courtesy of last.fm |
I'm the first to admit, I'm, for better or worse, Jack Black in High Fidelity. I've written numerous accounts my trying reconcile my love of weird, obscure, and unheard music (good) with my secret obsession with mainstream pop culture (bad), but the older I get, and the more aware I've become of whose music is seen as art, and whose is seen as commerce, the more I am able to find value in "disposable" pop music. By all means, yes, encourage young women to write songs -- any opportunity for creative expression is a good thing -- but how about not vilifying the Katy Perrys and Ke$has to raise up the Kate Nashes. This isn't directed at the Jezebel (who actually does a pretty good, if somewhat limited, job of promoting female artists), but critics at large who dismiss pop artists as part of "junk" culture.
This, from a grammar, is more about electronica, but can also be applied to any style of music seen as less "substantive" or "organic":
This idea that singing, say electronic pop, automatically means taking up a disempowered, manufactured, pandering role, even if the woman in question is creating everything herself. The slippage involves being more interested in what the muse seems to represent socially that the actual relationship between the female artist and the art she's making.Of course, that's not to say anyone is above criticism, but instead of framing it as "pop music, bad" we could teach young women interested in being performers how to have more control over their image -- their brand -- or some sense of agency in an environment where they are continually devalued.
No comments:
Post a Comment