Following the unexpected success of my last music post, I investigated the attic and found enough vinyl and shellac to justify a regular weekly slot. That is, bad music. Maverick has a slot for good music. Why discriminate?
Some ground rules. We should try and avoid the obvious, for too much has been written about that. E.g. one commenter wrote last week "in my personal view there is no aspect of this song which is not bad", and he (or she) is absolutely right. But a little too obvious. Likewise, practically anything from the Eurovision song contest. Or this, which is infamously bad, but not in a way that is news to anyone.
No. We must explore music which has seeds of badness, or which is clearly bad, but whose toxic characterisation eludes us. We must explore the world of Youtube of 200 views or less, or (better) the world of music that has not even reached Youtube.
We must explore even the fantastically popular, and I want to start with the other one our commenter suggested was much better, namely this. 65 million people watched it.
Is it bad? If it is bad, why? I don't know. It is manifest that something is badly wrong with it. I had forgotten, or never noticed, it was the Black Eyed Peas who made it, and now I think of them differently. In the way that, when someone years ago suggested that all wine tastes faintly of vinegar, I realised that all wine really does taste faintly of vinegar.
For more vinegar, here is Alanis' version which gets us closer to why it is horrible, but without any precise, definitive answer that would be philosophically satisfying.