Drunk in Love

in which we discuss Beyonce, Jay-Z, Miley Cyrus and Gloria Leonard.

So, I didn't watch the Grammy Awards. I don't really give a shit about them. It's yet another entertainment industry self-aggrandizing, mutual masturbatory, solipsistic bit of industry insiderness, and I really could give half a hairy fuck.

(and in another post, I'm gonna tell you how I REALLY feel about the Grammys. Maybe next year)

But then the New York Times reported on what they say is a "lively debate" on Facebook and twitter (ok, so I don't give half a hairy shit about Facebook either) regarding the Beyonce and Jay-Z performance during the Grammys. (granted, as my husband pointed out, it has an excellent shout out to mimic octopuses)

Ok.

1. It grosses me out that the NYT is reporting on things being said on social media, especially regarding entertainment. Egyptian protests - yes, I get it. The Grammys? FUCK YOU, NYT.
2. I grossed myself out, first by reading the article, and then by immediately going to YouTube to watch the performance. So here it is:

now you can hate me too.

This was sexy? And intimate? Did I watch an entirely different performance? Jay-Z and Beyonce have what must be the best choreographed marriage in history. And you can take that however you want.

One of the Facebookers was quoted as writing: “No good reason for a married mother to be on a chair with her legs gaped open for the whole world to see.”

Which brings me to my point:

Why shouldn't Beyonce act like a stripper if she damn well feels like it? For that matter, why shouldn't Miley Cyrus, former child star or not?

It's along the lines of what the porn star Gloria Leonard said: “...the whole point of the women’s movement is for women to choose whatever they want to do. Why should my choice be considered any less or more valid than your choice?”

Yeah, I fully support the choices of Beyonce, Miley, Rhianna, and whichever other women out there choose to act like strippers, sluts, or whatever other sexually charged image they wish to portray to the general public.

But that begs the question of whether or not these female stars are actually choosing these particular images, or if they're being chosen for them.

I'm not trying to denigrate their power as self-actualized human beings to choose, based on their gender. But I wonder how much the music business actually allows them to express themselves as they wish to be expressed, and how much of this sexuality (and/or controversy) is manufactured in order to generate record/iTunes sales.

Especially after having read numerous biographies and interviews with male musicians bitching mightily about the music industry not allowing them to fully express their creative personas, as music executives want to continue along the lines of what sells. If this is happening to men in the music business, what is happening to the (historically marginalized) women in the biz?

Comparing Beyonce's expressions of sexuality to Miley's may be like comparing cognac to kool-aid, given that Beyonce is one of the richest, most powerful women on the planet, (or so we're told), and Miley is just testing out her wings, but how much is Beyonce also playing into the market place and how much of this is actually her?

Just sayin'.*

*apostrophe courtesy of my husband.

Lastly, the lyrics of Drunk in Love. Really? Surfboard? I mean, I'm all about dumbass lyrics. I'll admit that Robin Thicke's "what rhymes with hug me?" cracks me up EVERY TIME. But the surfboard/riding on that wood thing? UGH.

I wuz rong.

In which I eat crow. Or something. 

So, back on September 30th, I wrote that I would end up hating myself for buying part two of Justin Timberlake's 20/20 Experience the following day.

Here are the things I was wrong about (and for a short post, it's impressive that I was wrong about pretty much everything:

1. I didn't buy the album the next day. (I waited until it went on deep sale at Amazon, and THEN bought it)
2. I didn't hate the album (in fact, I really like it).
3. My soul is not actually redeemable. (I was joking about that anyway. I already knew this)

I like Part II. Some of this may be due to the fact that Part I sucked so hard that I had much lower expectations. But honestly, I feel like Timbaland (and Timberlake) brought it on Part II. There is even a song (Drink You Away) that I am planning on learning to play on the guitar.

Not much else to say about it. It's a good album. Yay. I still can't forgive Part I.

On the list of other things I've been wrong about recently, I've gotta say that Miley Cyrus tops the list.

It might be easier to list the things I was not wrong about:

1. Her album cover sucks.
2. The video for Wrecking Ball is still ridiculous. Licking sledgehammers. Simulating sex on/with a wrecking ball. As my favorite fridge magnet says, "Jesus would slap the shit out of you."

Yeah. This album is surprisingly good and, believe it or not, listenable. Miley has considerable singing talent. The songs are creative, and, dare I say it, push the envelope of what a good pop song is. I even like the song Wrecking Ball. It's just that the video was so godawful it totally colored my perception of the song. (this happens rather frequently to me. I should probably write a post about that too). 

Additionally, I really enjoy how she and/or her producer, let her country side show quite a bit on a few of the songs. I mean, with a different backing track, some of these tracks could have come straight out of Nashville.

Anyhoo. Twerking, obnoxious public persona, masturbating with foam fingers and licking inanimate objects aside, I like this album. I like it a lot. And I am absofruitly NOT the target audience for it whatsoever.

Go figure.

all this time...

in which [the royal] we discuss the relevance of older artists.

 

So, Sting released a new album today. I honestly have no clue how well it is going to do, nor do I really care. I mean, I guess the dude has enough money, and probably has enough fame at this point. Given what emotions come through in his songs, I figure that probably part of the reason why he’s still writing, recording and releasing songs is for art. Or joy. Or love. Or something. Whatever that thing is, it works for me.

I mean, it worked for me when he was younger, cockier, and more of a jackass. I’ve always loved his stuff. Grew up on it. We’re talking more than three decades of having Sting in one form or another in constant rotation with all my other music.

The only other artists that I’ve had on constant rotation are Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen. And I don’t listen to them nearly as frequently as I do Sting. For instance, I have every single one of Sting’s albums on my phone, for daily listening, but only three songs from MJ and Bruce…

Anyway. I mentioned Sting’s new album to a coworker, who mind you, is older than I am, and her first response was to ask “Is he still relevant?”

She brought up Rod Stewart, who she mentioned had released an album earlier this year. I had to fact check this statement, and apparently he did release an album of original material in May. (It didn’t do well in the US as far as I can tell, but went to the top of the charts in the UK.) She spent some time reminiscing about Rod during the 70s and 80s, and then again in the Aughts, and how hot he’d been back then.

Which raised a lot of questions for me. 

Does it matter if musicians are making music just because they can? Or to appease diehard fans? Or to hold on to past glory? Or to please themselves? Or to pay their kids’ college tuition bills? For nostalgia’s sake? 

Why would we care if that’s all they were doing?

Does it fucking matter if an artist is still relevant? If somebody, somewhere, gets enjoyment out of art, sees the beauty in it, and it somehow adds to their existence, doesn’t that negate any questions of relevancy?

What does it matter if the only person in the world who is listening to Rod Stewart is some 60-something cat hoarder living on the dole in Great Britain who pops on his record to masturbate to while fantasizing about his lithesome 1970s era bod? (or, his not so lithesome 2013 one…)

Or that Sting releases some song that has a ridiculously complicated time signature that only certain math/music geeks understand? (or jerk off to. fine. whatever)

This is a large part of why I try not to slag on musicians (or artists of any sort.) I’m not going to emotionally connect with Miley Cyrus making out with a sledgehammer (Ke$ha making out with unicorns is way more my speed), but obviously millions of other people are, so who am I to judge them for their tastes in art? It’s doing something for someone somewhere.*

(Although, I may be somewhat disturbed by what it says about our culture that watching Miley simulate sex with a wrecking ball has garnered 149,000,000 views on YouTube, but whatever. I mean, I watched it. Once. I guess it is kinda like a car wreck.)

Yeah. I still love Sting’s music. So what?

*Please note that this attitude does not so much extend to genocide, cannibalism, Yoko Ono’s recordings, and other things that cause harm to any living being.

Randomesque Side Note: I once had the opportunity to meet Sting, and I declined, because I was afraid that he’d be a total asshole (I think he was still in his jackass phase) and I didn’t want his shitty behavior to ruin my love of his music. That particular modus operandi still stands for most of the musicians I deeply admire. (i.e. stay the fuck away)