Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johnny C]

Tommy, as far as the point about people somehow "graduating" from pop to indie being a poor and condescending concept, it is a good point, to be sure. Attempting to redefine "pop" so as to make people more comfortable is not.

Those steps you mentioned towards making a career out of music aren't the conscious efforts of someone wanting to be a pop group. They're the conscious efforts of people wanting to make a career out of their music. Hair Police have a label and a website and have done press. If you're wanting to go by airplay and copies of albums there are unfortunately tiers of said airplay and said sales. You can take a look at these tiers by checking out Billboard charts, record certifications (gold, platinum, etc.) and various other industry standards. Besides, how can you say that airplay and album sales are a band's decision? They don't buy the albums themselves.

As someone pointed out, in the U.S. selling a few thousand records isn't really that big of a deal. I can't find any mention of The Arcade Fire's sales outside of one article that vaguely mentions "half a million copies worldwide." So half the province of Saskatchewan owns a copy of the record. That's a feat, to be sure, but not the immense one that it's being made out to be.

[Jackie Blue]

I do think it's a bit useless to reduce basically everything to one genre.  If somebody says "Recommend me some good pop music" I'm not going to say "Boris, Neutral Milk Hotel, M83, Maserati and Public Enemy".  I'm going to say "Annie, Olivia Tremor Control, Pulp, and Lady Sovereign".

[Johnny C]

What's your secret?

I only play shows for people who matter.

I appreciate the implication that I could sell records if I tried. The inconvenient truth is that I'm trying.

[Jackie Blue]

I just now noticed your music Myspace there, Johnny.  I must say it is some fine pop music.  I friend requested you from my band.

[Johnny C]

Yeah I'm not going to lie I basically try to write poppy stuff. But thank you!

[Gridgm]

There's a huge difference between mid-90's pop and mid-00's pop.  Mid-90's pop was melodic, was often very catchy and lively, and had some strong vocal performances.

sothis has essentially turned into a conversation on what the definition of what pop is instead of what the difference between pop in different time periods are...orare we just first finding the proper definition first before answering the originallyposted question?

[Doctor Funk]

Can't we all just agree that everyone who likes music more poular than your is a soulless drone, and everyone who likes music less popular than yours is a pretentious hack?

[monkeyangst]

Can't we all just agree that everyone who likes music more poular than your is a soulless drone, and everyone who likes music less popular than yours is a pretentious hack?

Yes! You're all pretentious hacks, except the guy who started the thread, who's a soulless drone.

Glad we cleared that up.

[*Sights*]

Forgive me if this seems repetitive, but i think one of Khar's points was not adressed appropiately. And that is of pop music being invasive. Genres' meaninglessness apart, in fact, forget about artistic integrity, quality, etc for a second. That false pride that people have from thinking they somehow graduated from pop music is because pop music, being everywhere at any time, tries to impose itself on you. And so, this so called graduates think they deserve a pat in the back because they listen to something that was found by themselves. This is probably the snobbiest thing one can say, but it proves that you took some time to learn about different kinds of music, different genres, artists, etc, as opposed to simply digesting the same ubiquituous (yes, sp) music over and over again. This pride comes from finding something that you liked that did not try force a place for itself within your musical tastes, it just found one. It's been said before, and i think we all agree: there's really nothing wrong with liking pop music, but i think one should like it out of authentic admiration for its musical qualities, not out of ignorance. And this is not affected by a scale measuring popness. If the only thing you've listened to is BSS, and you liked just because it's the only thing nearby radio stations ever play and you don't feel like researching for better music, then i would say you don't care a lot about music. WHICH IS BAD.

And curiously enough, that was said in the very first post of this thread.

[MadassAlex]

Well, in my case I honestly can say that I stopped listening to bad music (Def Leppard, Poison, Ratt, Queensryche, AC/DC, etc.) once I bought Jane's Addiction's Nothing's Shocking when I was 13.  I think that it is possible to "see the light" musically without being a snob about it.  Once I knew music like The Smiths, Sonic Youth, Camper Van Beethoven, etc. existed, I knew that I liked it a lot more than what I had been listening to.

I just shat bricks and I know exactly why.

You gave up good hard rock for good softer rock I guess but I'd hesitate to call what you used to listen to bad music off-hand. The irony here is that you have, indeed, been a snob by labelling it as "bad music" because you used to listen to it and no longer like it. I personally think AC/DC is an excellent classic rock band and Queensryche and Def Leppard are thoroughly enjoyable. I'd consider The Smiths bad... am I yet to "see the light"? Okay this isn't so much on topic but passing your opinion off fairly factually is you did isn't a good habit.

Intersting point here - do we consider AC/DC as pop? It has harsh lyrics, heavy rhythm and guitar solos all over the place and basically is just under the bar for heavy metal. Most people know of AC/DC and have heard or own their music. Does this make them "pop"?

What about heavy metal in the 80s? Since bands back then were so popular, sold so well and were the talk of the town, did they count as "pop" back then? What about hip-hop in the late 90s early 00s? "Pop" as well? Pop has come to be associated with 90s dance and easy listening rock groups. In the same way that "modern art" isn't actually modern, but from some decades ago, I think "pop" music should be a fixed, collective term for music that was designed to be sold during the 90s.

In conclusion, Bach makes bad music because I used to listen to his stuff.

[ScrambledGregs]

Actually, I think I have graduated from liking pop music to liking indie rock and other underground music. If only because the kind of pop music I used to like was nu metal. I think not even Tommy could argue that it isn't better and far superior not to listen to Limp Bizkit anymore, and to look down upon those who do.

[KharBevNor]

The attitude "I used to listen to Pop Music but now I'm better/cooler/smarter because now I listen to 'Indie' "is absurd. In most cases, they are one and the same. Frankly, I think there's only one reason you'd want to make it seem like there is any difference between the two. To elevate yourself above those that haven't "seen the light". My point is that this is not an admirable stance.

I never listened to pop music.

[Jackie Blue]

You gave up good hard rock for good softer rock I guess but I'd hesitate to call what you used to listen to bad music off-hand. The irony here is that you have, indeed, been a snob by labelling it as "bad music" because you used to listen to it and no longer like it. I personally think AC/DC is an excellent classic rock band and Queensryche and Def Leppard are thoroughly enjoyable. I'd consider The Smiths bad... am I yet to "see the light"? Okay this isn't so much on topic but passing your opinion off fairly factually is you did isn't a good habit.

Uh... I wasn't claiming my opinion was factual (though I would have a somewhat hard time taking someone seriously if they tried to defend White Lion).

What I was saying was that it is possible to only be listening to "popular" music because it's all you've heard.  I'm sure there are kids who liked bands like Bush and Pearl Jam, then one day heard a Sonic Youth album and from there sort of left the lighter grunge stuff behind.

In other words, it is something that happens all the time - you like music for certain elements, and then one day you find out that there are hundreds or thousands of bands who use all the elements you like all at once instead of just kind of getting them half-right.

You said I graduated from "harder" to "softer" rock?  But when I heard Nothing's Shocking, my first thought was "This rocks so much harder than anything I have ever heard before".  In my mind, the way that album rocks is infinitely "harder" than the way Guns-n-Roses rocked (and I am still a fan of the first G-n-R album, actually).

My favorite album of last year was Boris' Pink - I'd dare you to find a "harder" rocking album than that one that also managed to capture so many other elements perfectly.  There are likely hundreds of thousands of metal fans who have never heard Boris, but who would become their biggest fans if they did.

All I'm getting at basically is that "pop" music is something almost every young person is exposed to (as stated above, it's "invasive") whereas most other music - of all types - is harder to get into, and was even harder than that before the Internet.

[Slick]

On the topic:
I was at my company's winter ball a few weeks ago, and it was quite fun. I thoroughly enjoyed dancing, which is unusual for me, but only when they were playing 80s synth-pop, which they did a lot of. When the contemporary dance hall music came on, I left, went out for air, chatted with cute girls working the coat check (also unusual for me), or had long rambling conversations about the state of music in culture today.
I really think that the 80s had some more fun, danceable music that doesn't make me feel ill, and this decade hasn't given me much, if any, of that yet. The 90s had some funny all pervasive-pop money machine groups that I didn't enjoy but didn't detest, but what I like most from the 90's is the 'alternative' stuff.
Alternative may be another bullshit term that's just handy to use, but I like a lot of the alternative rock from the 90s, and still do. Third Eye Blind had a really good album, but their newer stuff isn't too great. There was some really good Green Day, the more heard of which is definitely 'alternative' and not punk. I do remember talking to Ruyi about this one time on gabbly, and how she said some of my favorite Green Day songs were just boring to her, so I think a large part of why I still enjoy 90s music may just be nostalgia. I hope that's not the case, because I really don't like what I assume must be their analogues of today.
Is Panic! the new Green Day? Is My Chemical Romance the new Nirvana?

On the debate:
We all know what was implied in the first post with the usage of the term popular. Whether we like it or not is a different matter, but where Kieffer would just make a quick comment about the negative effects of passive sexism (e.g. ...like a girl) where there is something that would be nice to change, this one wasn't let go that easily.
I wish the world transcended the need for these terms and these discussions, but it hasn't. I dislike how the term pop has a very 'them vs. us' connotation, and though I'd like to see that not being the case, there is a problem with using a term to replace it. Basically, pop is too broad in meaning and has been used to define a subset of the possibilities it could be, and I think the term ought to be retired and replaced with more meaningful terms. I've been listening to folk recently, though I just came off of a month or two of nothing but solid, strong rock. Before that, I was mostly listening to hip-hop and electronic influenced rock.
Isn't there some more descriptive term to be used to describe what you listen too? Why do we even need to bother using the term 'popular' at all?

[Jackie Blue]

I think that talking about "pop" music is interesting because it's an artform totally unlike any other.  When we talk about true "pop" music in a cultural context - music that is produced and planned and promoted to be consumed - it's interesting because it's unlike any other form of music.  Whether it's Britney Spears or Toby Keith, it's music that is being made for no other reason than to be consumed.  The only reason for its existance is to be appealing - true literal pop music is not making any pretense to relevance or originality or any kind of artistic statement.  There's nothing wrong with liking it, but unless you're very sure in your musical tastes it can make you feel bad because you're being manipulated.

But when talking about "pop" as a musical genre, that's completely different because many pop artists are genuinely artistic as well - the Beatles, U2, REM, Olivia Tremor Control, etc.

[MadassAlex]

My favorite album of last year was Boris' Pink - I'd dare you to find a "harder" rocking album than that one that also managed to capture so many other elements perfectly.  There are likely hundreds of thousands of metal fans who have never heard Boris, but who would become their biggest fans if they did.

Leviathan, Blood Mountain, Metropolice Pt. 2, Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence.

You're right though.

Boris do rock the fuck out, but the langauge gap is too much for me to use the music as much more than background music rather than music for analysis, and I think that's true of quite a few metal fans who've heard their stuff. r

Their videos are tripping, too.

[Jackie Blue]

I like to just pretend I know what Boris are singing about.

Like in the song "Pink", the chorus part sounds a lot like he's saying "We got a show, we got a lot to know, it's Boris!"

[Skibas_clavicle]

Oy vey.

LIST:
my boyfriend Justin Timberlake
Madonna
that Gwen Stefani ft. Akon song
many, many other horrible pop songs that I find catchy.

[SeanBateman]

or just that this thread is.

[ampersandwitch]

OMG LOL 

[Narr]

All of those albums are pop in every sense of the word.
They were all very popular in terms of sales and as you mentioned there are glaringly obvious 'pop sensibilities'. Those bands have websites and interviews in mainstream press. They toured extensively to promote those records. They all have press-packs, record labels and music videos. Thousands of people have seen these bands live. Millions of people worldwide know them and combined they have sold upwards of 10 million records.

I used to think I left pop music, but now I'm starting to think pop music just left me.

I think you just lost sight of what pop music is. What would you consider these albums to be?

'Revolver' by the Beatles.
'Harvest' by Neil Young.
'Let it Bleed' by the Rolling Stones.
'Bringing It All Back Home' by Bob Dylan.
'IV' by Led Zeppelin
'Dark Side Of The Moon' by Pink Floyd

I think this gets into the "Pop music versus music that happens to be popular" debate.

[ScrambledGregs]

God do I hate these threads where we just dance around a definition for three or four pages, the only result being everyone gets angry or frustrated and maybe there's a few good jokes here or there. Let's do a metal or indie one. Yes, again.

[ampersandwitch]

It's like fighting about consciousness or phenomenology.

A lot of bullshit about semantics and technicalities, then grudging agreement to disagree.

Fun to read.