Hilary Duff: Joy for pre-teens, not just Humbert Humbert

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (876 of them)

I'll also admit that the whole teenpop-as-one-word thing has always irritated the hell out of me and probably figures heavily into my criticism of these threads.

― Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 14 May 2007 23:58 (sixteen years ago) link

Fair enough. I still haven't really figured out why that thread in particular seems to draw such vocal skepticism and "creepy vibe" comments, except for the relationship to the audience. But I really don't think this is it exactly (despite the constant pedophile jokes)...I think it's something harder to define having more to do with what Tim F was talking about above, the "broader context w/r/t how pop and non-pop define themselves (including against eachother)."

I think more people are finding it harder and harder to distinguish btw pop and non-pop the way they conceive(d) of it (at some point, anyway), and there's a lot of latent hostility, or at least confusion, in this sort of incipient anarchy that seems to be hiding just under the surface -- an idea that there's no (one) meaningful way to think about or talk about music socially, institutionally, maybe economically. People read the teenpop thread and they see what amounts to them to be a kind of anarchy (from their structures of respectable rock-crit) and they write it off as irrelevant, or misguided, or reactionary, or (easiest pot shot) creepy. Which is bizarre to me because it's a very welcoming thread, ready to try to meet whoever posts there on his/her own terms. (And, importantly, this doesn't go hand in hand with "conscientious generalism" as Simon Reynolds put it, or "post-modern pop soup" (which is totally perplexing...what does this mean?), or with a "you can like whatever you want to and it's all great yaaay" vibe.)

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:07 (sixteen years ago) link

(that was an xpost to deej)

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:07 (sixteen years ago) link

Well if you're going to literally split hairs about it. "Teen pop" has been widely in use since at LEAST BSB/Britney, or further back to Hanson/Spice, and "teenybopper" has been around forever (in terms of pop music). The one-word thing maybe signals that "teenpop" as definable genre (c. 2000) has sort of come and gone, and now we're doing something of a salvaging act, trying to save the Hopes and Fefes and Skyes from oblivion, since no one else will pay attention to them.

This is a part of what the thread is doing. It's also asking harder questions of the audience that's listening to it and, maybe more commonly, of the audience that isn't listening to it. It's also figuring out what the artists' terms are; usually the artists aren't sure themselves (and plenty of them essentially disown whatever part of their body of work could be classified as "teenpop" on the teenpop thread -- but joke's on them because we'll still talk about them there anyway).

This relates to about a million different assumptions, issues, problems in rock-crit writ large, and it's convenient to have these issues resurface over the course of a long ongoing conversation, instead of playing leap-frog across a million different threads, esp. when it's so hard to find those threads around here in the first place. (And not because they don't exist, but because they're hard to find. Xhuxk can't keep up with the teenpop thread, but I can't keep up with anything other than the teenpop thread.)

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:14 (sixteen years ago) link

"That's a false dichotomy, Duff's latest album is synth pop-ish but I don't think anyone would categorize her so unless she did several more albums like it, and her first hit was a carbon copy of "Complicated." "

Um, my point Alex was that it is a false dichotomy - the artists on the teenpop thread mostly sound a lot like eachother, regardless of the specific instruments/production styles used at any particular point.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:17 (sixteen years ago) link

I'm pretty surprised that people can't see this as a fairly obvious sub-genre or style of music! It seems as self-evident to me as "britpop", say.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:18 (sixteen years ago) link

(Ignore the first part of the first parag, you touched on this in yr post.) xpost to AiB

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:18 (sixteen years ago) link

I know that was your point, I'm just saying it was a poor example.

― Alex in Baltimore, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:20 (sixteen years ago) link

I'll also admit that the whole teenpop-as-one-word thing has always irritated the hell out of me and probably figures heavily into my criticism of these threads

to be perfectly honest i'm not keen on the moniker either, probably because i care less than the others on the thread about how actual teenagers consume the music (this partly because the various sales stats which periodically get quoted show that mostly, they don't). but i'm not keen on terms like "crunk'n'b" or "blog house" or "freak-folk" or any number of silly genre names which float around but i use them b/c it's what gets used and my linguistic quibbles don't really matter compared to enabling people to understand what i'm talking about.

I'm just stating that the idea that teenpop championing might involve some sort of reactionary relationship with other musics has crossed my mind more than once.

this could be aimed at me? i'm the first to admit i have a totally reactionary relationship to ONE genre, indie rock (caveat for the gossip, yeah yeah yeahs, css, any number of indie rock bands i actually like); but given that the teenpop thread is my third most followed after the r&b and minimal house ones, it's not an accusation which really holds water. and there's no one else on the teenpop thread it could possibly apply to!

re: other types of music being discussed - as far as i can tell, given that frank sets the tone, it's often his playground to discuss anything he likes. you say it's creepy* if we talk about lil' mama - what about when we talk about USDA and young jeezy?

*i did a vague headcount a while back and fyi the teenpop thread probably has the most balanced gender ratio on ilm, plus some of the dudes on there are gay, so it's probably the only thread on ilm where straight men are in the minority.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:22 (sixteen years ago) link

i think the lil mama song rules fwiw

― deej, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:23 (sixteen years ago) link

well hopefully there's a point we can all agree on

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:26 (sixteen years ago) link

"I'm pretty surprised that people can't see this as a fairly obvious sub-genre or style of music!"

might have just called it the rolling radio disney thread. i definitely consider radio disney to be a sub-genre! it's the only place you can even hear half that stuff.

― scott seward, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:30 (sixteen years ago) link

that would confuse the brits though!

also HANG ON, TIM, YOU LIKE PANDA BEAR????

:(

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:30 (sixteen years ago) link

Well, there's a subthread of the mainthread of subgenre (er...) called "Rolling Radio Disney," updated whenever I feel like it. If that helps.

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:31 (sixteen years ago) link

i guess if you guys find the teenpop genre useful as a jumpoff point for discussion, go for it. But seriously dude

I think more people are finding it harder and harder to distinguish btw pop and non-pop the way they conceive(d) of it (at some point, anyway), and there's a lot of latent hostility, or at least confusion, in this sort of incipient anarchy that seems to be hiding just under the surface -- an idea that there's no (one) meaningful way to think about or talk about music socially, institutionally, maybe economically. People read the teenpop thread and they see what amounts to them to be a kind of anarchy (from their structures of respectable rock-crit) and they write it off as irrelevant, or misguided, or reactionary, or (easiest pot shot) creepy

this is not it at all. i do not find this 'revolutionary' thinking; i have no problem with people upending the canon, or whatever. i've been through the thinking on anti-rockism and popism and all that, and now would like to look at music i like and discuss music i like in ways that i find interesting.

I don't fear anarchy; i think the reason a lot of people object to the Lex's tone in many threads is because he seems to see himself as consistently stepping across THE LINE of what is acceptable, but it isn't him crossing 'the line' that bothers people; its the idea that he sees this transgression AS a transgression any more, in 2007.

― deej, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:35 (sixteen years ago) link

x-posts - It's a great album Lex! Ned is right in that it's a lot like The Avalanches.

And, um, actually deej is on the money here.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:38 (sixteen years ago) link

deej i don't see anything i post as crossing any line or transgressing anything - this is entirely what people who read it project on to it!

i didn't like the avalanches either...oh well.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:40 (sixteen years ago) link

i don't know your intentions, i'm just explaining how i see people perceive your posts

― deej, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:40 (sixteen years ago) link

also, lex surely you like the avalanches 'ray of zdarlight' thing right?

― deej, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:41 (sixteen years ago) link

if it had come out in '03 it would have been ilx canon material, i think

― deej, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:41 (sixteen years ago) link

the avalanches are ilx canon though aren't they? haven't heard 'ray of zdarlight', i like 'frontier sychiatrist' but their album irritated me

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:43 (sixteen years ago) link

same here. and i'll listen to anything.

― scott seward, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:44 (sixteen years ago) link

if you google ray of zdarlight an mp3 is the first result

― deej, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:46 (sixteen years ago) link

Ned is right in that it's a lot like The Avalanches.

:-) (I mean, I stand by my 'it's middling' judgment, but even so!)

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:47 (sixteen years ago) link

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and strike that parag quoted from the record, but hey why not try it and see if it flies (uh, it doesn't...come to think of it, this is the second time in a week I've failed to make a concept involving "anarchy" stick, maybe I've got anarchy issues).

(I don't really know why people get so bothered about the Lex in the first place, his Ciara interview was great.)

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:48 (sixteen years ago) link

(Although come to think of it again, my point wasn't that we're anarchists, or upending a canon, but that we're perceived to be trying to do this for some reason. But usually Frank is trying to re-establish the regular ol' canon (Stones, Dylan, punk) on his own terms, using teenpop as a way to get people to think about it differently.)

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:50 (sixteen years ago) link

No image bomb intended, just a quick promo spot for the teenpop thread:

http://a856.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/6/l_0d40b3d7bceccb91624916624164b3d7.jpg

― dabug, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:55 (sixteen years ago) link

x-post: Yes, everyone's regular and persistent misinterpretation of Frank on this score is pretty key i reckon.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:56 (sixteen years ago) link

[i]this could be aimed at me?[/i[

No, not specifically, though I will admit to having Kogan's of Montreal review on paper thin walls in mind (which, for some reason, doesn't seem to be in their archive).

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 00:56 (sixteen years ago) link

And Frank would probably say, "But I gave it a good review." But it's the lack of enthusiasm for what seems to me to be great accomplishments, again, in the same postmodern pop-rock stew that teenpop is involved with that puzzles me.

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 01:08 (sixteen years ago) link

You're puzzled that Frank didn't like an album as much as you did?

― Tim F, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 01:23 (sixteen years ago) link

A track. It's not just "didn't like the track as much as I did" - I've found Frank to be puzzling for twenty years!

― Tim Ellison, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 01:46 (sixteen years ago) link

Well, I missed waayyyyy too much of this thread, but regarding the 'teenpop' label, I will say that most (and by 'most,' I'm pretty sure I mean 'all' (except myself)) teenagers don't listen to the music discussed on teenpop. Is that the point? I mean, I'm pretty sure I understand what's considered 'teenpop,' but is it considered that because people think teenagers listen to it, or is it because it's marketed to teens?

Maybe I'm just surrounded by weird teenagers, but they all seem to fit into one of several categories: metal-heads, 'mature' acoustic pop fans (e.g. Guster, O.A.R.), hip hop addicts and other (e.g. Indian music, no music). I'm not aware of a single Aly & AJ fan at my school (maybe a 13-year-old junior high kid?)

― Tape Store, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 04:29 (sixteen years ago) link

Definitely a predominate ethos on the Teenpop forum is: If you can make an argument for inclusion, it's worth discussing (which is probably in relationship to Chuck's Stairway to Heaven, if I were guessing the source). And part of it is definitely about figuring out how teenagers consume music - and part of that is trying to figure out how we consume music now, and consumed music when we were teenagers.

Personally, though, I'd like to think that discussing such a loosely-defined genre, that enjoys so little current mainstream interest, gives a lot of space for interesting discussion. You're held back by less assumptions, etc.

Not to mention the relationship between teenagers and dilettantes, and the question of whether the teenpop thread actually has anything to do with honest-to-god teenagers.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:10 (sixteen years ago) link

But usually Frank is trying to re-establish the regular ol' canon (Stones, Dylan, punk) on his own terms, using teenpop as a way to get people to think about it differently.

Are you sure?

The problem here is that a) the "teenpop" (ugh!) thread is way more interesting than the "teenpop" music, unlike the hoary canon, which contains a lot of great music (even though I may be tired of hearing it -- and hearing about it -- any more after decades and decades of it); b) the dominance of Disney radio/TV synergy is distasteful as hell to me -- it's not far removed from payola, except it's perfectly legal for Disney's right hand to pass money to its left hand.

While this may be one way to "think about it differently", I only see it as tarnishing the canon and canonization to use teenpop product (emaciated music, bland similacrum of canonical memes) as the vehicle. The canon is the canon because it transcended its status as product; teenpop hasn't done this for me.

There's a difference between and 1) music purchased by teens; 2) old-school teenpop (i.e. Frankie Lyman, "ABC", "Candy Girl", Musical Youth, etc.; and 3) music (aggressively) marketed to teens/tweens. Capitalism has brought us the third in recent years, and as long as it works for Disney and its partners and emulators, we're stuck with it.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:20 (sixteen years ago) link

...i.e. while old-school teenpop was part of a whole, and consumed by a wider demo than just teens/tweens, now we have, in a sense, a full-blown teenpop industry.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:24 (sixteen years ago) link

I don't get that the industry is being analyzed so much as the content that the industry is producing.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:26 (sixteen years ago) link

...which smacks more of greed/desperation than art.

xpost to myself

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:28 (sixteen years ago) link

Or not.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:30 (sixteen years ago) link

I'd respond directly, Mark. But I'm not sure what you're saying. Corporate greed ruins artistic vision? Boohoo. Why can't branding be as interesting as - uh - anti-branding?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:31 (sixteen years ago) link

Corporate greed doesn't concern itself with artistic vision. The bottom line is: what the fuck does branding (or anti-branding) have to do with music? I can't hear branding, no matter how interesting it may be.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:37 (sixteen years ago) link

So... music has nothing to do with context? In that case, why does 'music aggressively marketed to tweens/teens' have anything to do with the music?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:40 (sixteen years ago) link

Because music is still ~~the~~ a vehicle for sales.

The "smacks more of greed/desperation" refers to the creation of a distinct new revenue stream for Disney, et al.; there's little or no "artistic vision" involved -- it's a notch or two above ringtones-as-a-new-revenue-stream.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:44 (sixteen years ago) link

I think if you asked Aly + AJ, or Hannah Montana, if they had artistic vision, they'd say yes. Are you saying that because their employer doesn't feel the same way Aly + AJ's artistic vision shouldn't be examined?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:46 (sixteen years ago) link

I think if you asked Aly + AJ, or Hannah Montana, if they had artistic vision, they'd say yes.

But they'd be bullshitting you, whether they understand that or not. This is press-release language obscuring the fact that this is emaciated music, pure product.

I'm just saying you're scraping the bottom of the barrel if you insist on the importance of exploring Aly + AJ's "artistic vision", when there's a thousand years of music out there, much of it with more artistic vision than that of any t(w)eenpop star.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 08:53 (sixteen years ago) link

But they'd be bullshitting you, whether they understand that or not. This is press-release language obscuring the fact that this is emaciated music, pure product.

I get that you believe this. I just don't get why.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 09:00 (sixteen years ago) link

Aly and AJ's music doesn't sound remotely emaciated to me: if anything I find it too intense, too sincere, the overlap of their voices can be kind of suffocating.

They're a good example of an act I'd never have heard were it not for the Teenpop critics writing about them interestingly and pointing out stuff in their songs, actually.

Do I like them as much as Dylan or the Stones or the Beatles? No. But I like them more than 95% of the contemporary acts I see talked about here.

I think you're deluding yourself Mark if you think that aggressive marketing to teens and tweens is a modern phenomenon: the difference now isn't that its more sophisticated* - it's that new communications tech allows it to be much much more targeted. Which in turn is why people outside the target demo looking in and trying to relate to it seems "creepy" I think: targeted marketing is designed to exclude as much as include.

*(huge chunks of this stuff simply doesn't sell well, if judged by the standards required to launch most other consumer goods "pure products" the teenpop marketers are chumps and failures, with the exception of whoever came up with HSM)

― Groke, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 09:02 (sixteen years ago) link

how do you know/why do you assume aly & aj are bullshitting us? on what basis are you so certain that their music is emaciated pure product?

because all acts working within this umbrella of "pop music" are in the same position. the vast majority will claim they are artists. the vast majority are also, to their record companies, a vehicle for sales, and in every case their image and the way they're marketed can be as important as the actual music. you may as well dismiss beyoncé, or TI, or lcd soundsystem, or joanna newsom, or bjork, as emacaiated pure product for all the logical sense it makes.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 09:06 (sixteen years ago) link

Lex I don't think it's unfair to suggest there are different marketing strategies for the acts you mention and for most teenpop acts. I don't think Mark's denying that they're "product" on some level - he's suggesting that they have qualities that transcend product-ness.

I think however that he's bullshitting us, whether he understands this or not - the distinction he's actually making is between "product I like" and "product I don't", or maybe between "premium product" and "mass market product". (One of the interesting things about music as a market is that the standard differentiator of premium-ness - price - doesn't vary an awful lot, so other differentiators come into play.)

― Groke, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 09:15 (sixteen years ago) link

xpost

The aggressive marketing is nothing new (I was 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16 years old, at various times in the past); that wasn't what I said. But having a whole (non-)genre of music, a whole category of marketing devoted to this -- that's the new wrinkle (definition #3 of the definitions mentioned above).

And I think it's genius, but from a business standpoint only.

That not all of it sells well is par for the course in popular music. But it's only en masse a failure if the Disney Channel and Radio Disney get out of the music biz.

― mark 0, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 09:16 (sixteen years ago) link

Skipping 776 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.