I usually refrain from criticizing anyone too young to have
a Mickey’s with their Doritos, let alone a 17-year-old GRAMMY nominee. However,
the singer of this year’s “Somebody That I Used to Know”—annoyingly titled
“Royals”—is doing a fantastic job of reinforcing the narcissism that now
plagues, well, everything.
The song itself aims to oppose all things luxe by dismissing
expensive indulgences, and maybe it succeeds, but does so with a pretentious hair-flip
and a shoulder-brush. This coupled with its obliviously contradictory nature makes
Lorde’s highly lauded hipster anthem cause of more head aching than head nodding.
It must be quite difficult to truly dislike luxury items. Jet
planes serve an irreplaceable function that most people, poor or privileged,
benefit from. If anyone has ridden in a Maybach (I have not), I’m sure they
could attest to the comfort and agreeable circumstances afforded by such a
vehicle. Islands are vacation destinations for millions of people, not only the
wealthy. So is Lorde displeased with the immaculate scenery and near-perfect
climate? I can’t imagine so. Maybe she finds the tourist masses (and massive
tourists) unbearable, which many do. But isn’t that why purchasing an island
would be advisable? The list goes on but of course this disdain for extravagant
accommodations cannot be the real reason for her bickering.
The truth of the matter is, “Royals” is not concerned with
disproving the face value of luxury possessions, but rather criticizing the
narcissistic egos that these items engorge. It’s not the grey goose and
diamonds that make you a douche, it’s the fact that you let these things define
your persona and self-worth that makes you a douche—though gold teeth might make
you a douche regardless. It’s the
blatant narcissism in trying to prove yourself and gain recognition through
possessions and aesthetics that details the real issue concerning the song.
This is exactly why “Royals” is unbearably hypocritical and contradictory, a
theme too often present in music today (I’m looking at you Kanye).
If narcissism is the root of the issue, shouldn’t the ironically
monikered Lorde be more attentive to the nature of her profession? Performance
by nature is at least somewhat narcissistic, isn’t it? She’s composed her
opinions, performs them for all that will listen, and wants recognition and
validation. Maybe that’s a bit over the top, and maybe we’re all guilty of this
to a degree, but I don’t buy this whole I’m-not-interested-in-fame spiel. If
she wasn’t looking for recognition, and didn’t think her ideas were important
for people to hear, then she wouldn’t be performing them for millions of listeners.
It’s been referenced that she was swept up by the unyielding wave of fame, but
it’s not like she wasn’t already in the water kicking her legs. “Royals” simply
disguises narcissism by using popular opposition as its Trojan horse, a
prevalent trend in recent years. It is as common these days to be adamantly
opposed to all things fame and fortune as it is to be obsessed with their
attainment. The underlying issue beneath the diamonds and gold teeth are the exact
same as those beneath the thrift shop jewelry and ragamuffin hairdos. The smug
nature of “Royals” and much of the annoyingly complacent pseudo-hipster community
relies as much on self-satisfaction as does that of the posh and famous.
In principle, seeking recognition for “not caring” about
wealth is identical to doing so in favor of it. We all have opinions, they
almost always differ, we all want people to hear them, and we all think they
are important. And sometimes we write a blog about them. But who’s to say what the right way to
live is? Isn’t being loud about wealth equally valuable as being loud about indifference?
In the end, aren’t we all just yelling at each other? Regardless, it’s
difficult to criticize her commercial success and, come January, Lorde can rest
her scrawny arm and let the GRAMMY academy resume the proverbial back-patting.
No comments:
Post a Comment