britneydebate

interesting, she has star quality... you know, she's like a social phenomenon... I also like her songs on 'Oops' quite a lot.
K: Would you consider her an artist?
R: no... I'd consider Max Martin to be an artist.. to some degree, I suppose.. actually, yeah, I do consider HIM to be an artist... Britney I just consider to be a symbol of sorts.
K: Max Martin?
R: songwriter
K: her Doctor Frankenstein?
R: yeah
K: don't you find 50 minutes of cheesy love songs tedious?
R: Well it's not actually 50 minutes of cheesy love songs - that's what I like about Britney as opposed to the other clones.
R: Her songs are more about frustration and confusion - a sort of toned down teen angst, if you will.
K: What about songs like 'I was born to make you happy'?
R: That's why I like 'oops' (the album) better.
K: Don't you find that a bit Fat Pathetic 48 year old executive trying to get his rocks off by making Britney sing it?
R: 'Born To Make You Happy' has a couple of okay moments... I mean, it's almost a sad song, I suppose... "I don't wanna cry a tear for you so forgive me if I do..."
R: But the songs I think are interesting...
K: You do realise this is the Mills and Boon of music, and not the Jane Austen
K: but lyrics like the one above are so passe they've been used so long
R: BOMT
Sometimes
Oops
Stronger
Satisfaction
What You See Is What You Get
Lucky
Girl In The Mirror
Heart
R: Well I guess it depends which way you look at it. I mean, I think those divisions are pretty much redundant... Britney doesn't have a good voice, although she seems to be able to convey frustration well, but the songs that are written for her aren't bad at all. Britney is interesting because she is popular and she embodies so much, she's not an empty canvas -
K: What exactly do you think she embodies?
R:... inspires passionate hatred in people... the things she does almost... say something about society, I guess.
K: There is a difference between finding her interesting and actually liking her music?
K: Do you think she is the epitomy teenage happiness?
K: Beautiful, rich, famous?
R: I don't know for sure yet... I mean, I read an interesting quote in rolling stone, that Britney Spears embodies "teenage sexual confusion" - in the sense that what her lyrics talk about is the confusion, say, 15 year olf girls go through in regards to relationships... they actually read a little like diary entries...
R: I wouldn't say she epitomised teenage happiness, although perhaps she embodies what teenagers THINK will make them happy in a society driven by consumption and the belief that anyone can be famous.
R: I mean, she practically reads like a manual on celebrity theory.
K: Do you think the songs if sung by a less attractive singer would still get the girls identifying themselves with her?
K: Not a celebrity theoreum - cultural degradation.
K: don't look for depth in something that clearly lacks it.
R: Then I may as well drop my entire university degree.
K: you did your university degree for Britney?
R: you see, I believe that our pop culture products both shape and reflect the nature of our society... so therefore, the phenomenal popularity of Britney Spears is a worthy topic of study... especially considering the mangled up meanings she projects...
R: no... I actually hated her when I started.
R: I don't think I liked her until about... *thinks* June-August 2000?
K: Pop culture deals with the society that would be a idealistic.
R: Explain?
R: I actually began my degree so I could become a journalist, but now I've decided analsying media would be more fun.

K: It wants them to grow up to be holistic.
R: Well, that would be a marxist approach.
K: Why do you think it is Marxist?
K: Ok what do you think about someone like say Human Nature?
R: because it assumes that people will take on the meanings intended by commercial enterprise and the powers that be, as though it's all some big conspiracy... it doesn't allow for my individual agency. It assumes that all 'art' (in the broadest sense) is implicitly and intentionally commercial.
K: and there's the rub
K: it isn't a conspiracy
K: it is out there in the open, it's capitalism at it's best/worst
R: The reality is a LOT more complicated. Certainly, the products we consume play a part in the way we interpret the world, and all art has some sort of political implications within it, unless it's completely banal - like Human Nature, for example. But what that doesn't allow for is the level of individual interpretation - our understanding of
K: Ok do you think that Human Nature do drugs?
R: art/commercial products is also influenced by our own experiences. We interact with the product - make fun of it... I mean, of course, the majority of popular culture products are banal, but there are a few which transcend banality... the immensely popular, the ones which inspire debate and controversy within society.
K: You have no idea how not innocent these people are. Celebrities.
R: No one would bother having a debate over Human Nature.
R: Oh... I do.

And then the conversation descended into a quite dull one on the contradictions celebrity image. But there we go - a debate between Marxism and post-structuralism. Take your pick. :p

back