The Radio Free Alice Backlash, Triple J and L.A.V.

I have questions, it's A LOT.

The first thing I thought when I saw the headline Radio Free Alice cover Usher for Like a Version, was ugh, please make the trend of white musicians ironically covering pop hits of the 2000s end.

This has been a trend for years and I think it’s time for it to bite the dust. And yes, whilst it’s been about the embrace of pop by artists who genuinely do love and respect the songwriting at the heart of these major pop hits (like DMAs doing ‘Life after Love’), there’s also been a lot of co-opting of work by mostly black artists to lend credibility and a shot at going viral for mostly white, mostly rock or alt-leaning artists.

What happened last week wasn’t just that a band said something dumb, it’s that they said the quiet part of LAV doctrine out loud: this is an uncool, inauthentic pop song, but through us covering it, it becomes cool and authentic.

I don’t want to spend too much time rehashing what happened - you can read about it here if you want to go deep - but basically Radio Free Alice, an up and coming band I have not stopped hearing about as Australia’s next big band and saviours of rock, covered Usher’s DJ got us Fallin in Love for Triple J’s Like a Version last week. The cover went well and got a good reception on Youtube. But then Triple J socials posted a clip of their frontman talking about the band’s reason for covering the song (standard for most LAV now) and his comments have ignited a barrage of global outrage (global!!!) for, amongst other things, committing the one cardinal sin of rock: being cringe.

“We have always felt that good songs don’t need good covers. Bad songs need good covers. This song is the ugliest duckling of bad songs. So, we thought it was a fun challenge to see if we could turn it into a good song, if that was physically possible.”

The video has since been deleted, but you can watch the whole thing and the remaining excruciating remarks on that bastion of journalism the daily mail website.

I’m not here to defend what was said. Or to say that the band should be absolved of their crime of cringe, nor the racial undertones whatever their intent, or the fact they seem to be doubling down on the cringe in the comments sections replying to parodies with lines like “imagine if this was about us laugh crying emoji” (someone, for the love of god, take the phone away from whoever is doing that). It’s bad faith to pick a song you don’t like, and then bash it, and a lack of sincerity will always, ultimately come back to bite you as a musician.

But there are other things at play here too, including the conflicting metrics of what success looks like for Triple J that has created an environment where acts think covering a song they think is questionable will get hits. And what I’m really interested in is whatever the hell Triple J is doing posting a video like this. It’s absolutely diabolical behaviour, for many reasons.

I know how involved Triple J are in green-lighting and controlling L.A.Vs. Back in 2017 when The Preatures did LAV, I wanted to do ‘LoveFool’ by The Cardigans. I am a huge Cardigans fan. Instead we were encouraged to do something from a current JJJ Feature Album so they could maximise cross promotion, and we were given a list of suitable tracks that we narrowed down with our manager, before we settled on ‘Everything Now’ by Arcade Fire. I remember being fairly sour about this at the time but feeling as though I didn’t have much of a choice - we had a tour to promote and tickets to sell¹. Around the same time, it came back to us that Lorde had wanted to cover our song Is This How You Feel? for her Like a Version that year, and Triple J had allegedly said no because a small indie band called The Holidays had done it for LAV four years before. She had then declined to do an LAV at all that year, which was pretty badass (as a global star with a global market I guess she could afford to have her principles intact). Ella and I ended up meeting at the end of that year, and she confirmed it was indeed true. At the time I wondered what business Triple J had telling any artist, but especially one as big as Lorde, what they could and could not cover, as well as depriving us of that moment artistically - surely that wasn’t their job?

All this to say that Triple J is a media company. One that sits in a unique space between taxpayer funded broadcaster with responsibilities to the community as well as enormous pressure in recent years to justify its existence and stay relevant under increased budget cuts and loss of expertise and leadership. This has led it down the path of behaving more like a corporate broadcaster, chasing engagement and viral moments. In going down this road, it has created and prescribed the conditions in which a young band thinks they should be covering Usher’s DJ got us falling in love ironically and that it will make them look irreverent.

I remember during The Preatures interview for the Arcade Fire LAV I had to figure out a way to speak about why we covered the song without saying because Triple J and our manager thought it was the right strategic choice. I can’t remember what I said, because it was only on air and not filmed, but I do remember I did not really like the song a great deal. But you know, by that stage I was more of a professional, 28 years old, and I swallowed my pride and got on with it because that’s showbiz, and I had a tour to sell. Which is to say, I can kind of understand why someone who does all their shirt buttons up and likes block party and is young and white and male, would be inclined to tell more of the truth of the situation than I felt I could.

We actually did a pretty good job and I made it my own. But I do look pissed off.

I have a source who has told me that, after shooting the section in question with Radio Free Alice, the other band member in the clip said he disagreed with what was said, felt uncomfortable, and asked that it not be posted. Fair. Apparently, the people in the room said they wouldn’t do anything that would make the band feel uncomfortable, and offered the videos be approved by the band before posting, which sounds plausible and also fairly standard practice. But then it went up anyway. Also - allegedly - JJJ then contacted the band to let them know they would be posting even more of the interview without the band’s permission this week, before then deleting everything - the cover AND the interview - from their socials yesterday. I’ve also heard in the time the clip was up, comments were turned on and off sporadically. What the fuck is going on here?? I definitely don’t have all the information, but it seems like some serious shit has gone down behind the scenes.

Pro tip: as you get more experienced being in a band with other people, you get better at roasting them for ridiculous things they say mid-sentence, interrupting them to disagree, and generally being more protective of your own self getting tangled up in nonsense. It took me 10 years.

Why did they choose to publish that?

When you’re filming, there is usually some grace in interviews, as musicians aren’t politicians. I can say this from experience: sometimes (and often when you’re young and nervous) you say some dumb shit. I remember times when the camera was in my face when I just talked, without any real sense of what I was saying, and then realised I had said something really cringe. Like a Version is filmed at least a few days or a week in advance, you usually have some grace to retake your songs, and edit what you need to, so I’m assuming they would approach the interview the same way? It also lends more complexity when you consider that when you’re in a band, one person’s speech is often construed for the opinion of the entire unit, when in reality it’s barely true for 4 or 5 people to hold all the same thoughts and beliefs about anything. And there are other things to consider: was he answering a leading question? Was the comment directed in any way? We don’t know.

But I do think Triple J bear some accountability here - because any reasonable person would understand the implications of posting a clip like that, and they have chosen, for whatever unexplained reason, to light this band’s career on fire for clicks. Are they now in the business of gotcha journalism and clickbait? Choosing to edit and control when it suits their own interests but not the interests of artists? Or is there some more innocent version where they just didn’t think it was their place to censor? But if other members of the band did not approve the clips going up, and actually expressed concern, what responsibility does JJJ have to them? It’s all incredibly confusing. My first thought when I saw that interview clip was not omg, why are they saying this? It was: why am I seeing this?

I like the one in the sunnies. He looks friendly.

The ‘but they’re rich kids’ schadenfreude

The ick about this band being boys of rich and connected families speaks to a contempt for the gatekeeping costs involved in being a musician in today’s world - a very valid trigger point for our community as a whole. It’s hard to watch opportunities like LAV occupied by men who don’t appreciate the simple power of a Max Martin song. There is also another power dynamic at play here though, which is that everyone (beside work placement and internships) on staff at the ABC have regular income, benefits, holidays and sick leave. If something happens to them in the workplace they find unjustifiable or unethical, they have direct pathways to resolution. That, I would argue, immediately puts them in a more secure and privileged position than 95% of the Australian artists walking through Triple J’s doors, even those who are privileged and connected.

To put it bluntly: RFA’s leg-ups are speculative (living at home? connections? actual cash?), but they are still in the early apprenticeship of their career, their business in its infancy, and they are working for nothing. (Consider how much you’d need to generate a minimum, liveable wage ($940 a week) for 4 or 5 people plus super - sorry, daddy and mummy ain’t paying that for them to be musicians).

I know it sounds like I’m really defending the band here or being apologist for their comments. I’m not. What I’m trying to point out is that the moment that threatens to take down their career has been co-created by Triple J, our national broadcaster, who has seemingly done this to generate engagement for its own platform. And that is not good! No matter how rich and annoying the band is!!! I repeat this is not a drill!!!

What I want to defend is the vulnerability of young artists in these kinds of high pressure, high stakes moments at inflection points in their careers, wherein both the expectations and content is prescribed and created by Triple J, which is a historical monopoly as our only alternative broadcaster. There is no recourse or transparency for artists engaged in any kind of stoush with Triple J, both behind the scenes and in public. The place is as mysterious and impenetrable as a secret society. And my point is that the people who edited, approved and posted this clip, who are earning a wage, will not be pressed for comment or ridiculed online, and will continue on their career path as before. Artists sit outside the bounds of every structure built to defend the rights of so many people working alongside and because of them, but we are often not afforded any of those same protections.

And guys… social media. Ugh. When can we throw it in the bin.

Couple of thoughts to finish:

• Normalise artists having an open, complex relationship with Triple J, and just be real about where the true power imbalances lie, and how narratives like this are created.

• Also thinking about how many big artists and international acts would go into LAVs and triple J with their publicists, who then get approval and control of the output. And also how you can record your LAV musical performance a few times to get it right - why wouldn’t the same grace be afforded to the interview?

• Triple J: be a more musical, culturally intelligent broadcaster that is sympathetic to artist’s real identities and not a place where we feel we have to twist and contort ourselves into ironic, viral shapes in order to have a shot.

• It’s time for LAV to become a less calculated opportunity for an act to express themselves, honour their influences, dig into songwriting from all walks of life, and just do what they think is cool.

• I understand that people working for Triple J may feel defensive about the criticisms levelled at it/them, but a reminder: these are not personal attacks, but criticisms of an institution and publicly funded entity that I care about. In reality, when personal attacks happen, it’s towards artists, who are often young people of questionable emotional maturity and aptitude for such situations, with little financial stability, and who rely on Triple J for their work to continue.

I’m sure the band will come out with a statement apologising soon. It’s all they can do. But will any statement come from Triple J? Hmmm.

Thoughts? Prayers for me as Triple J discontinues playing my music forevermore? Open to disagreements here!

Iz

1. As a stroke of almost comical misfortune, when our LAV aired, there was a freak blackout of the radio signal around the peak hour time of 8-10am when LAV aired on the Friday morning. It was unprecedented, and it meant that Triple J was not on air when our LAV aired. At the time we asked, given the circumstances, if they could please replay it the following week. We had essentially been denied the promotional opportunity. But they refused to replay it or let us redo it, as that would ruin the illusion that the performance was actually ‘live', which for some reason they were pedantic about. So that gave me an indication then, that this was a broadcaster that cared more about its own brand than the artists it was created to serve and promote.