- Adele’s single is the musical equivalent of the desire for experiential homogeneity that Trump satisfies
I stole this from another Hubski user who was foolish enough to put in on Facebook before Hubski. Silly, don't you know that's where I find all my Hubski posts?
Also, this article makes me feel even better about hating on "Hello."
The first time I heard this hello song I thought it was a katy perry song. The second time I heard it, later that same day, I could have sworn it was a Lady gaga song not realizing that it was the same song. Yes, I was mocked for this as we all went through Fark's Adelle love fest a few years ago. Pop music is designed to be soulless ear-wormy empty carbs. This is why I listen mostly to death metal and classical; I want good instruments, skilled musicians, and (if they exist) lyrics that have some meaning.
tfw you're the Hubski user in question. Anyway. This was an incredibly interesting article to me. Adele is, at face value, one of the blandest and most predictable songwriters and performers in all of music. The point is made in the article that this done in "Hello" through the songwriting and production itself, which I think is a great point. Listen to "Hello". Does this sound like a song from 2015? Not at all, it has a complete lack of any influence from say 1980 on, there's nothing even close to hinting to punk, rap, electronic, anything other than pop music dating back to when 60s. And yet, when you talk to people who have liked this song, they all seem to have loved it. I've tried voicing displeasure with Adele and it's gone...okay. There is very much a unification among Adele fans, how else would she be able to sell out huge arenas in the West? From trying to articulate this to people, I've been met with a lot of opposition and friction, like it's not a natural thing to actively be disinterested in her and her music. If we are to say we enjoy Adele because of the purity and cleanness, the "natural" sound of her production, then what does that say about our valuation of white culture to other cultures? Even if it's not an explicitly "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to Adele, it does show a gravitation towards conservatism and "whiteness". I will grant that there are people who simply like a good pop song. But to dig deeper and look at why Adele is insanely popular while musicians like SZA, Shamir, etc. are not goes down to musical conservatism and favoritism of things that are safer, more in line with our expectations of music and culture. Relating it explicitly to White Supremacist might be going a little far, but the point is there.I stole this from another Hubski user who was foolish enough to put in on Facebook before Hubski.
"The problem with “Hello” and Trump is that they frame whiteness as the “natural” horizon against which all differences appear unnatural, disgusting, and unfit for inclusion in their “us.”"
People who respond emotionally to “Hello” share the same interpretive horizon, the same set of implicit knowledges, habits, patterns of communication, intuitions, and so on. If this response is so natural that it transcends language, culture, even species, then people who don’t share this response must have a defective, unnatural interpretive horizon—one that’s illiberal, incapable of the tolerance for difference that good liberal subjects and societies must demonstrate. (This parallels European stereotypes of Muslim immigrants as illiberal, intolerant of secularism and women’s rights.) Here, liberalism isn’t a consciously articulated political view, but a quality of one’s intuitive, affective, non-conceptual orientation to the world.
I effin hate "Hello." It makes me angry. People in my life kept coming up to me, going, "Don't you love Hello?" My response to it is that no, that there's no one in my life who I want to speak with that I no longer speak with. I don't know. The people I want to have in my life have always managed to come back into my life. I think the song is sentimental and seeks to pull emotion out of its listeners in a cheap way. That being said, I couldn't break down why or how I feel this way, but it's very similar to how I began to feel about the re-boot of Doctor Who after I got through the first 4 seasons of it or so. I began to feel used. I think it's because both are clearly going for the gut and the heartstrings...which would be fine, except if you take a step back, their aim is so clear. It's clear from the start both of these "items" (for lack of a better categorization) are winding up to leave you with a punch in the gut. But what I find is that it hurts a lot more, and a lot more really, when I don't see that punch coming.
If you hate on a pop song it's a different side of liking the pop song. If it was so innocuous then there would be nothing to hate about it. Tragedy requires greatness. She's a good singer, and she makes little heartbreak pop songs, but I get the feeling if she was on an indie label people around here would be creaming their pants to tell people all about this unknown starlet.
Bet she'd sound different if she were on an indie label, maybe, tho'. Hate, like - both are interest and both elicit a reaction, so in that way, yes, they're different sides of the same thing (generating discussion about the song/creating plays, etc). In a similar way to how everyone mocked Drake's dancing in Hotline Bling which actually caused more people to listen to (and watch the video for) Hotline Bling than if no one had cared. I'm still paying attention to "Hello." However, it would have been impossible for me to have lived in ignorance (true apathy) of the song due to my friend group and multiple people going, "OMG, have you heard the new Adele song/omg it's soooo goood," etc. I don't think tragedy requires greatness, I think it requires potential. A youth dying is tragic; an octogenarian dying is expected. It is easier to qualify as "tragedy" the greater the magnitude of impact, which is where your greatness comes in. But that is really a discussion of universality, not greatness or tragedy. I dislike this statement, but as I almost never bother to share music or, I confess, listen to the music recommendations that show up around here, I suppose I cannot speak to it. I do not even open the weekly music threads. (Whoever's running them now - I think they're a great thing - but they're just not what I am looking for out of my Hubski or internet experience.) I get the feeling if she was on an indie label people around here would be creaming their pants to tell people all about this unknown starlet.
Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people pretend that a youth dying is tragic but really it's happening right now and no one cares, but a dying octogenarian who is your grandmother would be tragic. That's what I mean when I say greatness. You have to have some skin in the game. She may sound different on an indie (although XL is actually an indie label, but a big one, it's kind of a made up term really), but I don't really buy into the idea that an indie (read: small) label offers much that a big label doesn't. Rick Rubin produced her album. That's a boon that an indie can't offer. And if you look over the weekly music thread, the most well-known bands on there this week are Steely Dan (with the caveat that it's a boring band to even mention), The Allman Brothers (which has the one boop that everyone in the thread gets), and Motorhead (because Lemmy died). I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that's the 'into-music-music scene' way. Why tell people about bands they're already aware of? So mainstream stuff doesn't get brought up as it's assumed that people already know about it. Regardless of how much better it might be than what does get brought up.
My thought is that the difference between a true indie label and a major one is oversight; aka artistic freedom. That probably sounds idealistic or naive. I also feel, again probably romantically, that artists on indie labels require more breadth and ability to their artistry: there are those pop stars that write their own songs (as well as songs for others - see Ke$ha) but I think on a major label with a big enough following or representment, there are also artists that skate by without those skills, whereas I think in the indie world you can't really survive that way unless you are doing really, really great covers. And then I think people will know you aren't writing your own songs and I think that will be added as a caveat to your rep when people talk about you. Of course, you are also very right in that major labels afford artists contacts and opportunities that indie ones don't or can't. And I'm right there with you about how indie/major label has become a meaningless term - when taken and used literally to refer to the size of the label. However, I think "indie" also represents a kind of sound quality (or lack of sound quality) and artist mentality. I am thinking of Kings of Leon when I think of bands that were indie bands and then went major label. I think going major label definitely impacted their sound. It is popular to say KoL "sold out," isn't it? Although if you wanted to, you could cover and say they just refined. Death Cab used to be super staticky-alt and they refined their sound w/in the first four albums and haven't majorly changed it since. What you describe in the music thread - I find that a positive, mainly because I think the alternative is r/music where, if you post the right everyone-knows-it song at the right time, it shoots straight up to the top because everyone doesn't have to listen, doesn't have to think or form an opinion, and everyone just upvotes mindlessly because of course Bohemian Rhapsody is a great song. To me that is more worthless. It is like saying "The Great Gatbsy" is a great book. Sure it is, but no one had to think or care to make that statement. No one's skin is on the line, to get back to your first thought. At least by asserting I dislike "Hello" I get challenged on that viewpoint and have to back it up somehow. I have to think my opinion through instead of just enjoying the song because it's Adele and sad and sometimes, sob, I'm sad too.
So for me music has to pass one of two tests before I start looking deeper into it. I have to hear it and think, "Oh man, that's really good," like I did with Dizzee Rascal and R.A. the Rugged Man, or it has to survive a few years and bring me back to it. Just looking through the share some music post, I didn't hear anything in the top half of the post that's going to pass either of those tests. There's simply too much music out that doesn't have to pass the 'Will anyone buy this?' test because the barrier to entry in music is soooo damn low right now. You can literally record and distribute your own album for such a low cost that there's no one that has to ever approve of you. That's too much artistic freedom because you are never forced to learn technique, and few people have the discipline or resources to teach themselves. It's not that music suffers or anything but it does create a lot of noise that makes it hard to sift through to get to something that will stand the test of time better. As for Kings of Leon, they've never held my attention, and I really tried to listen to both of those songs to see if they label influence would have brought the band closer to what I prefer. But even the label didn't change my mind on them, it's just not my thing. Neither is Adele. And I really like pop music in general. Especially Ke$ha. r/music does suck. And it's because it's a default which means it's just going to mirror that age demographic's popular opinion. So many people say they're "into music" but have nothing to say outside of top 40. It's an identity thing more than an actual hobby. Like people who say they're into poetry and only ever read half of Leaves of Grass in English class. Speaking of r/poetry I just looked and the top posts right now are Bukowski (OMG he said sperm!), Whitman, and I shit you not, Shakespeare.
I wrote up this big comment and I'm posting it because hey, I went through all that effort, but it needs this caveat, which is that I don't disagree with anything in your comment at all. I thought maybe I did, at first, but really, we're not saying very different things now that I have written it all out. So since you mentioned it, I'm going to draw some parallels between music and poetry and use them to guide my thoughts! First, I absolutely agree: Anyone can get a poem published somewhere, just as anyone can put a song up on YouTube, even if it's pure and utter crap. The barrier to entry is basically the same too: you can put anything up on YouTube, you can put anything up on your blog. And that "publication" means absolutely nothing because yeah, no one vetted your work, no one had to like it, and so on. It does create a lot of noise - IF you are using YouTube to find new bands to listen to, if you are reading anything in the blogosphere tagged "poetry" in the hopes of finding good verse. However, thank god, we have music blogs and websites and poetry journals and suchlike to sift through the sweaty, non-deodorized filth for us. (As a former reader for a poetry journal, oh what filth there sometimes was! And there is something you didn't specifically say but I think is there underneath your text, which is: how disheartening sifting through shit is. It is exhausting, thankless, and will make one cynical if not utterly fed up.) There are "little" music blogs, like the Swollen Fox and there are big sites like Pitchfork. Or, for poetry, a small press like one of my favorites, FLAPPERHOUSE, and large snooty presses like the Poetry Foundation. I personally think the smaller sites have a lot more to offer, such as personality and freshness, that the large ones don't. The large ones are not dissimilar from r/music: they will publish and gush about big names simply because they are big names, not because they are doing anything new or interesting. They also can get elitist, pompous, and snooty. Everyone secretly wants to get featured by them even if they hate and rage against them. Because a feature in Pitchfork or Poetry means you're really real, and you've Arrived. You are an undeniable success. Pop music is like Pitchfork or Poetry. I think there is a lot of very good pop music out there. I too am a huge Ke$ha fan. I think that being Pop, or mainstream, gives an artist considerable short-term advantage in market but that doesn't necessarily carry over to long-term at all. I suspect you might agree. I absolutely read the Poetry Foundation even though it's "Pop" - but I find I build relationships with the small presses. To me I value them more because I know that real honest genuine sweat has gone into every page of every issue, that every sale/donation really makes an impact to their bottom line, etc. I was recently chastised for having "too many publications in small presses" and I was like, girl do you even know. Like, don't you dare look down on some magazine because it hasn't been established for 50 years. At one point neither was the Poetry Foundation. We've both totally wandered in this discussion but I've enjoyed it. If I found a song or a poem I enjoyed, you're right, it wouldn't matter what press or label got it to my attention. But I definitely care about supporting the smaller ones more. I guess because of that I'm more likely to seek out "indie" music than pop - but since pop is ubiquitous, there's no real need to seek it out. It will come my way nonetheless. I f'in love Ke$ha, and some pop. "Hotline Bling" is my jam, man. Saying you are "into music" is like saying you "like to laugh and have fun" in a dating profile. Do you know a single person who doesn't like to laugh? Hey, at least that means people in r/poetry are reading Shakespeare. or come on, let's be honest: at least they are all reading the title and upvoting without clicking the link because they see "Shakespeare" and it reinforces their mental idea of "good poetry" without requiring them to digest any content or think about anything.
Before I continue, can anyone independently verify that this is a thing? Because I flipped through one of the six channels available to me while I was working on The Awful Show and caught like 30 seconds of the SNL sketch mentioned (the first time I'd watched SNL since... like... Sinead O'Connor was burning the pope) before flipping on, and just to see, looked up the song on Youtube and listened all the way through (before unmuting Shpongle). So... I don't have any skin in this game but the above is horrifying if true.To be clear: I’m not arguing anything about Adele herself, nor about all possible interpretations of “Hello,” but about a liberal one that dominates media coverage of the song. This particular strain of “Hello” fandom is about the pleasure in sharing a common interpretive horizon, a common underlying set of habits, intuitions, and bodily orientations to the world.
It's a big, dumb, universal pop song. Really, it's a Journey track, or a Lionel Ritchie track. Considering how few big, dumb, universal pop songs we have any more, it's not surprising that people are reacting to it like it's 1984. Which is the point of the article: Donald Trump has big, dumb, universal ideas that happen to be throwbacks to "Country Time remembers" era White America.
I think this is one of the main reasons I prefer listening to instrumental music. I don't like it when people attempt to reason my beliefs or ideas by interpreting the lyrics of music I don't even know the lyrics to and just like the way it sounds. I don't know if I've heard Adele's Hello before but I just listened to it. I don't really like pop music, but this song has some serious quality to it. I also have no idea what the lyrics are other than "Hello from the Other Side". I remember a time when I was a teenager that I bought one of the first ever MP3 players invented (Rio?). I put about 30 songs on it (that's all it could fit, I had to downgrade the bitrate to 48kbps just to get those 30 on it, too), and once my mother took it from me to listen to my music (against my will). She just so happened to hear two songs on it that involved suicide and criticized my choice in music and took it away from me for a month. It didn't matter, I had a computer filled with thousands of songs on it still, but it did inconvenience me in that I couldn't listen to 30 songs in my pocket with a screechy high pitched twang to it (48kbps really damages audio). I don't know where I was going with this.