(Real) Dirty Pop

I read in a newspaper (yes, they still exist) an etiquette column where the writer had less than flattering things to say about today's popular music. In fact, he said he scoured the entire Billboard Hot 100 and could find only two uplifting, positive songs: Bruno Mars' "Just the Way You Are" and Selena Gomez and the Scenes' "Who Says." The rest, he said, were vulgar and filthy. Actually, radio host Laura Ingraham said they were vulgar and filthy. He just agreed.
The writer specifically points out two songs as being most filthy: "Last Friday Night"by Katy Perry (or Katie Perry as he wrote) and "S&M" by Rihanna (and Britney Spears, if you prefer). There's no denying that he's absolutely right: on the surface both of those songs are filthy. Katy sings about dancing on table tops, taking shot, having a menage trois, etc. Rihanna sings about whips and chains, sex in the air and says "it's your turn to hurt me" (well, Britney says that in the remix).
Techincally, yes, they're both filthy, dirty, vulgar songs. And many other songs are, too: in "I Wanna Go" Britney says she's taking her freak out tonight, in "Blow" Ke$ha says "we're pretty and sick,"and in "Party Rock Anthem" LMAO says, well, I'm not sure but I bet it's dirty. However you look at it, pop music is filled with vulgarity. Thing is, it's always been that way.
Go back to the 80s when Madonna talked about being "touched for the very first time" and you'll find vulgarity there, too. Is a song called "Like a Virgin" any better than a song about getting drunk and making out? Not really.
The writer of the article said, "We don't need to know about every urge, intimate act, or private thing the singer does or fantasizes about doing," which is code for "tell us your innermost thoughts, so long as they don't involve sex or drinking." That's a nice sentiment, but the whole world can't be PG (or G) rated (I wonder how the writer would feel if he found out Selena recorded a song written by Britney. Probably horrified)
I'm all for censorship in certain areas; kids don't need to see and hear everything. But being offended or upset because some artists choose to sing about adult themes is ridiculous. Funnily enough, the title of the article is "Role models on the pop charts." Apparently, Katy and Rihanna aren't role models because they sing about sex and drinking. Never mind the fact that both women are very successful, self-made business women. The fact that they drink (maybe not Katy since her husband is a recovering alcoholic) and have sex and sing about it is irrelevant.
Let's also not forget that Rihanna was beaten by her boyfriend and instead of hiding in the shadows has not only continued her career, but openly talked about the incident. That seems like the kind of person to admire: strong-willed, independent, and tough (don't forget also, the picture of her beaten face was plastered all over the Internet).
I'm not suggesting a five-year old should be singing the lyrics to "S&M" or "Last Friday Night." However, vulgarity is everywhere: in movies, TV shows, and magazines. People should be allowed to share their urges and private thoughts.
Then there's the question of what is vulgar. If, for instance, Rihanna had thoughts about pounding Chris Brown into a pancake and decided to record a song about it, would that be considered vulgar even though most anyone would agree she has every right to feel that way? Or, instead, if Rihanna met a great guy and had thoughts about sleeping with him, would it be vulgar to share those thoughts?
We know the answer to the latter is yes; at least, we know Laura Ingraham and the author of the aforementioned article think so. We don't really know about the former. Truthfully, I don't think either is vulgar. We feel what we feel and art allows us to express that. What's the difference between art and vulgarity?
Is a picture of two people engaged in a sexual act more vulgar than the description of that act itself? Who decides that? I would assume the description is more vulgar, because with the picture you can see what you want to see and avoid what you don't. With the description, you hear whatever the describer is telling you whether you want to or not. Of course, I don't know if I'm qualified to make that distinction.
Rihanna, Katy and all the other artists topping the charts may be vulgar. It's their right as artists to express themselves however they choose - sex, drugs AND rock n' roll.

Number 27

Ever since Amy Winehouse died, everyone has been falling all over themselves to bring up the supposed "Curse of 27," i.e. singers dying at age 27 like Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin and now Winehouse.
But for me, when the person who sang the most ironic song in history (Rehab) died, it made me think about Britney Spears and how so many people killed her off in 2007 (not at the age of 27, but at the age of 25; her birthday is Dec. 3 1981).
I can remember a story coming out about the AP having written Britney's obituary. They claimed it was standard practice, and maybe it was, but many Britney fans were outraged (though, to be fair, they're generally outraged). Truthfully, she wasn't doing very well. Some tabloid headlines even suggested she was suicidal.
Clearly, the AP had reasons (however flimsy) to believe the singer might not make it to 26. But was it right to eulogize someone who was still alive (even if barely)? I never really felt like she was close to death (or closer than any other person). Her erratic behavior was troubling, her decisions poor, her conduct somewhat appalling, her wardrobe choices baffling, but I don't recall ever thinking, "Britney's going to die."
With Amy Winehouse, her death can't be labeled surprising. She was in and out of rehab (mostly out), on and off drugs and alcohol (mostly on), and just a general mess of a human being. At some point, either she or someone in her camp thought getting a boob job would be a positive development. I'm not sure how a boob job helps someone with a drug problem, but I'm not on the payroll of any famous singers.
There were glimpses where it seemed Amy was recovering; just like there were glimpses where it seemed like Britney was recovering. Both women went to rehab, both worked on their careers, both were seen in public in a relatively sober light, and both assured fans that "everything was fine."
But the public eye can be a cruel mistress, because while showing the girls' progress we also saw their downfalls: Britney wobbled her way through a disastrous VMA performance; Amy slurred her way through a concert overseas. It was clear neither woman was in any great shape and definitely not ready for prime time.
I don't know what Amy's parents did or didn't do to save her life. Maybe they did everything. Maybe they thought she had recovered and would live a long life. Maybe Britney was just lucky. Maybe she was just thisclose to death.
Some people continue to talk about Britney as though she shouldn't be here, as if the Grim Reaper reached out for her and just missed. Critics like to say about her work that it's amazing she's working at all. Many concert reviews have ended thusly: "The fact that Spears is even putting on a show is amazing in itself."
And maybe it is amazing. There are so many people who maybe shouldn't be here right now: Britney, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, Bret Michaels, any number of rockers from the 70s and 80s. There is no predicting destiny.
For every soul saved, one is lost. I think the reaper always has a backup plan. He has to make his quota, too. I guess Amy was just one of the next on the list. Unfortunately, she couldn't get out of the way.