Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

KenKaniff said:
The same band that made Boy/October to UF/JT to AB/Zooropa/Pop to ATYCLB and NLOTH. All over the place.
Click to expand...
Hm, maybe you just hear something in them that I don't. I've listened to almost all of U2's albums and I got the sense that they had a certain style they didn't veer too far from. That's not a knock against them in any way, I just wouldn't have ever described them as particularly "diverse"
 
Count_Vader said:
So many people try to intellectualize the Beatles. Alot of their songs are meant to be taken at face value. That's honestly why I really can't get that into the Beatles they have a sect of fans that are insanely pretentious and treat all of their songs as high art instead of songs just meant to be enjoyed. "She Loves You" is just a poppy love song. It's not something to be analyzed. The Beatles agreed. That's why they made "I am the walrus" I also kinda disagree with their classification as "Rock"
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m against intellectualising art full stop. It either makes you feel something or it doesn’t, I don’t need to sit around stroking my chin trying to look/sound intelligent...
 
chrb98 said:
Most post-punk made past the year 2000 is imitative garbage made by people who seem to be begging you to believe that Unknown Pleasures is the only album they've ever listened to in their life. Joy Division were popular because they were the most accessible post-punk band, not because they were the end-all be-all of the genre's possibilities, and the fact that ripping them off is still a multi-million-dollar industry decades later is the direct antithesis of what made the genre interesting in the first place
Click to expand...
Don't you think Viet Cong/Preoccupations is more Bauhaus/This Heat or something than Joy Div?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Or the literal decades of songs from men singing to “itty bitty pretty ones” and “little schoolgirls” and girls who will “be a woman soon” and “pretty little things” and “jailbait” and and and?
Click to expand...
You better RUNNNN GIRRRL! You're much too YOUNNNG GIIIRRL!
Count_Vader said:
Well said. It is much worse inversed but it's still really fucking creepy.
Click to expand...
An actual teenage girl writing essentially about how men will behave with her is a lot different than grown men writing about desiring teenagers. It should be creepy, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong in a way even remotely similar to our rich history of grown men writing about teenagers.
(Anyway, the song Bad Guy isn't actually about seducing a dad specifically as far as I can tell, it's just a line in the chorus. It does seem to be about letting a certain type of shitty man feel like he's in charge sexually, among other things.)
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Or the literal decades of songs from men singing to “itty bitty pretty ones” and “little schoolgirls” and girls who will “be a woman soon” and “pretty little things” and “jailbait” and and and?
Click to expand...
Right and those songs are super creepy and not at all ok. They don't fly today though or at least most people would rebuke them and rightfully so. It's not a remotely appropriate song subject and it's downright predatory. That being said, I may not have worded my original point well. I didn't intend to draw am exact equivalence between the two an older person preying on a minor person is far worse than the inverse. What I mean is it's still really creepy and unacceptable for a minor to sing about seducing an older person especially someone who may well have children around the same age. Billie Eilish has a huge youth base and I think it's a very poor example for them to be exposed to
 
gouis said:
This is the hottest take in the thread and very anti-intellectual.

TBH this kind of thinking is why the world is what it is today.
Click to expand...

Not really, I’m not dumb and I’m all for deep critical thinking where it’s necessary but I don’t think pop music is necessarily the place for it. There is nothing I can stand less than people unnecessarily dissecting music and literature to find inane meanings that quite simply didn’t exist and they are reading into it.
 
Joe Mac said:
Not really, I’m not dumb and I’m all for critical thinking where it’s necessary but I don’t think pop music is necessarily the place for it. There is nothing I can stand less than people unnecessarily dissecting music and literature to find inane meanings that quite simply didn’t exist and they are reading into it.
Click to expand...
You didn’t say pop you said “art”. Which is a lot bigger.

And intellectualizing isn’t the the same as writing a 10th grade book report making up hidden meanings in the Grapes of Wrath. There is plenty to discuss and “intellectualize” without going into “meaning” at all.
 
Count_Vader said:
Right and those songs are super creepy and not at all ok. They don't fly today though or at least most people would rebuke them and rightfully so. It's not a remotely appropriate song subject and it's downright predatory. That being said, I may not have worded my original point well. I didn't intend to draw am exact equivalence between the two an older person preying on a minor person is far worse than the inverse. What I mean is it's still really creepy and unacceptable for a minor to sing about seducing an older person especially someone who may well have children around the same age. Billie Eilish has a huge youth base and I think it's a very poor example for them to be exposed to
Click to expand...
She IS a youth. It's entirely appropriate for her to create uncomfortable and controversial art. It is the job of parents to discuss it with their children, not of pop stars and artists to provide sanitized content.
 
GritNGlitter said:
You better RUNNNN GIRRRL! You're much too YOUNNNG GIIIRRL!

An actual teenage girl writing essentially about how men will behave with her is a lot different than grown men writing about desiring teenagers. It should be creepy, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong in a way even remotely similar to our rich history of grown men writing about teenagers.
(Anyway, the song Bad Guy isn't actually about seducing a dad specifically as far as I can tell, it's just a line in the chorus. It does seem to be about letting a certain type of shitty man feel like he's in charge sexually, among other things.)
Click to expand...
As I said in a previous response I worded my original point poorly I didn't intend to draw equivalence between the two. It just makes me very uncomfortable to hear that. I've seen really shitty adults sexualize Billie Eilish and I fucking despise that behavior. But writing stuff like that isn't exactly helping. Some asshole's will see this as encouragement. They're stupid for thinking so though. Underage girls (or boys granted musically/artistically it's not done anyway near as much as girls) should not be sexualized at all. Even by themselves. I know the song itself isn't about that it's still a very uncomfortable verse that I feel may have been intentionally edgy or provocative. Not to get to personal but alot of women in my life have been overly sexualised by some really predatory people so this is an extremely sore subject for me.
I've also seen people that criticize women artists fro expressing sexual agency and awareness in their music and I think that's absolute bullshit too. Women should be able to make art about their sexuality, I just think minors doing it makes me extremely uncomfortable.

All that being said I can't fucking stand men writing songs about lusting after underaged girls. I know "little girl" and "sweet little thing" are/were common pet names and if it's clear that the person in the song is an adult then that's ok I guess (B.B. King has a song talking about how "it doesn't matter if your woman is 6 foot of 900 pounds she's still your sweet little thing" that's not exactly verbatim though) that being said if it's about an actual minor fuck that song and fuck them. And while we're on this particular topic fuck Ted Nugent. Jailbait is one of the worst, disgusting songs ever and he's human garbage.
 
gouis said:
You didn’t say pop you said “art”. Which is a lot bigger.

And intellectualizing isn’t the the same as writing a 10th grade book report making up hidden meanings in the Grapes of Wrath. There is plenty to discuss and “intellectualize” without going into “meaning” at all.
Click to expand...

Ok what I was getting at is that sometimes I don’t necessarily need to know why a song is great, I don’t need to know that the musicians are stellar and playing at the top of their game, I don’t need it to be a cerebral art form, I’ll take a 3 minute pop song over a classical piece or a jazz piece and feel no shame over it.

Equally with a book. I let myself go, I feed off the emotion. The atmosphere and beauty of the prose are more important to me than the motivations of the author or the school from which they are writing.

Obviously there are red flags but to be honest they would take me out of the moment without any need to intellectualise it.
 
GritNGlitter said:
She IS a youth. It's entirely appropriate for her to create uncomfortable and controversial art. It is the job of parents to discuss it with their children, not of pop stars and artists to provide sanitized content.
Click to expand...
It doesn't necessarily need to he sanitized and safe. If she wrote a song about having a sexual relationship with someone her own age I would have zero issue with it whatsoever. It's just with the Minor/Adult dynamic that I have an issue with. Teens are raging with Hormones there's nothing inherently wrong with them discussing sex through art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top