Malcom Gladwell’s books tell lots of stories about how good ideas became pervasive wonders seemingly overnight. They’re fun reading, and Gladwell captures the blueprint for many types of cultural phenomena. Yes, there are catalytic moments wrought by people who have both great skill and fortuitous access to nearby scarce resources. Yes these thought explosions often hide a decade of hard work or much longer.
But aren’t there real moments of serendipity, something that goes beyond the inputs we can measure? Is anything truly, inexplicably awesome, in the sense that whatever contributory sources and gradual innovations become obvious in hindsight, there is still something else there that was always unknowable, and therefore, inimitable? I thought about that question after reading a few blog posts this week. I thought I’d share.
First, you must have seen Susan Boyle who conquered YouTube in the blink of eye with her spine-tingly appearance on Britain’s Got Talent. Now, I hate reality television. And showtunes. Yet I enjoyed this clip enormously. It tripped my vagus nerve, causing that intoxicating feeling of “elevation”. I wasn’t alone. Robert Cringely wonders at the sheer scope of my un-aloneness:
The video file as presented on YouTube is just over seven minutes and 26 megabytes long. Twenty million (and counting!) times 26 megabytes is 520 terabytes or approximately half the size of the Internet Archive. That’s 520,000 gigabytes or the equivalent of maxing-out in a single week the monthly bandwidth allotment of 260 co-lo servers at Rackspace.com. Running at top speed for a week would require 1040 such servers to do the job and we haven’t even made it to a week yet. That’s 520 million-million bytes.
Okay, so it was a nice lady singing a nice song, but what’s astounding is the performance had been round the earth twice or three times before the broadcast in the UK was even over. It was one of those seminal moments of mass-communication that showed the world was different than it used to be and thank God it didn’t require a wardrobe malfunction to do so.
What resonated with audiences about this performance was that it hit everyone – everyone – the same, as a long-coming reward for a life of good cheer and choir practice. I make documentary films from time to time and this performance is one of those emotional moments that every documentary director dreams of. It’s not the facts, you see, or even the stories that matter, it’s the emotional state of the people on-screen and how the viewer relates to them that matters. Real feelings count.
And thanks to the Internet in this instance such feelings count everywhere, it seems. For one happy moment we’re drawn together as a single audience to share a single emotional high that involves, for a change, no losers at all.
Think how rare that is, which explains its power.
But is that is all there is? A lifetime of “good cheer and choir practice” + internet magic = one of the most widely shared experiences of all time? I suppose Susan Boyle’s humble appearance and the smashing of our lowered expectations had something to do with it as well. But how easy is it to look back and say, “oh yes, Susan Boyle’s explosive performance was surprising, but we can see the roots very clearly now. We really should have seen this coming.” Part of Gladwell’s appeal is exploring the surprise and admiration we feel when we examine spectacular success, and understanding the behind-the-scenes framework that quietly led to the big bang we perceived. But I wonder if we could trace Susan Boyle’s steps backwards toward an understanding of brought her this 15 minutes of fame. Would it also explain her appeal to so many observers?
I had related questions after reading a post about the capital-G Genius of the Snuggie:
The genius of the Snuggie is that it is an entirely useless product that solves a problem that did not exist. There is a lot more in that single sentence than meets the eye. Lots of infoco products are useless. In fact, I’ll just break away from generalities and tell you that they’re all useless on some level. Some are entirely useless. Some are mostly useless the way that Westley was mostly dead. But they’re all useless.
But that next step is a tough one. The Ginzu Knife may have been useless … but the problem it hopes to solve — “Oh, I wish I had a really, really sharp knife that could cut through a Coke can,” — may exist in some households, especially if those households happen to be on the new CBS murder mystery series “Harper’s Island.” The Sham Wow may not really be absorbent enough to soak up Coca Cola through a rug, but you might see the appeal. The Slap Chop really might make it easier to cut up onions without crying. The Riddex Plus really might rid your house of bugs and rats using digital pulses. The Fasta Pasta really might allow you to make Pasta Fasta. The Infinity Razor might really last forever and save me a fortune!
The fact that these products don’t work as well as you might hope certainly could make them a ripoff, but it doesn’t make them genius. What separates the Snuggie is that it is NOT a ripoff, not exactly, because the Snuggie never promises to be anything BUT a ripoff. It’s like a Decartes Ripoff … “I think I will get ripped off, therefore I am getting ripped off.”
Look: The Snuggie people say to America: Aren’t you sick of being wrapped up in a blanket, and then the phone rings, and then you can’t get your hands out to answer the phone?
And even though no resident of Planet Earth has ever had this problem, even though no one in the history of the world has ever said (or thought), “Gee, blankets are all right but they can be so confining,” even though it’s clear that they make you look like cult members, even though farm animals are smart enough to realize that the Snuggie is just a robe you wear backward, even though, even though, even though … people still buy Snuggies by the millions.
So just how does one do it? How do you make a video that crashes Facebook? Or perfectly solve a problem that doesn’t exist, so that your backwards robe enters the pop-culture pantheon (snuggie pub crawl anyone?) while paying for its cheap commercial many, many times over? Should we be able to study the pop-culture explosions of the past and perhaps make a bit of our own rain?
I’m thinking not. While it might be fun to play detective and review the building blocks of phenomenal success and bizarre fads, the best breakthroughs are things we can’t see coming. Events that change us because they were so unexpected. Matthew Knowles and Berry Gordy built incredible pop machines using solid, near-scientific templates that still work today for the likes of Miley Cyrus. But the first time I saw cheerleaders dancing in Nirvana’s dystopian gymnasium I could feel the culture change almost instantly. And I didn’t even like the song. Something happened and we won’t see it again, until there’s another expectant void. Another unseen canyon waiting for a river that doesn’t exist to overflow its banks.
I see you crawling towards god here. So, to answer the inimitable question, I am saying “no way!”
As for the Nirvana cheerleader. I lived with Tom Carter when that video came out. He had introduced me to their music through the colored vinyl copy of Bleach he had. I thought it was forgettably okay. I felt even less charitable for most of the Seattle stuff he had from that early, pre-blowup era. But, we spent a great deal of time discussing “next big things,” and it’s interesting to note that Nirvana was just a part of that buzz that was going around record dork circles. We knew their new one was due on a major and felt, like many, that though it wouldn’t be so great, it would have a great chance to make some mainstream noise. I remember him bringing home the advance copy of Nevermind, as both of us laughed at how much we hated the artwork.
When he played the CD, we were both underwhelmed and wondered just how well it would fair in the mainstream MTV world. And, by the way, SLTS did not stand out as the song that would change the world of pop in the least.
So, the record came out, and it wasn’t long before it caught on. And I kept hearing SLTS on the radio and noting that it resonated a little stronger in a pop radio context. I had yet to see the video. A couple weeks later I caught the video at my girlfriends place. Once the cheerleaders were writhing and squirming I began to realize that this was going to be monstrously huge, bigger than Nirvana, bigger than Seattle, etc… It just made sense for its place in the culture at that time. As you say, it filled a gap or a void that had opened, and whether I liked it so much or not, I felt the same need for it that so many other people seemed to feel. I don’t want to muddy things by saying much more.
But, I will add this. At a Mike Gunn show, I spoke with Helios Creed (the headliner) before the show. We spoke about music in general, and I asked him what he was listening to lately. He said, “You know what I’ve really been into? The new Nirvana. I really like that new album.”
Did anything really change for the better with that album? No, not really, nothing tangible. Radio is as shitty as ever. Mainstream rock is worse than ever. And worst of all, there was the dreaded commodification of dissent, which I first read about in the Baffler’s excellent collection of essays with the same title.
We live in an era of marketing. Zeitgeist, hype, buzz, being cool, individualism, it’s all interwoven with its ability to generate revenue. we’re little more than walking billboards. Just try and do something new and see how fast your success equates to a certain market.
I’m wandering. I need coffee. Great post, thank you Marshall.
I am not crawling towards God. Weirdly the thought never crossed my mind. I was thinking more like fate, amongst other intangibles. Just noting that if greatness, plus its after-effects, could be perfectly understood it would be perfectly replicable. And of course, it’s not.
This post isn’t one of my best, since it basically boils down to “lightning sure is hard to bottle, isn’t it?” I’ll do better next time.
I thought the post was fine. I guess somebody should comment on this woman, because I admit that I am mystified by the world’s reaction to her.
This new internet phenom did nothing for me. I didn’t dislike her singing, but it didn’t resonate with me in any way. And I felt the same way John did about Nirvana. I liked it OK, but it didn’t immediately knock my socks off. I did really like In Utero instantly, though, and I still think that’s their best album by far.
I guess I should clarify that I’m not a huge Nirvana fan myself. And wasn’t when it came out. It wasn’t until I got into Sonic Youth’s Dirty that I even started liking “respectable” college rock. To this day my favorite Nirvana record is Unplugged, largely because of songs they covered, including the shiver-inducing Leadbelly cover.
What I meant was that I knew instantly Nirvana was going to be big, even though I’d really heard nothing like it before. I’m not claiming clairvoyance here, I had no idea what the scope of the damage would be. Just that it would be a hit.
Frankly, I remember being a bit cynical about Nirvana and all the kids who liked it, because it was so NOT what I wanted out of music. But there was no denying that I watched that damn video every time it came on. To kids like me, who had never seen anything like it, the effect was like aliens landing on earth. John and Justin, you guys had probably heard other, better bands. You’re both older and you probably started liking decent music at a younger age. But I was 16, and all the kids at school were into hair metal and MC Hammer. Until that video came out, and then I swear things changed dramatically within 2 or 3 weeks.
This post wasn’t really supposed to be about Nirvana at all, but I’m just saying that for people who weren’t already familiar with underground / punk music, Nirvana was a pretty big change. Even if you didn’t like them.
Still enjoyed this post Marshall, even if you didn’t. I do think the Boyle phenom is overblown as is all hyped media. I still suspect she is a plant and not an actual person at all. I didn’t read it being about Nirvana. I sorta see Gladwell as such a douche I figured I’d leave him out of it.
I liked this post too and I don’t think the “lightning sure is hard to bottle” theme has been touched yet so it’s still nap fresh.
I do disagree on some of these points though…
First of all I think Boyle is exactly what we anticipate in a show like Britain’s Got Talent. It is touching but in every respect it is not surprising. Why should it be?
As for the youtube phenom I think that is not really overblown. I’m sure her video has been looked at a zillion times. As for the crowd noise on the friggin’ show that is almost pure hype. We’re talking about populist entertainment here, what the Brits call “broad” television. And btw, they invented that stuff (American Idol is an export). Back to youtube: once you step away from the really good stuff on youtube (e.g. the Cramps playing a mental institute in 1978), you can see what generates the real hits. It’s youth driven of course but I’m talking kiddies. More folks have watched this sheep go “baaaa” than have watched the aforementioned Cramps video. And that Cramps video got tons of linkage when Lux died. So there is a population on the net who watch every viral video no matter the genre, then there are kids and then there are regular people. They all come out for Boyle. And the kids will load that thing a hundred times.
As for Nirvana –get the appeal to kids completely but it certainly isn’t anything new under the sun. It seems like something a middle-aged A&R type figured would be a big hit: it’s got the grunge sound that the hip kids dig which he doesn’t quite understand what’s so different about it than the hard rock that sucked him into the biz but whatev the hip kids like it; it’s got cute young guys so he knows the girls will be on board; they like to sing songs about pain and teen anx (that’s always a w-w-w-w-winner); and they are going to put cheerleaders in compromising positions…that hasn’t been done since Toni Basil.
Wow, mr lhw, that was overflowing with cynicism… is that really you? I havent seen the boyle clip, i’m sure i will, but i’m in no hurry. I saw the one of the guy who also sang like an angel on some American version of the same show and i found it moving while it lasted and was glad the guy got to sing and all that. But really its just a 5 minute fantasy for the singer and for us. it’s a great story, the one about the secret talent who is finally revealed to the world and in so doing all the awful no-talents melt into nothing like the wicked witch of the east. It’s hopeful but misguided because the no-talents don’t melt away by having talent show them up on their own stage. They melt away on their own, very slowly over a very long period of time.
Same with Nirvana. I was as excited as your average flannel wearing teen when SLTS started getting tons of play. Not because i particularly liked the song all that much, but because it seemed like some weird vindication for all the bands that I did love and who had toiled before without any real popular recognition, which was fine, but still, there was that feeling for a moment of “in your face no-talents”. And its always inspiring to have one of yours fighting out there, remember that when the little guy fights the bully, the little guy always wins, even if he gets beat to a pulp.
Well put. The “in your face” bit is almost certainly a part of that video’s appeal. I would probably put this woman in the “no talent” column, though, because while she can technically sing, that doesn’t make her interesting in itself. Once the novelty of her being the dowdy British woman can sing, there’s not much left.
I do think there’s two very clear elements: 1) The clip itself is a great piece of film editing. It’s designed to do exactly what it did, which was “surprise” and entertain. It’s not like we’re just watching her sing, we’re seing the audience, judges, and the singer herself. As Kilian pointed out, this isn’t that different from most reality shows. 2) Susan Boyle isn’t just a confounder of expectations; she’s very likeable. There’s “pluck” to her that is appealing even after she’s stopped singing. She has real confidence but she undercuts it a bit with her appearance (of course) and also her aw-shucks body language.
But I guess what I’m was trying to point out is this: the reality show of this Got Talent / Idol sort is very mature now. Clips like this really should be a cliche. And yet, this clip will probably be one of the most watched YouTube videos of all time.
I hear you guys saying, “It’s not that impressive” or “This has happened before”, and yet the scale and speed of the thing is kinda unprecedented. The amateur economist in me is saying, “I can see your point Justin and Kilian, but the data say otherwise.”
Susan Boyle, the Snuggie, and Nirvana are all familiar and even archetypal. So why do they provoke outlier-type responses? That’s my lightning-in-a-bottle question. Anyone can point to the extraordinary and say what’s ordinary about it. That’s what Gladwell does.
It’s sort of hard to go the other way.
I won’t argue that, mrshl.
Roberto I remember distinctly what I felt when Nirvana went viral, elitist.
I’m only an elitist because I’m better. Otherwise I’d be a cynic.