In 2007, I met a largely pre-problematic Kanye West at London’s Landmark Hotel.
I was there to interview him about his upcoming third album, Graduation.
West was busy, as befitted the overachieving multi-hyphenate.
(Graduation brilliantly combined elements of euro-disco, rock, rap, krautrock, dancehall and about a million other genres, featured guest spots from everyone from T-Pain to Chris Martin, and came with a cover drawn by the Japanese pop artist Takashi Murakami.)
West had, he told me by way of an introduction, been up all night mixing a video, planning his live shows and I forget what else—possibly designing trainers.
Not a problem, he explained.
“I don’t need sleep.”
It was 10am. As the interview got underway, West put his feet up on the sofa in the five-star foyer—and promptly nodded off.
It sticks in the memory because an almost identical thing happened to me in another hotel room a couple of weeks later, with Nas.
This time, as the Illmatic hitmaker slumped forward, his PR was on-hand.
“He’s just thinking,” she said.
But them the snoring started, and the game was up.
You can blame jet lag (American superstars flying into London to do last-minute promotion). You can blame my boring questions (to lose one rapper may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness).
Either way, the musicians’ blushes (as if they cared!) were saved to some extent by the fact they were both wearing sunglasses.
The precise point at which I switched up my Paxman-like interrogation technique to expertly put them at their ease to such a degree they were comfortable grabbing forty winks may never be known—their eyes were obscured by dark glasses.
The issue of wearing sunglasses indoors came up again this weekend, following an appearance by another overachieving American multi-hyphenate.
Pharrell was a guest on The Graham Norton Show.
As we’ve come to expect from the show’s charmingly random guestlist, he was sandwiched between Billy Crystal, promoting something called Before on Apple TV, and Emily Mortimer and Hugh Bonneville, doing the rounds for Paddington in Peru.
While Bonneville and Crystal were wearing traditional dark suits, Pharrell came dressed as Pharrell.
That’s to say he was wearing a navy zip-through top, mirrored Human Made cap, Louis Vuitton flared washed denim jeans, and a £1.8m Richard Mille x Ferrari watch.
The Daily Mail didn’t mind any of that.
But they did object to the fact he was wearing sunglasses.
“Pharrell is SLAMMED,” it thundered. His outfit choice apparently being both “rude” and “disrespectful”.
“Many viewers were less than impressed with Pharrell’s decision to wear sunglasses throughout the duration of the show,” it noted.
And it had the evidence from Twitter/X to back it up.
“Why is Pharrell wearing sunglasses? I know he’s cool but please!”
“Why is he wearing sunglasses indoors?... I love Pharrell, but take your sunglasses off #GrahamNortonShow”
“Why is Pharrell Williams wearing sunglasses on Graham Norton... you're embarrassing me in front of Billy Crystal”
Obviously, no one wants to be embarrassed in front of Billy Crystal—even if it’s through their TV set.
But it did raise an issue of etiquette: can you wear sunglasses indoors? Should you? And is it really rude and disrespectful to do so, in 2024?
Leaving aside that some people require dark glasses for medical reasons, aka The Bono Excuse—ironically, Pharrell used the Graham Norton interview to discuss his sound-colour synesthesia, meaning he sees specific colours when he hears certain sounds—Esquire is of a mind to suggest that, actually, indoor-shades are perfectly fine.
In fact, they’re literally a good look.
Sunglasses have long been a staple of the red carpet, both inside and out, of course.
And celebrities have always used them to “become” themselves.
“With my sunglasses on, I’m Jack Nicholson,” said Jack Nicholson. "Without them, I’m fat and 60.”
(This was a while ago. He's 87 now. Still in shades.)
But ever since fashion brands had the genius idea of marketing winter sunglasses at non-snowboarding city-dwelling civilians, hence making the accessory a credible year-round option, their take-up has grown exponentially.
Sure, you need UV protection in London right now in the same way you need shark repellent but that’s hardly the point.
Charli XCX has made perma-shades part of her zeitgeist-conquering look—and she’s from Essex.
Other fans include The Dare, Snoop Dogg, Julian Casablancas, Robert Downey Jr, Timothée Chalamet—possibly in prep for his role playing the don of dark shades, Bob Dylan—and, of course, Anna Wintour.
Gucci, Dior, Loewe and Saint Laurent all sent sunglasses down the catwalk for the traditionally unsunny season of Autumn/Winter 2024-5.
In the current Balenciaga lookbook every single model is wearing shades.
“Wearing sunglasses all year round, summer and winter, sunshine and rain, inside and outside, on your face or even on top of your head, is not quite the gauche, self-regarding faux pas it used to be,” says Esquire contributing editor and style authority Simon Mills.
“Without our sunglasses we are ordinary Joes—but buy a pair of knock-off aviators and a Mr Benn-like transformation occurs. We become stars in our own private Heat magazine drama.”
Plus, Mills points out, in the case of Pharrell and his Kenzo sunnies—it’s his thing.
“It would have been a lot weirder if Billy Crystal had worn shades.”
Stephen Doig, men’s style editor at the Telegraph and deputy editor of Telegraph Luxury, is a card-carrying member of the Shades Indoors Club—and is inclined to agree.
“As a disciple of the church of dark shades, online sniping about Pharrell’s sunglasses is tediously middle England,” he says.
“Yes, there are situations in which wearing sunglasses is impolite and socially unacceptable—see Anna Wintour wearing her signature sunglasses to sit alongside the late Queen Elizabeth. Wearing them in a church wedding, or to job interview? No. There’s an aloofness and an unapproachability to shades indoors that oozes attitude, and that can get people’s backs up. But sometimes you want to be a little inaccessible.
“Shades are part of people’s uniform these days, and they’re also helpful armour in today’s indoor landscape of hideous fluorescent lighting. Plus, they’re particularly helpful when you’re feeling weary and less than fresh.”
And perhaps also, it scarcely needs adding, should you want to grab a quick zizz during an especially dull interview.
Originally published on Esquire UK
For a couple of days, a corner of the internet was speculating which same-haired celebrity Charli XCX was referencing in "Girl, So Confusing", a song from her latest album Brat. Someone who sounded like the English singer wasn't quite a fan of, but didn't exactly seem to be hating on either.
Then the new single dropped and she called it: the Internet did indeed go crazy.
As their lyrics spell out: It's you and me on the coin / The industry loves to spend
The timeline (great, I'm now said industry) will tell that the two female artists shared the era that their respective careers took off. Top the semi-simultaneous debut with certain aesthetic parallels, and comparisons (confusion, for a specific interviewer in 2014) ensued. Rather than capitalise on the drama pitting women against women, XCX took an unprecedented spin on the narrative. She worked it out on the remix.
Not to join the overnight literary students who may be dissecting the discourse and romanticising what it means to be a Girl's Girl, I'll freely admit that Lorde's echoing verses still give me goosebumps.
There's a lot more written vulnerability that reads deeper than simply driving marketing for album sales. There are no overly-poetic metaphors hiding the jealousy and self-doubt (plus weight/image struggles!) that resonate all too well with anyone who is/has been a girl.
The key visual is a clever touch too. Whether intentional or not, having herself back-facing the viewer in the forefront almost feels like she's representing Lorde, whose mutual likeness they already acknowledge in the remix.
As much as both versions depict navigating the byproduct complexities of being a girl, the issue isn't women-only. Here's a free therapy session—if we are truly at peace with ourselves, the opinion of others wouldn't do much to jeopardise that.
And that could be the point of reflection here. When we are self-assured with our egos, it wouldn't matter whether the opinion is accurate, or if the person giving it has influence.
You wouldn't fight to justify yourself by turning your own projections into a rivalry; to feel good about yourself if the outcome swings sentiment in your favour against your "foe".
This isn't the first time Charli XCX went olive-branching. In "Just Desserts", the collaboration similarly puts to bed a spat with fellow indie-pop singer Marina Diamandis. Who, as the other same-haired rumoured subject of "Girl, So Confusing", also had something to say.
As one commenter suggests, that's essentially what the song is. And perhaps that's a lesson for any trending feud, not just among the hip-hop community where beef is so very profitable.
Sure, circumstances could be different where no prior friendship was established between both parties. Yet, taking moral high ground can exist in publicly handling private insecurities. Especially with the fame-bestowed obligation to be a role model that prolific individuals often forget they have these days.
Via this commercially and culturally viral hit, Charli XCX just proved that doing so can be just as, if not more, impactful.
