Didn’t want to threadshit so I start a new thread.
Let’s forget about the objections some of you may remember that I have to their song “Pregnant Women are Smug.” That song actually angers me, but even if that song, or any song particularly like it, had not been written by the pair, I would still think they’re terrible. Not “I’m mad at them” terrible, rather, just “damn they suck and they are boring” terrible.
De gustibus et cetera but I can describe the exact reasons why they’re terrible.
With a single exception pointed out in the other thread, they sing in unison at all times (when both are singing at the same time). This is terrible because it is boring. (And the one exception that was pointed out isn’t really a significant exception, because in that song they are singing completely separate lines. There is harmony happening in a very strict sense, but only in a very strict sense.)
At all times, in every song, they express sentiments that are utterly conventional. This is terrible because it’s boring. (Hm I already said that didn’t I.) Not one thing they sing, ever, ever, expresses any thought that is in any way new, original, unexpected, giving an unexplored angle to an old thought, or anything along those lines. They are, dare I say it, the cute female pairing version of Carlos Mencia. They’re “just saying what everyone is thinking.”
They are very charismatic, which means I keep watching them even though I’m hating every second of what they’re doing. And they are by all accounts really cool people, which means I cannot help feeling guilty for criticizing them. All of this is terrible because I hate myself.
I fear the possibility that this thread may come to include a discussion of whether I think women are funny in general. So for the record, when I think of my favorite comedians, only one male comes to mind. All the rest are women.
They have one trick as i see it. It takes effort to write all those lyrics, I will grant, but it’s so cutesy. That’s the joke they have: They sing acoustic cute, and you are supposed to laugh.
With satirical songs you can’t use great music either (Even if they could write it). So you have to keep it sort of dumb.
I predict it has a short shelf-life. They may have talent and fly in some direction though.
This one is making me curious. I’m not sure what you’re saying is the problem. Can you give a counter-example to clarify the point? A musician or musicians that you feel challenges its audience?
Offhand, I can think of some of the points they’ve made which are controversial: same-sex marriage should be legalized; marijuana should be legalized; Christian morality can be hypocritical; professional sports is a silly thing to care about; and, of course, pregnant women are smug.
Now while lots of people who disagree with all these points and would take offense to them, I concede many of these message wouldn’t be controversial to their audience. But when NWA sang “Fuck the Police” the audience they were singing it to was cheering them on. They were, as you put it, “just saying what everyone is thinking.”
Were you putting us on with your 2nd Paragraph? Writing songs about those things these days could be seen as bandwagon hopping. If he were alive Bob Hope would be joking about this.
The NWA song is at the very least saying something that its “we” isn’t “supposed” to say. It challenges both its immediate audience and its, so to speak, “bystander audience” (i.e. shocked proper people at the time) to step up to the message it is expressing and deal with its fallout.
G&O otoh are saying all the things women are “supposed” to say (these days, in the crowd that constitutes their audience). No one is having to face up to anything. Like I said, it’s all perfectly conventional.
Not that G&O have to be NWA–I’m just using the comparison you made to highlight the contrast I see.
As to musicians who do challenge their audience, honestly I evaluate them more as comedians than as musicians. Comedians who are not boring because they are challenging in some way include Sarah Silverman and Louis C.K.
Musicians? I mean of course there is challenging music out there, I doubt that needs to be established, but the closest I can think of to something like “musicians who are challenging in a way that evokes laughter at least sometimes” I guess I’d say They Might Be Giants. Not really the same kind of duo as G&O of course but if we’re really looking for musicians they’d be the closest counter-example illustrating what I see as deficient in what G&O do.
I chose NWA and “Fuck the Police” because I wanted to pick a band and song that had an image for being controversial. But when NWA was performing that song, do you think there were people in the audience they were performing to who were thinking “How dare they say that. They should appreciate the hard work our police are doing.”?
Hell, no. The audience at NWA concerts fully supported the message they were hearing. In the context of that concert, “Fuck the Police” was as controversial as singing the National Anthem at a baseball game. The controversy over the song came from people outside NWA’s audience.
And that’s pretty much the same situation with Garfunkel and Oates. They perform a song supporting same-sex marriage (or marijuana or making fun of Christians or sports fans) and the audience they are singing to agrees with what they’re hearing. But there are undeniably large numbers of people outside of their audience who strongly disagree with these messages.
Making fun of Christian hypocrisy may be an easy target in the circles G&O run in, but that does not make “Fuck Me In The Ass Because I Love Jesus” any less funny.
They’re alright. I listen or watch, I laugh a few times and am generally amused the rest of the time, I go on with my day. It’s okay for them to not be oh-so-edgy or sharp insightful commentary on modern society. Sometimes cute & funny is what you’re looking for.
From what I gather, they’re independently doing other projects as well these days so more power to 'em.
Their songs together are probably the thing I like least about them. Individually they are quite funny, and I’ve enjoyed their various televison appearances.
ETA: Also, the name “Garfunkel and Oates” falls under the Be Sharps Rule of Funny Names: “We need a name that’s witty at first, but that seems less funny each time you hear it.”
But then, to me the gold standard for this sort of thing is Tom Lehrer, who was performing before I was born and is still funny today … or at least, in my opinion.
I think they try too hard to be “edgy and clever” but come across as “pretentious and tedious”. Doesn’t work for me. Also, its hard to look at the one with the eyes on the sides of her head.
