Just what has been happening to Fergie? For a while there, it seemed the Black Eyed Peas singer and solo artist had become the first music act to officially allow product placement in her songs. Then we were told she had not, in fact, achieved this honour.
The first reports indicated that she would have made between $2 million and $4 million (depending on the report) from Candies, the US clothing company, for including their name in her lyrics.
Let's suppose for a minute that this was true. Would it have been the end of rock'n'roll as we knew it, or just an honest approach to what already happens covertly?
It would have been no great loss to music. As a solo artist, Fergie is useless; her bland r'n'b could do with a cash injection so that she could hire a half-decent songwriter. Fergie is not in the big-time of endorsement deals, but it looked like she was ready to take it that bit further by actually including her paymaster's products in her lyrics.
Interscope, her record company, seemed to be all for it. "With record sales in decline, you must find novel ways to make money out of the music," said a spokesperson. "The trick is to make the brand part of the song so that it slips down easily rather than chokes the fan. Candies will have no say over exactly what Fergie will sing, or when. Fergie does not sing jingles, so it will have to work unobtrusively in the song."
A number of "real" musicians slammed Fergie for a perceived capitulation, but who among them is truly innocent? Pick up an album cover by even the most "cred" band, and you will see mentions for the company which gives them their drums and guitars for free.
There has also been a racket going on for years whereby stars agree to wear a certain item in close-up shots at photo shoots or in videos - and get paid for this non-publicised endorsement.
Arguably, had Fergie signed the reported deal, she would simply have been taking the idea of endorsement to its logical conclusion.
The episode prompted a number of people to look into who does what and for how much money, and there a lot of "serious musos" out there who are terrified by what may be unearthed.
For example, did you know that Carl Barat, ex of The Libertines and now of Dirty Pretty Things, has lent his name to a clothing range? I know this because as I write I am wearing a pair of J Lindeberg "Carl" jeans (named after Barat).
I don't know how much money, if any, changed hands or what Barat's involvement with the company amounted to. But I do know that if the lovely Lindeberg people are reading this, surely they must realise that I, an international jet-set rock journalist and friend/ confidant to the stars, am endorsing their jeans simply by wearing them, so they might at least send around a few more pairs to me (it's waist 32, leg 34, thanks).
In any case, Fergie has since said that the originally reported deal with Candies never existed. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but Fergie released a statement that denied any musical involvement with Candies.
"Fergie does have a commercial deal with the clothing brand Candies, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of her music," says her manager.
Was the whole thing a sophisticated "put this out and see what the reaction is" experiment? Or did Fergie realise that she was in fact commercially debasing herself in a manner which no other musician, no matter how wretched, had ever done before? One hopes it's the latter; one suspects it's the former.
bboyd@irish-times.ie
