10,000 Pairs of Underwear Isn’t Enough

Is Charli and Billie’s charitable donation actually net-neutral for society?

Recently I posted a short form video highlighting the voracious activity on charlixcx & Billie Eilish’s freshly dropped music video for their song Guess, which is about women’s underwear (that’s it, that’s thee topic of the song.) In that off-the-cuff video I made a few points:

1. Only one hour after the video premiered, the ratio of comments to views was astounding. When I recorded the video, it was an hour old. There were 40,000 views and 11,000 comments. An unbelievable ratio. (Those 40,000 views doubled between my recording and posting the video, but the comments did not, informing my next point.)
2. I also stated this number was likely inflated by bots, as it’s well known within the industry that the majors are some of the worst offenders of using bots to inflate launch day numbers. (This is merely anecdotal in regards to this article’s topic.)
3. But my main point was that it’s disheartening that it takes a light breeze to activate music fans and society in general around a song and video about underwear, but it takes a steamroller for most people to activate around not only thought-provoking songs but anything that’s actually productive or asks them to challenge the status quo or do anything challenging whatsoever. How many of the 11,000 commenters (if real) would be dropping everything to comment on a (well-written and produced) song about self-empowerment or a song questioning our priorities as a culture?

The next day a trusted friend who had seen my video DM’d me to ask:

“What if an artist(s) does something like this to pull eyes/attention, and then use that new following for good causes? Ex: all unworn clothing in the video is donated to survivors of domestic violence, and (separate from the song/video in question) Billie is a big climate advocate and makes her vinyl in eco-friendly ways.”

A valid question, and one that many who are even slightly tapped in to the reality of the world may find themselves asking and not able to decisive conclusion. I took this as an opportunity to crystalize what I know in my heart into words, because I know these kinds of questions will be asked of me all the time as I grow and find more exposure for my platform. I did not know that the charity donation was part of the project when I made my reel, but that doesn’t change my point.

My Answer

The short answer based on my opinion, experience and publicly available information, is that more often than not they (not the artists alone but the entire spheres around them) do these grand acts of charity to say “Look! We did a good thing!” while they do 5 unproductive/destructive, self centered or excessively lavish things we don’t see. The song itself doesn’t need to exist for them to do good things like donating. The song itself causes more relative harm than the donations can counteract, and I believe that leaves these things net-neutral. I may even believe it’s net-negative, but for the sake of debate, I will say net-neutral.

If all goes to plan, 10,000 women now have underwear – that is an undeniable win. But, how many people are going to now go sing this song over and over and are then be thinking about sex constantly? How many children are going to reenact the video because they look up to these artist as role models? Music alters the brain, and therefore can be weaponized, even unintentionally, as a form of mind control and hypnotism. Exponentially more than 10,000 people are now stuck in a cycle of lower vibration, blissfully ignorant, thinking 1) the song is just all fun and games, 2) these artists did a good thing and 3) all is well in this moment.

Why It’s Not Enough

I am learning as I go about where my topical boundaries are. I try my best to speak mostly on what’s happening in the actual art or performance, because people don’t realize that’s just as, if not more impactful than after-the-fact charity work. Everything about this world and life is so much deeper than 90% realize.

I am trying not to talk about artists outside of their art because it is true that lots of “good” and “charity” is being done outside of the art. But why does this good intention have to come as charity? Why do we as a culture need to do (so much) charity? Why can’t the “charity” come first? Why can’t we address these problems first, with the art itself?

As always, take away what you like and leave what you don’t. My word is not gospel, just my perspective.

– Chad