soundertow Escribi�:
Darkstarexodus Escribi�:
I don't see what's wrong with contextualizing a song.
Yeah, you are right. Looking back I think I got the (false?) impression that this thread had partially become a support group for people who are pissed of the track... "there there, it's not that bad, maybe it's following the trends set up by other producers instead of leading but it's still the chemical way of doing so! it's a pop world so you gotta do pop cause pop is pop" ... and I don't think support is dumb but I find some of the arguments so silly I just had to response. Nothing wrong with contextualizing songs - it's just so easy to fall into some strange sort of fan culture which thrives on secondary details and in my opinion just makes you miserable in the end.
Err. If this was a condescending dig at me (which I feel it was given your response to my long assessment of the track - maybe I am wrong) then I think you either misunderstod the gist of what I was trying to say or something was lost in translation. Or maybe I am being overly sensitive today.
I was using the ideas expressed in the thread as a spring board for my reply, given that I was 30 pages late into the discussion to begin with and had a few listens under my belt. But my references to pop and my perception of the lyrics still stand. As Darkstar and others pointed out in varying degrees, pop doesn't have to automatically mean it's bad. Radio friendly doesn't mean it's sh*t although there have been disappointing responses to Do It Again that imply certain people were either a.) expecting something mindblowingly epic like The Reel or b.) wishing the Chems would go underground and not make a song that might get radio play. Same old discussion, just a different day and a new tune to bring it out. :P
The fact that someone (including myself) would refer to this song as damn good pop song and being ahead of their game and everyone elses and get the kind of negative reaction is reflective of bias or prejudice IMO. Or else it wouldn't have issued such terse rebuttals. Or maybe I am missing something, or something is lost in translation. I never said the Chems were a pop act, or they were making music to be trendy - isn't trendy really just a part of being in the right place at the right time? I've been a fan long enough to know the Chemical Brothers make music that pleases them. What we hear is their souls, to some degree. I can hear this when I listen to their music - radio friendly, MTV and Grammy awards be damned. They do what they want to do, and where their music fits in is happenstance.
Anyway - either someone likes the song or they don't, but yay/nay responses are boring and dull and so are inane one liners pissing on the tune and all the blasting that Chems have gone commercial. It is far more interesting and less miserable to discuss what makes a song a good song, or what makes it bad or what you get or don't get out of it, or how it fits into the landscape or culture. Tying in commercial appeal or the radio friendliness of the tune is only the tip of the iceberg to more interesting discussion. Contextualizing is where the discussion's at once everyone's found their footing.
MultiQuote
