Sent at 12:04 PM on Sunday
me: and how much io love mucite
or the luke bryan in nytimes
Sent at 12:10 PM on Sunday
Josh: what's he doing there?
Sent at 12:19 PM on Sunday
me: its an epic takedown of him and country music in general
i think they are w rong
but its a br illiant peice
Sent at 12:20 PM on Sunday
Josh: who wrote it?
curracama
Josh: thanks
me: i think its much better than he does
Josh: i agree with his general negativity toward luke bryan
that spring break album was terrible
but i read on
me: i kind of loved it
Josh: HE WON FUCKING ENTERTAINER OF THE FUCKING YEAR?????
me: but it has a v. spec purpose
and that purpose is fulfilled
hes not justin moore
Josh: "there is perilously little to say about Mr. Bryan"
Caramanica is SO GOOD
me: he has three problems
a) he doesn't think that country ever had a pleasure principle
b) he thinks that Bryan should be doing something more than he is
c) that Bryan is v. good at his limited range
d) he has a large, juicy ass
Josh: wait, are these caramanica's problems?
Sent at 12:28 PM on Sunday
me: i think so
Josh: yeah, i guess suburban country's nothing new
but shouldn't Bryan be doing more than he is?
me: why
there are other people doing other things
Josh: like, picking songs his drummer might enjoy playing?
me: do you expect justin townes earles or jason isbelle to write about fucking soriroty girls
?
Josh: kenny chesney has written well about that
and sung well about htat
and luke bryan hasn't
i mean, his songs just sound thin and dead
me: define thin
Josh: the sound of the Spring Break songs seemed really tossed off
not tossed off in a rowdy garage rock way
just like everyone got into the studio and did the bare minimum
demo quality
(bear in mind, i listened to this once and grimaced and returned it to the library)
me: i dont know
Josh: the lyrical signifiers contained nothing new
me: its young, dumb, and full of cum
thats a legit market
and for a genre that has always been tense about explcit sexuality
i welcome that
he has a great voice
and the skeletal quality has a kind of solid quality
i mean its not genius
its often too easy
but ...
Sent at 12:35 PM on Sunday
Josh: i mean, i was impressed by the significance that a Luke Bryan Spring Break album even exists
and he does have an appealing warmth to his voice
but the warmth just seems to sit there
i don't sense he can do anything outside a very narrow range
me: i think that blankness works as a channel for the audience
and the range is intended to function as a conduit
and i think the rship b/w the audience and the performer
is something new
Josh: really?
me: it foregrounds the audience
it tears down the fourth wall
Josh: what's different than kenny chesney's relationship to his audience?
oh, i see
me: chesney still maintians its authority as performer
i mean i think t hat what people read as blankness or thinness
is really a pulling back
to foreground the audience
to allow for the audience to have a live expereince
Josh: but
me: which sells records in a time when records arent selling
Josh: but
why can't you have a "live experience" with someone who's actually a good singer?
the spring break eps and album struck me as souvenirs
the
kind of thing you'd buy to remember your hedonistic weekend where you
saw the one third-rate country singer whose name you can't remember
me: but they remember his name
the artist of the year is votedo n by fans
Josh: because they bought the ep!
me: but the fan culture of luke bryan is strong
they love HIM
Josh: but why?
and wasn't your argument that they love themselves loving him?
Sent at 12:42 PM on Sunday
me: my arguement
is that luke bryan's warm, congenial
quite smart perfomative quality
suggests a new kind of realtional aesthetic
that country has tried to foster and failed
do you want to pitch this somewhere?
Josh: i wanna pitch luke bryan into the roiling sea
no, but
and is his relational aesthetic defined by being warm, congenial, and smart?
(which, i don't get "smart" from him, but let's set that aside)
me: his metagame is hella smart
his game game is dumb
hes the judy holiday of country music
Josh: yeah, that's what i thought
black and white actresses are where you go over my head
but i'll trust you on that
me: born yesterday
Josh: but are you saying that country has tried and failed to develop a warm and congenial relational aesthetic with its audience?
and luke bryan has finally succeeded?
Sent at 12:49 PM on Sunday
Josh: because dolly parton
Sent at 12:50 PM on Sunday
me: dolly parton had tragedy
and no one every thot that they were dolly parton
except dolly
Sent at 12:51 PM on Sunday
Josh: so are you saying luke bryan is the first country star onto whom an audience can project themselves?
by which you mean, "think they're as good as"?
exact opposite
no project
ion
(this is a ne w thesis i am still working thru
)
let me restart
four thots
a) country has always pretended to have this down home roots aesthtic
b) it held in tension t his need to be a performer
and a need to be part of the audience
c)
for a bunch of reasons, countrys suburban roots right now have placed
most of the money in audience participation venues that reward
tailgating, and big auadiences, and partying and
etc
its a difft kind of work
d)
so a few years ago a bunch of people asked questions--how do we rework
this balance. i mean you see things like fanfair from the 60s that this
balance always occured
but the fans now have all the power
and so, chesney, mcgraw etc
had pushed the balance a bit
but were still pretty heavily in favour of boundries
five thots
e) bryan and his ilk gave up on the boundries.
in that his work is entirely constructed to play w/ the fan culture
which i think might be new
and this might be pitchable
and i mean its obv. false--see erick church playboy fiasco
Josh: yeah, this is good stuff
me: but ITS FUCKING FASCINATING
Sent at 1:00 PM on Sunday
Josh: but still, there's a difference between analyzing how Luke Bryan works
(and the inexplicable phenomenon of why people buy his albums)
and calling his music good
i can't fault caramanica for thinking he's boring to listen to
me: i do think hes good
Josh: and caramanica's no traditionalist
me: in the sense that he does what i need him to do
he makes me dance, he turns me on,
i mean do we get angry at pitbull for making fuck and dance music
why are we angry at bryan
Josh: PITBULL HAS A PERSONALITY!
(i do like "country girl shake it for me" -- THAT seems new, absolutely modern, etc.)
Sent at 1:04 PM on Sunday
me: and it took me a long long way to get there
also, do you know
he respects the womens autonomy
this
kind of libertine personae is hella more interesting and less dangerous
than lets say justin moores new one or kip moores hey pretty girl
Josh: "hey pretty girl" is worse than "crash my party", it's true
ok, i should turn in
it's been a pleasure
No comments:
Post a Comment