#but rubin's elements of love are fucking me up severely

[izkashai]

uhhhh haha

[thesinglesjukebox]

THE BAND PERRY - THE GOOD LIFE

[4.92]

"Good" may be a stretch for some, but controversial is not!

Ian Mathers: "You know, when I asked how things were going since the divorce, I didn't actually need this level of specificity. Also it's weird that your brothers are here." [3]

Thomas Inskeep: What the fuck happened?!? The Band Perry's last album, their 2013 sophomore effort Pioneer, is a sublime, Rick Rubin-helmed country record. And now apparently they want to be, what? Chainsmokers? Actually, this isn't even that good; it sounds more like a Paris Hilton record. I'm embarrassed for them just listening to this. [1]

Katie Gill: You've got to give The Band Perry some props. If they kept putting out songs along their earlier sound, more music like "Chainsaw" or "If I Died Young," they would probably still have halfway decent airplay on CMT. Instead, whether it's due to a musical evolution or (what I'd put my money on) blatant trend chasing, The Band Perry refuse to be limited by their best known sound. That being said, holy shit this song is grating, obnoxious, and downright immature at points. [3]

Wayne Weizhen Zhang: "Glad I never had your baby / This will be a cleaner cut / You can keep the labradors": three lines so simple, so cutting, so savage, that while stationary biking at the gym, I literally had to stop pedaling, clutch my pearls, and whisper "Oh my god" when I listened to this for the first time. I shouldn't quote the whole song line by line, so here's another highlight that deserves special mention: "I don't wanna still be friends / I just wanna break your neck." No words minced here, just the most systematic takedown of a cheating bastard since "Sorry" or "Before He Cheats," made even more thrilling because of how unexpected it is coming from The Band Perry. [7]

David Moore: The Band Perry does the reverse Lil Nas X and takes their big dark energy to the hip-hop charts...ten years ago. But hey, I loved 808s and Heartbreak, and Kanye never wrote a line as ice cold as "you can keep the Labradors." Damn, dude, she doesn't even care about the dogs anymore, you must have really fucked up! [7]

Joshua Lu: Even despite the colossal genre difference, this song reminds me of how in the chorus of "If I Die Young," The Band Perry progressively got more ridiculous with every line, with requests of satin, some roses, a sunrise, and then a love song. In "The Good Life," they similarly don't know where to stop their wonky details, except instead of romantic imagery, they utilize awkward slang ("bro" is barely tolerable; "hoes" isn't at all) and clumsy statements ("You can keep the labradors/"). There are some passably impactful lines, like "This'll be a cleaner cut," but they're vastly outnumbered by those edgy stinkers, and it's all drowning in a goopy Weeknd-lite backdrop. [2]

Katherine St Asaph: Those invested in The Band Perry's country career likely see this as a trend-chasing outrage -- at least "Old Town Road" mentioned a tractor! Fortunately, I am not invested in their country career, and can thus recognize this as one of the best pop singles of 2019. You can too: Pretend it's the new Kelly Clarkson single, which it basically is, plus Kanye's "Heartless." (Kris Allen strummed so The Band Perry could burble.) The only country remnants are the specificity in the first verse, but unlike crossover patient zero "The Middle," "The Good Life" isn't remotely shiny. Nor is it remotely chill, nor really conversant with the pop zeitgeist. (The bridge, with its lone spotlight synth, kiiinda resembles something Max Martin might write, but five years ago, and only if you stretch.) Instead, the level of bitterness equals Natalie Imbruglia's "Want" and maybe even approaches Tori's "Blood Roses" (that second verse comes awfully close). [9]

Alfred Soto: Grant them this: if "The Good Life" is Nashville, I'm Squeaky Fromme. "I just wanna break your neck," Kimberly Perry coos over a wobbly electrobass backdrop. Too outre for Nashville, perhaps, not outre enough for contemporary pop, where wobbliness is the coin of the realm. [5]

Michael Hong: So The Band Perry are releasing "edgy" Spotify-core synth-pop now, huh? While the whole thing has the distinct markings of a club track, it simply feels lifeless because the vocals, coated in their hazy atmosphere, only dull the pulsing synth. That lifelessness creeps into their lyrics, and The Band Perry's attempt at something devastating with the line "you gave it up for hoes" never really registers because of it. [2]

Joshua Minsoo Kim: Coordinates indicated that The Band Perry were aiming for new musical territories, but "The Good Life" is the song they needed to justify the change. The new sonic direction and dramatic synthwork help sell the disgust in the lyrics: the revulsion of prior physical intimacy, the remorseless desire to snap necks, the relief that she never bore children with this dude. That the lyrics are analogous to things we often hear in country music only makes them feel more caustic, like the severity of ill-will that Kimberly harbors is fully unveiled in a way that couldn't in country pop radio. The vocal delivery is clunky at times, but it's honestly these moments of awkwardness that sell the song--after all, how often are post-break up diatribes flawlessly executed? The 808s & Heartbreak-indebted bridge is a fun bit of worthwhile, borrowed empowerment. The "Good Life" that Kimberly's seeking, though, is a bit different than what Kanye ever talked about; she wants retribution, and it's palpable. [7]

Edward Okulicz: When I close my mind and pretend this is a new single by, like, The Veronicas, I love it, because it's like a perfect even more bitter follow up to their "Think of Me." But it's still great as a new single by The Recording Entity Perry too. The jagged edges of the music aren't revolutionary, but they provide something of a distorted mirror to reflect the ugly twistedness of the vocals and the story. To me, the overall effect is that of impotent rage against an indifferent target, which makes it more relatable than is comfortable. [8]

Joshua Copperman: It's not as bad as contemporary Little Big Town's horrible pop crossover, but it's really weird. Despite the intent, Kim Perry says 'hoes' like a 12 year-old cursing, and the "damn good rhyme/line" lyrics would be okay if there were more damn good rhymes/lines in the song. (There are some good lyrics, but they're scattered and don't rhyme - "Sick I ever touched your body/Sick you ever tasted mine" is one such oasis.) The titular line doesn't work as a hook. The distorted 808s don't work as the beat either. Nothing coheres whatsoever, but there are enough interesting elements to make this listenable, if only as a curio. [5]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

[brianwarden]

Gad the Islamophobe

I recently listened to an episode of Sam Harris's excellent podcast "Waking Up" that featured as his guest Gad Saad, someone who's own podcast is another favorite of mine; I highly recommend both. Both Harris and Saad are academics/scientists/public figures who are highly critical of recent trends regarding free speech, postmodernism, tolerance, political correctness, and “regressive leftism”.

 That term, which I first heard used by Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, refers to those ostensibly on the left, that often engage in regressive tactics, principally anti free speech bullying. Regressives are in the vanguard of extreme political correctness, commonly complaining about "cultural appropriation", the wage gap, patriarchy, Islamophobia, etc. For instance, in many a college campus it has become common for regressive's to target visiting speakers, show up at the event, and attempt to silence said speaker. This is often done by blocking entrance to the event, harassing attendees, rushing the stage, and in more than one instance, pulling fire alarms.

 So I am a big fan of Harris and Saad, as well as their comrades in arms Christine Hoff Sommers, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Bill Maher, Sarah Haider, Jon Haidt, and several others. I consider myself a liberal, but am embarrassed by what many of the same label are currently doing: silencing opposing views, demonizing all white men, creating safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro aggressions; what I prefer to call the PC left. I guess I meet the definition of a classical liberal, of the John Stuart Mill mold, but the semantics of political labels have become very muddled lately.

 As hinted above, I'm not a fan of the term "Islamophobia". Not that I think it's a meaningless term, just that it's over used to the point of becoming virtually meaningless. Any criticism of Islam is characterized as Islamophobic by the regressive left, even the most obvious. E.g. criticisms of Islam's treatment of women or gays are labeled Islamophobia, even by feminists and gays within the regressive left. A legitimate usage of the term Islamophobia, in my view, would be towards someone who refers to “ragheads” or “sand n**gers” or wants to turn the entire Middle East in to glass or prohibit all immigration from countries with a Muslim majority; that's Islamophobia, no question. All I'm saying is that the term is thrown around a lot.

 As in the case of the term homophobia, the "phobia" part isn't precisely accurate. The definition of a phobia is "an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to something." Most homophobes aren't actually scared of gays, they just hate them. Same for Islamophobia, except with Islam there is an element of fear; terrorism is real, and its biggest practitioners presently are Muslim.

 Harris himself has often been (mis)labeled as an Islamophobe and even a bigot, but these charges are without merit. I've read all of his books and essays, listened to every podcast, watched countless videos, and have never yet heard a single comment that could be accurately described as bigoted. He's as harsh towards Christianity as he is towards Islam.

 Until I listened to his podcast entitled "The Frontiers of Political Correctness" I would've said the same of Saad. Saad's own personal story is very interesting and gives his views and opinions some weight. "I was born in Lebanon, I grew up in Lebanon, so my mother tongue is Arabic, we're Arabic in a multiplicity of ways...some of the music we listen to, and the foods, and if you saw us you wouldn’t know that we were anything but Arabic, the only asterisk is that we are Lebanese Jews" (40:55).

 He states he has over 100 Muslim friends. Later, he claims that in his neighborhood, if he encounters 20 women, 8 will be wearing Islamic garb. In Montreal. "I could walk out of my house, and of the first twenty women I see, eight are wearing Islamic garb" (1:21:30). (I call bullshit. 40% of the women he encounters in Montreal are Muslim?)

 But where he gets real bizarre, and makes Rush Limbaugh seem tolerant, is when he describes an incident that occurred while out with his family:

 "Close to my house, we tried to go to a children's park, and saw two women in full burka, my daughter got out, felt a bit scared, we got back in the car and left" (1:21:00).

 Covered faces are indeed to some extent frightening. Armed robbers in ski masks, clowns, ninjas, little old Korean ladies hiding their skin from UV, KKK hoods, soldiers lined up all in gas masks; all scary looking, no question. But flee the park in fear?

 Is there some right, some principle of liberty, that entitles one to gaze in to the face of all fellow citizens in order to better read them and their intentions? As Harris wisely responds, perhaps on private property one has such a right, say a 7-11 owner in reaction to someone in a ski mask. Absolutely, I agree completely. But out on the streets, in a public park? No way. No such right has ever existed in the West, nor do I know of anyone ever proposing such an idea.

 But Gad's daughters’ reaction at the playground leads me to wonder just what the fuck is Gad telling his kids at home? I mean, worse-case scenario, there is a Muslim male under the burka, right? What would be his families’ reaction if there were Muslim males there at the park, perhaps even taking prayer? Flee?

 It is not an overstatement, nor PC in the slightest, to state that Gad Saad and his family are literally Islamophobic, to the point that genuine fear, and flight, occurs when spotting Muslims. Never mind that he previously said, "Your chances of dying by murder in Canada is unbelievably small" (52:15). This is certainly true. In all of Canada, there were 19 violent acts towards Jews in 2014, the most current year for stats, resulting in zero deaths; yet, an average of 9.5 people die each year in Canada by lightning strikes.

 He also said several other things during the podcast that are troublesome to say the least. For example, he revisits this traumatic trip to the park, and expands on his theory of a “right to see [people’s faces]”:

 "If your position is that, no, let's not intrude on their right to quote choose, I actually think that my right to be able to read your facial features, since that's an evolved quality, in my communication system, supersedes your right to be in a tent, and if you want to be in a tent you don't belong here because I want to be, when I walk to that school yard, not school yard, but play park, and there were two, I'm guessing women but they could be anything right, I can't tell who they are, and they were in black and we all froze, and I come from that land [Lebanon] and my daughter got scared and we got back in the car, then my rights lost there. And therefore, no, I don't think we should allow that expression. No, I don't want that in my streets" [emphasis added] (1:42:05).

 Perhaps it’s good Gad resides in Canada. That viewpoint regarding religious expression won’t fly in the states. His right to read faces? Because the ability to read faces evolved in humans, it’s now a right? That’s not how we set out rights. Later, he seems to be claiming that he simply can’t prevent himself from stereotyping and acting on it:

 "No one probably knows more nice and decent Muslims, probably no one has more Muslim friends than I do by virtue of my background, so obviously at the individual level there's no discussion to be had, there are very nice Muslims, there are very bad Muslims, we're talking here about statistical regularity's, right, our brains have evolved to detect statistical regularity's [stereotypes], I mean that's a central feature in the architecture of the human mind” (51:29).

 Or check out this gem from the “Gadfather”:

 "There's a game that I satirize, but frankly the satire is very accurate, it's called 'Six Degrees of Kill the Jew' and the game works as follows: so basically, the way the game works is, Achmed comes to the room, I say hello to him, how many exchanges does it take before we converge - especially since I speak Arabic and therefore he certainly doesn't know I'm Jewish - before we both converge on 'let's go kill the Jews'. And the reality is, this is how it typically goes: 'Hi Achmed, how are you? Fine, let's kill the Jews’" (1:13:40).

 Then, a minute later, he admits the above stereotype is mythical: "Of the top 100 Muslims that I know, every single one of them is a lovely guy that doesn't fill the 'kill-the-Jews' stereotype, but that doesn't say anything about the greater issue" (1:15:00).

 He seems to have some issues. He is simultaneously claiming: the odds of being murdered in Canada are “unbelievably small”; that his family is not outwardly Jewish looking, “if you saw us you wouldn't know that we were anything but Arabic”; that he knows lots of Muslims and none of them are anti-Semitic; yet, if burkas are spotted, FLEE!

 In the novel Infinite Jest, there’s an organization called U.H.I.D., the Union of the Hideously and Improbably Deformed, an agnostic-style 12-step support-group deal for what it calls the “aesthetically challenged.” It’s a hilarious portion of the book, with a pretty absurd premise, and is milked for some great laughs*. But beyond this comedic “donning of the veil” is a more serious issue, albeit one most of us haven’t considered. Does one have a right to hide one’s face?

 Although it’s not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, I believe a person has the right to cover their face in public. For any reason whatsoever. I see little old ladies covering themselves out of fear of sunlight. I see germaphobic people wearing masks out of fear of germs. And, of course, religious people doing what their religion tells them, or what they interpret their religion to be telling them. Given the extreme importance the Founding Fathers put on religious liberty and expression, I think those values trump anyone’s desire to read faces.

 I tried to raise this subject with the man himself, via twitter, and was quickly attacked, by Gad as well as many of his followers. He used his stock insult on me, “naturally lobotomized castrati”, and mocked my curiosity on the matter. E.g. I wrote that I found his family’s reaction to seeing burkas “baffling”; he responds with: “It is ‘baffling’ why it would be jarring to see individuals wearing black tents in a play ground with hidden identities”. He goes on: “Clearly, only ‘racist bigots’ would be concerned about such an ostentatious display of openness and warmth.” Thou doth protest too much.

 In the wake of Charlottesville, I’m noticing something quite alarming: many of the folks that I considered to be basically liberals, but have a major problem with the PC left, are not liberal at all; they’re as conservative as Rush Limbaugh and just enjoy mocking and ridiculing campus snowflakes. The reaction to Harris’ tweet of August 13th, regarding white identity politics, exposed many of these folks. I don’t put Gad in the category of Limbaugh, but he’s got a dark side that’s for sure.

 ___________________________________________

  * “Well Mr. Gately what people don’t get about being hideously or improbably deformed is that the urge to hide is offset by a gigantic sense of shame about your urge to hide. You’re at a graduate wine-tasting party and improbably deformed and you’re the object of stares that the people try to conceal because they’re ashamed of wanting to stare, and you want nothing more than to hide from the covert stares, to erase your difference, to crawl under the tablecloth or put your face under your arm, or you pray for a power failure and for this kind of utter liberating equalizing darkness to descend so you can be reduced to nothing but a voice among other voices, invisible, equal, no different, hidden.

 But Don you’re still a human being, you still want to live, you crave connection and society, you know intellectually that you’re no less worthy of connection and society than anyone else simply because of how you appear, you know that hiding yourself away out of fear of gazes is really giving in to a shame that is not required and that will keep you from the kind of life you deserve as much as the next girl, you know that you can’t help how you look but that you are supposed to be able to help how much you care about how you look. You’re supposed to be strong enough to exert some control over how much you want to hide, and you’re so desperate to feel some kind of control that you settle for the appearance of control. What you do is you hide your deep need to hide, and you do this out of the need to appear to other people as if you have the strength not to care how you appear to others. You stick your hideous face right in there into the wine-tasting crowd’s visual meatgrinder, you smile so wide it hurts and put out your hand and are extra gregarious and outgoing and exert yourself to appear totally unaware of the facial struggles of people who are trying not to wince or stare or give away the fact that they can see that you’re hideously, improbably deformed. You feign acceptance of your deformity. You take your desire to hide and conceal it under a mask of acceptance. In other words you hide your hiding. And you do this out of shame: you’re ashamed of the fact that you want to hide from sight. You’re ashamed of your uncontrolled craving for shadow. U.H.I.D.’s First Step is admission of powerlessness over the need to hide. U.H.I.D. allows members to be open about their essential need for concealment. In other words we don the veil. We don the veil and wear the veil proudly and stand very straight and walk briskly wherever we wish, veiled and hidden, and but now completely up-front and unashamed about the fact that how we appear to others affects us deeply, about the fact that we want to be shielded from all sight. U.H.I.D. supports us in our decision to hide openly. But a lot of the forms of self-hatred there is no veil for. U.H.I.D.’s taught a lot of us to be grateful that there’s at least a veil for our form.”

 “So the veil’s a way to not hide it.?”

 “To hide openly, is more like it.”

 From Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

[NOTE: I fully realize there is a false equivalence between the people featured in the attached pic and two burka clad women at a playground; the point is, all the people in the pic are violating Gad’s imaginary right to read faces. (Btw, the woman in full burka is Janet Jackson and son.)]