Paris's debut album has been treated more as a public joke than a work of art.
Unfairly so.
Whoever wrote these songs for Paris and whoever produced this record had some pop brains.
Just because Paris can't sing doesn't mean this isn't good music.
Besides, she's tongue-in-cheek the whole way.
She knows she's a dumb blond.
But she plays the image with good music.
What do you think?

I'm confused...Paris...Good Music? Please excuse me while I find my Brooke Hogan album...Oh wait, I don't have that album...I mean, what?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

Good music, badly sung? Is that really what Paris' music is? I get that it could be ironically hip to try to defend Paris, but I just don't see why one would make the effort. The only 'art' present is provided by the folks who write the songs, record the music, etc. And those folks will never get recognized for what they did.

I really don't think Paris' approach is tongue-in-cheek. I don't think she's smart enough to know what 'tongue in cheek' means, honestly. She's apparently taking this record VERY seriously. She made a National Lampoon movie (which is supposed to be AWFUL) and she refuses to promote it because she says her career can't handle a film flop right now due to the record.

I've only heard the two singles. "Stars Are Blind" sounded like a mediocre cover of Blondie's "The Tide is High." Or a wannabe No Doubt/Gwen Stefani single. Her voice is weak. The music might be good, but isn't the principle of the thing what's at issue? Why should a shitty singer with no real musical talent get to make a record with good musicians?

The "Stars are blind" video looks strangely like Chris Isaak's one. You know, the chick and chris on a beach in a black and white video? It's just the same thing....

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
Good music, badly sung? Is that really what Paris' music is? I get that it could be ironically hip to try to defend Paris, but I just don't see why one would make the effort. The only 'art' present is provided by the folks who write the songs, record the music, etc. And those folks will never get recognized for what they did.

I really don't think Paris' approach is tongue-in-cheek. I don't think she's smart enough to know what 'tongue in cheek' means, honestly. She's apparently taking this record VERY seriously. She made a National Lampoon movie (which is supposed to be AWFUL) and she refuses to promote it because she says her career can't handle a film flop right now due to the record.

I've only heard the two singles. "Stars Are Blind" sounded like a mediocre cover of Blondie's "The Tide is High." Or a wannabe No Doubt/Gwen Stefani single. Her voice is weak. The music might be good, but isn't the principle of the thing what's at issue? Why should a shitty singer with no real musical talent get to make a record with good musicians?

Okay, first of all, I don't want to sound hostile because I like a lot of your replies, but at the same time, I want to point out a few things you may not have noticed along with thousands of other music snobs. First of all, in my own opinion, yes this is good music. Badly sung? Maybe not sung well, but not badly sung. The computers pretty much deal with her voice so it doesn't sound bad. Secondly, I am not trying to be ironically hip, although that is a good idea. I read a good review of the album on allmusic and was so intrigued that I downloaded it, and well, I liked it a lot. I am not pushing myself to like it, as a lot of people do with more artsy releases. Yes the folks that did make this happen will probably never get the props they deserve, however, they DID sign up for this release and if they want credit, they should make their own damn album.
For the tounge-in-cheek thing, yes, her album, is definitely tounge-in-cheek. Whether Paris Hilton realizes this or not is up to debate, but is this really about Paris Hilton, or is it about the album with her name on it? I think "Stars are Blind" holds its own, although I haven't heard the Blondie song you're referring to. And in answer to your question, isn't it the principle of the thing that's at issue? NO NO NO NO NO NO. What a terrible thing to say from someone who listens to music so much. Music is art. Art is about art. It is never about the principle, the philosophy, the attack. It should never be. So many people immediately give looks and refuse to listen to this album simply because it IS Paris Hilton and there are so many other more deserving artists. Does it really matter? How many would-be artists were there in the sixteenth century when only people of higher class was afforded such dignity? And how many of us really care about these people? And in answer to your question, why should a shitty singer get to make a record with good musicians? If you'd like you can start another board on the ethics of pop records in general. I started this thread to be about Paris the album not Paris the person, but in any case, I'll answer the question. Because she kicks ass and she's clever and she's hot and she has a rich dad and she got here. And she did it. And that's hot. And every music snob can hate hate hate but there is a fairly good album with her name on it and that says something.

I'm certainly not trying to play 'music snob.' I like a lot of stuff that most music snobs hate. I actually sat down and listened to the whole album this weekend, and I thought it was awful. But, given that I don't like the style (light pop r'n'b with guest rappers galore), that's not surprising. "Stars are Blind" is the only track I find tolerable, and it sounds like a wannabe Gwen Stefani covering Blondie.

Ultimately, I don't think you can totally separate Paris' album from her public persona because, let's face it, the only reason she got to MAKE that album is because her public persona bought her the reputation to make a record. I won't slag her completely for this...there are plenty of other artists/groups out there who are in the same boat: The Pussycat Dolls (who actually seem to have some singing ability) and Brooke Hogan come to mind.

I really don't think she's clever, though. She may have clever handlers, but I think all of this is way over her head. In every interview I've ever seen or heard from her, she's vapid and senseless. She may be no less 'constructed' than any of the past teen groups (New Kids, N*Sync, Spice Girls) but I simply can't shake the feeling that this whole record is a giant episode of Punk'd and the American record buying public is the punk.

She does look nice in those videos, but I can think of a hundred actresses who are hotter that I'd rather see singing. And I call Paris an actress in a tongue-in-cheek sense.

While we disagree about the quality of the music itself, I'm now convinced that you're not being ironic about this. I see a lot of the 'hipster irony' that claims to like something because it's so bad, it's good. You seem to honestly like Paris' record. That makes me worry about you a little...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

Consider this, Air; you say that the vocals are tolerable because of the production, what if it was actually performed by somebody who could sing? Wouldn't it be that much better? Sure you can spend a couple million and have the grating racket that is your voice covered-up, but so can everybody else on the planet. That is not talent or musicianship.

Haha, I love how even the Paris Hilton apologist (and presumably all-bubblegum-pop apologist) even concedes that its "fairly good."

Don't get me wrong, the popist here has a fair point, and the rest of you are just sexist rockists hating on an attractive woman doing what she knows how to do. Regardless, "Paris" is not something I'd listen to on the daily, I might be able to tolerate it in a DJ setting and when I'm slightly inebriated.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
...the rest of you are just sexist rockists hating on an attractive woman doing what she knows how to do.

I'm neither sexist nor a rockist. I just think the record stinks, and I find it sad that someone whose only talent is being moderately pretty gets to make a record and gets the full force of record label promotion behind it. I have just as much of a problem with 'can't sing' male artists as I do with Paris. It's just that she's the most egregious example.

And I doubt she really 'knows how to do' much beyond being born rich, hiring people to manage her career, and staying in the spotlight. I highly doubt she really controls much of her 'career path.'

Does slapping the "rockist" moniker on haphazardly make people really warm and fuzzy or something? That's the only explanation I can think of for why people halfass that particular concept so often.

I think 'rockist' here means 'anti-pop.' I'm not anti-pop; I probably like more pop than a lot of folks do. I just don't like Paris Hilton's pop.

I kind of see rockist as someone who has a set, rigid model of what they want music to be. Popists, meanwhile, tend to go with the flow a lot more. These are ideological differences, really.

There are undeniable race/gender elements and the simple fact of taste definitely comes into play, but rockists are simply not an inclusive bunch. In fact, they're almost anti-inclusive sometimes.

I don't mind seeing Paris Hilton in the selected pantheon of top-selling, well-exposed pop stars because... whatever... that's what she wants to do and she has the money and the "talent" (whatever that talent may be, even if its just the talent of "looking good"). The people want what they want. I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. I might stand up once in a while and say: "You know that this MUSIC isn't very good MUSICALLY don't you?" And most listeners don't care. It's just fun to them. They don't take it seriously like we do.

Therefore, what does it matter? It only matters to us.

This should tell us there's more to music than just "music." Music is pop culture. Cultural issues go into it. Music captures pop culture probably better than any other established medium (nascent media like viral videos and webisodes are probably faster) and so we touch on something that's a lot more important than 12 songs on a record.

People like Paris Hilton make us think about this because they're way more "culture" than they are "music." This is why her record isn't terrible, but actually kind of interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
People like Paris Hilton make us think about this because they're way more "culture" than they are "music." This is why her record isn't terrible, but actually kind of interesting.

Interesting in a sad way. It just shows that the average person in America is so obsessed with celebrity that they'll buy Paris' records or watch her horrible movies and TV shows just because they're told she's interesting by Entertainment TOnight.

I prefer music over culture.

I don't know if America's pop culture worship is such a "sad thing". As long as people still worship pop culture we can retreat to our little indie rock bands and be really hip and discover new things. If Pavement and Sonic Youth suddenly became the soundtrack for teenage pop culture, I feel the exact opposite would happen. Suddenly we'd be praising these very standard releases as fresh and different and back to bubblegum pop and three-chord punk.
I like it this way. We can still laugh at the people who buy into Britney Spears and secretly treasure our Aphex Twin albums and be so much cooler.
Oh okay now I'm going to be blames for being hypocritical because I was defending Paris Hilton's music. Well yea. I still really like that album. I think its really fun and nice and bubbly and structured and you should read Stephen Thomas Erlewine's review on Allmusic because he says some things that do better justice to it than I could write here.
One point he makes, is that in America Paris Hilton is like royalty, sort of the same people that make princesses and princes in England. Just a different outlet. I don't know philosopherEric, I guess I just don't see how it's a sad thing to be wrapped up in the media, and a fine balance between that and the "hip" stuff doesn't seem to be such a tragedy to me.
Perhaps you could explain this better.
Besides, I'd much rather watch Paris Hilton's video that Stephen Malkmus's, for purely aesthetic reasons wink wink

I think this can all be summed up by the following:

Paris is 100 percent pop culture, whereas "Paris" is approximately 10 percent music.

But when you're being stupid and having fun to a fun, stupid, bubblegum pop record, who gives a shit how deep or significant something is? Who cares about percentiles? Just shut up and dance.

White people seem to have some huge hang up with that for some reason.

Are you also an "albino"?

omg lolz

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
I think this can all be summed up by the following:

Paris is 100 percent pop culture, whereas "Paris" is approximately 10 percent music.

But when you're being stupid and having fun to a fun, stupid, bubblegum pop record, who gives a shit how deep or significant something is? Who cares about percentiles? Just shut up and dance.

White people seem to have some huge hang up with that for some reason.

Is "Paris" really the best dance music of the year?

I'm not a dancer (apparently because I'm white) but I can think of a lot of stuff I've heard this year that was just as danceable. I'll take Justin Timberlake's collaberations with Timberland (who can actually sing) over Paris'.

But I guess I'm not qualified to comment on anything danceable, since I've got racial issues.

Well Timberland is the name of a boot, and Timbaland is the producer.

So yeah, maybe you're not that hip.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Well Timberland is the name of a boot, and Timbaland is the producer.

So yeah, maybe you're not that hip.

Boots, rap, it's all the same to me. I liked that Nelly Furtado single, though.

Does he call himself "Timbaland" to avoid being sued by the boot manufacturer?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,