XXXTentacion - ?

That doesn’t exactly apply in this case... idk I think Jordan summed up why it makes sense this stuff is popular even as it sucks that it’s popular

It’s not the music that’s terrible in this instance methinks.

I mean, the music embodies terrible but it’s not poorly made

So PWR BTTM might still have a career if only they'd worked a little harder at convincing us in their music that they were "authentically" incredibly fucked up people

lol ok

― Paul Ponzi, Monday, March 26, 2018 7:29 AM (fourteen hours ago) Bookmark

i guess this guy left the thread but aside from the self-policing of queer spaces that got pwr bttm nuked off the planet, the reaction against them was so strong because (assuming the allegations were true) they were revealed to be frauds. hypocrites as people yes but more to the point the music, given what it was about, couldn't help but come off as cynical in a way that my have been really rotten. i dunno if artists whose music touches politics or morality can really "work to convince" people that their art actually represents who they are... pwr bttm tried to do that work just in the opposite direction (working to convince us they were queer heroes) and eventually the lie was found out. for whatever you want to say about xxx's music, it represents that he's a shitty person.

I can’t believe you dignified that with a response

i like to reach the people

I'm sure you guys only did what was necessary but I always feel kind of bad when a person is bullied off a thread

I really don't see why it's so surprising that kids think he was framed, plenty of people did and still do defend Chris Brown. (you can't pin it on teenagers, either, given the legions of grown adults who rush to defend even the worst of the worst people accused in the news)

anyway I haven't listened to this guy's music, it does not seem remotely like my thing even if none of the news existed as a counterbalance, but at a certain point I think ignoring it just becomes counterproductive. it's not like all of his teenage fans are going to disappear because The New York Times (hypothetical example, chosen specifically because they did cover him) nobly did not write an article

at a certain point I think ignoring it just becomes counterproductive

When you say "counterproductive," counterproductive to what? "The discourse"? This is a serious question. Why do you think music critics should pay attention to this particular artist? Why is it OK to ignore all the other stuff that your average busy music writer ignores every single day, but not this?

it's not like all of his teenage fans are going to disappear because The New York Times (hypothetical example, chosen specifically because they did cover him) nobly did not write an article

No, but it's not like anyone who's not a teenager is obliged to care. I feel like literally the only angle the Times should take on this guy is "here's what your kids are listening to; maybe sit them down for a talk."

well if your job is to write about popular music -- which is to say, it's your job to think about/analyze why things are popular and translate that to your audience -- and you choose to ignore someone who might be one of the ~10 most popular artists in the country (ignore not just in what you publish but in your thinking) then i think that can be counterproductive to fulfilling the responsibility of your job. if you view him as part of an ecosystem of artists that you're responsible for covering, then i'm not sure you can just isolate him out and ignore him. the reasons for his popularity certainly have implications for popular music at large. and if popular music is driven in part by what teenagers like, then caring about their tastes is also part of the job too.

if your job isn't to write or care about popular music then sure who cares

maybe sit them down for a talk

lol

well if your job is to write about popular music -- which is to say, it's your job to think about/analyze why things are popular and translate that to your audience -- and you choose to ignore someone who might be one of the ~10 most popular artists in the country

^^^

When you say "counterproductive," counterproductive to what? "The discourse"? This is a serious question. Why do you think music critics should pay attention to this particular artist? Why is it OK to ignore all the other stuff that your average busy music writer ignores every single day, but not this?

The other stuff that your average busy music writer ignores is not being supported by the music industry to the extent that this guy is. Even without getting into covert/secret/unreported label stuff (because it's hard to tell the difference between legit and conspiracy theory), Spotify actively supports him as mentioned above; at one point he had a (reported) $6 million record deal with Capitol; he was on a damn Noah Cyrus song. There is no reason to think that even the most horrifying allegations will stop any of this, given the entertainment industry and fans' long history of not giving a shit unless the fans do. the rest, Jordan said better than I could

in other words, the moral burden of ignoring him (if you think there's a moral burden, not everyone does) rests on the people in the music industry, not the people writing about it

Whiney's right; "it's popular, so we cover it" is a massive cop-out, there's a lot of extremely popular stuff that gets zero analysis / ink / heat even though literally millions of people are spinning it a day. there is more to coverage of this artist than "well, he's popular, so we're covering it" - which popular things get covered is I want to say an...ethical? political? aesthetic? moral? choice -- idk -- but I'm 100% certain "it's popular, so it's what gets the coverage" is flat-out untrue.

(I would also argue that the industry does in fact support other popular stuff that doesn't get the ink. That we're not reading / talking about it doesn't mean it doesn't have its own avenues of support / budget / etc.)

sure, but there's also a reason why everyone posting in this thread is in here having this discussion and not talking about shawn mendes

by which i guess i mean that if critics at large ignore something popular -- like meghan trainor or jason derulo or whatever -- that is arguably a dereliction of duty, but it also just might mean that there really isn't much there to talk about. the artist is popular but that popularity doesn't say anything about music or society. that's a different calculation than arguing that there's a moral imperative to ignore an artist.

I think people are conflating sites that have a curatorial approach to popular music to sites that have a "it's popular so we cover it" mindset

btw personally i don't begrudge any writer on an individual level for ignoring xxxtentacion... editors/writers are being tasked with thinking much harder about how to cover abusers than ever before (and in real time). as an employed editor at a publication i'm not a bystander here, and despite the arguments i'm making itt i'm not going to pretend that i have the "right" answer. that said, i'm not sure i'd say that it's a good thing for there to be such little writing about an artist like xxxtentacion, and for even thinking critically about his music to be considered a moral transgression (talking about ppl's reactions to i.e. pitchfork's review of 17, not this thread)

speaking of the devil

https://pitchfork.com/news/xxxtentacion-appears-to-hit-woman-in-video-footage-prosecutors-reviewing-report/

that said, i'm not sure i'd say that it's a good thing for there to be such little writing about an artist like xxxtentacion, and for even thinking critically about his music to be considered a moral transgression

yeah, like, assuming the "critical thinking" is not "this man is amazing and a great person and everyone should emulate him," the only "moral transgression" argument I can think of is that writing about him boosts his signal. but that bridge was crossed long, long ago, and compared to the legions of teenagers listening to him and the industry support, a blog post or whatever is a drop in the bucket.

I would argue that the fact that you don't think there's anything to talk about with a Meghan Trainor or Jason Derulo record, or that their popularity "doesn't say anything about music or society," means that you need to think harder. You're claiming that mumbly nihilistic teenage bullshit "says something about society" but the music that non-teenagers listen to doesn't, but society is not exclusively made up of teenagers. And I doubt your readership is. (I don't know where you're employed as an editor, sorry.) I would argue that writing about xxxtentacion is, in fact, the lazy choice, and that if you really wanted to spend time seriously analyzing popular culture, you'd analyze it in its uncool/off-trend/selling-but-to-the-"wrong"-people aspects.

"this has been a systemic problem in pop/rock/rap?? crit since forever, this wordsworth/blake garbage where the zeal of the teen is elevated to some projected ideal critical stance"

my perception is that real-time analytics have made this stance a lot more prominent / transparent but i could be projecting

and there's certainly lots to talk about with trainor and derulo wrt the shape-shifting of what attitudes make the "songs you can listen to at the office" cut

society is not exclusively made up of teenagers

ok, but a) neither is xxxtentacion's entire listenership and b) an artist's fanbase being composed primarily of teenagers, in and of itself, does not make that artist not worth coverage.

i def want to be more like the demographic that watches pewdiepie videos, waits around all day outside streetwear stores and jacks off constantly

the assumption that the teenager is the default pop music audience was always around (hi dick clark) but imo it really took hold in the late '90s/early '00s, when britney backstreet pink et al hip-checked celine and her cohort and made room for them in adult contemporary radio. from then on it was all over.

I would argue that the fact that you don't think there's anything to talk about with a Meghan Trainor or Jason Derulo record, or that their popularity "doesn't say anything about music or society," means that you need to think harder. You're claiming that mumbly nihilistic teenage bullshit "says something about society" but the music that non-teenagers listen to doesn't, but society is not exclusively made up of teenagers. And I doubt your readership is. (I don't know where you're employed as an editor, sorry.) I would argue that writing about xxxtentacion is, in fact, the lazy choice, and that if you really wanted to spend time seriously analyzing popular culture, you'd analyze it in its uncool/off-trend/selling-but-to-the-"wrong"-people aspects.

― grawlix (unperson), Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:27 AM (six minutes ago) Bookmark

you're misreading my posts as me endorsing a worldview instead of just thinking out loud. (i wrote a piece about shawn mendes on friday that was partly about how he's essentially uncovered by critics.) i'm saying that when critics at large ignore an artist (and if we're talking about pop artists here, it's usually artists who are popular but not HUGE and just kind of bland w/o any sense of auteurism or innovation) then, collectively, writers are basically saying "there's not much interesting here to talk about." again, i'm not saying that's right -- depending on the artist i might agree, but generally i'd actually say it's wrong (a discussion for another thread is that certain ppl bemoan the poptimist bent of modern music writing when plenty of pop music is actually completely ignored -- i'm just pointing out that it's a different motivation entirely than asking people to consciously opt out of a discussion on a moral level.

there's also the question of what people mean by "coverage." reviews? positive reviews? front-page hagiographic profiles? blog posts about the prosecution? (there's an argument to be made -- plenty of people have made it -- that it's even less defensible, in a parasitic kind of way, not to cover someone's music but to cover his horrifying behavior and ensuing legal issues)

i def want to be more like the demographic that watches pewdiepie videos, waits around all day outside streetwear stores and jacks off constantly

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:35 AM (six minutes ago) Bookmark

you just did a whole interview with juicy j about how the streetwear jacker offers have helped revive one of his most misogynistic songs so i wouldn't pretend as if you're above this

certain ppl bemoan the poptimist bent of modern music writing when plenty of pop music is actually completely ignored

Because deliberately ignoring the highest charting pop songs to talk about lesser known pop songs that could conceivably crack the top 50 or whatever is still trading one form of pop for another, thus confirming, once again, its insuperable hegemony. Like you said, though, it's a discussion for another thread.

probably worth pointing out here that "Sad!" is currently #7 on the Hot 100

An anthropological interest in why certain albums hit #1 and connect (i.e. Greatest Showman) isn't an endorsement, and I though this was clear.

I kinda like the two new Shawn Mendes songs :(

An anthropological interest in why certain albums hit #1 and connect (i.e. Greatest Showman) isn't an endorsement, and I though this was clear.

True on a case-by-case basis. But when a consistent pattern of coverage and non-coverage emerges over the course of years, endorsement (of a particular narrative, if not necessarily specific artists) can be pretty easily inferred.

Because deliberately ignoring the highest charting pop songs to talk about lesser known pop songs that could conceivably crack the top 50 or whatever is still trading one form of pop for another, thus confirming, once again, its insuperable hegemony. Like you said, though, it's a discussion for another thread.

― pomenitul, Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:46 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark

eh it's really about a perversion of poptimism where the concept just becomes "covering the every move of the 15 most famous celebrity musicians in america" but again it would be a little on the nose to turn this thread into a discussion about poptmism

when a consistent pattern of coverage and non-coverage emerges over the course of years, endorsement (of a particular narrative, if not necessarily specific artists) can be pretty easily inferred.

although it doesn't rankle me as much as it does unperson, I think this is correct -- the coverage given isn't ever just a reflection of the listenership's needs. that narrative -- "what gets the coverage is what people are interested in" -- is a weirdly market-capitalist claim tbh.

i do think there are very popular artists who are weird and culty and very popular artists who are much closer to the creative zeitgeist of popular music, but yes that logic can become circular

still i suspect more artists in hip hop are going to take ideas from this than wont, regardless of how publications treat this

i do think there are very popular artists who are weird and culty and very popular artists who are much closer to the creative zeitgeist of popular music, but yes that logic can become circular

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/YCfUen3KBlDdUBOOQ_1QrAwnWYE/fit-in/2048xorig/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2018/01/29/980/n/1922398/tmp_XRCCA9_ad13a8ab9fb5560d_GettyImages-911548280.jpg

i assume you're just making a logic joke but hes p far from the zeitgeist, he's a successful branding exercise building on the (zeitgeist-adjacent) creative innovations of more relevant artists

his glasses are circular though

This is way off-topic, but how were there not already like a zillion backpack rappers named Logic before that guy came along?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Logic

Well, as I recently rediscovered while trying to listen to “The Warning” on Apple Music, there was a house act on Strictly Rhythm who later had to rebrand as New York Logic:
https://www.discogs.com/artist/15177-Logic

it took me way too long to realize that wasn't anthony fantano

^^^ That's who I thought it was, too.

wait it's not?

deej otm. The next generation will probably emulate xxx, but they probably won't emulate logic. That's why we can't afford to think xxx out of existence. It's also, to a certain extent, why the taste of teenagers tends to matter more than the taste of adult gatekeepers. I'd love to imagine a future where xxx (and logic, of course but that's another matter) is despised & forgotten, but chances are we'll have no such luck. So we'd better find a more productive way to engage with it than "arghhhh, teenagers".