Posted: Mar 07, 2012 8:15 am
Mac_Guffin wrote:Yeah, but on a deeper level, it was a rejection of the status quo. Which is something Miley's doing here and with the atheist stuff.
I'm sorry, singing one of the most popular songs of the last 20 years with cardboard cutout fashion mag visuals which would make Kurt turn in his grave doesn't strike me as particularly subversive. I agree that her coming out with that quote while still being a Christian, opening herself up to criticism from her fanbase, is very brave and subversive. But even before he killed himself there was nothing subversive about SLTS, and that's part of why Kurt hated playing it. It had been turned into just another de-clawed pop tune, loved by all the people it was sneering at.
I don't see that at all. Miley's going into territory only The Beatles, if you count them, are going into. She's a pop artist loved by the status quo, but she's doing these things to challenge it... Doing it from within, which is much more effective. You're not going to get people to realize their bullshit by singing protest songs and pithy punk rants. It's expected. What's not expected is a pop artist challenging what's accepted.
I generally agree with your point, but I don't see anything even vaguely subversive about what she's doing musically. Playing SLTS isn't going to wake anyone up, it's been on every radio station in existence for the last 20 years. Hell, I've heard it on classic rock stations at this point. Covering the arguably most popular song of our generation, the most widely accepted punk-styled song there is, does not even begin to touch the sort of subversion the Beatles brought to pop music.
Though I'd argue The Beatles were only subversive in the context of pop music
/geekiness