sam smith: another adele/emeli sandé or something more interesting?

i'll probably end up kinda liking haim in ten years, yknow. they're a world apart from the horror of sam smith

wasn't meant to be a binary. there's a heavy intersection, as I said, but 'pop' is the artistic process, whereas venal careerist cunts like sam smith who nominally trade in 'pop' are the charmless exploiter-figures who happen to have colonised *part* of pop & i have no idea why ILM pays them any serious attention at all, except as case-studies of stardom-seeking privileged above artistic creation (another phenomenon of our times!)

― Who whom kissed? (imago), Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:58 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I have limited interest in this guy (though I am intrigued that andy k appears to like his album) but I think the idea that all these pop stars who veer adult-contemporary are just soulless corporate hacks is itself a product of wishful thinking about what our generation (in the broad sense) is "into", as if this sound can only be the product of corporate perversion of artistic intentions.

I fully believe that Smith is making the music he wants to make, and is being "true" to himself in a way that recording a whole album with Disclosure/Naughty Boy etc. would not be.

I'm just not dying with anticipation to hear the result.

venal careerist cunts like sam smith who nominally trade in 'pop' are the charmless exploiter-figures who happen to have colonised *part* of pop

case-studies of stardom-seeking privileged above artistic creation (another phenomenon of our times!)

none of these terms seem to make a lot of structural sense, art vs non art, non venal vs venal pop stars, careerist vs non careerist pop stars, the pop world which is colonized vs that part of it where its autochthons get along really well with one other, sam smith's debilities occur at the level of talent, the rest is implying dark motives and hideous character defects to one dumb looking face

i like your attack but it's too conspiratorial in this instance

I don't think - or I can't detect that - there was an artistic intention beyond wanting 'to be a star' through the most direct available route. Obviously he'll have music he prefers, music he's grown up with, but I genuinely think he's chosen to play the music he thinks will make him the most famous. For all I know he's a big Miles Davis fan, but isn't learning the trumpet any time soon. Of course, I can't prove his intentions, and ultimately his music is ours to interpret. But there are ways of veering adult-contemporary, and on my two listens through the single that began this thread I couldn't detect any sophistication at all. You may disagree.

Debility of talent is a symptom of wanting the buck of stardom too easy, maybe?

venal/careerist/artistic = a question of degree not a binary, yes

Any and all concerns about venality, non-art and the corporate machinations that have put him on the radio are secondary to the fact that I just don't think his music is very good. No need to bring arbitrarily constructed dichotomies between artistic creation and stardom-seeking into this.

I find it amusing that imago can't relate to this music on any level and yet pretends to have privileged insight into the mind of its makers.

dude, I can guarantee that literally everyone in this thread being set up as the supposed "artistic" "alternative" to sam smith who is signed to a major has people at that label involved in their career whose primary goal is making money

Yeah, but I'm perhaps trying to ascribe his music's badness to his degree of inveiglement within such processes (I know there are 'corporate popstars' who make decent or even good music, but for me the stink of demographic planning drips from his every facet). His stardom has been a really, really quick fix IMO.

I can relate to it! It had a big, dumb, sad tune and the lyrics appealed to big, simple emotions that I and everyone experience, albeit in much more complex ways. Then it lost my interest.

I don't think Sam Smith shows any sign of working against or even parallel to the wishes of his kingmakers, unlike many popstars. Unlike even Justin fkn Bieber!

justin bieber currently seems to have as sound a careerist instinct as miles davis or xenakis did

there are always questions of degree and it isn't altogether clear that this smith nudnik is so much more careerist than whichever luminary

plus there's a bit more going on in "stay with me" than "for all who want a lover to stay with them" -- not saying that "oops, I did it again, I crave intimacy from this one-night stand" is academy award-level characterization, but it is a bit more nuanced than that

iirc the pre-fame track that was floating around a while back was astonishingly bad.

lj isn't it easier to think that maybe sam smith makes bad music coz he isn't a very interesting or thoughtful or talented guy, all reasons behind people making bad music from the least commercial to the most.

why am I defending sam smith this is awful

To clarify: I didn't bring those artists into this because I think they provide a more artistic alternative to sam smith or anyone else, I just think they make far more compelling music.

(One of) Pop music's strengths is getting across complex emotional states and boiling them down to a simple but effective message. Sometimes all you need is "I wanna dance with somebody who loves me". Whether or not it works is down to things like the strength of the performance and the song. Smith just doesn't convince me to invest. The tune can be big and sad, the lyrics can be simple and that all can still work. Just doesn't here imo.

Not really interested in whether he gets along with his "kingmakers".

Fair, good post.

I will close my attack by saying, in response to Merdeyeux, that "he isn't a very interesting or thoughtful or talented guy" surely feeds into his artistic motivations too, but we're getting too far from the text here, I suppose, which is where my argument falls apart

go back, read all Tim's posts, think about what you've done

Terrible artist; interesting thread.

I just finished reading Bedsit Disco Queen yesterday, and one of the strongest take-home messages from that book was: the idea that you can read an artist's "intentions" based on your concepts of their (perceived) audience is one of the most misguided ways you can approach music.

Now I'm going to have to go and scrub my browser to get the Daily Mail's cookies off it. Ugh. :-/

the phraseology "[artist x] is [music/film/literature] for [snarky description of perceived monolithic fanbase]" is one of the very worst there is

interestingly enough one of the few major outlets to really persist with it is vice (fucking self-appointed voice of a generation clive martin, ughhhh)

half-wondering if with that fiendishly bland opening post dyl always intended to be the montresor to imago's fortunato

jingle jingle

it mined an incredibly simple chord-progression

LOL

If only this was more like "Tales of Topographic Oceans"

So to paraphrase imago's posts here, he believes that artists shouldn't have money on their mind and should be doing it, doing it for the love?

I think the better response to that song is 'that's a terrible false dichotomy that helps prop up a world of unpaid internships where whole careers are virtually out of reach for people who aren't backed up by rich parents' rather than 'I don't believe you'.

the phraseology "[artist x] is [music/film/literature] for [snarky description of perceived monolithic fanbase]" is one of the very worst there is

i agree! but i don't do it myself.

sam smith is afaict about stardom, which is a metaphor for money, and not even that if you're on his exec team. but he does perpetuate the Great Lie that 'it could be you'

rtc that has left me floored btw

jfc

plodding, earnest, totally sincere and in love with the music soulboys have been mooning around the UK music scene since the year dot

that's a powerful projector you got there

lol that post was over-exasperated, dial it back a bit

I can relate to it! It had a big, dumb, sad tune and the lyrics appealed to big, simple emotions that I and everyone experience, albeit in much more complex ways. Then it lost my interest.

I tend to think of this as the reverse-magic-trick fallacy: when we hear music that we want to dismiss, our experience is of seeing through it, like we're watching a magician's show but can see the wires: "I can see why other people like it, but really it's just X, there's no magic here."

But this "seeing through" is not the same as "seeing" at all.

It's only when we begin to actually relate to music - that is, to position ourselves in relation to it - that music begins to seem infused with that quality of genuine connection that we associate with music that we're into.

This can be instantaneous, the first time we hear a piece of music, or it might take some time to work, or it might never happen. Typically, the more primed you are to believe something (typically because you're already invested in the stylistic signifiers) the faster that effect.

But I can think of countless examples of stuff I dismissed in this way and then much later fell in love with, became enchanted by, as if I was watching the same trick but somehow I couldn't see the wires or anymore, and I was convinced by the magic.

Not saying this will ever happen to anyone in this thread with Sam Smith, but I think as a general rule the critical stance of "I get it but I don't like it, and I don't like it because I get it" should be approached with some care for the above reason.

half-wondering if with that fiendishly bland opening post dyl always intended to be the montresor to imago's fortunato

lol i didn't imagine he would even bother wandering into this thread! but it has made for an interesting read in the end.

in pace requiescat.

also xps to monotony above i'll agree that his fairly casual coming-out has been somewhat heartening even if it did seem very deliberately unfurled

I dunno, I sorta feel like if record company strategy had been brought to bear on the issue he wouldn't always look like he's in theatre make-up.

I tend to think of this as the reverse-magic-trick fallacy: when we hear music that we want to dismiss, our experience is of seeing through it, like we're watching a magician's show but can see the wires: "I can see why other people like it, but really it's just X, there's no magic here."

But this "seeing through" is not the same as "seeing" at all.

It's only when we begin to actually relate to music - that is, to position ourselves in relation to it - that music begins to seem infused with that quality of genuine connection that we associate with music that we're into.

This can be instantaneous, the first time we hear a piece of music, or it might take some time to work, or it might never happen. Typically, the more primed you are to believe something (typically because you're already invested in the stylistic signifiers) the faster that effect.

But I can think of countless examples of stuff I dismissed in this way and then much later fell in love with, became enchanted by, as if I was watching the same trick but somehow I couldn't see the wires or anymore, and I was convinced by the magic.

Not saying this will ever happen to anyone in this thread with Sam Smith, but I think as a general rule the critical stance of "I get it but I don't like it, and I don't like it because I get it" should be approached with some care for the above reason.

― Tim F, Saturday, June 14, 2014 1:07 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ah Tim! must you ever be the rock upon which I am fated to dash myself

Is imago l0u1s jagg3r? I haven't been keeping up

do I scent the musty approach of a well-worn ad hominem

I don't think - or I can't detect that - there was an artistic intention beyond wanting 'to be a star' through the most direct available route. Obviously he'll have music he prefers, music he's grown up with, but I genuinely think he's chosen to play the music he thinks will make him the most famous. For all I know he's a big Miles Davis fan, but isn't learning the trumpet any time soon. Of course, I can't prove his intentions, and ultimately his music is ours to interpret. But there are ways of veering adult-contemporary, and on my two listens through the single that began this thread I couldn't detect any sophistication at all. You may disagree.

Debility of talent is a symptom of wanting the buck of stardom too easy, maybe?

― Who whom kissed? (imago), Friday, June 13, 2014 6:34 PM (Yesterday)

i'm often interested in your thoughts on & taste in music, but i can't get on board w/ this. afaic, "debility of talent" isn't even a thing in itself, much less a symptom of something else. it's a perceptual phantom, an artifact. you detect no talent because you've framed "talent" in such a way as to exclude whatever it is that dude is actually good at. period.

personally, i wouldn't equate perceived "sophistication" with the presence of legitimate art. art exists in an infinite variety of forms; some seem sophisticated to me, and some don't. i hardly imagine, however, that my perception of such things means much to anyone who isn't me. i mean, you say you can't detect "artistic intention" at work here, but what on earth is "artistic intention" in the first place? how do we detect it? (once you get an answer together) really? really really?

i get that you don't like this shit. i don't either. but going any larger than that without tongue very firmly in cheek seems a bit absurd.

personally, i get tired of "the amount of leeway ILM gives not to pop" artists "straddling dance and r&b" (if you'll forgive the frankenquote), but happily chalk it up to personal/generational differences of taste

"...ILM gives not to pop"

lol

"debility of talent" was nakhers' introduction, in fact, and I'm interpreting it as a perceived (by me) lack of ability to make classic (loaded, subjective term) pop music when he has all the money he could want to do so - nothing about the song I heard seemed to have anything about it to differentiate it from the throng, or indicate that it could be a major cultural force beyond its imminent moment. these are highly personal projections, of course, but i feel one can comment on 'talent' from an outside perspective as long as you frame it subjectively & accept that some degree of 'talent' does exist, if not to the degree you'd desire

your second point is harder to counter. tim f has already made it very eloquently (in the post I admiringly quoted). my only comeback would be that i really don't hear anything particularly unusual or novel being attempted, which for me bespeaks either pastiche or artistic exploitation, depending on your view. (if you go to a blues bar, you wouldn't accuse the players of exploiting the form, but is not the whole concept a joyful & worthwhile pastiche of the culturally-accepted blues experience as well as an iteration of it?)

yuk @ changing horses from 'one' to 'you' mid-stride there

yeah, that tim post was brilliant, esp the single-sentence 2nd paragraph. boom.

my Clear Channel station played "Latch," 18 months after I first heard it.

A week ago, a DJ on mine said "new from Disclosure, this is 'Latch'!"

Look, they had to cross an ocean.

Look, "Bohemian Rhapsody" went to #2 in 1992.

New from Queen, this is Bohemian Rhapsody (ft. Sam Smith)

Something something Coldplay.

look "white noise" would be an infinitely better crossover than "latch"

maybe that'll happen next

I don't know that Aluna has a vocal that mainstream America is willing to get behind; people will get behind an airy kewpie-doll voice (see: Ciara) but

Dammit

As I was saying, Aluna has a core to her sound that works well on that track but I don't know if it plays well to what US radio is looking for

It was on my top 50 tracks from the year, no idea why now, faintly embarrassing.

Just saw that t-shirt thing. What you said. xpost.

"how do you sleep?" is i think the second single of theirs in a row to have ended up growing on me despite initially leaving me cold