I love Miley Cyrus

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Have you ever known the way little kids like to hear the same stories over and over? They love it, and they'll eagerly listen to the same stupid thing hundreds of times.

But have you also seen what happens when you tell the story wrong? You'd think the fucking barbarians were at the gates.

Ever done it on purpose just to get a rise out of 'em?



Miley is telling the story wrong. She's messed up the good part, too!

It's kind of like the spectacle as the artwork. It goes beyond the performance.

Like an artist painting a black canvas hiding inside with a camera to film audience reaction. The interaction is the artwork.

I may be going too deep with this.

I was just going to say something like this. The reaction is part of the art, and this is a masterpiece. It's one thing when avant-garde arthouse nerds try to outrage people with their weird art, but Miley is painting with the biggest damn canvas she can find.

YES.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Have you ever known the way little kids like to hear the same stories over and over? They love it, and they'll eagerly listen to the same stupid thing hundreds of times.

But have you also seen what happens when you tell the story wrong? You'd think the fucking barbarians were at the gates.

Ever done it on purpose just to get a rise out of 'em?



Miley is telling the story wrong. She's messed up the good part, too!

It's kind of like the spectacle as the artwork. It goes beyond the performance.

Like an artist painting a black canvas hiding inside with a camera to film audience reaction. The interaction is the artwork.

I may be going too deep with this.

I was just going to say something like this. The reaction is part of the art, and this is a masterpiece. It's one thing when avant-garde arthouse nerds try to outrage people with their weird art, but Miley is painting with the biggest damn canvas she can find.

YES.

NOT THE POINT.

She is a female.  Nigel is ALSO a female, posting about said female.

This makes RWHN a sad panda. 

It must be stopped.  Failing that, it must be dismissed.

[LMNO]

Ok, let's for a moment posit that Miley is in the same cultural geography as Madonna, Xtina, Gaga, et al. Let's just play along with the idea that she's playing with the same tropes as Ke$ha, P!nk, Rhianna, and (at one time, a while back) Katy Perry -- a sexually agressive, self-sufficient agency of Party and Youth.  Let's call her the New Flavor of The Month.

But I think everyone here can agree that the NFotM is not always the same flavor, yes? Madonna's "Erotica" is different than Xtina's "Drrrty" is different than P!nk's "You and Your Hand Tonight" is different than Rhianna's "S&M" is different than Perry's "I Kissed a Girl".  Each of them sends a separate message, even if it's through some semblance of sexual self-determination.

So, instead of saying Miley is "just doing the same thing as ____", we should be looking at what the message is.  And as Roger has pointed out in previous rants and essays, the intent or surface of a message is usually not what is being communicated.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ok, let's for a moment posit that Miley is in the same cultural geography as Madonna, Xtina, Gaga, et al. Let's just play along with the idea that she's playing with the same tropes as Ke$ha, P!nk, Rhianna, and (at one time, a while back) Katy Perry -- a sexually agressive, self-sufficient agency of Party and Youth.  Let's call her the New Flavor of The Month.

But I think everyone here can agree that the NFotM is not always the same flavor, yes? Madonna's "Erotica" is different than Xtina's "Drrrty" is different than P!nk's "You and Your Hand Tonight" is different than Rhianna's "S&M" is different than Perry's "I Kissed a Girl".  Each of them sends a separate message, even if it's through some semblance of sexual self-determination.

So, instead of saying Miley is "just doing the same thing as ____", we should be looking at what the message is.  And as Roger has pointed out in previous rants and essays, the intent or surface of a message is usually not what is being communicated.

Or vice versa...What's being communicated isn't what's on the surface.  Which is a totally different thing.  If you know what I mean.

[Faust]

I think* The difference between them and her is that it is unpleasant to watch. All the others were aiming to titillate. This is decidedly unattractive.

Madonna and britney could have taken a big shit on the stage, but they didn't because while they went for shock value, they went for shock value someone would want.


*For what its worth, not much

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I haven't missed it, I don't agree with it.

What, exactly, don't you agree with?

This:

Is it the complete lack of men anywhere? Or just other people in general?

DING.

Also, the visuals and the lyrics?  She IS the man.

This is why the balance of the outrage is from men.  WAY in the back of their brain, they're getting rape panic signals.  The screeching outrage all over social media is pretty much based on this.

Because of this:

"Miley loved the idea of going naked because it suits the song," the source continued. "She's showing her naked emotions. It's her vulnerable side and it's not something she shows very often, so having nudity made sense."
A tweet has been surfacing on the Internet that supposedly breaks down the true meaning of the video. It explains that Cyrus was kissing the sledge hammer to represent that she "secretly still loves the pain," she was naked to show how the love destroyed and hurt her and the wrecking ball was symbolic of a destructive love.
According to Hollywood Life the song is very personal to Cyrus. A source told the celebrity website that when Richardson wanted her to cry he told her to think about losing Liam Hemsworth and she broke down in tears.
"It was very intense and wasn't an act," the source said. "Even though she was happy and in a good mood, it only took like two seconds for her to start crying."

So it really has nothing to do with a woman expressing sexual aggressiveness.  It seems to be more about her showing that she is vulnerable after losing a relationship.  It isn't some pop-culture troll or mindfuck.  It's someone just trying to make a personal statement about love and relationships.  Again, why I compare it to Sinead O'Connor who basically akready did it, except even more stripped down, just her, a black backdrop, and a camera.

Not a bad analysis.
But the funny for me is in the reaction of other people.
- The way almost all responses done by males imply that these responders are incapable of processing the concept of a strong independent woman in popular culture.

Could you provide some examples of this? 

- The outrage at her act on the VMA when the only thing she did was take the sexy out of it. Apparantly it is the VMA goal to be as sexy as possible in the most degrading and unsexy context as possible. Miley merely took the sexy out, thereby clarifying to the audience what a horrible world these hollywood types live in. Since the audience uses hollywood to define their self-image this causes huge cognitive dissonance.

I disagree.  The goal of the VMA's has always been to have that one performance that is so over the top that people talk about it the next day.  Such as Madonna writhing on the floor singing Like A Virgin, Prince's performance of "Get Off", the one where Madonna kisses Spears and Aguilera, I think there was another one involving Spears and a snake.  Oh, I think Madonna had another one for Vogue.


So I see the Miley Cyrus VMA thing pretty much in that spirit.  Different dance moves and imagery, sure, but the same goal.  To give an outrageous performance everyone talks about the next day. 


Also, did she take the sexy out or is she just unsexy?  I'm not seeing the deliberate troll/pop culture commentary in that performance.  I just see someone saying, let's throw a lot of crazy shit out there so people take notice.

She's lolling her tongue sideways like an overheated Labrador through the whole thing. She knows how to be alluring, she's been drilled in that since childhood. She's taking the sexy out ON PURPOSE.

[LMNO]

Or vice versa...What's being communicated isn't what's on the surface.  Which is a totally different thing.  If you know what I mean.

I think I do.

To be honest, I'm a fan of Bounce, so when I saw the VMA thing the first time, my reactions were: "Wow.  The sound mix is terrible.  She obviously can't hear the band.  What's with the tongue   Hm.  That's....that's not twerking.  She's just touching her toes."  And I more or less dismissed the rest as a failed skit.

I wasn't disturbed or outraged, but then again, I'm not really the target demographic here.  I also dismissed the haters, too.  But then, you all started pointing out the subtle things going on, and when I found out that her video was directed by the so-called king of the creepers, Terry Richardson, I got intrigued.  Now, though I can't say with any certainty what her inner motiviations are, her actions have certainly played out in a fairly seismic way, intentional or not.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think* The difference between them and her is that it is unpleasant to watch. All the others were aiming to titillate. This is decidedly unattractive.

Which was kind of the intent, I think.

1.  Take the standard template <anything> that sells on sheer inertia or lack of alternatives.

2.  Package a new piece, but leave a crucial bit out.  You have to not care what your audience/customers think of you at this point.

3.  Run the program.  People see the meme, they're conditioned for it, but then it doesn't go in the manner for which they've been conditioned.  It goes off the rails.  They get upset, and they don't know why.

4.  This is particularly effective in this case, because she's taken the "Disney Girls Gone Wild" idea and then made it fucking grotesque.  People are both disappointed and confused.  So they rage out.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I've already covered my reasoning and analysis in this thread and the other one, and linking to articles and Facebook posts written by outraged guys isn't really going to prove anything since you can make your own observations on that. So as far as I'm concerned I'm done with this discussion. You disagree, apparently, about whether Miley Cyrus is deliberately making people uncomfortable as part of her act.

OK.

I agree she was intentionally trying to get eyeballs and to have people talk about her the next day (with respect to the VMAs).  But that is par for the course if you look at the history of the VMAs.


And certainly the video is the same idea.  Get eyeballs and get people to notice you. 


But so far I haven't seen anything in anyone's analysis that suggests what she is doing is this big mindfuck or pop-culture troll, any moreso than the Madonnas', Spears', and Gagas' that came before her.  I'm not getting why she is being elevated ITT.  I mean, I'm not knocking that,  You guys really like her, that's cool.  Just not seeing this deeper layer y'all seem to see.  Seems like typical tactics to get eyeballs and move units.

Thread and accompanying idea are now ruined for the people interested in it.

You've achieved your objective.  You can move on to the next target now.

Miley Cyrus promoted to MIND LAz0RZ

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Have you ever known the way little kids like to hear the same stories over and over? They love it, and they'll eagerly listen to the same stupid thing hundreds of times.

But have you also seen what happens when you tell the story wrong? You'd think the fucking barbarians were at the gates.

Ever done it on purpose just to get a rise out of 'em?



Miley is telling the story wrong. She's messed up the good part, too!

It's kind of like the spectacle as the artwork. It goes beyond the performance.

Like an artist painting a black canvas hiding inside with a camera to film audience reaction. The interaction is the artwork.

I may be going too deep with this.

I was just going to say something like this. The reaction is part of the art, and this is a masterpiece. It's one thing when avant-garde arthouse nerds try to outrage people with their weird art, but Miley is painting with the biggest damn canvas she can find.

YES.

NOT THE POINT.

She is a female.  Nigel is ALSO a female, posting about said female.

This makes RWHN a sad panda. 

It must be stopped.  Failing that, it must be dismissed.

Ah. Gaming the system is a Y chromosome thing in the World According To RWHN. Yes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or vice versa...What's being communicated isn't what's on the surface.  Which is a totally different thing.  If you know what I mean.

I think I do.

To be honest, I'm a fan of Bounce, so when I saw the VMA thing the first time, my reactions were: "Wow.  The sound mix is terrible.  She obviously can't hear the band.  What's with the tongue   Hm.  That's....that's not twerking.  She's just touching her toes."  And I more or less dismissed the rest as a failed skit.

I wasn't disturbed or outraged, but then again, I'm not really the target demographic here.  I also dismissed the haters, too.  But then, you all started pointing out the subtle things going on, and when I found out that her video was directed by the so-called king of the creepers, Terry Richardson, I got intrigued.  Now, though I can't say with any certainty what her inner motiviations are, her actions have certainly played out in a fairly seismic way, intentional or not.

But here's the thing:  The intention is almost irrelevant, even if she specifically planned this.  Or not.

The stage was set for the standard "20 year old dancing sexy for 40 year old creeps" (target audience).  Then the pedo bears.  Then the Beetlejuice thing.  Then the INSANELY GROTESQUE BURLESQUE, so to speak.  40 year old creeps do not feel show has delivered.  They don't understand it.  They start making monkey noises while banging on the keyboard about THAT SLUT, THAT WHORE, THAT DISGUSTING LITTLE TRAMP...As evidenced in the comments on youtube, facebook, etc.

Here's the really nasty part:  Rapists tend to say the same things about their victims, when they know or have observed their victims over a long period of time (as opposed to the far more rare stranger rape).  They do this to justify - mostly to themselves - their behavior.   She was a slut, so what they did didn't matter.

Then extend that just a tiny bit: 

1.  She's a SLUT AND A WHORE = "worthless".

2.  She's just another female shock act = "worthless".

There really isn't a practical difference.

What she was communicating - whether or not she intended to - was "All of my fans are disgusting 40 year old creepers, and I am aware of this.  NOW SO ARE THEY."

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

So, I just realized that this HAS been done before.

Not Madonna and Britney and what have you, because they were still attempting to be sexy even if they failed.

No, this is the act that Amy Sedaris did, with the pop-star twist. This is being GROSS on purpose.

[Faust]

2.  Package a new piece, but leave a crucial bit out.  You have to not care what your audience/customers think of you at this point.

3.  Run the program.  People see the meme, they're conditioned for it, but then it doesn't go in the manner for which they've been conditioned.  It goes off the rails.  They get upset, and they don't know why.

I buy that.

And  by that logic, microsoft have been trolling their audience for decades.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Or vice versa...What's being communicated isn't what's on the surface.  Which is a totally different thing.  If you know what I mean.

I think I do.

To be honest, I'm a fan of Bounce, so when I saw the VMA thing the first time, my reactions were: "Wow.  The sound mix is terrible.  She obviously can't hear the band.  What's with the tongue   Hm.  That's....that's not twerking.  She's just touching her toes."  And I more or less dismissed the rest as a failed skit.

I wasn't disturbed or outraged, but then again, I'm not really the target demographic here.  I also dismissed the haters, too.  But then, you all started pointing out the subtle things going on, and when I found out that her video was directed by the so-called king of the creepers, Terry Richardson, I got intrigued.  Now, though I can't say with any certainty what her inner motiviations are, her actions have certainly played out in a fairly seismic way, intentional or not.

But here's the thing:  The intention is almost irrelevant, even if she specifically planned this.  Or not.

The stage was set for the standard "20 year old dancing sexy for 40 year old creeps" (target audience).  Then the pedo bears.  Then the Beetlejuice thing.  Then the INSANELY GROTESQUE BURLESQUE, so to speak.  40 year old creeps do not feel show has delivered.  They don't understand it.  They start making monkey noises while banging on the keyboard about THAT SLUT, THAT WHORE, THAT DISGUSTING LITTLE TRAMP...As evidenced in the comments on youtube, facebook, etc.

Here's the really nasty part:  Rapists tend to say the same things about their victims, when they know or have observed their victims over a long period of time (as opposed to the far more rare stranger rape).  They do this to justify - mostly to themselves - their behavior.   She was a slut, so what they did didn't matter.

Then extend that just a tiny bit: 

1.  She's a SLUT AND A WHORE = "worthless".

2.  She's just another female shock act = "worthless".

There really isn't a practical difference.

What she was communicating - whether or not she intended to - was "All of my fans are disgusting 40 year old creepers, and I am aware of this.  NOW SO ARE THEY."

I agree, thats exactly the message.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In furtherance of that:

Target audience for Justin Beiber, boy-bands, etc:  11-15 year old girls.

Given.  However:

Target audience for Miley Cyrus, Britteny Spears, etc:  35-45 year old men in mid-life crisis mode.

Contrasted with:

Pink, Beyonce, Lady Gaga:  35-45 year old men not in mid-life crisis mode.

Interesting note:  The difference in style between the two types of female pop stars.  The former are expected to act like bad little girls who need some private spanking.  The latter are expected to act like the woman you want on your arm when going to a wild party.