You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
medium-paced
Goofy and disorganized but also kind of great. A fitting tribute.
Bubblegum Music is the Naked Truth: The Dark History of Prepubescent Pop, from the Banana Splits to Britney Spears by Kim Cooper and David Smay was the most disappointing book I’ve read this year (so far). On the cover, it is advertised as revealing ‘The Dark History of Prepubescent Pop, from the Banana Splits to Britney Spears’, but sadly this book contains next to no information about any ‘dark history’. I was under the impression that Bubblegum music referred to the cheesy pop songs that were popular in the 90’s and early 2000’s, but no. Apparently, it is more focused on a genre of music from 1967-1972, then goes onto say that some of the 2000’s music could be classed as new age Bubblegum music which appeals to preteens. I was expecting to read about the dark side of the music business, how people are ticked into signing crazy contracts at a young age, creepy producers which hung around young kids dressing rooms, or how deranged parents force their children into the limelight to fulfil their own fantasies. But instead, I was left slowly struggling through a collection of essays and interviews from over 40 different ‘experts’ and music fans – and when I say struggling, I mean struggling. This book took me like, over two weeks to read and I was so tempted to give up. For a book which uses Britney Spear’s name on the cover, it only mentions her 20 times throughout the 300+ pages.
In the overview, Cooper tries to argue that Punk music originated as Bubblegum, and that the Spice Girls also fall into this genre - ?? – also she discusses how a lot of songs during this time used food connotations and descriptions to hide sexual innuendos. This food imagery apparently appealed to preteen listeners because “often, it is only at the dinner table that children are able to exert power over their parents. Bu pointedly not eating, or by gorging, and child can focus the attention of the gamily directly upon himself”. This is such a reach here, saying that kids like music with food-based lyrics because they want power over their parents, I just can’t.
A lot of the essays/interviews included were repetitive and frankly dull, but for a subject I have no interest in, this is unsurprising. I hadn’t heard of 99% of the bands and artists included, so this really wasn’t my subject interest. However, there was one interesting essay, The Partridge Family Temple: Religion is the Bubblegum of the Masses by Go-Go Giddle Partridge and the Risen Keith which discussed the followers of a Now Cult called the Partridge Family Temple which worship the 70 musical sitcom. This one was unexpected, and the madness was welcomed after so much discussion of bands unbeknown to me – I didn’t know who the Partridge Family were either, but the cult stuff was cool to read about. Peter Bagge’s Raiding Hannah’s Stash: An Appriciation of late ‘90s Bubblegum Music was easily the worst thing I’ve read all year. Some of his sentence choices were absolutely wild: “Alternative: Always white, usually male, always wearing throwaway t-shirts and pants, always WHINING WHINING WHINING about who knows what and WHO CARES?... Followed by the worst “genre” of all: Chick Singers” by ranking this man’s least favourite genres, his descriptions and reasons show that he is a very angry person. He said that a colleague of his went to see the Spice Girls and said that “‘they can’t sing, they can’t dance – and their fat!’ Six months later, all of these people each owned the complete line of Spice Girl dolls. I guess ‘fat’ was ‘in’ all of a sudden” like, why include this awful conversation, what is the obsessive need for people to comment on peoples bodies? This is without touching on the point that those women couldn’t have been skinnier. He tries to justify himself by saying that he likes “that the Spice Girls are ‘fat’… they’re built like women are NATURALLY built” and that he likes “that their personalities have been simplified and boiled down to five easy recognisable cartoon characters” – god. He tries and fails to argue that “girls are fascinated by the S. Girls sex appeal.” He then goes onto discussing Britney Spear’s sex appeal as a young teenager, stating that she had breast implants (not according to her autobiography, and I definitely believe her over this creep who was so interested in this young girls body, either him or the publisher decided to include an gross cartoon of Spears to emphasise his leering over her – the Spice Girls cartoon is similarly overly sexual and just weird. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to include this man’s absolutely misogynistic and perverted dribble is completely beyond me.
The one thing I can comment on liking is the books page layouts and designs. Titles and headlines are done in cool fonts, there are photos included frequently of adverts and album covers and fun contributions like ‘The Ten Commandments of Bubblegum’ which helped break up the monogamous text. But I seriously wouldn’t recommend anyone to waste their time or money reading this book – unless you want to read about some band named the Archies.
In the overview, Cooper tries to argue that Punk music originated as Bubblegum, and that the Spice Girls also fall into this genre - ?? – also she discusses how a lot of songs during this time used food connotations and descriptions to hide sexual innuendos. This food imagery apparently appealed to preteen listeners because “often, it is only at the dinner table that children are able to exert power over their parents. Bu pointedly not eating, or by gorging, and child can focus the attention of the gamily directly upon himself”. This is such a reach here, saying that kids like music with food-based lyrics because they want power over their parents, I just can’t.
A lot of the essays/interviews included were repetitive and frankly dull, but for a subject I have no interest in, this is unsurprising. I hadn’t heard of 99% of the bands and artists included, so this really wasn’t my subject interest. However, there was one interesting essay, The Partridge Family Temple: Religion is the Bubblegum of the Masses by Go-Go Giddle Partridge and the Risen Keith which discussed the followers of a Now Cult called the Partridge Family Temple which worship the 70 musical sitcom. This one was unexpected, and the madness was welcomed after so much discussion of bands unbeknown to me – I didn’t know who the Partridge Family were either, but the cult stuff was cool to read about. Peter Bagge’s Raiding Hannah’s Stash: An Appriciation of late ‘90s Bubblegum Music was easily the worst thing I’ve read all year. Some of his sentence choices were absolutely wild: “Alternative: Always white, usually male, always wearing throwaway t-shirts and pants, always WHINING WHINING WHINING about who knows what and WHO CARES?... Followed by the worst “genre” of all: Chick Singers” by ranking this man’s least favourite genres, his descriptions and reasons show that he is a very angry person. He said that a colleague of his went to see the Spice Girls and said that “‘they can’t sing, they can’t dance – and their fat!’ Six months later, all of these people each owned the complete line of Spice Girl dolls. I guess ‘fat’ was ‘in’ all of a sudden” like, why include this awful conversation, what is the obsessive need for people to comment on peoples bodies? This is without touching on the point that those women couldn’t have been skinnier. He tries to justify himself by saying that he likes “that the Spice Girls are ‘fat’… they’re built like women are NATURALLY built” and that he likes “that their personalities have been simplified and boiled down to five easy recognisable cartoon characters” – god. He tries and fails to argue that “girls are fascinated by the S. Girls sex appeal.” He then goes onto discussing Britney Spear’s sex appeal as a young teenager, stating that she had breast implants (not according to her autobiography, and I definitely believe her over this creep who was so interested in this young girls body, either him or the publisher decided to include an gross cartoon of Spears to emphasise his leering over her – the Spice Girls cartoon is similarly overly sexual and just weird. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to include this man’s absolutely misogynistic and perverted dribble is completely beyond me.
The one thing I can comment on liking is the books page layouts and designs. Titles and headlines are done in cool fonts, there are photos included frequently of adverts and album covers and fun contributions like ‘The Ten Commandments of Bubblegum’ which helped break up the monogamous text. But I seriously wouldn’t recommend anyone to waste their time or money reading this book – unless you want to read about some band named the Archies.
I refer to this book constantly - as there's so much information and fun stuff to read about. It also casts a wide net over the Bubblegum genre by taking in artists from all over the world. There's even a big article about Luv'! It really is fantastic, I just wish there was a full colour companion version with photos of all of the records.
Just got this via ILL and can't wait to bite in! God, I loved the Banana Splits!
Later:
Written by several different people, this book is repetitive, schizophrenic, self-contradictory, and uneven in quality of writing. That said, quite a bit of it is fun! I am now reading just the chapters that catch my interest. Wish it came with a CD.
Later:
Written by several different people, this book is repetitive, schizophrenic, self-contradictory, and uneven in quality of writing. That said, quite a bit of it is fun! I am now reading just the chapters that catch my interest. Wish it came with a CD.
slow-paced
Hmm. I wanted to like this book more, but I just couldn't. I had a number of problems with the book, not least of which is that the authors had a pretty squishy idea of what should be counted as bubblegum music. The Archies? Definitely. Partridge Family? I'd buy that. But Duran Duran? Paul Rever & The Raiders? Tommy James and the Shondells? Nah, I don't see that.
The book is comprised of small pieces from over 40 contributing editors, and it shows. The writing style is wildly uneven, and because so many folks are covering a lot of overlapping material, it tends to be repetitive in places as well.
The book is comprised of small pieces from over 40 contributing editors, and it shows. The writing style is wildly uneven, and because so many folks are covering a lot of overlapping material, it tends to be repetitive in places as well.