‘Black-listed': Anastacia reveals the moment she realised she'd never achieve success in America
Anastacia has one of the most recognisable voices in the music industry, but heartbreakingly an entire continent never got the chance to experience it.
Breaking out in the early 2000s with iconic banger I'm Outta Love, Anastacia quickly became one of the biggest pop stars in the world and she's enjoyed success ever since, and will soon be bringing her sell out NTK25 tour down under.
But one place the American's tour won't be visiting is North America, and it's all because record label politics meant that one of the biggest music industry markets on earth never got the chance to get to know Anastacia's vocal talents.
'I'm at that age where I'm fine with what I've got. My resume is beautiful and I'm proud of it,' the feisty singer told news.com.au.
'At the beginning, I felt like what's wrong with me, because I didn't know the reason why.'
As she prepared to go into the promotional tour for her second record, Anastacia finally realised the incredible success she was experiencing around the world was never going to happen in her home country.
'Then I kind of got an idea of what happened between the radio station and the record company, that it was like a power struggle thing,' she continued. 'And the radio stations made you. The record company made the radio station upset and I was the black-listed name.'
'So it wasn't that I was this rejected artist in America. It was like, they never actually knew me.'
While she was never given the chance to show off her talents in the US, thankfully the rest of the world immediately embraced her powerhouse vocals and ear for a banger.
After performing to sell out crowds in Europe, Anastacia has announced that she's bringing her latest tour to Australia later this year. She'll be performing in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney in September, with just a handful of tickets left remaining for fans to snap up ahead of the shows.
Anastacia's Not That Kind 25 tour starts at The Forum in Melbourne on September 24, before heading to the Coliseum Theatre in Western Sydney on September 26, the Sydney's Enmore Theatre on September 27, before a final show at Brisbane's Eatons Hill Hotel on September 29.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
44 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Sarah Jessica Parker's three children seen in rare photo
Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick's three children are all grown up. The couple's 22-year-old son, James, took to Instagram this week to celebrate his graduation from Brown University by sharing multiple snaps of the big moment, including one with his 15-year-old twin sisters, Tabitha and Marion. In the sweet photo, the Sex and the City actress' eldest child wore his black graduation gown and a brown stole layered over a blue suit and tie. He also wore white sneakers and put his brown waves on full display while carrying his graduation cap in one hand. Tabitha and Marion matched in green shirts and jeans as they walked alongside their big brother following the ceremony. HBO producer Liviya Kraemer, who worked on Divorce with SJP, also released a photo of the new college graduate to honour his academic achievement. 'Extra special congratulations to @jwbr0derick!!!!!!!!! Now let's do this every five years,' Kraemer captioned the photo shared to her Instagram Story. James has followed in his parents' footsteps by pursuing a career in acting and even guest-starred in his dad's show Elsbeth earlier this year. The Failure to Launch star, 60, and Broderick, 63, were not seen in any of the images from the graduation. The couple typically keeps their children out of the spotlight and off social media, though they have made some rare red carpet appearances at Hollywood events over the years. Last April, Parker and the Ferris Bueller's Day Off actor attended the Broadway premiere of Smash with their daughters. Four months later, the couple and their entire brood attended the 2024 Paris Olympics. In July 2024, Broderick and his kids walked the red carpet sans Parker for the Broadway opening of Oh, Mary! That summer, Broderick and Parker celebrated their twins' 15th birthday with a balloon-filled party. Broderick and Parker have been married since 1997.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist
Samantha Donovan: Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump tariffs win legal reprieve
Samantha Donovan: Donald Trump's tariff regime has been given a reprieve after a US federal court ruled the import taxes will remain in place while it considers an appeal by the White House. A US trade court had blocked the tariffs by deciding the President had exceeded his authority in imposing them. Mr Trump has continued to rail against that decision, declaring it was a threat to the country and would quote, completely destroy presidential power. Luke Radford reports. Luke Radford: A lot can happen in a day, including yet another twist in the battle over Donald Trump's tariffs. A Manhattan court struck them down yesterday, arguing the power to levy tariffs in this case belongs to Congress, not the President. But after the Trump administration launched an appeal, the federal court has temporarily reinstated them. Something White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was quick to celebrate. Karoline Leavitt: The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. Luke Radford: It's important to note that the administration hasn't actually won its appeal. The courts just decided the tariffs can stay while that's being figured out. And despite what the White House says, experts say the court does have a role here. Nick Ackerman is a former assistant US attorney and was a member of the Watergate prosecution team. Nick Ackerman: I think ultimately, if you read the opinion, it's pretty well written, it's well reasoned. I think it's going to be affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court and most likely to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. I mean, I've been saying for a long time that this act just doesn't give him the power to impose the kinds of tariffs that he was imposing and doing it the way he did. Luke Radford: In the meantime, the US is continuing its negotiations with other countries. US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told Fox News while discussions with China have stalled, yesterday's decision has had no notable impact. Scott Bessent: They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends. So we've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning. Luke Radford: It's a small victory in what has been a tough week for the president. On Wednesday local time, he reacted angrily after he was asked about a new acronym coined on Wall Street. TACO. Short for Trump Always Chickens Out. Donald Trump: And in many ways, I think we really helped China tremendously because, you know, they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with China. We were doing no business because of the tariff, because it was so high. But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. Luke Radford: While this case is going to appeal, it's unlikely to be the end of the legal challenges. Another case lodged by 13 US states is still underway. Dan Rayfield is attorney general of Oregon. Dan Rayfield: When you have a president who thinks that you're above the law and above following the laws and is trying to corral power in this way, that is one of the most undemocratic things you can do. The Constitution of the United States gives the power to set tariffs solely to our Congress. Congress then delegates some of that power to the president. So it's not even his role. If we are going to have a healthy democracy long term, you have to have a president that is willing to follow your constitution. He takes an oath. You got to follow it. You got to take it seriously. Luke Radford: The White House says it has other ways of levying tariffs, even if this case goes against them. Samantha Donovan: Luke Radford reporting.
