Morning Music: Slumber Party’s I’m Not Sad

Psychedelicate - Slumber PartyToday we are going to listen to yet another band that is kinda sorta sadcore: Slumber Party. To be honest, what they sound most like to me is an all female version of the Velvet Underground — but really, with better musicianship — at least compared to the early albums. And even though Wikipedia says the band is still together, I find no real evidence of this fact. Their last album was Musik in 2006.

Thank God we are at the end of our sadcore week. I’m not saying that because the music is bad. I’ve loved all this music. But it’s frustrating. To begin with, it is, as I’ve discussed, an ill defined term. But it’s also the case that there just aren’t as many sadcore bands as I had thought. And that is itself sad. You would think there would be. There are a lot of depressed musicians out there.

The reason there probably aren’t more people doing this kind of music is because it’s a lot harder than it seems. One of the things that ties these bands together is their control of the mood of the songs. Other kinds of bands can just do whatever it is that they like. But even when American Music Club was being funny, they did it in their usual “Eeyore makes a joke” way.

Is Slumber Party Really Sadcore?

Today, we are going to listen to Slumber Party’s song “I’m Not Sad” off their 2001 album, Psychedelicate. Maybe it is more correct to call it slowcore rather than sadcore. It’s an uplifting song in a way. A relationship is over, but the guy was alright when they were together. And that’s why she’s not sad. Except that she starts the song by noting that she is sad. So it seems more one of those things where you try to convince yourself intellectually that you don’t feel the way you clearly do. It’s a beautiful song:

11 thoughts on “Morning Music: Slumber Party’s I’m Not Sad

    • Ah! That’s the way I feel about the species. But as I said: men are going extinct. I know it doesn’t make us any less annoying now

      • Why do you keep saying that? Is there some kind of study? I thought now that men are less likely to send large segments of other men off to die in war, that the numbers were evening out.

        • No. It just seems to me that with genetic technology, we will continue to need women but not men. Of course, soon we wouldn’t need women either. Maybe we are just a boot-loader for some kind of artificial life. That would be interesting.

          But mostly, I just think men going extinct is kind of funny. I’m sure, however, that if women were all alone, the very worst ones would rise to the top and things wouldn’t be much different.

          • I always find it funny when some dude tells me that with cloning we won’t need women. And I ask “then who is going to be gestating the babies?” They then said that it would not be done via the traditional route by via some complicated machinery.

            As much as I would welcome (to use the Lois McMasters Bujold phrase for it) a uterine replicator, I highly doubt it will happen for centuries because the placenta is a incredibly complex piece of flesh.

            And I still disagree that an all female society would have as many jerks in power as we have now. Or they are, it is going to be a much different form since what upsets women is different then what upsets men.

            • You could be right about the society. It’s just that I find jerks have a tendency to take control. But I do know really strong women who are not jerks. So maybe there is hope.

              That’s weird. Why would something thing women wouldn’t be necessary? They have the egg! Just add a bit of DNA or whatnot and you are on your way. God, men are so clueless! It reminds me of the very old theory that men basically shot fetuses out of their vaginas. I think that comes from something like the 6th century. You haven’t been using a time machine have you?!

              • *twitches the curtains* No…why do you ask?

                I have never heard that theory or are you referring to Aristotle’s theory that women were essentially walking incubators?

                It has been discussed in feminist circles so I am familiar with it.

                • I’m thinking of an image I’ve seen from a ridiculously old book. But it probably did come from Aristotle. He was an amazing guy. So right about issues of pure reasoning. So wrong about everything else in the universe. Kind of like a libertarian!

                  • His theory (along with everything else that the Greeks or Roman came up with) held too much sway for far too long. I don’t know why since one would think someone would have said “you know, maybe we should do some checking on this.”

                    • I think it was the Catholic Church — the idea that these Greek texts were like the Bible: divine. Parts of Aristotle were right so all of Aristotle was unquestionable. It shows the silliness of literalism.

                    • I tend to be very literal in my thinking. But I do try to actually back it up.

                      And yeah, I think it was the Catholic Church’s fault too much progress was impeded.

Leave a Reply