Marvin Gaye's Significance

These forthcoming critiques, it must be admitted, will appear unusual, primarily because they're for songs that I'm not certain I can furnish an unprejudiced, insightful response to. These musical pieces just profoundly irritate me; they embody precisely the kind of things I detest. Even so, I'm not persuaded that they are inherently bad songs &8211; they're decent compositions, just ones I don't react favorably towards.

Of course, I manage a review blog; all of my output is inherently prejudiced &8211; the notion of an unbiased, purely analytical reading of anything is a deception. Nevertheless, let's drop that pretense for once: we can return to postulating on the condition of contemporary pop music and on the alchemical sexual politics of Little Mix tunes after I've just vented some frustrations. Initially:

Marvin Gaye &8211; Charlie Puth feat. Meghan Trainor

I loathed Charlie Puth's prior track because his delivery imitated Sam Smith. I detested Meghan Trainor's previous chart-topper owing to her regressive sexual viewpoints and her knack for, somehow, ripping herself off. But unite them in one song, and I don't mind it: Puth sounds like himself this time, while Trainor gives a softer-than-usual performance, which goes against her customary sense of entitled arrogance, rendering her fairly likable.

No, the core issue with this tune resides within its lyrics. In particular, the problem with this song is the singular lyric, "Let's Marvin Gaye and get it on," which I'm convinced is among the most foolish statements I've ever encountered.

The difficulty resides in precisely specifying what's amiss with that phrase. Marvin Gaye was a charismatic figure who crafted appealing music; as a consequence, utilizing him as a synonym for sexy seems logical. Yet, acting accordingly is simply senseless. Why? Well, while viewing a documentary (something featuring Dawn Porter), I once heard Peter Stringfellow assert that "Funny isn't sexy." I disagree with that claim, but it's what ultimately led me to what I believe the problem is: that the song's cute and cuteness isn't sexy.

The lyrics of this song detail a couple discussing how they crave to copulate. "Let's Marvin Gaye," consequently, evolves into the couple's pet name for sex &8211; the kind of darling, oh-look-at-us-we're-so-intimate-and-shit terminology that any couple will inevitably fabricate between themselves. By adopting this form of terminology, the song, as a result, places us outside their relationship, observing two individuals as they become overly affectionate, converse in baby voices, and assume the rest of the world will tolerate their nonsense because they are in love, and that's all that matters. We've all witnessed these people, either on the bus or during a night out &8211; the types who the outside world no longer concerns because they've got someone else permanently attached to their face.

The predicament with cuteness and attractiveness, though, is that the two exist basically at opposite ends of the spectrum. Cuteness is linked with innocence and childhood, with innocence and childhood largely being defined by adults as the state of being unconcerned with sex. This song is, thus, attempting to project something it's not. It's an innocent song about how much the narrators want to have sex, and that simply doesn't work.

And there lies the predicament with "Let's Marvin Gaye and get it on": it's a very immature method of describing something which is very adult. It, therefore, concludes by sounding like two people explaining something they have no knowledge of. They believe they're being clever, but in truth, they merely appear ignorant and silly.

Indeed, more than her sexual politics, more than the reality that all her tracks are essentially similar, more than how she seems desperate to categorize herself as a strictly sexual object &8211; this is why I fundamentally dislike Meghan Trainor. She thinks that lyrics such as "I'm a dog without a bone" or "I'll be sleeping on the left side of the bed / Open doors for me and you might get some... kisses" are clever, adult jokes; yet in actuality, they are precisely the kind of adolescent innuendo that one is expected to outgrow. There exists a truly adult and subversive musical project to be constructed from crafting highly sexualized songs with a 1950s doo-wop sound, but the impact of that project will originate from the contrast between the innocence of the music and the debauchery of the lyrics. Meghan Trainor employs innuendo and last-word turns to pretend that the lyrics of her tracks are as innocent as the rest of her music, and thus the objective of the sexual lyrics is totally missed. Her compositions are what immature individuals perceive mature work to be like: namely, texts which are identical to childish material, only incorporating sex.

Now, certainly, all of this can be easily refuted due to the fact that it hinges upon the concept that being cute isn't sexy. I have no doubt that there are individuals for whom cuteness is sexy. I similarly have no doubt that there are those for whom watching two people be head-over-heels with each other is delightful, not annoying. To put it briefly: I have no doubt that there are people for whom this song is genuinely romantic. And indeed, the music and the vocals are acceptable. Not since the 50 Shades soundtrack have we had a song which sounds this truly lovestruck. However, the lyrics imply that it's ultimately not for me. When I state that Thinking Out Loud is an incompetent mess that people are erroneous for appreciating, I mean it. When I assert that people are mistaken for supporting Jason Derulo's unendingly hideous wankstains, I mean that. But if you actually appreciate Marvin Gaye and consider it a commendable song, then I can't fault you. I just don't like it. I perceive it as a stupid song sung by foolish people.

I will hold firm to what I say about Meghan Trainor in general, whether you enjoy Marvin Gaye or not: her public image isn't clever, and it doesn't succeed.

Speaking of individuals whose public image doesn't succeed…