So people have fun with the song, and Kitschkrieg & Co. are successful – it’s win-win, right?
…okay, now only people who are the corresponding target on Instagram and TikTok will check the reference again. I obviously am, but my boyfriend isn’t, for example. Together with friends, you can easily check whether the impression that something is “going viral” is really true, whether something is really “on everyone’s timeline,” and whether “everyone” is really “just talking” about something.
My online world suggests exactly that to me about the new song by Kitschkrieg with Shirin David and Blumengarten.
A quick check on YouTube and Spotify and the songs most listened to there: There is nothing about “Good Enough” in the respective top 100. It’s at number 19 on YouTube Germany, even number 5 on Spotify Germany and number 8 in the good old German single charts. So “everyone” is most likely to be talking about Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift, Shakira – and a lot about Michael Jackson. More on that in a moment.
Still, it’s not all just campaign, algorithm control, “clipping” and eager comment bots – at least since the success of the band Geese, which was also artificially controlled, we know how things are going.
We actually knew it since the 90s, when we understood that heavy rotation on radio and music television is not a “coincidence”, that no hype has grown organically, naturally or grassroots, but that record companies are the payers and determiners.
But even with the most calculated mainstream numbers, you don’t want to have been taken for a ride if you accidentally like them. You’re smart yourself! And a lot of people actually think “good enough” is good. My friend said “Oh, cute” when I showed it to him.
THE WHOLE WORLD also thinks it’s cute – including a few people in America, as comments and TikTok show. At least the short social media snippet.
Because what’s more helpful today than constantly bombarding people with songs on the radio and TV is making them part of the advertising themselves – by being able to muddle up the song snippet. In essence, they also become part of the art, a kind of co-author after the fact. You would actually have earned money for that.
The artist Steve Lacy, for example, was certainly helpful too.
So in English-speaking countries people sing DOOBIE SCOOT CANOE – again reason enough for Kitschkrieg to get confused.
It’s a shame, Scooby Doo was so close…
And then there is the very funny move of turning “good enough” into “working time fraud”.
So people have fun with the song, and Kitschkrieg & Co. are successful – it’s win-win, right? But it’s just like this: If we’re ALL supposed to take part now, we probably also have a right to have a say in what we do big, who we make rich with it and what we get into all day long, right?
So there is also a lot of complaining.
For example against Shirin – you’re pretty pretty enough!
The comment columns under the songs are full of criticism for her part. Many just want Blumengarten, just the snippet. Personally, after what happened to Amber Heard and Blake Lively, I no longer trust any shitstorm against women, because people tend to artificially manipulate them. However, a few calls for a version without Shirin will certainly be genuine and original. It’s too optimized, doesn’t sound right – something like that. Personally, as a fellow consumer and co-determiner, I find that very crazy. Shirin fits perfectly, she carries the song – and the message works, especially in view of the rum-selling business that surrounds it. Guys in jackets aren’t automatically more authentic; They want to arrive just as much, our money and sing around as Shirin does.
And against Blumengarten – you’re bad enough!
There were recently allegations against singer Rayan from his ex-girlfriend about alleged psychological relationship violence and exploitation of this relationship in songs. For many people, it is therefore difficult to bear that this guy is now being thrown into your cell phone without asking, again with his delicate gestures. Understandable.
The only thing that helps is blocking and continuing to support affected women in the area. Because we can’t prevent people who have done shit from celebrating and becoming capitalistically successful – we really tried, right? I write this bitterly, remembering how big Ronaldo kept appearing on my TV screen yesterday, on the old-time timeline, ZDF.
Apparently people who want our money and time aren’t always good. For a long time in this economy we were told that we had something to say about it. We could decide on something with our purchasing power, or even improve it! We as consumers have something in our hands. But what if we don’t go out and shop for Blumengarten, Ronaldo and Michael Jackson, but rather they shop for us? Because – regardless of whether we subscribed to them, regardless of whether we tuned in ourselves, regardless of whether we ran to the cinema – they catch us, are in our heads and we talk about them or write about them?
My head is spinning.
Questions!
I have more:
Were they ALL in the features section right when they gave us the name Smombie? How actively do we choose culture? Who should be canceled, and what does canceling really mean? Is the reason people can’t let go of Michael Jackson simply because his music was great? Should there really be this planned film about the rape Polanski allegedly committed in the 70s? Why do I even know about this? If I didn’t know about it, would it even be a problem in my world? Do people lie when they say men are finished after one “accusation” while Ronaldo’s face is everywhere? Is Ronaldo only at the World Cup because so many people are tuning in because of him? Are EVERYONE perhaps rather evil? Or are ALL the ones who mainly go to work, make others rich and don’t notice a lot at all? Do we, as cultural consumers, take ourselves to be more important than we are? Do we think what we consume is more progressive than it is to make ourselves feel better? Is that why there are more and more documentaries about phenomena like BRAVO and Tic Tac Toe and Britney, which act as if it wasn’t all about exploitation, but always “ahead of its time”? Do we want to believe that the mainstream didn’t just impose everything on us, but that we had noble goals when watching? Are we fooling ourselves into believing we have freedom of choice with shitstorms and cancellation calls? Are we desperate to prove we’re not being taken for a ride – especially now, five minutes before AI is about to take over these markets?
I’ll put it this way: no. I have to think about it some more. Maybe I’ll know more in the next column, because I’m currently reading one or two books… Until then, I’ll stick with Shirin – whether I want to or not, she’s in my head:
“Today we’re going to have a crashout.”