Party album of the CENTURY

[Animal Boything]

You are overthinking it, you are supposed to feel this music with your ass.

I got my big box of Girl Talk CD's in the mail today and half of them are already gone. This music seems to appeal to just about everyone who is into pop music, which is most people I know. I know dirty has never been pop central, but I'm glad at least one or two of you are feeling it.

And yeah, you with the garbage letters, I've heard a fair bit of Girl Talk's older stuff since my brother is a fan... it was more chopped up and weird before, less dancefloor-oriented, and I think that change in approach really took his style to the next level with the new album. His song Pure Magic is really pretty excellent though, I love the Lil Scrappy loop at the beginning and the extremely brief Jay-Z sample... I think you can still get that from his myspace page. I agree that the My Humps sample is a little hard on the ears, because what an awful song... but I like how he used it and I got over it pretty quickly. Also, that Nickelback mp3 was hilarious, but I don't think that's really what he's going for...

[kid cue]

Originally Posted by Animal Boything

You are overthinking it, you are supposed to feel this music with your ass.

LOL, I stand corrected. Interesting though that one is only allowed to think about "just party music" when they're good thoughts.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by kid cue

LOL, I stand corrected. Interesting though that one is only allowed to think about "just party music" when they're good thoughts.

What I find interesting is that you've been arguing its not on the level of "full art" and that its an exaggeration of the dj process rather than a breakthrough of the process and yet insist on criticizing it on that level, instead of conceeding the possibility that it wasn't ever meant to be anything more than that.

Are you suggesting we apply this rigor to half the disco tracks out there? Music meant to be little more than "catchy?" I might be simple minded but I assume most pop music is written to get people laid or feeling good. Which means the only possible aesthetic standard you can use against is the number of times you got laid and how good you feel

But I concede that means you can't take Girl Talk's own manifesto nonsense any more seriously. The idea that it's "illicit" music carries the pretense that it's underground and making a bold statement as such, as opposed to a dangerous lack of intellectual property. I'm sure it could allow him to think of himself as some kind of musical outlaw with all the romance the image conjures. But in reality he's not defying the system any more than Public Enemy really needed all the toy guns on stage.

If this music is to be appreciated at all its to be on a very gut level, god willing with lots and lots of alcohol, no more no less

[kid cue]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

What I find interesting is that you've been arguing its not on the level of "full art" and that its an exaggeration of the dj process rather than a breakthrough of the process and yet insist on criticizing it on that level, instead of conceeding the possibility that it wasn't ever meant to be anything more than that.

Right... I'm arguing in these terms because those were the ones presented in the interview article that was posted in this thread, and then supported afterwards (although I realize the main argument in quoting that article was to "prove" that Girl Talk is not ironic). As my point has been that I don't think those terms really work, I would actually prefer to talk about Girl Talk as "just" more pop music that "just" isn't very good, but the immediate impulse in praising him and other marginal artists who work with pop is to suggest that he transcends pop! A lot of tricky layers to navigate, always.

EDIT: However, I think it is quite valid to consider pop and dance music with "conceptual rigor", as it were. Good music inspires thought, no matter its first intent. But that brings me back to why I'd rather not think too hard about Girl Talk....

Sorry....

[adam]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

I might be simple minded but I assume most pop music is written to get people laid or feeling good. Which means the only possible aesthetic standard you can use against is the number of times you got laid and how good you feel

I understand what you're getting at, but I think this statement is kind of bananas. I can hold things to any standard that interests me and is relevant. The intent as such-and-such does NOT suit it with some criticism-invincible armor. NOT. A key word was missing from my un-edited post.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by adam

I understand what you're getting at, but I think this statement is kind of bananas. I can hold things to any standard that interests me and is relevant. The intent as such-and-such does NOT suit it with some criticism-invincible armor. NOT. A key word was missing from my un-edited post.

Let me get this straight. You're saying its bananas to take the intent of the art when engaging in criticism? Or would you suggest bothering the judges at the Sundance film board to analyze your home movies?

You can hold things to any standard that's relevant is true, but I was arguing the contrapositive here. If its not relevant to it, you can't apply the standard.

what am I not understanding here?

[adam]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Which means the only possible aesthetic standard you can use against is the number of times you got laid and how good you feel

What I'm saying is that I don't think the above is ever true. I think it's a valid aesthetic standard if that's the intent, but the intent does not preclude any other aesthetic standard. It's the "only possible" that bugs me.

I don't think your analogy to Sundance/home movies makes any more sense, either. Of course, I wouldn't suggest them taking a look at my home movies, but there's no reason that anyone's home movies can't be discussed in aesthetic terms. I'm sure there's unintentionally beautiful home movies. The "unintentionally" portion does not change the "beautiful" portion. See also: Capturing the Friedmans.

I'm trying to say: it's not necessary to discuss them in higher terms, but that's a big step from "not possible," which is what you said.

[Strangelet]

yah that's a good point, seriously.

[adam]

The internet isn't for agreeing!

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by adam

The internet isn't for agreeing!

i totally agree with this.