When Miley Cyrus released the much-anticipated Bangerz last week, I was initially struck by how positive the reviews were. Entertainment Weekly, The A.V. Club, and Rolling Stone all raved over the album, claiming that Miley had successfully transitioned from a child star to a legitimate pop music force. After weeks of every blogger in sight taking shots at Miley, a ton of people were suddenly jumping on her bandwagon. Then, Jeff Miers of The Buffalo News came and brought everything to a screeching halt.

To call his review of the album scathing would be drastic understatement. He rips the album several new ones, basically declaring it the most shallow mile of dogshit ever released into the atmosphere. If Miers is to be taken at his word, Bangerz makes Rebecca Black's "Friday" look like fucking Pet Sounds. At a time when many critics are taking the side of Team Miley, you might say Miers came in like a wrecking ball (sorry, I couldn't resist).

While there are several things about the album that Miers loathes, what he seems to despise most about this album is its disposability. There's nothing deep about this record, it's just a bunch of anonymous vapid dance tunes that anyone cold have recorded (note: I haven't heard the entire album so I can't speak to this). It was interesting to see a pop music critic take an artist task for being vacuous when it seems like people care about less and less these day. There's plenty of anonymous vapid music clogging up the airwaves, and most people seem to be pretty okay with it.

When thinking of this in terms of Miley's new album, the title Bangerz seems more revelatory than it might have intended to be. It is quite simply an album of club bangers. Songs that sound good on the dance floor, but often leave you cold when you listen to them on your headphones. The thing is, this describes a huge chunk of mainstream pop music in 2013. Think about it; how many times have you heard someone defend liking a crappy song by saying "yeah, but I can dance to it?" I think I have heard that argument dozens of times by now, and that's just from people defending "Tik Tok."

So, people like shallow music as long as they can dance to it. This, admittedly, is not a new phenomenon. But what's interesting is that we seem to be entering an era when music with no intelligent thought or message is preferred over music that actually tries to say something. Quite simply, we are beginning to resent sincerity. When an artist tries to say something meaningful, we are likely to say "fuck you for trying," and get back to our Katy Perry album.

In a way, this is somewhat understandable. When a musician is overly sincere, and their message doesn't connect with you, it's easy to be put-off by them (see: "Accidental Racist"). This is probably why I'm not big on Mumford & Sons. I can tell these guys desperately mean everything their saying, and their generic bluegrass/folk hybrid means the world to them, but it does nothing for me (okay, except for "White Blank Page" because it sounds like Elvis Costello circa Blood And Chocolate).

Still, even if they're not for me, I'm willing to at least appreciate their efforts. These days, I think we mock bands for trying too hard and praise those who don't try at all. I've heard "We Can't Stop" and "Wrecking Ball" numerous times, and I like them considerably more than Jeff Miers, but I still get where he's coming from. We're reaching a point where sincerity is mocked, and vapidity is praised, and it's a shame. I'd rather see an artist go for something deep and fail than try for nothing and succeed. Hopefully, in the coming months, artists will be a bit more willing to embarrass themselves with sincere, honest music, and we'll be a bit more willing to suffer them gladly when they fail.