♥☮☯♫ PC MUSIC ♫☯☮♥ ☺☺☺ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°✌

xp to my post above, as a sidenote re: that particular segment of hyper-cute bubblegum pop, some of it actually was created with purely cynical intentions. one example:

In the meantime I had done an assignment on europop hits on the Conservatory. I had always been fascinated by hits. How come one song makes a hit single and another does not? As part of the assignment I had to try and write a europop hit sounding like Aqua, which became "Mr. Wam bam boogie". A very light pop tune with a clear irony towards europop. Nevertheless it was recorded and released by Norwegian singer Bambee on the album "On ice" (CNR/Arcade, 1999). My first official release, but very contrary to my agelong musical principles and ideas of good music in general.

(that particular song was not a hit)

but in general i never felt uncomfortable w/ this music b/c it general was not marketed disdainfully or appreciated 'ironically' by the ppl who liked it

not exactly sold on a vaporwave/nightcore/girl talk-ified version of the popjustice aesthetic.

Funny thing is that Popjustice didn't like the track.

Maybe this is juvenilia or whatever from before they fully put together their style & design aesthetic (the fact that it's one of the only tracks not downloadable from their Soundcloud maybe bears this out? or maybe there's a hard limit on # of downloads and it's just been there the longest, I don't know) but <a href="http://brokenflowers.pcmusic.info/";>Broken Flowers</a> doesn't feel even a little bit insincere, mocking or cynical to me.

rgh
broken flowers

yeah some of the early stuff barely really fits in with what has actually gotten pc music to be (somewhat) popular

Liking fun pop music sure seems like a lot of work

Things were simpler when we were rockists.

what's the eggers book consisting "of obvious, surface-level satire"?

https://tmbgsongaday.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/mcsweeneys.png?w=640&h=392&crop=1

pop music altered to heighten the feeling of alienating uncanny valley surrealism

Haha this GFOTY mix is mad :D

think I could get with this in a fairly major way - I don't even care if it's impishly playing with convention while obviously enjoying itself; oh no my sainted Pop is being deconstructed! oh no! stop this! etc

it would help if...I didn't get the sense that Hannah Diamond is going to turn out, if she isn't already, as far less famous/wealthy/on track for a career than the producer bros here.

this is possibly the most repulsive sentiment I've read on ILM in a very long time

hey qt is great fun ofc; it's also p good songwriting. jfc i can't get over that post i just quoted though

if only "hey qt" worked as pop (it doesn't, it's a parody of everything mockable about teenpop stereotypes). it sort of reminded me of that terrible kid606 remix album of missy from circa 2001. no, i want to hear MISSY, not missy rendered unlistenable bc you think it's wacky or she's lacking in obvious strangeness.

pop regularly does a pretty good job of deconstructing itself tbh, this is only for people who need the comfort blanket of it being not-pop

QT might be OK if the vocals weren't embarrassingly tacky.

Serious Thugs = worst thing of all time

The jpop influences/kinship kind of seem more pronounced than any teenpop parodying.

I really like this. So simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaV_Z2a_ZLM

This stuff is what the new Rustie album should have been.

That's a total fucking banger tbf

the book is "The Circle", I have no idea what the fuck is so repulsive about that statement

Its a statement that is more about the world than the particulars of anything to do with this thread

Hannah Diamond, A. G. Cook and SOPHIE are all on PC Music so if there's a way that this is unrelated to the thread I'd love to hear it

What about PC Music makes you think that the female contigent therein are more likely to be marginalised/under-rewarded than anyone else? Is this to do with them, or the culture in which they are received?

I am trying to understand what you are trying to say.

it's just a sneaking suspicion, it's not a Grand Statement. but it's my impression of the coverage of "Attachment" et al and how it differs from the coverage of other acts who are being covered for the alt-pop crowd, people like, I dunno, Allie X or LIZ or even Ryn Weaver (although my gut sense is that she's probably being marketed to more of a mainstream pop crowd, and even she's got her share of coverage that's like "BENZEL! CASHMERE CAT! CHARLI XCX! andnoneforgretchenweaverbye" although part of that might just be SEO). when the interviews for whichever EP or album coalesces from this come in, I'd be surprised if they didn't turn out to be pretty much what I expect (see: "the way his producer name invites casual listeners to think that "sophie" is the person in the press photos/singing the songs combined with the QT press release raving about the producers and speaking about the vocalist as if she is an inanimate object weirds me out"). if I think of everything in press terms it's because this is what I do for at least part of a living, and it doesn't switch off.

once again, this is just a small side suspicion, and people who are paying attention rather than declaring everything repulsive will note that none of this has made me hate the music yet.

let's ignore press terms and hear it on the artist's:

AGC: What interests me about pop music and commercial imagery in the first place is that it has the potential to be overwhelming, extravagant and banal all at the same time. Not only that, but mixing "high culture" with pop culture has lost its radical edge to the extent that it's more or less mainstream. Challenging something's commercial nature is a commercial tactic in itself, and authenticity is a tricky currency that is often swayed by branding and advertising. I have nothing against this, and many people respond to this kind of stuff in a sophisticated way. Though it means that there is room for a subtler and possibly more compelling way of engaging with these ideas, where shock value and direct irony is replaced with ambiguity and uncanniness. My work's constant use of instantly gratifying elements such as kitsch imagery, catchy hooks, synthetic colours and fun sound effects feels inevitable, it's almost a compulsion rather than a choice. Saying that, I try to be thoughtful as to how and why I'm using these things, and I think my over-the-top use of structure and layout is a result of this. It's also what makes the work feel ambiguous. It's sort of communicating something, but there's all this extra stuff going on. By the time you try to figure out what it's about, you've entered a sort of immersive world of ideas and references. Making it difficult to navigate not only adds to this effect, but it's also a way of giving it the overwhelming, extravagant and banal potential of commercial work. It's a particular style of craftsmanship that I could perhaps afford to ignore if I ever ended up doing large-scale commercial work, but it's definitely a way of making a bigger impact with limited resources, like a virtuoso playing on a simple instrument or an outsider artist obsessively using a tiny object to make an enormous piece. Maybe it gives my work a kind of manic individual quality, despite the fact that it's also basically a slick collage.

I'd like my pop without first-year art student blather.

the book is "The Circle"

― katherine, Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:56 AM (4 hours ago)

ty - haven't read it, but haven't read/followed eggers in quite a while

^ ...aaaand, yeah, i notice now that the answer was provided earlier. ty nonetheless.

except the "so what, or who, is QT?" bit *is* the artist's terms, plus a lot more people are gonna read that than some interview

I'd like my pop without first-year art student blather.

Then you're reading the wrong message board.

Nothing here is as bad as that quote.

I disagree. Don't really see to much to complain about with the quote - it's articulate and is helpful to me at least. I guess he's being overly explanatory for people who want the mystery. But then as seen in this thread, the absence of information seems to lead them to bizarre conclusions about the motives of the listeners and the exploitation of the women involved. He can't win either way.

my 2c is that he's prob some rly awkward overintellectual weirdo

Rly awkward overintellectual weirdos r00l tho

Yep, he's got plenty of good company if that's the case.

xp otm

Vaporwave did this better

Looks like the new PC Music drop has steered away from the seemingly controversial bubblegum-bass...

It can be found here:
https://soundcloud.com/pcmus/western-beats/s-viika

ahh yes more insensitive, post-ironic web shlock

"no, you're wrong! it's actually fantastic"

fuck this garbage completely

insensitive?

hackshaw I'd like you to explain your accusation

new QT single rulz so hard

QT logo would make a kewl tat

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/460_Width/1408/yKZHuK5Y.png

hackshaw has not returned to defend their intellectually decrepit statements

What interests me about pop music and commercial imagery in the first place is that it has the potential to be overwhelming, extravagant and banal all at the same time.

O RLY

i mean, that right there is contempt for pop, as in how pop is rather than your pet imagined version of What Pop Should Be Because Actual Pop Is So Mainstream or whatever

most pop is a lot more overwhelming and extravagant than any of this shit, though PC Music certainly get banal right

personally I am shocked someone doesn't want to defend himself against someone who's called his opinion "intellectually decrepit" right out of the gate

nice, assuming it's a male poster

don't understand what lex's first post there is trying to say

calling this music 'insensitive' is charlatanry of the most profound order though, post-popist grandstanding nonsense-speak that ideates a notion of pop authenticity that must be protected from deconstruction at all odds. in other words, the sort of shit that should have been extinguished on ilm long ago

all the people who have said "authenticity":

- you and other people who are calling people's posts "charlatanry" or "intellectually decrepit" or "the most repulsive thing I have ever read" for, as far as I can tell, not liking the music as much as they should
- the artist himself

ah, so we're doing away with context are we? let's hear how the artist mentioned it:

authenticity is a tricky currency

we're the ones making a mockery of any claims to authenticity, as is surely inherent in any accusation of making music that is insensitive

charlatanry/intellectually decrepit/repulsive referred specifically to posts that either ascribed the music's badness to some kind of moral deficiency or posts which projected that a singer would be 'far less famous/wealthy/on track for a career' than the producers she works with, which is entirely up to her to evaluate & demonstrates only the careerist, elitist priorities of the poster imo

New A.G. Cook today, I love it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2wQ5speuU