Showing posts with label what is art?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label what is art?. Show all posts

Saturday, January 26, 2013

CAN'T STOP WON'T STOP


I’ve got that itch again.

It often comes to me in the winter months, when I cling to works of inspiring art to carry me through the gloom. During this period, my standard for the Artist is at its highest, and so my tolerance for mere Entertainment is greatly diminished.

This is why—despite the fact that I enjoy it quite a bit, and even go through some solid bouts of obsessive listening—the itch to complain about rap has returned once again.

I’ve mentioned before that I don’t subscribe to elitism when it comes to art, but this should be distinguished from the standards that I do hold. I don’t put any intrinsic value upon the training or technical skill of the artist, so a 12-year-old R&B singer is just as capable of producing valuable art as a classically-trained pianist or a veteran guitar hero. Regardless of “pedigree,” it all depends on the effect that the final product has upon me. For me, the purpose of art is to evoke feelings, ideas, and experiences. The best of art seeks to unlock truths about the human condition and provides the audience with insight into their own lives. This is to be distinguished from entertainment, which is valued for its ability to please, to comfort, to distract, and to transport you away from the ills of your life.

After much rumination, I think I can finally elucidate on what exactly it is that bothers me about hip-hop as a whole. Specifically, there are three major failings that pervade the entire genre. I sincerely hope that future hip-hop artists eventually prove me wrong, but as it stands, things are looking bleak. None of these charges will be that surprising, but I’ve never heard or seen them seriously considered as a whole. And of course it’s possible to name artists in other genres like rock and pop who are guilty as well. But unlike any other genre of music, these failings are ubiquitous in hip-hop. Every artist or group that I can think of is at least guilty of one failing, and the vast majority is guilty of all three.

1.    Vocal Performance: Limited Emotional Range

I have written about this one before, and I still find this to be a quality that constrains the power of a lot of rap tracks. The basic problem is that the pressure to conform to “street” standards of masculinity severely limits the range of emoting that MCs can do without being labeled as gay, wussy, or weird.

The obvious exceptions are feelings that can be tied up with aggression, like paranoia and indignation. Admittedly, vocalists that tap into these emotions are often quite powerful—think of Chuck D and Ice Cube in their prime. But aside from these instances of expressive incandescence, rappers have to reign it all in, lest they appear soft. So even the quirky or pacifist types like Q-Tip, Black Thought, and Aesop Rock have to keep up muted, “laid back” personas. When important topics are broached, it’s with a calculated reserve or a cool bemusement.

I understand how this is rooted in hip-hop’s origins as party music from the slums of New York City. The original value of hip-hop culture was its ability to empower and invigorate the dispossessed kids of the ghetto, and the tradition of braggadocio in the raps of battling MCs was a crucial component of this. So, aside from the more conventional pressure to conform to street standards of masculinity, hip-hop tradition has perhaps amplified the tendency for artists to avoid surrendering to emotions that would erode their reputation as “in control.”

But just compare the vocals of MCs from 1979 to 2013 with those of any other genre. You get a much wider range, and much greater intensity of emotions in Jazz, Rock, Pop, and R&B. Hell, compare Frank Ocean with his Odd Future buddies. Sure, the O.F. rappers can sound convincingly deranged or goofy and stoned, but Frank takes on frailty, tenderness, despondency, empathy, love. And he’s not without cynicism or without ties to entertainment culture, but his comparative lack of emotional reserve feels downright audacious, more so than any rape lyric that Tyler can come up with. And part of that audacity lies in the fact that Frank has emerged from a culture that has for two decades actively discouraged honest emotional engagement for the sake of maintaining one’s “alpha” status.

There’s plenty of creativity and humanity to be found in the history of hip-hop, but I’m still hoping for MCs who can follow Frank Ocean’s lead and fully surrender their voices, reputation be damned, to the demands of their art.



2.    Lyrical Style: Convention and Entertainment Trumps Poetry

Perhaps this one sounds like snobbery on my part, but I’ll try to explain what I mean when I say that hip-hop lyrics are largely bereft of poetic power. The Ancient Greeks dissociated two types of knowledge that are respectively acquired via two modes of communication: Logos vs. Mythos. Logos is “the Word,” it’s best defined as the manifest content of speech and writing. The precision of its conveyed meaning can lead to an expansion of commonly agreed-upon descriptive knowledge. Mythos, on the other hand, pertains to latent content of communication. This can lead to multiple, sometimes overlapping layers of meaning and experience that are evoked from within the receiver. While Logos can sometimes be used to unlock Mythic Truths, e.g. Kant’s philosophical treatises on metaphysics, most mythic resonance exists outside of literal description.

This is why poets have a tendency to play with language conventions and especially with metaphors. The manifest content of Langston Hughes’ “A Dream Deferred” is meaningless. Why is he asking us about physical consequences for an abstract event like the deferment of a dream? Of course, it’s the latent content that we respond to, and part of its power comes from the subversion of conventional modes of descriptive speech in order to tap into an emotional state.  Our language is shaken up and scrambled in order to unlock felt ideas and experience, rather than to describe what’s around us.

This can’t really be said for hip-hop lyrics. In terms of style, they are primarily topical and descriptive narratives, albeit peppered with similes and metaphors used for entertainment rather than for expressive resonance. This is true even for the most lauded of tracks by the most praised MCs. For instance, Kanye West’s “Diamonds from Sierra Leone” stands out for its openly conflicted rumination on western materialism, black empowerment, and blood diamonds. The song is definitely a high point of Kanye’s career, and of the hip-hop canon. But surely a great deal of its power comes not from the lyrical evocation of its ideas, but rather from the topic itself, combined with one’s expectation of West as a huge star in a genre known for its superficiality (see #3). In terms of its poetic power, it offers roughly the same experience you would get from reading an incisive New Yorker essay on blood diamonds, but with dramatic background music to fill in the emotional cues for you. There’s value in that, but mostly as Logos.

And like an essay printed in a newspaper or magazine, rap lyrics tend to become dated and less relevant as the years pass. Especially the similes and metaphors. These do exhibit some playful irreverence with speech conventions, but rappers too often rely on hip-hop’s own conventions for lyrics: references to pop & entertainment culture of the day (or, post-Wu Tang, of one’s youth). Good for a chuckle or an insider’s nod of approval, but impotent as far as mythic resonance goes. Not to mention that, as time goes by, those sly references to Napoleon Dynamite and Kim Kardashian will be completely irrelevant even as an in-joke. It’s as if the artists themselves are insisting that they have the shortest shelf life possible.

The issue of shelf life itself probably reflects cultural differences to some extent. A song can intentionally be made for the moment, especially to function as part of a community ritual (like for play at a dance club). So the classicist notion of the Eternal quality of art doesn’t always apply. But while the importance of community can’t be understated, let’s be honest: it’s our market driven entertainment culture that has largely encouraged this mentality of rapid consumption and disposal. Our desire to feel good Right Now has trumped our respect for artists and their ability to edify us.

Actually, taken as a package, a hip-hop track is much closer to a Sci-Fi/Fantasy story than an essay or newspaper article.  The lyrical narrative and music serve to construct the impression of a desired persona. And it offers the listener his or her own empowerment through fantasy. Instead of imagining oneself as a formidable wizard to distract from the pain of social rejection, a listener can find strength and confidence in the idealized and exaggerated personas of the MCs, whether it’s the cool insouciance of Rakim or the cinematic crime narratives of Jay-Z and Raekwon. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, and I myself have used the empowering fantasies of rap to conjure my own confidence when feeling down. But in the long term, this indulgence in fantasy just distracts us from our problems. And in those moments when I need an artist to challenge me and offer me insight into difficult truths, I find such obvious escapism to be deeply unsatisfying.

Heck, if it were still just for the sake of fantasy, some more inspired and evocative use of language might be enough for me. As it stands, rap lyrics, even at their best, simply fail as poetry. They rely too much on Logos, and the only Mythos used is for cheap nostalgia and fealty to Entertainment Culture.

3.    Lyrical Content: Shallow at Best, Hateful at Worst

If it was just the first two failings that permeated hip-hop, I wouldn’t get so frustrated with it. After all, it would basically be close to most contemporary pop music: enjoyable, disposable entertainment that nonetheless can sometimes hit on topical or (limited) emotional poignancy. But this last one really is the killer, and it’s very sad that this is not discussed more often among its fans. Why do we all actively ignore the fact that the content of hip-hop and rap reflects the worst of our society? Let’s go through the list:

Violence, Misogyny, and Bigotry. This is the most obvious one, but do we really think about it enough? There used to be more outrage against this kind of stuff, even from within the hip-hop community in the early 90’s, but it has since completely dominated the genre. As mentioned earlier, when MCs channel burning hot rage, it can be utterly thrilling stuff. But if you want to appreciate Ice Cube’s masterful evocation of paranoia and righteous anger, you have to numb yourself to a barrage of lines that glorify murder, others that put down women in deplorable ways, and still others that are openly hostile to Jews, Koreans, and gays. While Cube was exceptionally offensive for his time, he (along with N.W.A. , etc.) unfortunately provided the blueprint for most hardcore rap today. It even found it’s way into R&B, thanks to “pioneers” like R. Kelly. It’s a simple fact that the rap genre houses some of the most hateful and contemptible lyrics in all of popular music. And this is not coming from a prude. When masculinity is worshipped to such a great extent, it’s no surprise that aggression, intolerance, and male chauvinism would run rampant. Yes, sometimes it’s just for shocks and giggles, like with Tyler the Creator. But even then it reflects the extremes that cynical, emotionally stunted youths have to reach for just for a thrill these days. Alec Empire once said that a collectively bored culture is a breeding ground for fascism. Looking at the rabidly anti-social fan base that Odd Future has picked up, I’m thinking that Alec may have been on to something. And what does it say about us everyday music fans that we totally let all of this poison persist in our culture, and pretend like it’s not there?

Egotism. Narcissism is to some extent inevitable when fame is involved, but it doesn’t find its way into the music in most cases, thank God. Obviously, though, the braggadocio element of hip-hop tradition has cemented a focus on self-love into its music. But is it not wearying to have a genre full of people who are full of themselves? Artists are supposed to evoke emotions and truths relevant to your life, and yet we have these assholes who get rich by talking about themselves. Sure, the audience feeds on that charisma, and conjures their own vicarious power. That’s the fantasy that I mentioned earlier. But the reality is that we’re all listening to these guys talk about how important they are: how great their successes are, how fucked up their childhood was, and how everyone wants to take them down. Perhaps my breaking point for self-aggrandizement was Eminem.  An artist wants me to pay him so that I can listen to him rage and complain about every single problem in his life? It’s stunning that we so eagerly feed the egos of these completely shameless vampires for attention. Again, not reflective of a healthy culture.

Materialism & Hedonism. When I first listened to Andree 3000’s album “The Love Below,” I distinctly remember feeling great disappointment. Despite its promise of transcending the conventions of hip-hop, there’s an important component that made it very much of a piece with most of the genre: it’s all about material pleasure. Same goes for Big Boi, who recently made a song with the chorus: Let me see your titties, let me see your titties, She said Okay / Let me see your pussy, let me see your pussy, She said Okay…” Similarly, A$AP Rocky has a new track that goes “Pussy, money, weed, it’s all a nigga need.” And none of this is new. It goes all the way back to Rapper’s Delight, with Big Bank Hank bragging about his Super Sperm, and Run DMC sporting Adidas. It’s just grown more pervasive and more crass. Hip-hop used to be mostly about community building through shared activities, but now it’s just about money, cash, hoes, and purple swag. You’d think that the more sophisticated guys like Phife Dogg and Q-Tip would be above such base pleasures, but no: they don’t care about much beyond pussy and hip-hop. Of course, no one artist is required or expected to advocate a more fulfilling lifestyle, but the problem is that this emptiness is everywhere in the genre, and has made the crass materialism of pop and R&B even worse.

Superficiality. Not everyone basks in the glories of material wealth, but they reveal their shallowness in other ways, such as an obsession with pop and entertainment culture. This was mentioned when discussing the use of similes and metaphors, but it’s worth revisiting. So many important things happen around the world: political unrest and scientific breakthroughs at the broadest level; religious revelation and relationship struggles on a smaller level. And yet, if he’s not talking about how important he is, how rich he is, how big his dick is, or how tough he is, an MC will spend most of his time referencing things like Quarter Pounders, Sega Genesis, Marvin the Martian, Wheel of Fortune, and Chia pets. Basically, he dons the icons of pop culture like Run DMC flaunted those Adidas. At times, this can be charming, but as a whole it reflects a musical culture that is almost completely vacuous. A culture that rewards and creates hoards of boring, shallow people obsessed with labels, nostalgia, and creature comforts.

I’m really waiting for the day when some charismatic MC has the courage to break out from this apathetic bubble of conformity and use hip-hop as a force for positive cultural change. To be fair, acts like Public Enemy, KRS-One, Arrested Development, the Roots, and Dead Prez have aimed for a more respectable cultural impact. But of course, even if they’re not also guilty of bigotry and misogyny (Public Enemy) or egotism (KRS-One), please see #1 and #2.


As mentioned before, art is designed to evoke feeling, and the best art forces its audience to confront aspects of life that are difficult, yet need to be acknowledged before insight and consolation can be cultivated. Good art is therefore like a form of physical therapy (meta-physical therapy!): it’s not always easy or enjoyable, but it’s necessary for the healing the wounds of existential stress. Entertainment, on the other hand, merely numbs our pain. It can be quite useful in moderation, but it only distracts us from our symptoms, and leaves our larger problems unaddressed. This is hip-hop in a nutshell. It’s entertainment in the form of matter-of-fact narratives of a desired persona, filled with either lurid, hateful, or just banal and superficial esoteric details.

Maybe now you’re thinking stuff like: Well, what about the Rolling Stones? They were misogynistic, hedonistic, and egotistic too! Yes, it is true that certain songs of the Stones are all of those things, but they at least make up for those failings with some great displays of naked emotion or poetic musings on morality. So even if I ignore some of their stuff, I can feel enriched by Wild Horses or Sympathy for the Devil. And, as I mentioned, this is not a charge against any particular artist, but a diagnoses of hip-hop as a genre and culture.

I really think that hip-hop is perfectly suited to be the highest kind of Art. In fact, the style lends itself well to intense emotional states, with hypnotic rhythms and otherworldly sounds that could transport the listener to unexplored planes of consciousness. But right now, hip-hop is stunted: mostly by its ties to entertainment culture (but also to macho culture). The same could be said for a lot of other aspects of our culture today: movies, TV shows, video games, books, internet sites: these media are largely regarded as sources of entertainment. We want to be soothed and distracted. We want empowering fantasies rather than uncomfortable realities. And I myself indulge in these creature comforts, probably much more than I should.

But I do certainly know the value of a good artist, and can distinguish art from entertainment, even if it’s more in terms of a ratio of the two rather than a blanket label. Right now is a time where I have been clinging to powerful, inspiring works of art. And right now is when the artistic impotence of the hip-hop artists I typically enjoy seems most apparent. This isn’t an elitist or Rockist criticism. Perhaps it’s a religious criticism. In any event, I’m praying for a change…

Friday, November 19, 2010

That Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore

As mentioned earlier, my music taste in high school was a mixed bag. Some stuff I’ve always loved, some stuff I fell out of and later revisited, and some stuff I’ll probably never touch again. One sub-population of those last bands could perhaps be lumped and labeled as “comedy rock.” I don’t think I’ll ever be able to come to terms with that crap.

But ten or twelve years ago, I was a fan. I loved Adam Sandler’s “They’re All Gonna Laugh At You!,” The Bloodhound Gang, and the President of the United States of America. Eventually, though, it got old. I mean, how many times can you hear a joke before it’s not funny anymore? Not much. Music is at its best when it’s expressive, so if the only point of a song is to get a chuckle, it’s not going to have much staying power once the laughter subsides.

When you compare the extreme highs and lows of the Funny spectrum, like “Amish Paradise” vs. “Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima,” the distinction is obvious: one is dripping with intense feeling, and the other is….a slightly amusing reworking of an older hit song (try to guess which one is which). But there is a good deal of bands situated in the murky middle of that spectrum, and my reactions to them grow more complex.

Take the Darkness. I really, really wanted to dislike them when I first read about them in music mags. Their cheeky embrace of 80’s hair metal stylings just seemed to reek of cynicism. But upon hearing their stuff, I was impressed. It may all have been a joke, but the efforts they made to take that joke to its fullest were apparent. The songs have admittedly limited repeat value, but they’re damn fun pop music. They almost convinced me to check out some authentic 80’s hair metal. Almost…but not quite.

A harder one to judge is Robyn Hitchcock. Musically, he’s a seamless blend of Syd Barrett and John Lennon, but his lyrics are even more odd than those two points of reference. He’s at his best when his words balance his rabid paranoia with surreal whimsy. But his songs are all over the map in terms of Funniness, from dreamily expressive, to almost-joke territory (somewhat close to the Darkness), to unbearably comedic. I can say that I generally like him, but I always have to approach with caution, since any album is likely to have at least two or three joke mines lurking within.

Then there’s Frank Zappa, who I’m pretty sure I hate. Worshiped by almost everyone I know (though I was happy to read that Lester Bangs, Lou Reed, and John Cale all shared my distaste), Zapp crapped on all of his creative ideas with crass, sardonic humor and a flat vocal delivery that lets you know that he
could care about these songs if he wanted to, but he just doesn’t have time for such trifles. This approach stands apart from that of his friend and contemporary, Captain Beefheart. Both shared a fondness for novelty songs and toilet humor, but Beefheart was totally committed to his craft. You could tell that he loved the music he made; he lived it and breathed it, jokes and all. Zappa just wanted to demonstrate how above pop music he was. His use of jokes was at the expense of the music he parodied.

In my opinion, the Residents are a more successful incarnation of what Zappa was trying to do. They can be overly jokey, and also overly preachy about the evils of pop music, but they actually make stuff that they
like making. If you hate pop songs so much, and you ambitiously call upon muses like Stravinsky and Varese, then why spend your whole career making doo wop songs about poop? The Residents hate pop music, so they make delightfully weird soundscapes that provide an alternative to the music they satirize. Zappa thought that being funny was enough, but without any real ties to the music he made, he’s only slightly more respectable than Weird Al.

Again, for me, it’s a ratio that determines whether I tolerate or loathe these middle points on the humor scale. And this forces the continuum into a binary distribution. Either it’s a good song tarnished by cheap cheek, or shitty comedy rock with little or no redeeming musical qualities. The Tiger Lilies, the Dead Milkmen, and Senor Coconut are on one side; The Decemberists, They Might Be Giants, and Tenacious D are on the other.

Try to guess which one is which.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

As if Born to Them

*Some thoughts have a certain sound, thought being equivalent to a form. Through sound and motion, you will be able to paralyze nerves, shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs.*

So I was writing earlier about how artists from the mid-80’s on who identify with hip hop and R&B scenes value street toughness over tender emotions, and how this limits the expressive range of the music.

Well, that still holds for most everyone, but a notable exception has emerged. Urban pop music has found a potential savior: her name is Janelle Monae.

She may never get the acclaim she deserves. It just might not be the right time for her grandiose, left-of-center approach to pop. Her new album, Archandroid, is getting glowing reviews from critics, and faring pretty well in sales, but so far she’s not grabbing the public’s attention like, say, Lady Gaga. And she really deserves that spotlight, because unlike Gaga (and most pop of the past 20 years), she’s the complete package.

She can sing, she can move, she can write, she can play, she’s got command of her image, she’s got videos to excite and challenge, and she’s got loads of ambition to make Music that Matters (think Stevie Wonder rather than Bono and Scott Stapp). She’s definitely sexy too, but that’s incidental; what really attracts is the magnetic force of her multimedia visions for pop entertainment.

Most importantly, she anchors her dizzying, genre-hopping Concept album with earnest emotions, grounded in her concerns for a real world. There’s irony and detachment to her schtick, but unlike so many other icons today, including her friend Big Boi from Outkast, the saccharine rush of her pop mannerisms masks the joys and frustrations of an average human being. It’s catchy and glamorous, yes, but intelligent and expressive, and not afraid to seem a little different.

I’m hoping she becomes the sensation she deserves to be. She’s got the magic of Thriller-era Michael Jackson, but she’s also got substance to her material. She knows that Walt Disney and Broadway can’t magically wash away the world’s problems, and so she uses her songs and her showmanship to provoke her audience into thinking about the world around them.

At worst, she’ll succumb to the pressures of our cynical media culture and cash in on easy exploitations of her artistic vision. At best, she’ll transform the pop universe, paving the way for creative and expressive entertainers, and encouraging urban black musicians to unabashedly reclaim the full range of the emotional spectrum in their deliveries beyond anger and cool bemusement. Most likely though, she’ll be a cult sensation, but that’s not so bad.

At least we have an exciting new artistic personality with a whole career to look forward to, even if she’s not the Kwisatz Haderach of urban pop music. She may have some eventual missteps (it's almost inevitable), but it will be a pleasure to follow Janelle Monae as she dons her various cloaks of style and concept.

The Sleeper Has Awakened!

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The Fame Chimera

I’ve recently been wrestling with Lady Gaga’s place in music, art and media culture.
When I first heard “Just Dance” on the radio, she just sounded of a piece with a slew of other dance and R&B acts bringing back the sounds of electroclash and anthemic trance. Akon was doing it; Britney, Fergie, Rihanna and Kanye too, so why were people touting her as the Next Big Thing?

Well, fast forward a year or so, and she really is everywhere. She’s now a sensation; not just another pop star, either, but an icon. An Artist. She now commands droves of faithful followers who have found expression and validation in her songs and videos.

Of course, it’s still too early to really get a hold on Gaga’s impact on our culture; she’s only released one LP and one EP so far. She could either grow and develop her art, or rapidly disappear into “Where Are They Now?” specials.

But critics and tastemakers, not just the fickle masses, seem to think that she’s already added something important to our lives, and this is what I’ve been trying to figure out.

Her impact as a sort of folk sensation is pretty obvious. There are people who are largely ignorant of the contributions of past icons (like Bowie, Madonna, Grace Jones, even Marilyn Manson) to the cause of gender-fuckery, for whom Lady Gaga is a vital realization of their own socio-erotic truths. There are even people who are aware of Gaga’s visual and musical antecedents, and who laud her appropriations as reviving something they just really enjoy. They don’t mind that “Alejandro” sounds like a fusion of “Don’t Turn Around” by Ace of Base and “La Isla Bonita” by Madonna. In fact, they like it, since they were fans of those songs to begin with.

And she does bring some worthwhile conversations to mainstream attention, even if they have been culled from others’ past efforts. Unlike pretty much any pop star getting press today, Gaga consistently incorporates gay iconography into her art. The Alejandro video, while riddled with stale art film clichés, does present male eroticism and unconventional dynamics of sexual dominance to an audience whose exposure to this stuff is otherwise limited to Katy Perry’s “Ur So Gay” and “I Kissed a Girl.” So that’s something to be said.

But what about the crowd that isn’t ignorant of the past few decades? It’s fine to say that Gaga is a new medium to spread (revive) ideas of postmodernism and subversion to the larger public. But isn’t that more opportunism on her part than creating something new? Or not even new—creating something expressive, rather than something strategized and calculated?

For me, that opportunism really does stand out. Gaga talks a lot about her music as being purely for expression, and also how it’s deeply informed by her love of the avant-garde. Her most-cited heroes are Warhol and Bowie, which makes her sound pretty enticing, at least in writing. So if this is the case, why is her music so smooth and readily digestible?

Bowie took sounds from various underground sources and fashioned songs that were both subversive and accessible, while Gaga is taking sounds from early 90’s Euro Pop, Alice DeeJay, and Madonna. If she wants to use Bowie as an influence, she should try harder. There are plenty of other acts to take inspiration from, both pop (Bat for Lashes, Patrick Wolf, Cocorosie, Antony & the Johnsons, the Knife, Crystal Castles) and avant-garde (Matmos, Xiu Xiu, Soap&Skin, Scott Walker, Animal Collective). Get cracking, Ga.

As for Warhol, he completely restructured the ideals of the art world to exalt the banal and the ephemeral alongside works of complexity and sophistication. Maybe there’s more to it, but I’m guessing that this has mainly served to inform her assertion that Pop Music can be Important Art. Or maybe this very blog entry is feeding into her ulterior motive: to have the world wrestle with the meaning of her art, and of contemporary art in general. But to me, that’s just cheap. Such talk comes with any pop star who is labeled (by themselves or others) as Important. See Eminem, Marilyn Manson, Kanye West and, yes, Madonna, for similar conversations.

Perhaps, then, it’s not her form that’s important, it’s her content. Which sounds true, if you ever hear her explanations of her songs (Pokerface is apparently about her imagining sex with a woman while mounting her man). This approach would be a lot more powerful if the meanings could be extracted without her explanations, though. Left alone, they just sound like vapidly opaque pop song lyrics. Perhaps a particularly vigilant sophisto can glean some of these “true” intentions, but there’s no way a typical pop fan is gonna catch that stuff. And that severely undercuts any subversive potential of her songs.

No, I think as she stands, Lady Gaga is perhaps subversive in image only. Smooth, friendly sounds supporting videos and photos that startle and titillate the uninitiated, and perhaps reassure the already-initiated that wider acceptance is just around the corner. Perhaps her sound will eventually evolve into something more challenging, but I’m pretty sure that when Gaga mentions the avant-garde, she’s referring only to fashion, and not to music. Her earliest videos (two years before The Fame) show her immersed in the sounds of Norah Jones and Vanessa Carlton. Something tells me that Madonna and Alice DeeJay is about as edgy as she’ll be able to conjure.

I’d love to be proven wrong, though. I may be a skeptic, but I’m certainly not a hater. I wish all the best for the Lady. May she eventually turn her fame into a monster that actually wreaks some havoc upon our culture.

Or at least find some more interesting artists to copy.