Note: grill may not be platinum.
Blood's been boilin' today.
1. Sam Ubl just reviewed the new Brooke Hogan single over at Pitchfork. A few Forkers have been liberally dishing this sort of bullshit out lately, tendencies that I thought had generally died down. But no:
But this production, like all [Storch's] others, remains a vanity affair, top 40 hit qua exotic luxury item, not unlike space shuttle tourism. Call it a challenge: How much flavor can a producer whip up using utterly insipid ingredients?
And the kicker:
You already know Svengali-ism is a lousy, dishonest way of doing business, even when its product is worth listening to, because it tends to reinforce gender hierarchies. So how's this: This song's capital offense is not being terrible enough. The hook's a fluttery trifle, pitch-corrected to appease, and listenable out the wazoo. It's gainfully inoffensive, and that's worse than terrible.
I don't like this song, and I think it would be difficult to write a particularly enthusiastic review of it. To start with a minor gripe, he doesn't mention that the reason Hogan has four-inch lenses in her mouth in the first place (her affectation, "fo'-inch lens," is given a free pass): she won Best Grill at the Teen Choice Awards, people!
Anyway. Let me pull up my counter-armchair here and suggest that what's being attacked isn't a specific production, but a mode of production -- specifically, a fantasy mode of production that sets up an easy release of moral outrage, not unlike much of the recent press on the new Paris Hilton album. This argument assumes (1) Brooke Hogan is a lump of clay entirely at the mercy of her "Svengalis" (and I saw her record one of these songs on her show, I can assure you she was present and scribbling down lyrics and/or a list of sex toys), (2) This way of making music is symptomatic of a greater evil, (3) this evil produces or perpetuates gender heirarchies, (4) the resulting music of this evil must be so terrible as to announce its evilness and should not aspire to the category of "listenable."
So (1) is right out. No amount of pitch-correction negates a performance (that's what she's here for, I checked -- Brooke Hogan is listed on this track as the performer, not the producer). And Brooke's performance is weak. Her range is nil and her voice gives when she goes for the high notes. Anyway, she's really only featured on this track. Paul Wall dominates, kind of like "Fighting Over Me" on the Paris album (which is also probably the least useful track to judge her vocal performance).
(2) doesn't make any sense if (1) is a gross misrepresentation of how this evil process actually works. If the "evil" is the ability of rich women (or men -- someone must be able to find a male-bought "vanity project" somewhere in the history of pop music?) to use their inherited money to launch pop careers, I don't see how it's any different than if anyone else put up the money. The basic "system" of pop production (writers, performers, producers, distributors, etc.) is unchanged. No matter how much she spends, Brooke Hogan can never buy a great voice, even if she has the best technology money can buy, because singing isn't always about hitting the right notes (or having a computer hit them for you, if this is actually the case) -- maybe company money wouldn't take a chance on a star that can't sing. But some stars technically sing poorly and still offer something enjoyable or exciting; some sing well but have zero personality. Maybe heiress-pop is simply more prone to blandness and ugliness than non-heiress pop, in which case the system isn't evil, it simply produces bad music. That's the real problem Ubl is having here: this system is capable of producing good music: the song isn't terrible enough. It might follow, then, that it is not terrible. It might even be good (though I wouldn't argue that this song is good). And if that were true...well, what happens when born-rich women finance their own pop careers and succeed not only financially, but artistically? What does Sam Ubl lose?
(3) Hm, the assertion that Svengalism produces gender hierarchies isn't followed up with any additional words. I guess he didn't really mean it. (Kara DioGuardi is a Svengali in this context, isn't she? Which isn't to say there aren't gender hierarchies in the production of pop music -- or indie rock or hip-hop or anywhere else.)
(4) Let's go back to that other question...Frank Kogan asks what do people gain by believing what they believe -- well, what do they lose if Brooke Hogan or Paris Hilton or [woman born rich] succeeds, not in the sense of making even more money (though this is frequently invoked as a reason for dismissal; a friend of mine just did it yesterday, and he's not necessarily wrong, I suppose, maybe ignoring Brooke Hogan will make her go away), but in the sense of it being enjoyable, asking you to respond to Brooke or Paris enthusiastically, actually wanting her music, finding joy or comfort in it or the opportunity to dance or sing along, undeniably LIKING her, even if only in a small fraction of her public life that you're familiar with. Ubl doesn't want to like this song, and is actually offended that he can't like it less. He believes it is music to be despised and should therefore facilitate his despising it -- by portraying the process as he does, he's able to justify hating it [the process] regardless of whether or not it produces a song he might like (or at least find "gainfully inoffensive"). Some time ago I used the phrase "Hate the sin, love the single"; same idea, project whatever "sin" you like.
I think that's an interesting reaction to a song, but it needs to be dealt with honestly before science fiction (the computers are taking over, maaaaaan) and puppetmasters and gender hierarchies enter the picture.
2. The WAR ON LINDSAY continues in Fashion Rocks magazine:
Despite the fact that [Lohan] has two pop albums under her belt, it was not entirely clear that she could really sing.
THE COMPUTERS! TRUST NO ONE!
The funniest oversight is the idea that they couldn't have used COMPUTERS COMPUTERS on her voice in Prairie Home Companion (the evidence provided that she can, in fact, sing).
And the weirdest part is that Lindsay actually supports the War Against Her:
You know, I've been singing my whole life, so it was nice to actually sing rather than do a record where I'm screaming.
I can't help but think this is slightly out of context, sarcasm (or something) removed. Maybe just a jab at some of the more overwrought moments on her second album? Even in the "Confessions" video where it looks like she's screaming she's not...
3. ABBA SAVES THE ESTONIAN ECONOMY!
Just got this email:
Apparently the only reason Estonia was able to have positive growth rates was because right after liberation it hired the former manager of Abba to make up the country's policies on privatization. So basically Estonia is the Abba of countries.
Wait, that's still Sweden, right?
The article is here (gah Times Select!). Currently kvetching about this sentence: "He [former Prime Minister Mart Laar] was 32 years old and had read just one book on economics: "Free to Choose," by Milton Friedman, which he liked especially because he knew Friedman was despised by the Soviets."
And also by people who are evil and misogynistic enough to enjoy heiress-pop. Would Milton Friedman dig Paris Hilton's new album? Hmmmm...
No comments:
Post a Comment