Login
I don't know, but I love my witty titles.
And I just feel like I have to ask, because I think this guy could win an award for the most unmerited hostility from others.
And I mean, look, it might not be a masterpiece the way that "Pet Sounds" is a fucking masterpiece, but that's an unreasonable standard.
Because I guess what bothers me the most is the critic who has this condescending manner which is meant to be mistaken for "objectivity", when in fact what is carefully called "good" in this 'high-minded' way can only be called that because it fits inside of their own narrow tastes. But even though they call their affectation just criticism, their only available emotional response to criticism, or anything that does not sit well with them, is to either act like they are too far away to be affected by your little antics-- and to some people anything even vaguely creative is merely disruptive-- or to turn feral with hostility.... and with some people this is their only response. Actually, much of what we call out intellectual life is merely 'polite' talk about bloodshed-- it is amazing how deeply social life is made to bend towards antisocial behavior and people who are not really interested in being polite. But with some people crime and war are all you are allowed to talk about. Peace and love come across as a bad joke at best.
Anyway. I suppose that a genuine interest or, maybe better yet, a feeling of obligation toward the truth, would force us to admit that there is some part of us that wishes to reject Justin because he can cause us feelings of embarrassment, and especially if you try to actually identify with him on some level. But it just seems a little weak to be compelled to reject someone because of an embarrassment.
Which leads us to the question of what he did wrong. Did he do anything wrong? What did he do wrong? To change the burden of proof is to change the entire conversation.
For example, I'd say that "All Around The World" is a reference to "Mindless Behavior", although chronologically speaking it seems to be the other way around, if anything. But the point is, it's the first song of the album, and it features Ludacris. So what did he do wrong, from that point of view. Is it, being Canadian? Or going to a French Canadian school? You can turn it around several different ways, but he seems to have reached out in several different directions, while still being one person-- who has a reputation of most extreme simplicity-- which is something an achievement, isn't it?
And the thing is, the thing at the bottom is-- in 1964, there weren't many Beatles fans with names like John, Paul, and George. And in fact, I think that my grandfather still hasn't listened to them, although I could be wrong. The point is that some people are such Mantovani people that even Paul McCartney is a really unlikely stretch for them-- and I mean that in a very general way.
But yeah, it comes back to that for me-- in 1964, there weren't many Beatles fans with names like John, Paul, and George.
So, is that preferable?
I mean, alot of people think that "Downton Abbey" is very intellectual, but it only takes a little honest reflection, (and maybe a little courage), to see that we don't want to re-create the past. Some things never change-- people fall in love, get married, have children.... and some people do this better than others, and some people lack the patience, really, I think-- but historical circumstance certainly isn't a model that we can just admire. And especially not before, say, 1962. Sometimes it can be good to remember that before WWII you're looking at things that are contemporary with certain other things-- which would run counter to the idea that you should value antiquity in historical time for its own sake. I mean, it's one thing to drink tea-- *very* old, and not just a certain historical relic-- and another to do it on this very exacting Victorian model and reject more modern experiences, simply because these seem to be common.
Love is irrational, but so is admiring a society that would have put you in the servant's quarters and *looked down on you* unless you were (in the position to be) in full agreement with the British chauvinism of 1890, and more irrational still to celebrate the modest and partial challenges offered to this system by 1914, but to ignore things happening right now that are so different that even right now they are more likely to be looked on some sort of mental illness. Maybe Adele would have been called.... but, who cares, really. And it might seem irrational to pass over Jane Austen (writing about the most observational-comedy material she had available to her) from the escape-from-love-into-history thing, but.... "Vanity, not love, has been my folly."
So that's why, the next time you see a girl wearing a 'Belieber' shirt, you should smile instead of smirk.
.... "Then I saw her face, now I'm a believer...."
Oh, but that was the Monkees!
They tell Justin that he can't be cool like old-school rock-- the Monkees, and they told the Monkees that they couldn't be cool like the Beatles, and, to be honest, they gave the Beatles a hell of a lot of grief too.
Bieber can be cool like the Monkees, though.
{After all, the only way to change the deep collective unconsciousness is to actually be different.}
...............
And, you know, some Monkees albums are great and others are okay; I'm just saying that you don't have to throw broken bottles at them and call them names.
(8/10)
