Christina Aguilera is NOT more radical than the Sex Pistols. Or is she?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
re: that NYT times essay on rockism, by saying that, this article/writer falls into that same old trap of inferring rockist values even when trying to rally against them. who cares if aguilera is 'radical' or not? lots of great music isnt 'radical' per se, doesnt mean its of less worth. anyway, the real issue is that no, aguilera isnt more radical, and no amount of reactionary opposition, for the sheer sake of painful hipsterism is going to change that.

titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

No.

mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

which is probably a good thing

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Strong, female sexuality is often loathed and intimidating for some people - the level of hatred she recieves from some sections of the public implies she is hitting some of the right buttons. But you're right, who cares how radical something is.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Kelefa explicitly points this out in the next clause after saying that Xtina is as radical as whoever! He says something like "she is radical, but it doesn't matter, because that value judgment is rockist".

and clearly she's more radical in some ways, and less in others. and equally clearly, you're right, it doesn't matter, her songs are way better.

The Lex (The Lex), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

"Strong, female sexuality is often loathed and intimidating for some people - the level of hatred she recieves from some sections of the public implies she is hitting some of the right buttons."

theres good ways of expressing that though - dirty is not one of them. i like songs like genie in a bottle or beautiful, but how radical is strong female sexuality really though when ultimately, its providing a fantasy for men anyway?

titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"Strong, female sexuality is often loathed and intimidating for some people - the level of hatred she recieves from some sections of the public implies she is hitting some of the right buttons."

theres good ways of expressing that though - dirty is not one of them. i like songs like genie in a bottle or beautiful, but how radical is a lot of what passes for strong female sexuality really when ultimately, its just providing a fantasy for men anyway? i think it stopped being radical several years ago. at least in that 'i like sex, can i tell you all about it? AGAIN.' manner, anyway.

titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Is "rockist" in the ILM sense an established musicrit term now then? 'Cos that'd be rad.

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

theres good ways of expressing that though - dirty is not one of them. i like songs like genie in a bottle or beautiful, but how radical is strong female sexuality really though when ultimately, its providing a fantasy for men anyway?

1) "Dirrty" came out at the same time as Britney's cover of "I Love Rock'n'Roll". Most straight men I knew found Xtina's uber-slut skankiness a turn-off, or at least they said they did, in contrast to the image of Britney in leather on a motorbike.

2) Xtina's 'radicalness' isn't bound up in any one song by itself; what I especially loved about the promotion of the Stripped singles was that the seeming deliberate wank-fodder (or exaggeration thereof) of "Dirrty" was immediately followed by a video in which two of the most prominent images were of an elderly transvestite dressing up, and a hot gay kiss with tongues. And you can imagine everyone who was turned on by "Dirrty" rushing straight to their computers to d/l and wank over the new video from pop's uber-slut when "Beautiful" came out... and then to find they couldn't.

The Lex (The Lex), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, whether you think this strange or not, i certainly thought Britters looked better in the I Love Rock n' Roll vid than Christina did in Dirrty

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Besides dressing like a transvestie prostitute, how exactly is Christina "radical"?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:13 (twenty-one years ago)

This makes me wonder if 'subversiveness' and 'transgression,' as used in cultural studies, are rockist values applied to the academy.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

How radical is her cover of 'Carwash', do you suppose?

Can someone who is old enough to remember The Sex Pistols tell me how radical they felt at the time? In retrospect they seem like a bunch of people cashing in on Consumerised Rebellion -'Hey kids, subvert the system by buying this CD' - not hugely radical, really (although, admittedly, more so than Christina). But this might just be how they look from today's perspective.

hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

The `Pistols certainly sounded radical for their time. They may sound quaint and conventional by today's standards, but at the time people didn't know what to make of them.

In retrospect they seem like a bunch of people cashing in on Consumerised Rebellion -'Hey kids, subvert the system by buying this CD' - not hugely radical, really (although, admittedly, more so than Christina)

Well, for a start, they weren't CDs. Secondly, the fact that the `Pistols were signed to and then summarily dropped by no less than three or four record labels in quick succession (hence the Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle), shoveling in a shitload of cash in the process certainly made them seem entirely anti-establishmentarian pirates. Also, while they -- once again -- may seem quaint today, the`Pistols were saying an awful lot of things that pissed a great many people off. What's Christina saying? That she wants to get dirrrty? Alert the fucking media.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

"Strong, female sexuality is often loathed and intimidating for some people - the level of hatred she recieves from some sections of the public implies she is hitting some of the right buttons."

OTM, its funny when i hear people (usually women) calling her or any other pop diva in a that vein a "slut".

don't care for her music though.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean, she's no britney.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Can we please retire the word "diva"?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The meat of this question, it seems, is:

Which is more "radical"?

(a) Violently decrying society's ills, using naughty language, displaying abject disdain for authority and convention, playing willfully loud & arguably amateurish rock'n'roll.

or

(b) Shamelessly expressing one's sexual identity.

That said, if you choose (b), I'd say Madonna beat her to it.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd say both are radical in their own way. The backlash against people expressing their sexual identity seems to have been responsible for FOUR MORE YEARS after all..

Thanks for the perspective on the Sex Pistols, by the way. I've never really liked them, and the temptation is there to dismiss them on that highly subjective basis, but (aside from being rather arrogant) I suspect that is probably a mistake.

You have to wonder, from either side, how radical someone making lots of money for large record companies can ever be - but I'm sure that argument has been done here many times already.

And yes... can't believe I said CDs. You can take the kid out of the 90s, but...

hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, yes she is.

http://www.plasticbag.org/images/extra/christina_of_finland.jpg

Lukas (lukas), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I see that by radical you mean "sexy".

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

wait, that's not what radical means? and i thought the french revolution was all about hot sex.

Lukas (lukas), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)

re: that NYT times essay on rockism, by saying that, this article/writer falls into that same old trap of inferring rockist values even when trying to rally against them. who cares if aguilera is 'radical' or not? lots of great music isnt 'radical' per se, doesnt mean its of less worth. anyway, the real issue is that no, aguilera isnt more radical, and no amount of reactionary opposition, for the sheer sake of painful hipsterism is going to change that.

See, the issue doesn't really matter, but the important thing is that he's wrong on it. Wuh?

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Tuesday, 16 November 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

four years pass...

She isn't the Sex Pistols, but it would be pretty cool if she ever had a concert where she sang her most famous mash-ups, wouldn't it?

Cunga, Monday, 24 November 2008 00:01 (seventeen years ago)

titchyschneider

Peter "One Dart" Manley (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Monday, 24 November 2008 00:07 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.