THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 18 Jul 2025, 08:09
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Pop Music & Music Criticism  (Read 10704 times)

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« on: 31 Oct 2005, 21:04 »

I had a thread about rockism a while back; now it's late and I have school in the morning so the logical thing to do is start a discussion on the reactionary critical concept, i.e. popism.

Popism (and I don't mean to misrepresent it here; if anyone else knows what the hell I'm talking about please correct me) is a school of music criticism which seeks to embrace most music and reject certain standards of musical criticism. These standards include the idea that songs written by the artists themselves are better, bands and artists heavily pushed by major labels are crap, and (most notably) that rock is the best genre. Or something of that nature.

Anyways, popism is right in some of its rejections; carrying biases against music because of who it was written by, how it was written, or what label it was on is terrible journalism and poor critical thinking. Unfortunately, as you can see from Stylus' slow descent into self-parody, the current champions of popism seem to carry with them an unhealthy urge to embrace even the most banal pop (see: reviews of Ashlee Simpson's new album and Destiny's Child's hit-and-miss greatest hits comp, as well as every UK Singles Jukebox for the last couple of months). It embraces pop because it's pop, not because it's good; it gives culture-permeating crassness the benefit of the doubt.

And that seems to miss the point of music criticism. At its heart, music journalism is an attempt to establish a canon of artists, bands, songs and albums which will be looked back upon as classic by future generations. It's an attempt to filter out the flash-in-the-pan pieces, today's troubador songs, in order to discover modern classics, today's "Odes to Joy."* It is, in essence, a method by which enduring music is filtered out from, for the most part, what is popular at the time.

As such, I think popism is a viable idea and something to strive for; however, we're currently missing the boat. Analytical thinking needs to enter popism in order for it to reach its true potential.

That's what I think, anyways.


*Figuring out the plural for that was HARD.

EDIT: I changed the name in the hope that somebody would not only read but maybe respond; I need enlightened dialogue if I'm going to debate with the popists themselves.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Gryff

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,109
  • Summary sense... tingling!
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #1 on: 01 Nov 2005, 16:40 »

I think that everyone would agree that judging music on its own merits is the best way to go. "rockist" and "popist" are stupid words - reviewers that could be described as rockist or popist could just as accurately be described as "crap at their job-ist".

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #2 on: 01 Nov 2005, 20:16 »

Some of Destiny's Child's older stuff is anything but banal, if you're in the right place. A club comes to mind.

Just some things I reacted to.

Quote
carrying biases against music because of who it was written by, how it was written, or what label it was on is terrible journalism and poor critical thinking


First off, personally I think it's just the nature of the word 'bias' that everyone is biased in everything. You can be as fair as possible given your bias though, I think.

My favorite music criticism, personally, just provides context. Some contemporary context, a bit of history, some background on the artist - these things are all important to the story of how a piece of music came to be. I don't really like the idea of just looking at something as it is without knowing anything about the author or anything, whatever deconstructionist business that is.

And I mean, does it say somewhere that they embrace it because it's pop? Is there a popist credo written down somewhere? I mean I'm asking this literally, my familiarity with the idea is non-existent. From what you've described it almost sounds like a reaction to 'elitist' styles of criticism.

Lastly, for me, the purpose of musical criticism isn't necessarily to establish canon. It does do that, but also, music magazines create a culture that people can access. Because if it's just you and the music, that's pretty lonely, but if suddenly somebody's pumping out magazines about the music you love, then it's pretty cool. The labels, the mags and the fans are a kind of trinity. That's just how I see it.
Logged

sjbrot

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #3 on: 01 Nov 2005, 21:55 »

Quote from: Dara
Lastly, for me, the purpose of musical criticism isn't necessarily to establish canon. It does do that, but also, music magazines create a culture that people can access.


That really hits the issue right on. All the music-related media outlets out there are geared towards a certain segment of the listening public. Of course they are; If they weren't, they wouldn't have a readership.

But then, were does the line between pandering and solidifying your niche come in?

And shouldn't reviewers be aware that they are at the very least inadvertently creating a musical canon? All the names from years ago that are still out there today are those that were passed down.
Logged

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #4 on: 01 Nov 2005, 21:56 »

Two pieces to provide context, a Stylus essay on rockism and a Seattle Weekly article, similarly about rockism.

Nowhere is it written that rockism implies an embrace of pop; however, as noted, visibly popist critics and journalists praise a lot of what reasonable folk would determine to be "anonymous, soul-ravaging pap" as a gift from music gods.

And Destiny's Child-related stuff ("Bootylicious," "Survivor," and because it's related to DC "Crazy In Love") can sometimes be AWESOME, flat-out; it's the fact that the reviews gave #1's, a middling comp at its best, decent-to-above-average ratings which points to giving pop too much benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: Disagree on the non-creation of canon; if it was just creating accessible culture, then we'd have country music journalism applied to everything. Seriously. Pick up a country music magazine sometime. Damned if you can find anything resembling a review.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #5 on: 02 Nov 2005, 06:49 »

Sounds like they're not doing what they were aiming to do.

Quite frankly, I grew out of the 'judging based on...' thing a couple of years ago - not that I'm implying others are immature/not grown-up for still judging or vice versa - and I think for that I have Eminem to thank.

But yeah, fuck who wrote it, fuck what label they're on - like it for what it is. Who cares if it's pop or not, it's about the song not the song's history.
However, I don't take this attitude with movies. I hate Adam Sandler...

P.S. Ashlee Simpson has some great pop tunes. Pieces Of Me was brilliant.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #6 on: 02 Nov 2005, 07:36 »

I didn't say it's not there to create canon, I said the opposite. But I also said that the bigger value [for me] of music journalism is to access a culture, a culture which is created by the labels, the mags and the fans. I didn't say 'accessible' either, as some publications can be quite unfriendly to the untrained eye.

'anonymous, soul-ravaging pap' is a bit much innit. ;P not to say that sort of music is usually very good, but it's not cancer-causing either. it's pretty harmless stuff.
Logged

decklin

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #7 on: 02 Nov 2005, 07:57 »

Ah, plurals. So William Safire walks into a Burger King, orders two Whoppers Junior...

I don't know, this whole thing doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. Pop is interesting now, wasn't so much 10 years ago, was 20 years ago, wasn't so much 30 years ago, was 40 years ago... etc :)

Basing a criticism on the idea that one culture or style is automatically better is silly. I really do believe, however, that this was honest (*and* I agree with the assessment, still), whatever your opinion of the various memes that have since descended from it.
Logged

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #8 on: 02 Nov 2005, 18:25 »

Quote from: Dara
'anonymous, soul-ravaging pap' is a bit much innit. ;P not to say that sort of music is usually very good, but it's not cancer-causing either. it's pretty harmless stuff.

I disagree with the conceit that it's harmless, but that's because I don't think culture is to be taken lightly. Also, "soul-ravaging pap" is hyperbole, and I thought visibly so; the point is, they embrace what would be termed by clear-thinking individuals as "not good."
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #9 on: 02 Nov 2005, 20:46 »

i don't think culture is in any mortal danger, even if there are alarmists who say so. things are all right!
Logged

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #10 on: 02 Nov 2005, 21:36 »

No mortal danger, agreed! But when I own something shiny like a guitar or a quarter collection, I don't want an ugly little grease smudge on it; as much as that smudge does tell you about the owner, it's still an ugly-ass smudge.

Back to point: what we're saying is popism involves an inherent bias, despite supposing to be a rejection of previous critical biases, and is not such the great goal of music criticism but rather a small, imperfect step on the way to excellent mainstream criticism?

EDIT: As an aside, I do think that sticking our heads in the sand and not having any real concern for cultural legacy might lead to some problems down the line, but for now, yeah, no immediate threat.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #11 on: 03 Nov 2005, 06:55 »

I don't understand your second paragraph. Can you rephrase it?

But overall I think you're a little too worried about it all. There's so much amazing music exploding from every pore of the planet. So it's not the radio so much, so what? It's all over the place. This is the internet. It's everywhere. And if the words of a few journalists are smudging your shiny things then, well, maybe you need non-smudge shiny things.
Logged

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #12 on: 03 Nov 2005, 09:52 »

1) Second paragraph was a recap, just asking what conclusion we've come to regarding popism. The first is that it doesn't succeed entirely in rejecting biases since the philosophy itself is somewhat biased. The second is that it isn't the Holy Grail of music journalism or anything but rather it's a small upward movement towards generally awesome, not-with-a-stupid-bias music journalism.

2) The worry comes from me not as a listener, but as someone who already dabbles in music journalism and someone who wants a career in music; hoping you can understand why I'm discussing bias, review ideology, etc. with this information which I maybe should have provided "off the hop."
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #13 on: 04 Nov 2005, 06:16 »

I should say then that I'm getting my feet wet in music journalism as well, so I say these things as a writer. When I review I don't stick to a particular ideology, because that makes me inflexible. But I also can't rely on my biases too much. So I think my job is to know as much of the surrounding context as possible and place a piece of music somewhere within that context - but by describing the music itself. I've still got a lot of things to learn, but hey.
Logged

lastclearchance

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #14 on: 04 Nov 2005, 17:27 »

Your issue isn't with popism, it's with post-modernism. You've pretty much rephrased Theodor Adorno's arguments on culture, except that you seem to think that rock isn't just as bad as pop (whereas Adorno would have disagreed). What's so great about the rock canon anyway?

I mean yes, the Destiny's Child compilation is stupid, not least of which is because the album is named #1s despite not actually all topping the charts. However, compilations getting good scores in pop makes sense. Pop is a form that lends itself not to albums but to singles. Look at it this way: would you rather own Destiny's Child's #1s or one of the LPs from which the songs were gathered?

All internet music criticism is overdone because the dynamics lend themselves to extremes. If everyone is buzzing about, say, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, and one reviewer think's it's okay, he's going to score it much lower than "okay" because there's this sense of necessary balance. "Pitchfork hegemony" may even pop up in his review if he has read any Marxism.
I think now would be a good time to quote the essay you wrote about this on your website. I've mentioned Adorno and Marxism, because I think both inform your work, and nothing shows it better than this claim about music:

"it has to be judged on whether or not it's music that the person or persons responsible have created regardless of its money-making potential. Yes, this does discredit Amerie, but no, this doesn't discredit Annie; it discredits Dr. Dre, but not Kanye West."


Your belief in music existing outside the world of commodity is idealistic at best. Even so, let's pretend that there is such a distinction in general. I don't know enough about Annie to analyze your first contrast, so I'll leave that out of my discussion.

But in terms of art vs. commodity, Dr. Dre and Kanye West are identical. Both recognize the extent to which they can improve their lives by means of money earned from music. In fact, if you look at Kanye West's body of work you will see just as many nods to making money and moving up in the world thanks to his music as exist in Dr. Dre's music. Given that they both clearly view music as a business, what exactly is the basis of your hierarchy? What makes The College Dropout better than The Chronic? Arguably, Dre was the greater innovator: the instrumentals of the Chronic are more divorced from their sources than Kanye's beats. Frankly, a lot of Kanye's tracks, as excellent as they are, simply rap over the instrumentals of one of the artists he has Jamie Foxx namecheck in "Slow Jamz," with minimal manipulation.

But I'm not trying to convince you Dre is better. I'm trying to point out that your reasoning doesn't make sense. But do I expect to be able to convince you? Of course not. We have different perspectives. That is inherent. And this is where the main cntradiction of your argument is laid bare. here are two quotes from your essay, juxtaposed:

These points are legitimate in the sense that valuing music due to artificial constructs of "authenticity" creates nothing but problems and winds up starting more unnecessary debates than it prevents.

...

If you want to judge music by other criteria, that's fine; it's your opinion. However, if the field of music criticism is going to change, then eliminating rockism is only the first step, and eliminating genre distinctions second; finding instant classics and recoginzing them as such will be second last.

The last step, of course, is a world full of music that needs no critics.


How could this world possibly exist without universal standards of music and music criticism, and therefore, the same authenticity you insist is an "artificial construct" earlier? You seem well-equipped to spot others' biases, but ill-equipped to spot your own. And you are also operating on an unspoken assumption of the PURPOSE of music as art.

One last example and then I'll wrap up. Suppose i think that the purpose of music is to inspire emotional resonance and create communities and help people understand their own lives. Does that sound reasonable? if so, then you had better not say anything bad about Simple Plan anymore, because that is EXACTLY what they do for their young fans. They weave common narratives with emotion and musical intensity and they mean a lot to their fans. Is it their fault that their music sells?

if that's not the purpose of music, what is? If you think it's experimentation, or at least innovation, then you had better stop listening to Sleater-Kinney's The Woods. I love that record, but the only thing innovative is Corrin Tucker's warble.

Or do you like their intelligent and provocative lyrics? In that case you're discriminating against those who are less willing to listen closely and interpret the music; you're also discriminating against instrumental artists. And you're creating an elitism of intelligence, because the album is only good to those who "can understand it."

i don't mean to belabor my point too too much. But do you see what I mean?
Logged
zekterellium: was kant the guy, that if you thought you were doing the right thing, even if you were feeding sailors to werewolves, then it was the right thing?
Moiche: Err. . . .no I think that's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #15 on: 05 Nov 2005, 00:45 »

well johnny it seems you have been academic'd
Logged

jeph

  • Administrator
  • Duck attack survivor
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,848
  • MON DIEU!
    • Questionable Content
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #16 on: 05 Nov 2005, 00:54 »

I think people should just use music reviews to check stuff out that they think they'd like. Whether you think the review is good or bad is secondary, in my mind, to whether it introduced you to music you enjoy or not.

I don't read reviews for value judgements so much as descriptions of what a given band sounds like or, if I'm already familiar with the band, another person's opinion of that album. I don't think there's such thing as a "bad" review so much as a review that you disagree or find fault with (excepting technical stuff like legibility, grammar, etc.)

Basically I think people just take music criticism (and criticism in general) WAY too seriously a lot of the time.
Logged
Deathmole Jacques' head takes up the bottom half of the panel, with his words taking up the top half. He is not concerned about the life of his friend.

lastclearchance

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #17 on: 05 Nov 2005, 01:08 »

Wow. Way to express exactly the things I forgot to include when I went overboard above, and say them about five times better than I could/would have. Nicely done!

I mean, this is mostly how I use music criticism. Reading a music review is not that much different from noticing you namedropping a band in the newspost. Especially since I put a high premium on getting to hear it before I buy it, to see what I think of it.
Logged
zekterellium: was kant the guy, that if you thought you were doing the right thing, even if you were feeding sailors to werewolves, then it was the right thing?
Moiche: Err. . . .no I think that's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

rive gauche

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #18 on: 05 Nov 2005, 10:13 »

Quote from: jeph
I think people should just use music reviews to check stuff out that they think they'd like. Whether you think the review is good or bad is secondary, in my mind, to whether it introduced you to music you enjoy or not.

I don't read reviews for value judgements so much as descriptions of what a given band sounds like or, if I'm already familiar with the band, another person's opinion of that album. I don't think there's such thing as a "bad" review so much as a review that you disagree or find fault with (excepting technical stuff like legibility, grammar, etc.)

Basically I think people just take music criticism (and criticism in general) WAY too seriously a lot of the time.


amen, brother.
Logged

fathertoasisterofthought

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #19 on: 05 Nov 2005, 18:57 »

Film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader) spoke at Michigan State my freshman year, and the most important thing I took away from the lecture was this: critics exist to facilitate coversation on the art they critique. I try to use that in my own criticisms and when I read others. Getting published doesn't mean you're the only authority.
Logged

Dara

  • Guest
Pop Music & Music Criticism
« Reply #20 on: 06 Nov 2005, 06:51 »

Quote from: fathertoasisterofthought
Film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader) spoke at Michigan State my freshman year, and the most important thing I took away from the lecture was this: critics exist to facilitate coversation on the art they critique. I try to use that in my own criticisms and when I read others. Getting published doesn't mean you're the only authority.


thumbs up there
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up