The "you make my speakers go boom boom" song is good songwriting. People on yahoo answers and other web sites are asking who sings it and they clearly know the "boom boom" hook even if they don't know the singer or the rest of the song. Seems to me that a mid-level, B-list kind of star like Luke Bryan would be blessed to get a song like this.
In the context of commercial music designed to have mass appeal, I think its only partially true that "memorable doesn't equal good." True a song may be memorable but artistically poor, or poor on non artistic reasons. But Luke Bryan is a singer trying to reach a mass audience, get his name out there even further, and possibly move up to "A list artist status." This song seems to be aimed at that. It seems to be quite successful on those lines. By some criteria, it may not be "good," but by others it seems to be good.
I think it is a bit short sighted to judge a commercially oriented song aimed at FM radio solely on "artistic merits" or some such standard. If that is the standard, nearly all mainstream country songs (including many Harlan Howard penned songs) would fail. And there's little gained in constantly looking at commercial songs that are clearly not intended to be sophisticated art, then reviewing them according to such a standard, and repeatedly nothing that they fail to meet that standard.
I think the best discussions of popular music do acknowledge that popular music is made for commercial reasons as well as creative reasons, and take into consideration those multiple purposes. Thus if a song is memorable, is resonating with listeners, is getting a reaction from its intended audience, I think a useful discussion would try to explore why the song might be successful at doing so despite its artistic failings. I would find that a lot more engaging and enlightening than a review that simply holds the song to an unmeetable standard and announces that the song fails to meet said standard.
So, no "memorable does not equal good," but such sayings also don't really tell us much about commercial music.
Harlan Howard didnt right fucking slop. Your acceptance of an artist "doing what it takes" to "get his name out there" is the biggest problem in thhe vacuum effect. Dont ever say Harlan Howard and this Boom Boom song again in the same comment or i might have to murder you. Listen, folks like Harlan Howard and Roger Miller had writing songs down to such an art they were able to write a song that appealed to the lowest common denominator as well as being artistic and smart enough that it appealed to the smarter audience as well. That art is lost. Whats next, comparing the Solo Cup song to Dang Me?
Anonymous, you are way too quick to dismiss the concept of "artistic standards." There are degrees of artistic quality. Sure, Harlan Howard's best compositions may not seem like towering acheivments compared to Ravel's string quartets for example, but within the history of popular country music, there is a precedent of quality that is far greater what is acheived in Luke Bryan's "Drunk On You."
It might be a popular song, and might resonate with some people, but to claim that that makes it a good composition is bordering on an appeal to popularity, which is typically considered a fallacious argument. Bad art, music, and entertainment has always been popular at times, but it's a critic's job to excercise judgement, and from this critic's perspective, Luke Bryan's song is thematically trite, lyrically dumb, and melodically bland. I also do not find it particularly memorable. It is not good songwriting.
And yes, popular music is usually produced partially out of commercial considerations, but I think it's a little naive to pretend that the commercial music environment (particularly with respect to terrestrial radio) hasn't changed dramatically for the worse in recent years. The radio waves are basically ruled by two corporations who dictate what can by played, and drastically restrict which artists and types of songs are available to listeners. This is *especially* true in country music. So yeah, we could applaud Luke Bryan songs simply because he is a commercially succesful performer in the context of this restricted, somewhat corrupt environment, but I for one do not think it is the job of critics and fans to be cheerleaders for the industry.
Luke Bryan's commercial success would only be commendable if his music was actually good.
The "you make my speakers go boom boom" song is good songwriting. People on yahoo answers and other web sites are asking who sings it and they clearly know the "boom boom" hook even if they don't know the singer or the rest of the song. Seems to me that a mid-level, B-list kind of star like Luke Bryan would be blessed to get a song like this.
ReplyDeleteMemorable ≠ good
ReplyDeleteIn the context of commercial music designed to have mass appeal, I think its only partially true that "memorable doesn't equal good." True a song may be memorable but artistically poor, or poor on non artistic reasons. But Luke Bryan is a singer trying to reach a mass audience, get his name out there even further, and possibly move up to "A list artist status." This song seems to be aimed at that. It seems to be quite successful on those lines. By some criteria, it may not be "good," but by others it seems to be good.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a bit short sighted to judge a commercially oriented song aimed at FM radio solely on "artistic merits" or some such standard. If that is the standard, nearly all mainstream country songs (including many Harlan Howard penned songs) would fail. And there's little gained in constantly looking at commercial songs that are clearly not intended to be sophisticated art, then reviewing them according to such a standard, and repeatedly nothing that they fail to meet that standard.
I think the best discussions of popular music do acknowledge that popular music is made for commercial reasons as well as creative reasons, and take into consideration those multiple purposes. Thus if a song is memorable, is resonating with listeners, is getting a reaction from its intended audience, I think a useful discussion would try to explore why the song might be successful at doing so despite its artistic failings. I would find that a lot more engaging and enlightening than a review that simply holds the song to an unmeetable standard and announces that the song fails to meet said standard.
So, no "memorable does not equal good," but such sayings also don't really tell us much about commercial music.
Harlan Howard didnt right fucking slop. Your acceptance of an artist "doing what it takes" to "get his name out there" is the biggest problem in thhe vacuum effect. Dont ever say Harlan Howard and this Boom Boom song again in the same comment or i might have to murder you. Listen, folks like Harlan Howard and Roger Miller had writing songs down to such an art they were able to write a song that appealed to the lowest common denominator as well as being artistic and smart enough that it appealed to the smarter audience as well. That art is lost. Whats next, comparing the Solo Cup song to Dang Me?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you are way too quick to dismiss the concept of "artistic standards." There are degrees of artistic quality. Sure, Harlan Howard's best compositions may not seem like towering acheivments compared to Ravel's string quartets for example, but within the history of popular country music, there is a precedent of quality that is far greater what is acheived in Luke Bryan's "Drunk On You."
ReplyDeleteIt might be a popular song, and might resonate with some people, but to claim that that makes it a good composition is bordering on an appeal to popularity, which is typically considered a fallacious argument. Bad art, music, and entertainment has always been popular at times, but it's a critic's job to excercise judgement, and from this critic's perspective, Luke Bryan's song is thematically trite, lyrically dumb, and melodically bland. I also do not find it particularly memorable. It is not good songwriting.
And yes, popular music is usually produced partially out of commercial considerations, but I think it's a little naive to pretend that the commercial music environment (particularly with respect to terrestrial radio) hasn't changed dramatically for the worse in recent years. The radio waves are basically ruled by two corporations who dictate what can by played, and drastically restrict which artists and types of songs are available to listeners. This is *especially* true in country music. So yeah, we could applaud Luke Bryan songs simply because he is a commercially succesful performer in the context of this restricted, somewhat corrupt environment, but I for one do not think it is the job of critics and fans to be cheerleaders for the industry.
Luke Bryan's commercial success would only be commendable if his music was actually good.