[ SECRET POST #2485 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2485 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Sleepy Hollow]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Twilight]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Lana Del Rey / Marina and the Diamonds]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Long Way Round, Long Way Down]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Pacific Rim]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Captain Marvel]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #355.
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)]

pls tell us the era when every pop song was a deep poignant mature reflection of the eternal nature of the human condition.

Are you thinking of the 50s, when songs like "Mambo Italiano" and "Great Balls of Fire" and "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" reflected the tense, existential anxiety of a world in the grip of a nuclear arms race. Or maybe the 1960s when you had songs with nuanced lyrics like "I Want To Hold Your Hand", or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", or the incredible production on 1970s classics like "Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree", or the completely sensible lyrics of every song Oasis wrote, and etc. Can we get rid of the idea that there was some golden age when there was never any bad songs, and that this era is unique in the existence of crap that's popular?

Also: I don't agree at all with the idea that being simplistic or even shallow is necessarily a bad thing for a song, especially a pop song. If something is simplistic, that can also mean it's universal - and the best pop is able to say something that's ultimately universal, ultimately simplistic enough that all or most people listening to it can relate intimately to that message, in a way that still deeply touches our hearts and affects us emotionally. That's what pop's all about and sneering at it for being simplistic is missing the entire point. Depth isn't just about the intellectual content of the lyrics, but their emotional content. Pop songs can have clever lyrics but they don't need to, and clever lyrics do not necessarily make a song better.

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for the lecture on music history, but it's fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Two current artists' success is being called into question to the perceived low quality of their music. A quick comparison with their contemporaries shows that they're not in their own league of badness and are in good company, and therefore there's no reason they shouldn't achieve success. It's simple as that. In fact, if your argument that pop has always been simplistic and shallow then it proves my point: contemporary pop is no different, so mildly above average translates to mass appeal.

But it's nice that you feel strongly about things, I guess.