Taylor Swift appreciation thread

[Marky Dread]

That's exactly it for me.

Please see revbob for your Grouchy Old Man handbook; gkbill is our current antisocial director. We meet for a pint of bitter (of course) every Wednesday night.

If there's no pork scratchings I ain't coming.

Talk to gkbill—he's got full authority over that stuff.

Hello,

This Wednesday's session has been cancelled - just because.

I knew it I just bloody knew it. Those snacks were just a ruse!

[revbob]

I also think that much of the pop music today is pretty disposable and made for passive listening.

woah! No shit? Dude, that's astute!

Damn muppet.

[Flex]

I was being subjected to some Today Show yesterday morning and they had on some k pop boy band and they were utterly indistinguishable from the boy bands of the late 90s/early aughts except the gimmick is they're all asian. The missus even commented they had absolutely no accents (from an American perspective). Just unbelievably flat, bland boy band pop music that the crowd apparently loved. They're big, I guess? Anyways, just wretched stuff and undercuts the thesis that pop music is really any better now than it was a decade ago. I think a lot of the perception of pop being more interesting is due to the poptimist-thinkpiece industrial complex that tries to turn listening to corporate musical churn into a political act.

[Wolter]

I was being subjected to some Today Show yesterday morning and they had on some k pop boy band and they were utterly indistinguishable from the boy bands of the late 90s/early aughts except the gimmick is they're all asian. The missus even commented they had absolutely no accents (from an American perspective). Just unbelievably flat, bland boy band pop music that the crowd apparently loved. They're big, I guess? Anyways, just wretched stuff and undercuts the thesis that pop music is really any better now than it was a decade ago. I think a lot of the perception of pop being more interesting is due to the poptimist-thinkpiece industrial complex that tries to turn listening to corporate musical churn into a political act.

Yeah. The whole K-Pop phenomenon feels absolutely hollow to me. I know I’m an Old and therefore not supposed to Get It, but this feels especially bad even by disposable pop standards.

[BostonBeaneater]

I was being subjected to some Today Show yesterday morning and they had on some k pop boy band and they were utterly indistinguishable from the boy bands of the late 90s/early aughts except the gimmick is they're all asian. The missus even commented they had absolutely no accents (from an American perspective). Just unbelievably flat, bland boy band pop music that the crowd apparently loved. They're big, I guess? Anyways, just wretched stuff and undercuts the thesis that pop music is really any better now than it was a decade ago. I think a lot of the perception of pop being more interesting is due to the poptimist-thinkpiece industrial complex that tries to turn listening to corporate musical churn into a political act.

Yeah. The whole K-Pop phenomenon feels absolutely hollow to me. I know I’m an Old and therefore not supposed to Get It, but this feels especially bad even by disposable pop standards.

They commit suicide at an alarming rate. So aspects are OK I guess...

[revbob]

[Dr. Medulla]

A student from South Korea this term wrote a paper on K-Pop and feminist critiques that are challenging it from within. What struck me about her descriptions is how much it's like Motown in its golden era—everything is hyper managed by the company, from dress to comportment to music and dance. It's fully manufactured.

[101Walterton]

I was on the beach in Hawaii last year and there was this massive crowd of young Asian men walking around the beach taking photos on their phones. Eventually worked out they were following a girl who looked about 8 who was fully dressed (not for the beach) but was apparently a huge star in Korea. I think she was trying to do a photo shoot but that was impossible.

[Dr. Medulla]

PS, sun your butthole.

Josh Brolin would like to have a few words with you: https://slate.com/culture/2019/12/josh- ... inson.html

[matedog]

I was being subjected to some Today Show yesterday morning and they had on some k pop boy band and they were utterly indistinguishable from the boy bands of the late 90s/early aughts except the gimmick is they're all asian. The missus even commented they had absolutely no accents (from an American perspective). Just unbelievably flat, bland boy band pop music that the crowd apparently loved. They're big, I guess? Anyways, just wretched stuff and undercuts the thesis that pop music is really any better now than it was a decade ago. I think a lot of the perception of pop being more interesting is due to the poptimist-thinkpiece industrial complex that tries to turn listening to corporate musical churn into a political act.

Yeah. The whole K-Pop phenomenon feels absolutely hollow to me. I know I’m an Old and therefore not supposed to Get It, but this feels especially bad even by disposable pop standards.

I think it's cool that Americans are adopting something different than they have before, but stylistically it's no different. Yeah, I don't get it either.

On the other hand, I'm trying to think of the late 90s pop boom and am trying to think of artists that were as substantive from a stylistic, songwriting, and even political standpoint as T-Swift, CRJ, Lizzo, Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, Miguel, Softee, and Empress Of (to get a little obscure there at the end) and am having a hard time coming up with anything.

I guess I'm not arguing that all pop is better now, just that there is a wing of pop now that has more substance (for lack of a better word) than what was popular really at any time before. Again, talking about the genre of pop music, not what is popular.

[Wolter]

I was being subjected to some Today Show yesterday morning and they had on some k pop boy band and they were utterly indistinguishable from the boy bands of the late 90s/early aughts except the gimmick is they're all asian. The missus even commented they had absolutely no accents (from an American perspective). Just unbelievably flat, bland boy band pop music that the crowd apparently loved. They're big, I guess? Anyways, just wretched stuff and undercuts the thesis that pop music is really any better now than it was a decade ago. I think a lot of the perception of pop being more interesting is due to the poptimist-thinkpiece industrial complex that tries to turn listening to corporate musical churn into a political act.

Yeah. The whole K-Pop phenomenon feels absolutely hollow to me. I know I’m an Old and therefore not supposed to Get It, but this feels especially bad even by disposable pop standards.

I think it's cool that Americans are adopting something different than they have before, but stylistically it's no different. Yeah, I don't get it either.

On the other hand, I'm trying to think of the late 90s pop boom and am trying to think of artists that were as substantive from a stylistic, songwriting, and even political standpoint as T-Swift, CRJ, Lizzo, Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, Miguel, Softee, and Empress Of (to get a little obscure there at the end) and am having a hard time coming up with anything.

I guess I'm not arguing that all pop is better now, just that there is a wing of pop now that has more substance (for lack of a better word) than what was popular really at any time before. Again, talking about the genre of pop music, not what is popular.

The only problem I have is that “pop” as a genre is a vague title, and that’s the only way you can make that argument. The Beatles, Stones, Motown, etc., were all considered pop at certain points in the past, so the substance argument only works if you define specifically what “pop” means as a form vs. what is popular.

[Dr. Medulla]

The only problem I have is that “pop” as a genre is a vague title, and that’s the only way you can make that argument. The Beatles, Stones, Motown, etc., were all considered pop at certain points in the past, so the substance argument only works if you define specifically what “pop” means as a form vs. what is popular.

Which is a problem with most of these larger music discussions (not just here, but more generally): defining parameters. What's pop? What's rock? What's punk? What's postpunk? What's metal? What's rock n roll? None of those categories matter much when we're making casual comments, but when making more serious, more critical assessments about genres, we can't really go anywhere without a shared foundation.

[BostonBeaneater]

The only problem I have is that “pop” as a genre is a vague title, and that’s the only way you can make that argument. The Beatles, Stones, Motown, etc., were all considered pop at certain points in the past, so the substance argument only works if you define specifically what “pop” means as a form vs. what is popular.

Which is a problem with most of these larger music discussions (not just here, but more generally): defining parameters. What's pop? What's rock? What's punk? What's postpunk? What's metal? What's rock n roll? None of those categories matter much when we're making casual comments, but when making more serious, more critical assessments about genres, we can't really go anywhere without a shared foundation.

Much like smut, I know it when I see it.

[Wolter]

The only problem I have is that “pop” as a genre is a vague title, and that’s the only way you can make that argument. The Beatles, Stones, Motown, etc., were all considered pop at certain points in the past, so the substance argument only works if you define specifically what “pop” means as a form vs. what is popular.

Which is a problem with most of these larger music discussions (not just here, but more generally): defining parameters. What's pop? What's rock? What's punk? What's postpunk? What's metal? What's rock n roll? None of those categories matter much when we're making casual comments, but when making more serious, more critical assessments about genres, we can't really go anywhere without a shared foundation.

Part of the reason I only alphabetized all my cds back in the day was because I realized I didn’t know where each genre began and ended.

[Dr. Medulla]

The only problem I have is that “pop” as a genre is a vague title, and that’s the only way you can make that argument. The Beatles, Stones, Motown, etc., were all considered pop at certain points in the past, so the substance argument only works if you define specifically what “pop” means as a form vs. what is popular.

Which is a problem with most of these larger music discussions (not just here, but more generally): defining parameters. What's pop? What's rock? What's punk? What's postpunk? What's metal? What's rock n roll? None of those categories matter much when we're making casual comments, but when making more serious, more critical assessments about genres, we can't really go anywhere without a shared foundation.

Much like smut, I know it when I see it.

Right, which is what I meant with the casual shoot-the-shit stuff we do here. Which is why it normally doesn't cause much conversational friction. But when, say, Heston wants to argue that Nirvana was a heavy metal band, figuring out criteria does matter.