‘Look, This Show's Good. It's Essentially Moral.'
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
In 1992, The Simpsons was one of the most beloved sitcoms on television. Critics adored it; the ratings were climbing higher and higher; the show had entered what fans would eventually come to regard as its funniest period, roughly Seasons 3 through 8.
But the animated series still scared some adults. There had never been a boy on network TV as openly irreverent as Bart Simpson, who said 'hell' and 'damn' and talked back to his teacher. Mere months after the show debuted, in December 1989, schools across the United States started banning a T-shirt declaring, 'Bart Simpson 'Underachiever': And Proud of It, Man!' James Dobson, the founder of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, weighed in on that particular piece of merch, writing that it made the 'pervasive problem of underachievement' even worse.
As quaint as Bart's antics might seem now, he and The Simpsons as a whole represented youth in revolt. The moral panic was misplaced, but not unusual—part of a long national tradition of culture wars waged under the pretense of politics.
But what critics of the prime-time cartoon either fundamentally misunderstood (or conveniently overlooked) was its core truths. Bart loved his parents. He went to church with them. The Simpsons sometimes struggled to make ends meet, and they didn't always get along, but they stuck together. They were a typical middle-American family—and, despite Bart's rude language, not the symbol of societal rot that culture-war targets are often imagined to be. There are numerous early-season examples of the family's underlying integrity. Marge's bowling instructor, Jacques, woos her, but she resists and dramatically reconciles with Homer, whom she'd been arguing with. Homer decides to steal cable, but eventually stops when Lisa, the show's voice of reason, convinces him it's wrong. Lisa exposes a corrupt congressman at the expense of personal glory. Homer gives up religion only to realize that his faith is important to him. Sure, there's a scene in the series premiere in which Bart gets a real tattoo—but the story ends sweetly, with the family adopting a greyhound track reject named Santa's Little Helper. 'Look, this show's good,' the Simpsons writer Jeff Martin once told me. 'It's essentially moral. It's for everybody.'
In its early days, The Simpsons was everywhere: on TV, on merch, on magazine covers (back when that still moved the needle), in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. The show's ubiquity is likely what put it on the radar of George H. W. Bush's administration. In May 1990, a news story mentioned that the White House's drug czar, William Bennett, had noticed a Bart Simpson poster at a rehabilitation center. 'That's not going to help you any,' Bennett reportedly said to the residents. (He later claimed that he was kidding.) In a People interview later that year, first lady Barbara Bush called The Simpsons 'the dumbest thing I've ever seen.'
In the first case, the show's producers responded with a snarky statement: 'If our drug czar thinks he can sit down and talk with a cartoon character, he must be on something.' In the second, they decided to take a kill-'em-with-kindness approach, sending the first lady a letter written in the voice of Marge, who politely defended her family. 'Ma'am, if we're the dumbest thing you ever saw,' Marge wrote, 'Washington must be a good deal different than what they teach me at the current events group at the church.' Barbara Bush sent an apologetic reply: 'Clearly,' she wrote, 'you are setting a good example for the rest of the country.'
At that point, the Bush-Bart beef was dead. Then, early in his reelection campaign, the president brought it back to life. On January 27, 1992, he spoke at the National Religious Broadcasters convention. His speech wasn't terribly memorable, except for one section. 'The next value I speak of must be forever cast in stone,' Bush said. 'I speak of decency, the moral courage to say what is right and condemn what is wrong. And we need a nation closer to The Waltons than The Simpsons—an America that rejects the incivility, the tide of incivility, and the tide of intolerance.'
The Waltons was a Great Depression–set drama about a good-natured blue-collar Virginia family that aired on CBS for most of the 1970s. The smash-hit show was a temporary antidote to the tumult of the time, and Bush's speechwriter Curt Smith was a big fan. He thought that The Waltons embodied a kind of propriety that appealed to Middle America. To him, The Simpsons did not. When I interviewed him in 2022, Smith told me he felt that the sarcastic animated series looked down on the heartland. 'You had two cultures at war in this country. And I say that sadly,' he said. 'The Waltons with red America and The Simpsons with blue America.'
[Read: The life in The Simpsons is no longer attainable]
To play up that divide, Smith added the Waltons/Simpsons comparison into Bush's address. According to Smith, his boss approved. As soon as the president said the line, it became a sound bite, which satisfied Smith. 'I felt deeply that the line was germane,' he told me. 'I thought it was true. And it would help us politically.'
He turned out to be wrong about that last part. Bush's broadside pushed the creators of The Simpsons to fire back by tacking on a scene to the opening of that week's episode, a rerun. The family is gathered around the TV, which is playing footage of the president's insult. As soon as it's over, Bart perks up and says, 'Hey, we're just like the Waltons. We're praying for an end to the Depression, too.' The mainstream media also pointed out the irony of the president waxing poetic about an old TV show that took place during a terrible economy. 'Yes, ma and pa,' the syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote on January 31, 1992, 'George-boy is leading us back through the haze of nostalgia to those wonderful yesteryears of the 1930s.'
It was an example of how out of touch the sexagenarian incumbent was in the eyes of many voters—at least compared with his opponent, a saxophone-playing Baby Boomer. As Bush's campaign progressed, he doubled down, bringing back the Waltons/Simpsons line for his arrival speech at the Republican National Convention. In the end, Bill Clinton won fairly easily in '92—with the help of the independent Ross Perot, who yanked some votes away from Bush—taking chunks of Middle America with him.
It would be a stretch to say that Bush's decision to poke at The Simpsons cost him a second term. But it did demonstrate how silly politicians can look when they try to use pop culture to score easy points with their base. People in the heartland watched the show, too—partly because the Simpsons had the same issues as millions of Americans. The second-season premiere of the show, for example, focuses on Bart's academic troubles. The anxiety he and his parents have over whether he might have to repeat the fourth grade feels real. ''Bart Gets an F' is not only funny, it's touching,' the Washington Post critic Tom Shales wrote in his review. 'You really find yourself rooting for this bratty little drawing.'
When it came to family life, The Simpsons certainly felt realistic. There are episodes centering on Lisa's feeling unseen and unappreciated by her parents and turning to a substitute teacher for guidance, the stress caused by the cost of Homer's looming triple-bypass surgery, Marge's breaking down when the pressure of motherhood becomes too much to bear. But every week, they all manage to work through their problems and regroup. That basic blueprint helped The Simpsons become an institution. The show was at its core wholesome, even if the president at the time didn't acknowledge as much.
[Read: The last WASP president]
It wasn't the first time, and wouldn't be the last time, a politician who claimed that a pop-culture icon was threatening American values left out key information about his target. Just last month, after Bruce Springsteen criticized him onstage in England, President Donald Trump responded by going after the musician on social media. 'I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about President of the United States,' he posted on Truth Social. 'Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he's not a talented guy.'
Springsteen has never made his music just for the 'radical' or the 'left'; he's piled up millions of fans by speaking directly about the everyday anxieties of small-town life. His music has reflected America, in other words. And even in the face of threats made by the president, the rock star hasn't backed down. He included his remarks against Trump as an intro on his new live EP, Land of Hope & Dreams—the kind of burn that The Simpsons might have come up with. Back then, it wasn't just defiance that made the counterattack so effective—the show understood itself better than the president did.
*Illustration Sources: Jacobs Stock Photography Ltd / Getty; Everett Collection.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Trump Missed at the Kennedy Center
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Les Misérables is that rarest of things: a global phenomenon that gets political. The show—not just a musical but a megamusical; not just a drama but a melodrama—is an impassioned argument in the guise of an epic story. Like the Victor Hugo novel that inspired it, the musical rails against autocrats and the systems that elevate them. It resents injustice, inequality, and inhumanity. It does so loudly and extravagantly, and has no use for subtlety. Its gaudiest villain is a greedy innkeeper. Its true villain is unchecked power. And its collective protagonists are protesters who flow into the streets, shouting that their lives matter. Ever popular and ever lucrative, Les Mis has little need for a rebrand, though if it did, it could very well go by: Woke Mob! The Musical. But Hugo loved a good plot twist. And a performance last night at the Kennedy Center provided one: In the audience to celebrate a new staging of Les Mis was President Donald Trump, a man who treats woke as a slur, wealth as permission, and the American presidency as a kingdom in waiting. Trump appeared at the opening partly in a personal capacity (he is, famously, a fan of the show) but primarily in a professional one. This past winter, soon after his return to the White House, the president ousted the chair of the Kennedy Center's board, installing himself in the role. He now runs, in addition to 'the country and the world,' one of the nation's most powerful arts institutions. And last night's performance doubled as a fundraiser. In advance of it, according to reporting by The Atlantic's Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, board members received a letter urging them to contribute $100,000; other donors were invited to contribute up to $2 million. Trump's attendance also came as real-world protests simmered on the other side of the country he leads. On Saturday, in response to demonstrations in Los Angeles against his administration's treatment of immigrants, Trump made an announcement: He was ready to counter the protests with military force. By the time the president slipped into his VIP box at the Kennedy Center, 4,000 members of the National Guard and 700 Marines had been ordered to mobilize. That sound you keep hearing might be Hugo not just rolling in his tomb but protesting from it. Hugo was suspicious of kings, and for good reason: He completed Les Mis in exile, having opposed the coup that installed Napoleon III to power. That Trump would be in the audience for the musical is irony enough; that he would be attending as a champion of the show is a mordant bit of revisionism. In the musical, the 'master of the house' brings comic relief. In the bigger theater—of our nation, of geopolitics—he brings the stuff of Hugo's nightmares. Yet Trump's love of Les Mis is not much of a surprise. Irony, for one thing, does not seem to preclude his aesthetic appreciation. (Trump has also said that Citizen Kane, Orson Welles's pitying satire of a wealthy mogul turned politician, is his favorite film.) The president often discusses his love of Broadway shows and of megamusicals in particular. He has, at various points, also claimed Evita, Cats, and The Phantom of the Opera as favorites. Those musicals arose in the era that made Trump into a celebrity: the late 1970s and the '80s. Trump himself has conducted an 'off-and-on flirtation with the theater world,' The New York Times noted in 2016, a flirtation that has included a brief stint as a Broadway producer in the early '70s, as well as repeated discussions about turning his life into a musical. Until The Trump Follies makes its debut, though, the president has channeled himself through the political stylings of Les Mis. He has used one of the show's signature songs, 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' in rallies since the days of his 2016 campaign. He used it, in fact, when announcing that he would be running for the White House in the 2024 election. And out of context, the song works: Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Beyond the barricade Is there a world you long to see? Then join in the fight That will give you the right to be free! These are unobjectionable lyrics. They are widely applicable lyrics. But their obviousness can abet misreadings, as well. Where the song refers to 'the right to be free,' a person might fill in the words 'from oppression,' 'from hatred,' 'from fear'—or 'from the woke mob.' When it refers to 'crusade' and a better world, audiences might apply those ideas to their own sense of how things are. Les Mis, Hugo wrote, is 'a progress from evil to good, from injustice to justice, from falsehood to truth, from night to day, from appetite to conscience, from corruption to life.' But evil and good have no fixed meaning. Les Misérables, as a title, is commonly translated as, among others, 'The Miserable' or 'The Wretched' or 'The Poor.' Some translations, though, choose a different word: 'The Victims.' [Read: America now has a minister of culture] Justice, in Hugo's time as in ours, is a slippery aspiration. Woke can mean whatever people want it to mean. So can freedom. For many Americans, Trump included, the January 6 rioters are freedom fighters and political prisoners. For many of those same Americans, Trump is fighting tyranny rather than establishing it. 'I don't know whether it will be read by everyone,' Hugo wrote of Les Misérables, 'but it is meant for everyone.' He most likely did not envision that people of the future would take him so literally. If you remove history from the equation, though—if you strip away reality as a context—Les Mis can say anything. The show's red-white-and-blue color scheme (in context, a reference to the French flag) can seem to be American. Its climactic protests (in context, a recounting of the June Rebellion of 1832) might read like the siege of January 6. So many things, these days, have Rorschachian edges, which is to say blurred ones. So many things can be shape-shifted into political convenience. Les Mis's lyrics—'Who cares about your lonely soul / We strive toward a larger goal'—might refer to anyone's cause. So might another line: 'Our little lives don't count at all.' [Stephen Marche: America's cultural revolution] Les Mis, published in 1862, emerged from a period of constant upheaval: revolutions, counterrevolutions, coups, widespread poverty, displacement. France was a monarchy and a republic and a monarchy again; along the way, chaos reigned. Hugo's novel distills the human costs of that instability. It considers what happens when 'rule' becomes hopelessly unruly. As a morality play, Les Mis lives in the tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of it. The story radiates from a single, consequential moment: Its central figure, Jean Valjean, steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. He is arrested and imprisoned—the theft, in the eyes of the law, is a crime—and the event is so stark in its morals that it reads like an ethics case study. Who is more just, the man who tried to feed his family or the man who arrested him for it? Which is the true crime, one man's taking of a bit of food or the circumstances that led to the theft? The resonances to today's world are striking. Early in Les Mis, Valjean is released from prison after a 19-year confinement. Announcing himself as 'Jean Valjean,' he is sharply corrected by the story's prime antagonist, Inspector Javert—to whom Valjean is, and always will be, Prisoner 24601. You might think, today, of the people who are defined not as people at all, but as 'illegals,' or of the protesters dismissed as 'looters' and 'rioters' and 'terrorists.' Javert and Valjean are doubles of each other: incarnations of Hugo's interest in the connections between the just and the unjust, the dark and the light. Valjean, and nearly all of Les Mis's other characters, are not served by the state's sense of justice; they are oppressed by it. Javert, in enforcing the law, compounds injustice. His morals are so unfeeling that they lead him to immorality. [Read: The Kennedy Center performers who didn't cancel] Little wonder that 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' has become a protest song the world over, its words invoked as pleas for freedom. The crowds in Hong Kong, fighting for democracy, have sung it. So have crowds in the United States, fighting for the rights of unions. The story's tensions are the core tensions of politics too: the rights of the individual, colliding with the needs of the collective; the possibilities, and tragedies, that can come when human dignity is systematized. Les Mis, as a story, is pointedly specific—one country, one rebellion, one meaning of freedom. But Les Mis, as a broader phenomenon, is elastic. It is not one story but many, the product of endless interpretation and reiteration. With the novel, Hugo turned acts of history into a work of fiction. The musical turned the fiction into a show. And American politics, now, have turned the show into a piece of fan fic. Hugo-like protest, to some degree, was a theme at last night's performance. Several Les Mis cast members, when Trump's presence was confirmed, announced that they intended to boycott the show. Some audience members—including a group of drag queens seated in the orchestra section—attended as an act of protest as well. Trump himself came to the show with an entourage including first lady Melania Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, second lady Usha Vance, and several advisers. As they took their seats, clad in tuxes and gowns, many in the crowd booed. In response, Trump stood and grinned and waved, treating the greeting as an ovation. He then took his seat to enjoy a roughly three-hour indictment of autocracy. Trump, in translating Les Mis for himself, erodes Hugo's own claims to the story. The convictions that grounded Hugo's own sense of freedom—his resentment of unaccountable power, his sense that all justice is social justice—recede, just a bit more, toward the backstage. But Hugo remains. So does Les Mis, the historical artifact. The Los Angeles protests have been spreading throughout the country. More protests are planned for this Saturday, to coincide with a military parade that Trump has arranged in the nation's capital. The parade will coincide with his birthday. The protests against it have a nickname: 'No Kings.' *Lead image credit: Illustration by Allison Zaucha / The Atlantic. Sources: Hulton Archive / Getty; SSPL / Getty; The Ohio State University Library; Getty. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Singer Who Saw America's Best and Worst
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. It's a real American moment out there: battle lines drawn, tear gas drifting, charity and gentleness on their heels. Turn inward, inside ourselves, and it looks even worse, the mind's landscape pocked and blackened with destruction. Can somebody please bring the beautiful music, to carry us up and out? Someone like Sly Stone, who died on Monday at the age of 82. Sly was a born transcender, a natural synthesizer of situations, a raiser of elements to their highest state of possibility. Black, white; R&B, rock; politics, carnival; great taste, screaming excess; heaven and Earth: He put it all together. On a tight curve of musical euphoria, he led his people—which was everybody, or so he claimed—out of conflict. The opposing force was in him too, equally strong as it turned out: drag, downwardness, drugs, isolation. Who in the world would ever have the power to shut him down? Only Sly himself. It's remarkable that he lived as long as he did. But in his glorious and self-consuming prime—'68 to '71, roughly—he harmonized the energies that were tearing and would continue to tear this country to pieces. Dangerous work, highly exposed, but he made it look like a party. And in the floating jubilee that was his band, the Family Stone, he gave America a vision of itself: racially and emotionally integrated, celestially oriented, if not healed then at least open to healing. What to listen to, right now, as you're reading this? You could start with 1969's 'Stand!' A circus crash of cymbal, a burlesque snare roll, and away we go: 'Stand, in the end, you'll still be you / One that's done all the things you set out to do.' The vocals are airy, haughtily enunciated in the high hippie style, and embellished with happy trills; the melody chugs along with a nursery-rhyme simplicity that is somehow underwired by knowingness: innocence and experience conjoined. (The Beatles were very good at this too, but Sly's true peer in this area, oddly, was a later songwriter: Kurt Cobain.) And the lyrics are classic Sly: a pinch of psychedelic double-talk—'You have you to complete and there is no deal'—and an ounce of street knowledge. The song rises and falls, jogging on the spot as it were, but with a building gospel crescendo of a half-chorus—'Stand! Stand! Stand!'—that seems to presage or demand release. And release is granted, unforgettably. It comes out of nowhere, with less than a minute of music left: a sudden loop of chiming, uplifted, militant, and taut-nerved funk, resolving/unresolving, tension and deliverance together, guitars locked; the drummer, Greg Errico, is thrashing out an ecstatic double-time pattern on his hi-hat (and doing it, if you watch the live footage, with one hand). [Read: The undoing of a great American band] From 'Stand!' you might go to 1970's 'Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin).' Everything in America is one year worse, one year more violent and bummed-out, and although the music stays celebratory (with a finger-popping bass line from Larry Graham that famously invented the next two decades of funk playing), lyrically, Sly is darkening: 'Lookin' at the devil / Grinnin' at his gun / Fingers start shakin' / I begin to run.' He quotes himself, his own (very recent) hits, his own nostrums of positivity, in a charred-by-time kind of way, 'Different strokes for different folks' right next to a new observation, 'Flamin' eyes of people fear burnin' into you.' We're on course here for the Sly-in-ruins of 1971's There's a Riot Goin' On, his woozy sayonara to the years of greatness. Druggy and drum-machined, with a rippling American flag on the cover, Riot is the album that most directly connects him to the present situation. Decades of obscurity followed—which is a cliché, but he lived it, as durably and intensely as he had lived the cliché of superstardom. 'The pure products of America go crazy,' as William Carlos Williams said. And now he's left us, when once again brutality is massing behind its shields, and once again compassion has acquired the nobility of true folly. All very familiar to Sly the avatar. I can't stop thinking about these lines from 'Stand!,' so wistfully prophetic, so half-encouraging, so dead-on predictive of our mass retreat into the space behind our eyes: 'Stand, don't you know that you are free / Well, at least in your mind if you want to be.' Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Two Paths for the Pop Star
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Miley Cyrus previewed her new album, Something Beautiful, for people in her orbit, they gave her funny feedback: The music was too good. Or at least, they allegedly said, it was too good to be pop. Cyrus exasperatedly relayed this story to Apple Music's Zane Lowe last month. She then listed off 'pop' musicians who were definitely good: David Bowie, Madonna, Stevie Nicks. 'Pop really gets given a bad name of, like you know, manufactured label creations,' she said. 'And that's just not what it is. That's generic, and to be honest, it's lazy.' To which parts of the stan internet cheered: Preach! Put 'Wrecking Ball' in the Louvre! Cyrus's unnamed critics seemed to view pop, like a lot of people do, as a disposable commodity. But Cyrus was articulating the—to use an ever-contested term—poptimist viewpoint, which says that just because music functions as a product for the masses doesn't mean it can't also be excellent. Now that I've heard Something Beautiful, Cyrus's ninth album, I'm starting to reconsider—and sympathize with—the feedback she received. Her new music is, and I use quotation marks advisedly here, too 'good.' It's laden with signifiers of quality that undermine the very point of the genre she's working in: pleasure. The definition of good is subjective, but society generally agrees it involves a few attributes. 'Good' things result from effort and resources being deployed in ways that prize discernment over easy gratification. Think about a plate of subtly balanced pasta (which might be yummier with a shaving of parmesan cheese) or a designer handbag (visually indistinguishable from a knockoff). But that kind of good is hard to achieve, and people who aim for it often conflate sophistication with excess (forget parmesan; add truffles). Which is how Cyrus ended up with an album that's so lavishly produced, it numbs your ears. A 32-year-old former child actor who's been making hits since 2007, Cyrus has never needed much adornment to be entertaining. She has a voice that's raspy and ferocious like a lovable cartoon creature's, and a happy-go-lucky personality to match. No particular style defines her—her albums have made a point of flitting among genres including trap, country, and hard rock—nor has she ever been a songwriter of great depth. But she's repeatedly imbued formulaic fare with a sense of geysering, authentic humanity. Now she's aiming for prestige. Winning her first ever Grammys last year—for the hit 'Flowers'—sparked an epiphany: 'I never admitted to myself how much it hurt to not be recognized for my work,' she told The New York Times. Something Beautiful sounds like it resulted from a plan to win more recognition. It features contributions from many critically acclaimed indie musicians, such as Brittany Howard from Alabama Shakes and Adam Granduciel from the War on Drugs. It's been marketed as an opus in the vein of Pink Floyd's The Wall; it will, Cyrus has said, 'medicate somewhat of a sick culture through music.' [Read: The freakish powers of Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey] If this is medicine, it's certainly pungent. The album is piled high with pulsating orchestration (think Philip Glass more than Gustav Mahler), progressive-rock guitar noodling, and multitrack disco harmonies, all echoing with heavenly reverb. Much of this detail work is indeed something beautiful, like fine gold threading on a gown. Some of it is even outstanding, such as the layered gospel vocals of 'Reborn.' But again and again, the listener is left wondering why a song has become overtaken by a swarm of instruments buzzing and zipping like bees. The cumulative effect of so much sound is a sense of sheer heaviness. Cyrus and her collaborators are writing in the Diane Warren mode, as if to soundtrack one last makeout before asteroids pummel the Earth. Many of the melodies are sturdy, and you might find yourself verklempt at the epic heartache of 'More to Lose' and 'Golden Burning Sun.' But the singing—while impassioned and textured—isn't really interacting with the instrumentation in a dynamic way. And the music's ambitious veneer invites a kind of scrutiny that her lyrics can't sustain (one mangled metaphor: 'My tears are streamin' like our favorite show tonight'). The listener might be impressed, even awed, by Cyrus's effort—but deep down, they'll know there's something better they could be listening to. All I've wanted to do lately is listen to Addison Rae. This is a surprise for a few reasons. One is that Rae, 24, is a TikTok dancer who became famous six years ago for doing bodyrolls in sweatpants while smiling blankly at the camera. She then released a fun but generic EP that reused one old Lady Gaga demo and imitated the pop-punk-inflected sound of Millennial child actors turned singers: Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, early Cyrus. This did not suggest anything very exciting about what kind of culture would result from short-form video becoming our primary star-making machine. But Rae's debut album, Addison, out this past Friday, isn't bland at all. In fact, I really didn't expect that the first great TikTok-to-pop album would evoke Aphex Twin and other electronic experimentalists such as Timbaland, Björk, and Portishead. The production's breakbeats, digital glitches, and creaking synthesizers summon an alien landscape for Rae, an avatar of popular-girl normalcy, to explore. The sound is on trend with Gen Z's '90s and Y2K nostalgia—pining for a time when technology seemed exciting rather than oppressive—and it calls back to Madonna's run of playful futurism from 1992's Erotica to 2005's Confessions on the Dance Floor. But it's pulled off in an ingenious way that conveys youthful possibility and delivers some really fresh bangers. Rae's prime collaborators are Elvira Anderfjärd and Luka Kloser, two relatively unknown women working in a field—pop production—that's largely dominated by men whose tricks are starting to become all too familiar. The duo trained under the super-producer Max Martin, whose notion of 'melodic math' insists that every note serves the purpose of catchiness. But Addison's melodies, while effective, don't quite deliver quite as much a sugar rush. The album's real appeal lies in harmony and rhythm: the interplay of melancholic organ lines, curiously lopsided bass grooves, vocals stacked in tangy intervals, and key changes that seem to reverse the flow of time. These songs aren't exactly avant garde, but they were clearly made with the understanding of how strangeness can invite replayability. As for Rae, she mostly retains the simple allure that defined her social-media stardom, mixing angelic breathiness with kitschy squeals and spoken word. Her best lyrics reframe clichés about being hot and having fun, like when she distills a night on the dance floor into four words: 'Kick drum, chew gum.' But generally, the more you notice what she's saying, the worse the music gets; a mention of her parents' divorce in 'Headphones' adds a hard surface to a song that's otherwise transcendently soupy. Thankfully, such stabs at profundity are rare. Rae seems happy to blend in, employing herself as an ingredient in a greater whole. Being an ingredient might seem like a bad thing, but it's refreshing these days. Pop stars are taken very seriously of late—in part because the internet gives their fans a loud platform to champion them, and in part because pop is, well, really getting more serious. Inspired by figures such as Beyoncé and Taylor Swift, Gen Z's emerging icons—Chappell Roan and Billie Eilish among them—position themselves as complex, uncompromising auteurs. When that approach works, it's as thrilling as can be. When it doesn't, you get the ponderousness of Cyrus's new album. Rae is throwing back to a time when pop didn't insist on its own importance quite so much, and in doing so, she's drawing attention to the craftsmanship that chasing a hit requires. Her mesmerizing music videos flaunt both her dancing abilities and her aesthetic tastes, the latter of which seem as finely developed as a fashion editor's. But the most important audiovisual accompaniments to this album are the clips she, Anderfjärd, and Kloser posted from their time in the studio. Messing around with keyboards and humming top lines, these three women seem to have developed a strong creative flow together. The only statement that this album is making is in execution: Good pop is good music. *Illustration by Akshita Chandra / The Atlantic. Sources: James Devaney / GC Images / Getty; Aeon / GC Images / Getty; XNY / Star Max / GC Images / Getty; Emma McIntyre / Getty; Jemal Countess / Getty; XNY / Star Max / GC Images / Getty; Kevin Winter / Getty; Bryan Bedder / Getty; Cristina Gaidau / Getty. Article originally published at The Atlantic