i was in a theater about to watch a movie about a haunted orphanage in san diego the other night - when i walked into the theater a song was playing on the speakers. it was a girl singing over a synthesized version of her voice with no beat or instruments other than her voice and maybe some sort of ambient strings.
it was totally awesome.
i went home and purchased the album on itunes almost immediately. before i had finished the first listen to the album i looked at the digital booklet that accompanied the album which was classified as "pop". i really dislike pop. why? i'm not completely sure but it has something to do with the music generally being very boring and i can only listen it a few times before i am uninterested.
i very much dislike judging things based on genre be it food, people, music, etc. so i gave this album a chance. the second clue that this was a dud was the album booklet. a half dozen pictures of the singer naked or nearly nude - she's really pretty, this is music - i don't want to fuck it. why do i care to see this nude 21 year old girl in a bunch of sheets?
obviously i like girl and the human body, so it's not that i disliked what i was looking at. i suppose it's just a credibility issue. i figure some suit told her that she needed to post pictures of herself if she wanted fans and that would add to her sales. i'm assuming that. supporting evidence is how bad this CD is. it's boring. the song i liked is good, but every song sounds the same. it also computerizes and multi-tracks her voice with limitless echos and way too much harmony. it's like eating bubblegum soup. blah.
2 or 3 good tracks though.
good to know that i can still write most albums off sheerly based on itunes willingness to categorize them as "pop" art.
if my art ever gets categorized as "pop" - please, find me and punch me in the balls.