u/Wrong-Principle-23

the snippets sound so cool honestly!!! hootie frutti being brazilian funk wasn't on my bingo list but i'm glad there's something like pinky up. it seems they want to go for their club bangers on one side and sultry on the other side (the whistle on that way!!??) bonus track unfortunately didnt do much but most bonus tracks by musicians are just piano ballds so

Not a discussion or anything, just a clarification. It's ok if y'all misgendered them earlier, they are ok with all pronouns

I've received feedback from the posts/ comments here that people are divided on the controversy surrounding the former owner Amazing_Listen. I think a poll will be good feedback for the mods to decide whether Amazing_Listen and his evasion accounts should be banned from the sub for > 1 year

Because this is a risky poll, vote by commenting below. Comment Keep if you want him to stay and Ban to ban him from participating for a long period (likely more than a year but not definite). Accounts should be at least a month old to vote

TLDR lots of fans use musical preference as critique, which does not explore the art itself

Subjective dislike of songs eg 'this song is too short' or 'why is xyz not singing?!'. It's a slippery slope because this critique can be valid, especially in dance pop music where flow of energy is important. if the shortness affects the general flow of songs like in Pinky Up or Celebration where the songs feels unfulfilled. However, this becomes more shaky when you exit pop music, where structure can be experimented and incomplete or dragged on by purpose. The meaning of the song should be figured out before it can be critiqued

Card Declined by Charli xcx is def a good example, the deadpan vocals and repetitive production evolving to become more melodic and less distorted. Criticism should focus on how the artistic choice contributes to the concept and interpretation of the song. Personal interpretation, it is to convey mindless spending and consumerism, maybe a bit of depression and Jeff Bezos thinking he can be 'cool'. The verse then repeats itself, but now Charli starts to sing it breathily, likely her gaining awareness her spending is ruining her life. The song ends on a sentimental note, probably a sign she has her mind clear and is in touch with her emotions finally. To critique the song as lacking a verse or not being melodic enough would be ignoring how the song is purposely structured to bring up a narrative, even if everyone has different interpretations of the narrative

Expectating a certain sound (nostalgia/parasociality): arguably the worst one. You are not their creative director, and being artists means optimizing music to be likable should not be a priority. If you want their old sound you're better off typing in prompts into Suno and AI generating copies.😐 Recently I've seen Ariana, charli, heck even Kim Petras and katseye hit with this but the entitlement is magnified in k-pop standom especially

I've seen the rise of popular niche genres and artists like hyperpop and Frost Children. Backstory, I listened to Chuu's album XOCyberlove and remembering how it felt bland and songs mushed into each other. A fan left a comment urging her to collab with Frost Children as producers, because they were starting to pop off and gaining traction for their take on the recession electropop revival. The suggestion itself is not unreasonable, but it did make me roll my eyes, and be annoyed by how fan criticism often assumes that artists should pursue the creative choices fans personally find most exciting. This ignores evaluation whether a work succeeds on its own terms or if artists collaborating have compatibility, and toward evaluating whether it aligns with an imagined alternative versions of artists.

Also fans expecting an 'experimental and label defying' sound that has been done multiple times is disillusioning and arguably a label itself. Experimentation isn't a genre or a fixed sonic palette but a process of exploring new ideas. The moment fans begin expecting the aesthetic of 'experimental' music like hyperpop the direction ceases to be experimental and becomes 'popular niche'

Accusation of being too inspired (genre cosplay fallacy?). I see this alot especially if the artist has been gaining hate. With Taylor's 'Wood', people accused it being close to Sabrina or Jackson 5. Which I listened to the song and the only similarities are the funky groove, quick guitar leads and same key. Which is a common thing in disco songs! Every genre has it's own traits. Saying a disco song has disco characteristics doesn't meaningfully address whether it's well written, well performed, or emotionally effective. It becomes a way to undermine artist's originality and drag them instead of focusing on the overall quality. Even Katseye's Animal is getting similar critique to 5H or Little Mix, while the truth is they all draw from 60s R&B

Also, people were critiquing how Taylor failed to write a Sabrina-style sex song with Wood, which is valid, but some claimed she should stick to her old way of writing songs like Guilty as Sin which makes no sense. A better critique is supporting how the lyrics could be improved to be less on-the-nose

I think all of these fallacies share something in common: evaluating artists on what you expect to be instead of how the work is meaningful.

In summary, I'm not saying fans shouldn't have expectations, but should learn to separate preferences from the quality of work! It's okay to not vibe sometimes, it's music not a medicinal cure. It is frustrating though when users flood posts with similar comments expressing complaints as if it the music is just bad, instead of a preference.

on an ending note, I do wish schools tried to teach music more in depth, at least in where I live! Often it feels like just other boring subjects, memorizing stuff like composers instead of trying to develop how to engage with art

Hey yall, it's one of the mods here. Honestly i joined the sub mainly because i was curious in about the outcome of the drama, although i was too pissed of at the bias Hybe groups get, especially since people loved to harp on Gnarly as bad music. I do still want to stay here, although I may be less active in the future as I'm going to college soon. I learnt about this sub through the owner cus he had gotten into trouble with other subs for being invasive, and was ready for the risk the mod was actually crazy. I mean, it turned out to be true. I do feel kinda bad for him, he seems like a genuinely enthusiastic dude that is proactive, and validating of feedback if healthy. But I'm not a fan of how he can't handle criticism at all, and he has a long way to learn.

Also, I didn't sabotage the banner, I have barely been a mod and mostly clueless except for my ghost sub r/popmusicnuanced. The owner accused me only because I tried to post receipts of the actual discussion between u/littlemissdollette and the owner. I don't like where she's gone, but I empathise with her betrayal and frustration and hope she eventually cools down and returns.

Anyways, I still want it to be Katseyeantisnark, but I would want it to be a place for discourse not hate against hate. If not we'll be as bad as the snarkers. I'm planning on writing a post on bad faith critique of Katseye's music and will be getting to it. See y'all👋

It starts around 2h 45 min, fyi the author is rather critical of Taylor, but she made a very interesting comparison.

IMO both Marie and Taylor may not be in touch with how common people live, but they were known for being charming, sensitive and generous.

Marie while initially having extravagant fashion, actually adopted more simple styling in the 1780s, but was still blamed for poor conditions of commoners. She actually was a philantrophist, including

• financially supported hospitals and orphanages
• founded homes for unwed mothers
• adopted several destitute children
• sold royal silver during the 1787-88 famine to buy grain

The scapegoat comparisons ring so true today especially since Frances economic loss was mostly poor government policies like the royal tax system and the American Revolutionary War, in contrast Marie had cut down on luxury including removing the Queens Tax that benefitted her.

Compare it with now, it is tech billionaires that have turned the US slowly into oligarchy, and a broken government that exploits vulnerable minorities as scapegoats to advance their power interests. NOT Taylor having a mostly private wedding

I wanna talk and maybe vent abit about how success has been demonised for women, and the thinly veiled misogyny of the insult 'narcissist'

I feel a lot of female celebrities that are outspoken or very famous tend to get called narcissistic, including Taylor, Chappell and Rachel zegler. But in fact, narcissistic traits are more common in men than women.

Study from University at Buffalo: https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2015/03/009.html

They found the widest gap in entitlement, suggesting that men are more likely than women to exploit others and feel entitled to certain privileges.

The second largest difference was in leadership/authority. “Compared with women, men exhibit more assertiveness and desire for power,” Grijalva says. “But there was no difference in the exhibitionism aspect, meaning both genders are equally likely to display vanity or self-absorption.”

Which comes back to the Taylor quote "If I was flashing my dollars, I'd be a b**ch not a baller". Why are women expected to be more humble?

I think it links strongly back to patriarchal norms that pressure women to be nurturing and submissive for others instead of pursuing their own ambition. It also programmes others to feel threatened when women defy norms, threatening men's sense of security in the hierarchy.

I also can't deny how parasocial relationships have allowed online people to scrutinise every action celebrities do and feel entitled to judge others

"Narcissist" is a clinical-sounding upgrade on older gendered labels like "diva" or "difficult" or even "mean girl". For once, it sounds more objective, but I think a bigger reason was the popularisation of mental health awareness through social media especially during COVID when everyone was facing loneliness and struggling. But with the internet always, movements get misappropriated, and users will be quick to judge one moment of selfishness for narcissism.

I think we know how Taylor gets called a narcissist for wanting no 1 chart success, fame and going out, as well as being image conscious, which are things many artists do. And considering men and women score the same on exhibition, why would one genders version be less acceptable? No one is calling male artists like the Weeknd narccisists for wanting success and recognition. Chappell Roan is another scapegoat, and gets similar insults because she is blunt towards others treating her badly, mainly paparazzi. Rachel Zegler had made a flawed speech about how the old Snow White was outdated and she was labelled smug for her outspokeness

I also recognized the irony that a celebrity's coolness and music output can shield them from moral criticism, which exposes the haters' hypocrisy. Chappell's hate peaked around the time she released The Giver, which was her least well received release after rising to fame, but subsided after The Subway was released. Taylor's critical acclaim during Folkmore also gave her more relatable credit, which was taken away after the shift in sonic direction and becoming high profile again.

Ive spent a lot of time around neutral subreddits, that was brought up to create new spaces for better nuanced discussion, but it seems like very few of them are free of snark or parasocial commentary.

The Taylor one, there are lots of Taylor fans in the sub who give fair criticism and defense but they get less votes compared to more negative comments and posts gets awards (sketchily) and far more upvotes. I think its not coincidental that reddit awards have been increasingly used to push narratives. Chappell's sub got locked so idk what's happening. Other subs (Ariana, katseye) still are full of parasocial viewpoints that are upset with their change in direction and expect to do as they say rather than good critique on the quality of art. Olivia's one hopefully will last but I'm not sure

I also think online platforms and the users subconsciously, even neutral subs naturally reward anger. A nuanced opinion that acknowledges both strengths and weaknesses usually attracts less attention than sarcasm, outrage, or the most cynical interpretation possible. Over time, this can make communities feel increasingly hostile even when many members are actually interested in thoughtful discussion.

Maybe it's a sign need to find irl friends who are into the same pop stars as I do but I haven't 🥲 there's a lot more nuance that can be done irl

look, i care about her and if i was in her stadium, want to make sure she's physically supported through her tour. even something small like lightly offering refreshments to her. I think alot of fans do genuinely care, but are struggle to sit around with the ambiguous situation, also others who feel uncomfortable that they feel powerless to help her, and channel the concern into speculating about her health conditions.

But i'm tired of creators and their videos claiming concern saying 'no one is talking about it (which most do, except some arianators)' and then ironically scrutinizing her body, her ribs in front of social media. Like that is just objectification and aggravating any body image issues she has, we alr know she is physically thin. They go on to speculate and fearmonger that ariana is dying or doing drugs with shaky evidence because, well, fearbaiting generates more engagement. I don't hate the concern but we should be focusing our attention on the industry and fan culture around women bodies! The discourse around women's bodies is still the same way in the 00s, the simultaneous fake concern and body shaming

so please stop giving this type of videos oxygen. we should be spreading awareness about EDs, not ariana's body. i'll share a resource from where I live and hope it can help any fans who know or are struggling with body image too (https://www.aware.org.sg/information/eating-disorders/)

For me, i just realized she sources her clothes from ethical companies like Everywhere Apparel that recycles waste cotton and is made in the California. Proud of her lol

Edit: I think what I mainly meant is revealing clothes=\= sexualisation. I do not fully deny if katseye is being sexualised by their label. There's a lot of misinformation I wanna clear

The youtuber, bryony claire is a feminist youtuber discussing misogyny

First thing, the male gaze is NOT about being sexy or wearing revealing clothes. Laura Mulvaney defines it as about objectifying women in a way that they are just an object to be desired, a trophy to be won, for a man. There's always a focus on innocence, fitting with gender standards for a woman to be obedient and subservient. theres a reason why many men into pop stars have been labelled 'gay', the confidence in female pop stars often is a point of insecurity in toxic men, because how dare a woman feel comfortable with feminity, and for a man to identify with that. Not to say how would katseye monetarily benefit from the male gaze? alot of people have already said here the people buying their merch, coming to their concerts are women, children and some LGBTQ+ people who love the representation

I also wanna bring up the infamous jeans commercials, as Sydney's ad represented the male gaze really well, including references to her beauty and zoomins on her body. But with the GAP ad, Katseye flips the script, Daniela is being escorted by men, seemingly aware of how men would do anything for her. And while there is gyrating, most of it is on the background dancers and there is no unnecessary focus on their body, more of it is on their synchronisation

Greek statues are NOT inherently sexual despite being nude. Anything can be made sexual through people's interpretation, and it is victim blaming to label yoonchae riding an ironing board sexual. it is fair to critique if the clothes conform to beauty standards, industry pressures, or broader cultural expectations. However, focusing primarily on policing what women wear or how they behave is reinforcing the idea that women are responsible for managing others' perceptions of them, (basically those therapists saying it's not your job to control how others think) reinforcing misogyny, and the belief that women are inherently more sexual or sinful than men.

Secondly, pedophilia is not about clothing, it's not about being cute, it's about attraction to prepubescent bodies and behaviour. the fact fellow popgirl olivia had backlash for a babydoll dress, despite the fact drop dead video had nothing to do with sex

Lastly gen z can be seriously rigid minded, and i'm saying this as gen z. The constant need to label others through buzzwords is preventing yall from seeing different opinions and pursuing self growth. Humans are flawed, and not everyone is a definite 'red flag' or 'ragebaiter'

Can't help but feel that outside this sub there's so much negative discourse. There's so much jumping to illogical moralizing and that is very hard to undo. From chappells Brazil drama to pinky up being labeled pedophilic, it's getting ridiculous to the point of hilarity. The outrage culture has just encouraged negative discourse to take over. Honestly thanks to the mods for creating a positive space to decompress on the internet

After being typed 6w7, some of my behaviours started to make sense, such as trying to background check people to see if they are reliable. From my perspective, if I had a conflict with someone close, I cannot tolerate the possibility of animosity towards the person and would want to quickly fix up the relationship, so as we have 0 tension