[ SECRET POST #3909 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3909 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #560.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That's a bad argument and I have to think that you know that.

No, it's actually the only argument I would be entirely comfortable with making, as it is based on measurable data and facts. Do I think LWYMMD is one of Swift's stronger songs artistically? Nope. But if someone else wants to argue that it is, they're equally as correct as I am, because artistic merit and how "good" something is are largely subjective qualifiers.

Placing artistic merit over popular success comes across as particularly nonsensical in this particular case, because we're talking about pop music - a genre that is specifically formulated to be popular, to gain as wide a listening audience as possible. That's it's number one MO. To get as high on the charts as it can, to stay on the charts as long as it can, to sell as much copy as it can, to gain as many views and listens as it can. If we weren't talking about pop music - if for example we were talking about one of the little known indie folk musicians whose music I love - I would be inclined to discuss the "goodness" of their new album in terms of artistic merit. But as we're discussing Taylor Swift, who is probably the biggest pop star on the planet, I am absolutely going to use popularity as a major measure of whether her music is accomplishing what her music was created to accomplish.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree with the idea that a piece of pop music has only one purpose and can only evaluated in one way. And I don't agree that approaching a pop song in terms of popularity is the only important measure, just because we have quantitative data that we can use to evaluate it. Yes, it's subjective to talk about the aesthetic and artistic and sociocultural aspects of a pop song, but that doesn't make it useless or not a worthwhile endeavor. It is something that we can usefully discuss even if we can't derive objective answers to it. And that's also the sense in which I've been talking this whole time - I realize that this wasn't really explicitly communicated at the beginning of the conversation, so if there was some confusion I apologize, but I think approaching a pop song as an aesthetic and cultural object is a valid approach and it's the most interesting one to me. Of course the popularity or lack thereof of a pop song is still an important fact about it in any context, but I strongly reject the idea that a pop song can be reduced to its chart number and sales and plays. The fact that it's intended for pop play doesn't diminish the fact that it is also a creative project, any more than any other creative project that is embedded in a capitalist system. It's wildly reductive and pointless and wrong. A pop song is a song, and a song can be evaluated as a song, and as a song I don't think it's a good song.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree with the idea that a piece of pop music has only one purpose and can only evaluated in one way.

You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth here. In my comment I specifically speak about my personal opinion of LWYMMD in artistic terms – thus actively participating in multiple ways of evaluating pop music. I also say that popularity is pop music’s number one MO. I do not say it’s only MO, nor would I.

And I don't agree that approaching a pop song in terms of popularity is the only important measure, just because we have quantitative data that we can use to evaluate it.

Not what I said. See above.

Yes, it's subjective to talk about the aesthetic and artistic and sociocultural aspects of a pop song, but that doesn't make it useless or not a worthwhile endeavor

Again, not what I said. I’m not, myself, particularly interested in using “artistic merit” to speak critically of pop songs. For me it’s a bit like going to a house party and treating it like a tasting party. If you happen to find some good stuff among the bottles on the counter, that’s great, but if it’s mostly just good for getting drunk on, that’s entirely to be expected. However, I don’t believe it’s wrong or pointless to discuss the artistic merit of pop songs. I do, however, think that if we’re going to talk about the success or failure of a pop song (as opposed to its sonic goodness or badness), the number one factor in measuring that should be its popularity and salability.

A pop song is a song, and a song can be evaluated as a song, and as a song I don't think it's a good song.

I’m going to go back to the part where I don’t like to use “artistic merit” as the primary yardstick by which to judge a pop song (because too much artistic merit is often regarded in the industry as a hindrance to a pop song’s accessibility and thus its popularity). So if artistic merit is taking a backseat, I would argue that leaves catchiness and enjoyability. Hence why Call Me Maybe is regarded by many music critics as a nearly perfect pop song. It would be hard to argue it has much artistic merit, but it’s catchy af and a pleasure to listen to.

So is LWYMMD a catchy song? I find it more than moderately catchy when compared with other pop songs. Is it enjoyable to listen to? I find it middling. So is it, in my opinion, a good pop song (as opposed to a successful one)? IMO, it’s just alright. I’m disappointed, but only because Taylor Swift has consistently shown herself capable of producing much better (catchier, more enjoyable) material.