera’s late 1990s peers would have emulated her video for Fighter in which she essentially dressed as a giant moth?

Gaga explains "My album covers are not sexual at all, which was an issue at my record label. I fought for months, and I cried at meetings. They didn't think the photos were commercial enough... In my opinion, the last thing a young woman needs is another picture of a sexy pop star writhing in sand, covered in grease, touching herself." Quite so.

Gaga’s lyrics are designed to appeal to young people, referring directly to the experiences of going out (“I can’t remember the name of the club but it’s alright... just dance.”..... “I love this record baby but I can’t see straight anymore!”)

Resembling a performing arts student let loose on the world, with a giant budget and an imagination to match, Gaga has her own creative production team called the Haus of Gaga. She uses her own money to fund the spectacular tours; "I live out of a suitcase and I make music and art and I spend every dollar that I make on stage – that’s it," she added. "I want the imagery to be so strong that fans will want to eat and taste and lick every part of us."

As Christina told us seven years ago, "Sorry you can’t define me, sorry I break the mould". Let’s just say that goes for Gaga too. Of course, the only way the two bombshells will put rumours of a rivalry to rest is a collaboration.... here’s hoping.

In the meantime, let’s keep our fingers crossed that Dolly Parton never decides to sue every blonde songstress who ever had big hair and a flashy costume, because these youngsters would be toast.

And this is why I should be in charge of the Brits next year

Once more the Brit awards have dazzled us with a veritable feast of musical excellence, spectacular performances and worthy winners. Or not, as the case may be.

The show was opened by British female solo artist winner Lily Allen, looking like a deliciously evil cartoon-strip temptress (later donning a bizarre orange wig; one thing you can say for Lily, she has her own style) and singing the most appropriate lyrics ever to be heard at an awards ceremony "I want to be rich and I want lots of money". Unfortunately this was about as clever and funny as it was going to get.

Andy Serkis is fresh from playing rock-n-roller Ian Dury, and Tom Ford is the man of the moment with his directorial debut A Single Man released this week. Even the appearance of Sam Fox reminded us of the good old days when the Brits really was broadcast live. Unfortunately, most of the presenters were an embarrassing display of how out-of-touch the organisers are. One can only imagine cigar-chomping execs saying "Now, if I were a young person watching this hip awards ceremony, what would I like to see? Ah yes, middle-aged, unfunny comedians and chat show hosts!” That's the trouble with the Brits. They try so hard to be edgy and cool, and then undo all their good work by nominating the same five artists for every category and using presenters who should have been forcibly retired some time ago.

Oddly enough, Jarvis Cocker's diversion from Michael Jackson in 1996 was not nominated for the most memorable performance in 30 years of the Brits. (Incidentally, where does this “30 years” come from? The awards began in 1977...) Instead, this award went to the Spice Girls for their electrifying show in 1997. Being an impressionable youngster at the time, I remember vividly the moment they launched into the previously unheard Who Do You Think You Are. It was simply one of the most exciting moments I had seen on TV.

Less edifying was the "Brits album of 30 years". As voted by listeners of Radio 2, nominees featured Coldplay, Dido, Keane, Oasis and Travis. In short, you would only have to add Westlife to the line-up and you could release an album of “The blandest music ever recorded”. With nauseating predictability, Oasis won. Liam Gallagher swaggered on stage looking for all the world as if he believed it was still the 1990s, and people still thought he was cool. It is impossible to see that man on screen without wishing to yell "Grow up! Nobody cares!" As for the award, I have one word for you: Radiohead.

Despite the tame nature of the Brits now that they have an audio mute button, there were still some shocks. Not least the fact that JLS won both British breakthrough act and Best British Single (with Beat Again) much to the chagrin of Fearne Cotton. What would have been really "controversial!" would have been SuBo winning, but there is a selective snobbery when it comes to Simon Cowell's protégés. One also has to wonder why Paloma Faith, VV Brown (now slipping undetected to the US) and Little Boots didn't make the breakthrough shortlist.

The best British single nominees featured La Roux (love them or loathe them, that falsetto has made an impact and is here to stay) and Pixie Lott, whose debut Mama Do was one of the most dynamic singles of 2009. It is somewhat depressing that genuinely impressive new acts such as these can be toppled by the kind of dreary R & B that has been churned out for the last 20 years.

The list of nominees for Best British Male Artist (including Mika, Paolo, and Robbie) had a whiff of 2006 about it; one wonders why the same old names turn up when other homegrown talent is storming the world. Jamie Cullum is selling out shows across the USA, Jamie Liddell features heavily in US soundtracks and Jay Sean's single Down cracked the USA as well as being enormously popular on this side of the pond. The winner, ubiquitous Dizzee Rascal, later performed with Florence and the Machine. In fact, roughly 99% of the winners also performed. Is it possible that (gasp) deals could have been struck? Or was it all just happy coincidence?

Kasabian, the Britpop-channelling winners of Best British group must have locked all of the health and safety officials in a cupboard before their rendition of Fire during which they were somewhat unimaginatively surrounded by, er, fire. Luckily Tom Meighan’s fall was not into the flames but rather, straight into Peter Kay’s ample frame. If only he’d kept quiet about slipping, we might have thought it was deliberate.

Among the nominees for best group were JLS (thank the Lord they didn't win that one too) but there was no mention of the Sugababes, or Girls Aloud. Was this absence of popular girl groups the Brits' attempts to be more credible? Too late.

Similarly conspicuous by their absence were the Noisettes, who didn't warrant a mention in the Mastercard British album nominations. Despite providing a bona fide disco classic for 2009 with Don't Upset the Rhythm, they lost out to nominations from all the usual suspects – Dizzee, Lily, Paolo, Kasabian, and deserving winner Florence and the Machine.

The Brits seem determined that best international male will be a rapper, awarding Jay-Z this year, after giving Kanye West the accolade in 2006, 2008 and 2009. Eminem (who is so behind the times that he was lampooning Sarah Palin in a music video released in April 2009) was also nominated. US stars like John Mayer and Gavin DeGraw were not mentioned, and surprisingly, nor was celebrity producer / artist Timbaland.

The nominations for international female were perplexing; why Norah Jones, for instance? Despite her obvious talent, she has never been a notable chart presence. Whereas the ever popular Beyoncé, who was not nominated, managed to start a dance craze with her single Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It). Alicia Keys’ lack of nomination seems almost rude when she bothered to perform; turning Jay-Z's Empire State of Mind from a mediocre rap to a sublime love song to the Big apple with her soaring vocals.

There was no denying that it was Lady Gaga's night, with the best act of the evening and her triumph in three awards (Best International Female, Best International Album, and International Breakthrough Act.) She appeared to be genuinely touched with each new statuette, to the point where it was tempting to say "Alright love, it's only a Brit award". She performed a more subdued set than expected, out of respect for Alexander McQueen’s recent death. However, her outfit did not disappoint.

The eagerly anticipated Cheryl Cole popped up to sing Fight for this Love; considering her troubles at home, it's hardly surprising that she could barely bring herself to mouth the lyrics. (Although I noticed she did manage to punch the air with some conviction.)

After winning the Outstanding Contribution Award, Robbie Williams sang a medley of his much loved hits, but after the fireworks of other artists, it seemed a little dull. I'm afraid I flicked over to watch the last five minutes of What Katie Did Next. Now that really is entertainment.

One last question; With both Alicia Keys and Lady Gaga in attendance, why is it that nobody suggested a duet, duelling-piano style? Here’s hoping for next year.