THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: BillAdama on 27 Feb 2007, 19:05
-
Since I got into indie I explained my previous like of pop music by 'Oh, I just didn't know better music existed'.
But since my job has put me in a lot of retail stores and grocery stores, I've been exposed to a lot of pop music, and to my surprised I still enjoy a lot of the pop songs I liked in the mid-90s.
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.
Mid-00's pop has a weird dance/hip-hop vibe to it, hardly ever has any melody, almost always has way too transparent voice modifiers, replaces musical instruments with just a lot of looped synthesizers, and has borderline pornographic lyrics. It's like all pop music is only marketing to teenagers who want to feel like they're adult and have access to their parents' credit cards.
Some of the best selling bands from the 90's, though they are easy to make fun of and often laughable, are at least moderately enjoyable if you're open minded about them. No Doubt when they sounded like ska instead of that weird street-cool dance-beat crap, Mariah Carey when she was actually singing melodies, The Wallflowers, Jewel, Alanis Morisette, Blues Traveller, Counting Crows, pre-Razorblade Bush. Not great bands, but distinctly do *not* induce vomitting.
I used to think I left pop music, but now I'm starting to think pop music just left me. What happened to respectable pop songs that don't make you groan when they come on the radio? Heck, what happened to R&B? There's no more R&B that isn't rap. Twisted by Keith Sweat was a very good song. Now all R&B is rap.
-
I actually really like SexyBack.
-
I am in love with mid-90s pop. Now you almost have to really look for good pop music, whereas it used to be rather easy to find. KT Tunstall is one of the few examples that I can think of that is pretty good that is played on the radio.
-
I rather enjoy Justin Timberlake, I will admit. And (don't hurt me for this) The Pussycat Dolls. So they are just a bunch of models singing about sex, their songs are hella catchy and make me want to dance. Admittedly there is nothing special about them in the least, but whatever.
-
Actually I much prefer the hip-hop influence in modern pop to the soulless pap that was excreted by dozens of identical boy and girl bands in the nineties.
However I do see your point of view and I understand that contemporary pop can be very draining on old ears. It's a shame you can't reach the radio dial from your wheelchair, eh gramps?
-
Kinda echoing what Gryff said, but all of the things BillAdama is praising about 90s stuff is exactly what I dislike about it. I want plastic, I want tuneless, I want confronting / baffling.
I fucking hate Gwen Stefani - her voice has always got on my tits and I heard her band's awful cover of It's My Life far too many times - but I do find it kinda astonishing that something like Hollaback Girl can get on the radio, not because of a lack of quality, but because it's so fucking weird. Horrid melody, from memory the chords are pretty odd / amateur / naive sounding, and there's a really uncomfortable balancing act between those sparse monster beats and pitch-bent synths and that acoustic guitar part. Sexyback is another good example of that, and Drop It Like It's Hot did my head in... how the hell did a track that is solely a pitched bass drum (with dirty hissing sounds slurping through between the hits), a few vocal pops and clicks (like beat boxing with all the virtuosity and machismo sucked out), and an occasional slide whistle get on the radio? Not to mention the absolutely laziness, timing-wise, of the raps.
Probably my favourite song of last year Cassie's Me & U, and one of the things I love about it is she cannot sing for shit. For me that totally fits the track and it's an awesome part of it. It's the same kind of mix of good times and icy bleakness that I like about strangely credible R&B fans like the Junior Boys or whoever. Love the crazy bass rush, love the Vangelis synth brass, etc... EXCITED AGAIN ...
Content-wise, I'm not exactly over the moon with most of pop music, but I never have been. And I should be clear, I actively listen to very little of it, but my point is just that I think pop music now is much more interesting formally than it was in the 90s. I do find the rise of bods like James Blunt or that Hawaiian surfer whose name slips my mind a bit depressing, though. Fuck all this earnest, authentic shit, bring on the demented plastic weirdness.
Speaking of earnest, I've read way too many deconstructionists etc. raving about stuff like Girls Aloud as an awesome signal of the death of rock in pop music... no real choruses, no verse, just the liminal plateau of dance music with rock gestures etc. co-opted as signifiers. :-o Pity they're a bit shit. :wink:
-
pop(n - 1) > pop(n), where n is any decade.
Right? :-P
-
Fuck all this earnest, authentic shit, bring on the demented plastic weirdness.
See, that is sig material. Not all signatures have to involve anal rape, fellatio, and fragmented gabbly conversations.
-
I think mid-90's pop was worse by far.
The billboard top 10 songs of 1996 were:
1. Macarena-Los Del Rio
2. One Sweet Day-Mariah Carey & Boyz II Men
3. Because You Loved Me-Celine Dion
4. Nobody Knows-Tony Rich
5. Always Be My Baby-Mariah Carey
6. Give Me One Reason-Tracy Chapman
7. The Crossroads-Bone Thugs-N-Harmony
8. I Love You Always Forever-Donna Lewis
9. TIE: You're Makin Me High/Let it Flow-Toni Braxton
10. Twisted-Keith Sweat
-
um one of the greatest songs of all time is on that list right at number 6 and if you try and argue otherwise you deserve to be shot
-
I guess I need to be shot then, because everything I've seen mentioned in this thread so far I consider to be, basically, shit. I can't think of any single pop (not necessarily popular) song released since about 1987 (About the time Kylie Monogue and Madonna were on the rise and stuff like Eurhythmics, The Human League, Depeche Mode, Soft Cell etc. had given way in the UK to...well, T'Pau). Currently the only thing I can think of recieving any sort of regular radio airplay that I like is 'Magick' by The Klaxons, which isn't really what we're talking about. Basically, the kind of pop I like involves synthesisers, homoeroticism, distasteful haircuts and a certain edge of frigidity, or longing, a little hint (or maybe even a big one) of something dark under the surface. In fact, I think there's probably a direct relationship between the quality of popular music and the number of raging queers. I mean, look at gangster rap. It's the most painfully straight music concieved since the fifties, and it sucks. Bring back Dead or Alive!
-
the kind of pop I like involves synthesisers, homoeroticism, distasteful haircuts and a certain edge of frigidity
Khar likes n*sync?
tommy the case may be diffenent in your country but technically their indie pop and as much as i do belive htey apply to pop sensibility i believe billadama was refering specifically to radio pop specifically commercial radio and thus far i have never heard yoshimi played on anything other than local radio
and khar how can you not like tracey chapman
-
yes sales is all very good but i'm still yet to hear them on fox, ttfm or nova
not that i would actually know i havn't listened to them in years
maybe i'm lying
-
and khar how can you not like tracey chapman
Who?
-
Khar, Tracy Chapman wrote a song called Fast Car that was really big in the 80s. You could say it was a pop hit in the 80s, even. You are taking a very selective view of the what the 80s was about, though... I guess you know that, you're just pointing out that the one flavour you like left the mainstream long ago? Shit, it's so hot (cold) at the moment though. The last ... well, close to a decade now has seen such a rise in cold, 80s-influenced synth pop with loads of drama and bleakness. In radio-land I think the only time I can hear it is recent Timbaland stuff, like Nelly Furtado's Promiscuous Girl or Justin Timberlake's Future Sexy, but I don't like that sound very much... still, it's ice cold tho. Simulacra... like a zillion photocopies of some old old photo, all airbrushed up at the finish.
Fuck all this earnest, authentic shit, bring on the demented plastic weirdness.
See, that is sig material. Not all signatures have to involve anal rape, fellatio, and fragmented gabbly conversations.
Heh, thanks. I should make it clear that I do like earnest, "authentic" stuff where people write it themselves and slave their guts out and whatever else, just I'd prefer it be by people with a) wit (in the broadest sense) and b) a more adventurous notion of what music's about than the same singer-songwriter trappings that have been put on and taken off when people want to illustrate their seriousness for decades now. "I put my heart into it, maaaan.. I learned i from the records my dad was listening to when he was my age." That's nice, dear, but you're still a vacuous twat with all the artistic ambition of a hat stand.
-
I seem to remember over the summer sitting on a friend's porch one night and listening to the likes of Third Eye Blind and other 90's pop rock groups. We agreed "wtf happened to pop music, man? It sucks now."
And Tommy, to clear up, I'm refering to "pop" as in stuff that got played on the big top 40 stations. Not pop in the aspect of bands you mentioned, though I do agree with you completely on the subject.
-
I'm mainly into indie stuff... but yeah I can't help but enjoy Sexyback. With the way pop music is made today, I don't feel sad like "Oh shit, I like Justin Timberlake" I feel "Ohh, I like the 15 to 20 mixers and sound designers the label were willing to hire for JT, and to whom Justin said "Yeah yeah! I like that! print it!" after they spiced the hell out of him."
A good beat is a good beat... I take what I can get.
-
I seem to remember over the summer sitting on a friend's porch one night and listening to the likes of Third Eye Blind and other 90's pop rock groups. We agreed "wtf happened to pop music, man? It sucks now."
And Tommy, to clear up, I'm refering to "pop" as in stuff that got played on the big top 40 stations. Not pop in the aspect of bands you mentioned, though I do agree with you completely on the subject.
I was going to mention Third Eye Blind. I loved Semi Charmed Life in year 7 (I still enjoy it a lot, possibly out of nostalgia though.. how knows?) Back then it seemed lkike every pop band was much more cheery and melodic. Blink 182 are another one. Offspring's Americana as well? I guess the last two are more of a pop punk thing, but they where poppy and I loved em. I guess that was basically all the pop stuff I listened too... I got into heavier stuff almost as soon as I discovered music, so I didn't hang around in that kind of music for that long.
Oh.. and freaking Live!! Lightning Crashes, Dolphins Cry, etc. Loved it. Though I downloaded Throwing Copper recently and I was quite disappointed. And Chumbawamba!! Man, it's all coming back to me. I GET KNOCKED DOWN, BUT I GET UP AGAIN. I loved that song so much. I still do.
The more I think about it, the more obvious it is to me that Pop-Rock went really far downhill after 98/99 or so.
-
I was going to mention Third Eye Blind. I loved Semi Charmed Life in year 7 (I still enjoy it a lot, possibly out of nostalgia though.. how knows?) Back then it seemed lplease ban my anti-semitic ass every pop band was much more cheery and melodic.
Heh, I think you put a "k" in "like" accidentally. :-D Curious anti-racist post-editing software going on.
-
That's a pretty awesome word filter right there.
-
You should see what happens when you type nigger.
Also, man, if you compare Justin Timberlake to Soft Cell in any way or capacity again in the future I will cut you. Justin Timberlake fucking sucks. The bands doing that kind of stuff nowadays are people like Wolfsheim or Assemblage 23, who, though I suppose you could call them pop, wouldn't get near mainstream radio or tv in a thousand years, and were both founded in the late 80's anyway.
I went to see Chumbawaba play acoustic once, but that was more something I did so I could say I had done it, if you get me.
-
The bands doing that kind of stuff nowadays are people like Wolfsheim or Assemblage 23, who, though I suppose you could call them pop, wouldn't get near mainstream radio or tv in a thousand years, and were both founded in the late 80's anyway.
This is why I want to go live in Germany. EBM/futurepop is pop/chart music over there :( whereas we get what, My Chemical Romance and the Sugababes. Brilliant.
-
I tend to define 'pop music' as what's popular. In that regard, all the albums Tommy listed fail. Now, if we're talking 'pop' itself, I guess they sort of are. However, you're not going to hear any of those albums on mainstream, popular radio in the U.S. And that's why I don't consider them pop.
Anyway, pop music is better today because there are a few artists I hear/see everywhere that I don't hate. Between hearing 'Hey Ya!' and 'I Saw The Sign', I'd pick 'Hey Ya!'
-
However, you're not going to hear any of those albums on mainstream, popular radio in the U.S. And that's why I don't consider them pop.
Not even Funeral or Yoshimi...?
i definitley consider most of the albums tommy listed as pop, with possibly the exception of funeral, since a lot of the time, i think the vocals are too quiet to fit in with my idea of pop music, in that pop music largely relies on vocals with instruments as a supporting feature.
-
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2/ffgtthttghyujjfdss/cg0425joke.gif)
-
'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
Along with the fact that I would not consider what I've heard of these albums pop, except in the case of the Beatles with reservations and maybe the Stones, they share an interesting common feature of all being produced before 1975. You have in the past, Tommy, been fond of directing folks to wikipedia. Shall we see what it says about pop music?
"The term indicates specific stylistic traits such as an emotional singing style, lyrics about love or sex, danceable beat, clear melodies, simple harmonies and repetitive structure"
I think that perfectly describes songs like Stairway to Heaven, Brain Damage and Subterranean Homesick Blues, don't you? I often dance the night away to Eleanor Rigby.
You're trying to confuse pop, what we're talking about, with 'popular'. The Three Tenors were pretty popular at one point.
-
The best threads on the music forums are the ones that go like this.
1. People try to talk about something.
2. tommy tries to redifine the something they are talking about in an absurdly literal sense.
3. People go "WTF tommy you're wrong.
4. tommy goes "No dudes, in the strictest definition of what _____ is, hlaghlahglahglhag"
5. People go "WTF are you talking about."
6. Thread becomes arguing about what tommy thinks _____ means rather than just talking about the topic.
7. Music forum increases in quality!
-
No, you won't hear any of those albums on any commercial radio station in the US. You might be lucky in a very highly populated area, but even then it's doubtful. They might show up on MTV, but only at 3AM... though to be honest I haven't seen any videos at all by any of those groups at any time on MTV, VH1 or MTV2.
While the bands you listed were good and do have a large fan base, none of those albums are or have ever been in Billboard's top 10.
-
I was going to mention Third Eye Blind. I loved Semi Charmed Life in year 7 (I still enjoy it a lot, possibly out of nostalgia though.. how knows?) Back then it seemed lplease ban my anti-semitic ass every pop band was much more cheery and melodic.
Heh, I think you put a "k" in "like" accidentally. :-D Curious anti-racist post-editing software going on.
Oh, that's what happened. Freaking weird.
-
Music I consider pop is music that my parents might conceivably hear listening to the radio stations they do and whatnot. Aside from Deerhoof, I would call the first set of albums Tommy listed on the fringes of pop music. Yes, Arcade Fire were on SNL, Flaming Lips are fucking everywhere, etc etc. But are they being played on Top 40 or pop music stations in your city alongside Beyonce and Justin Timberlake?? Fuck no.
As for Deerhoof, my parents would never have and will never hear this band outside of when I play it. I don't consider Deerhoof not 'of' pop (using the term pop as a genre, and not popular) but they'll never release a full album you can play in 'mixed company' for lack of a better word. Scoff at the namedrop, but there's some Pitchfork review of one of the more recent Deerhoof albums that mentions this phenomenon.
-
Now i'm confused, when you posted the first list of albums (BSS, Deerhoof, Arcade Fire, etc) were you saying they were pop because of the nature of their music or because they sold a shitload* of copies?
*Debatable. Taking into account those were fairly obscure bands until recently, i'd say they have sold more than well, but not enough to label them pop albums because of their popularity. Those albums are all quarterstones in the ambiguous indie genre, and i bet a lot of average people might recognize their name from some tv show, but they have sold nowhere near as many copies as real pop artists.
-
You're missing the point, Tommy. Yes, the bands you've mentioned are all massively popular compared to the grand scope of music that exists, and can musically be defined as pop music.
What we're talking about is music that exists in the collective consciousness of America. Ask the average American to name an Arcade Fire song, it's far more likely than not that they won't be able to. However, most will be able to name a Black Eyed Peas song. If you want to nitpick about what and what isn't pop, fine, but this isn't a thread about pop music in the general sense. We're talking about Billboard Top 40 music. None of the artists you mentioned have had a hit in the top 40, nor are they likely to anytime soon. Yes, Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots has sold over half a million copies, but that's still less than 1% of the country.
Also, I want to know where you're getting your statistics from. You say all the albums you listed combined have sold upwards of 10 million copies, and that's bullshit. Each one would have to sell over 1 million on it's own, which would certify it Platinum. However, the only album you mentioned with any sort of RIAA certification is Yoshimi, which is Gold.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure you threw Deerhoof in there to piss us off. Not only have most people not heard of Deerhoof, most people would hate Deerhoof.
And your theory has nothing to do with this thread, which is about differences between top 40 hits in the 90s and today. If you want to start a thread about how there's no difference between indie rock and the latest radio hits, go right ahead.
Finally, I'm not sure where you get off making statements like "most radio stations play Broken Social Scene", or calling the bands you mentioned "the biggest in the world", and then expecting us to take you seriously.
-
(http://www.pngfootball.com/Waller%20Game/crowd%20cheering%20VII.jpg)
(http://blogoehlert.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/applause.jpg)
-
Someone help me get the post above
If you want to start a thread about how there's no difference between indie rock and the latest radio hits, go right ahead.
I think this forum has had enough threads that revolve around this particular issue. I agree with Tommy in this, people should not be proud of saying they no longer listen to pop music because there never was anything shameful about liking pop to being with. Useful as it may be when someone wants to know what kind of music do you like and you don't feel like giving a good (long) answer, i consider indie to be a meaningless word.
Tommy i did read all of your posts, perhaps i didn't read too carefully. But i still think that in the grand scale of things, those are not pop albums if one is measuring their popularity. Granted, they are succesful. I'm no expert, but i dare say that most bands (most, ignore nigh unexistent local bands for the moment) one hears about on music forums such as this have sold thousands of copies. Hundreds of thousands is way better and certainly not the norm, but it still falls short of being an iconic pop album. Pop artists (in the vein of Timberlake, Beyonce or whoever is biggest in this day and age, i wouldn't know) are expected to sell millions .
-
So we're supposed to be talking about Billboard Hot 100 music?
Guys I think the nineties were a lot worse. At least Billboard Hot 100 music has grown up somewhat, emotionally and musically.
P.S. Tommy I think if you compare the sales of IV to the sales of Funeral you will notice something interesting and that is that they aren't even in similar leagues. Hundreds of thousands of records is great but that doesn't mean I will say "Oh I love The Arcade Fire's Funeral" and be guaranteed to not get puzzled looks!
-
Quick comparison:
Justin Timberlake- FutureSex/Lovesounds: Released September 12 2006: Certified 3x Platinum
The Flaming Lips- Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots: Released July 15 2002: Certified Gold in April 2006
-
Even "Do You Realize??" is a really tough sell compared to "SexyBack."
-
My personal definition of pop music is anything that isn't blatantly metal/hard rock/classic or post-punk/similar derivative and does not have a guitar solo of at least 15-30 seconds in there somewhere.
And that is basically some of what MTV has fed us at some point, and includes but is not limited to shitty punk, a fair bit of indie, techno, rap/hip-hop, and just about everything not covered except for classical.
I withhold my actual opinion on pop since it's so varied.
-
Some good pop post - 2000 bands/artists
The Kooks
Justine Timberlake
Arctic Monkeys
Coldplay
Kanye West
Hard Fi
Some Good 90's pop bands/artists
Oasis
Blur
The Verve
Supergrass
Massive Attack
-
Some good pop post - 2000 bands/artists
The Kooks
Justine Timberlake
Arctic Monkeys
Coldplay
Kanye West
Hard Fi
Some Good 90's pop bands/artists
Oasis
Blur
The Verve
Supergrass
Massive Attack
I hope to god you actually are British.
-
Broken Social Scene - 'Broken Social Scene'
New Pornographers - 'Mass Romantic'
Arcade Fire - 'Funeral'
Wilco - 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot'
Flaming Lips - 'Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots'
Stars - 'Set Yourself On Fire'
I've heard music from all of these albums on mainstream rock/pop radio stations, both independent and ClearChannel owned, up and down the eastern seaboard and in the backwoods of Vermont. It has little to do with them being played I think, and more to do with their image and the audience's reception of that image. The above mentioned bands appeal to an entirely different or narrower demographic than say Justin Timberlake would.
I'm not sure that it makes them any less pop or popular, but that the teenage girl set is a lot louder and more willing to spend money than the rest of us.
As for the late-90s, if we're not going with Tommy's definition then I've got to agree with Johnny C. Other than Hanson, it was a bunch of manufactured bands based entirely on image, with little talent of their own. There is a reason that of that era Christina Aguilera and Justin Timberlake are the only two who still have careers.
-
Tommy, I'd go so far to add that as my musical tastes have matured, and as I've grown to understand music better, I have a better appreciation for bands that I despised in my youth, and in some cases actually like these bands now.
I've personally done quite the opposite of "graduating" from pop music to indie music.
-
Pop isn't always bad? NO FUCKING SHIT.
I know I'm being derisive, but come on. Tell us something we don't know. Pop music is still music, and music comes in both good and bad forms.
Tons of fantastic pop music exists. It could be argued that some of the greatest music ever made is just pop music.
-
Lets use an example outside music here.
David Icke has sold probably over a million books. His works are stocked in major book chains like Waterstones. His books are printed on the same presses and written with the same word-pressing tools as Harry Potter. He regularly sells out lectures around the world, has appeared on major and independent TV and radio stations. He works tirelessly to promote his theories and works, travelling around the world, giving interviews, etc. etc.
Would you consider David Icke to be mainstream, or popular? Would you expect to regularly encounter believes in David Ickes theories as regularly as you encountered, say, christians? Do you expect to see adverts for his books, CDs, lecture tours etc. on television?
Sales and distribution methods are not the issue here. What we're talking about when we say pop music are:
1) The level of cultural penetration: pop music aggressively makes itself ubiquitous across the mainstream. If you have no interest in music, but regularly read newspapers, consume broadcast news etc. it is easily possible to have absolutely no knowledge of any of the bands Tommy mentioned. You may, perhaps, have skimmed over a review of one of their albums in the Guardian, or heard part of one of their songs on an advert, maybe even seen a part of a video whilst channel surfing late at night. You have no reason to remember their names though. However, it is almost impossible to actually participate in western culture and not have heard of Madonna, or Justin Timberlake, or Kylie Minogue, or Britney Spears, or the Black Eyed Peas, or many others. Their songs are not just played, but played repeatedly and across the board, on radio, on television, in shops, on adverts, in films, in bars, in nightclubs, and so on. Pop music is an integral component of mainstream western culture. To claim that the Flaming Lips have anything approaching this sort of status or influence, or popularity, is ridiculous. We are talking quite clearly here about major, commercial, top 40 material, about stuff wrapped up with the rest of the cultural mainstream, that cross-pollinates into gossip mags, films and mainstream television. Earache has sold over two million records. Are grindcore and death metal mainstream? Do they influence popular culture to one percent of the extent of chart music?
2) The motive for the production of the music. Quite basically, does the band mainly want their music to be heard (or the idea behind their music to be disseminated), or is the main motivation for the production of music profit by a diverse group of individuals including them? Do you genuinely claim that the Arcade Fires primary motivation is money? Do you genuinely claim that Justin Timberlakes primary motivation (and the motivations of those who promote him) is his art? Of course, in most cases, art and money is mixed in some measure (though I would suggest that there are many bands for whom money is irrelevant, just as there are many examples of groups and singers who are pure commercial creations, with music carefully designed by song-writers and producers to have maximum appeal to the most profitable demographics and quality be damned.
Quality, in fact, is what I would suggest is the major thing that distinguishes the bands mentioned by Tommy from most mainstream pop, and also distinguishes, say, Paris Hilton from the Beatles. I mean quality here in the sense of care and pride that has been invested by the artist, as in Pirsigs philosophy of quality. Pop is all too often formulaic, with no depth or craftmanship. When people speak of a 'well crafted pop gem' (undoubtedly the most sickening phrase in music criticism, I might add) they are normally talking about some relatively obscure indie act that is distinguished from mainstream pop music by the fact that they actually ARE taking care and pride in their music. The people behind pop music production often care less for the quality of the finished product they produce as they do for its marketability, its acceptablity, it's artlessness and blandness, one might say. I mean, look at all the bands that Tommy bought up to defend his notion of pop. What do you notice about them? They all write their own music. The only case where you could even argue this is with the Beatles, when talking about George Martin, and even in that case, Martin only built up arrangements around music written by the Beatles. Some major pop artists do write their own lyrics, or some of their own lyrics, or claim to write their own lyrics, but a vast majority do not.
-
I would argue that there's a certain point in music history where popular music and music-that-is-technically-pop-but-not-popular diverged, and that leads to all the confusion and arguing today. Or maybe there was always popular music and then a 'pop underground' as it were.
I think Tommy has a skewed view of America insofar as what is popular and the levels of popularity. If you sell a few thousand copies of something in the UK, or even a million, you're a pretty big deal. It's nowhere near the same thing in the States. It's such a bigger market that bands like Flaming Lips can sell a million copies and still not be considered mainstream, popular music. As Khar said, it's all about cultural penetration, but it's also about recognition. Massive Attack gets played in so many fucking TV shows and movies, but nobody has a damn clue who they are unless you already like them. It's not like you hear them played on the radio or see them on TV until even housewives can watch an episode of 24 or whatever and shout "OH MY GOD IT'S 'TEARDROP'!!"
-
I think you over-estimate Ickes level of recognition. People over a certain age may know him because of his previous career in sport and the infamous Wogan appearance, but among people of my generation I would not say he is well known at all. Probably less well known than the Arcade Fire in fact.
I was also talking about quality as an objective measurement, which is independent of personal taste. Quality as a result of care invested. I mean, as I've said, I like some blatantly empty, manufactured pop music: 'You Spin Me Right Round (Like a Record)' for example, but I would not put my liking for it at the same kind of level as my liking for something like Skyclad or Coil.
My discourse in events is hampered by me not really knowing much about pop music (because I don't give two shits about it) I admit. I think you're coming in at a somewhat strange angle though. I don't get your obsession with indie versus pop, which hasn't been mentioned, and record sales. I'm trying to argue that sales =/ cultural penetration. I'm sure those bands would gladly sell 10 million albums, but I don't think you can compare the ethics.
-
I think that The Red Hot Chili Peppers' "pop group" status came from the fact that their cover of "Higher Ground" now soundtracks Space Mountain in Disneyland.
So let me see if I'm getting this right: You're saying that "pop" is the desire to have people listen to your records? I don't think I like that definition.
-
I want to agree with you in theory Tommy but - Broken Social Scene? Are you for real? Perhaps I am missing something big but I was totally unaware they ever got airplay on MTV or radio. Even the college station here never plays them. And I don't know very many people who like them outside of indie rock circles.
It would have helped if you used examples like Death Cab For Cutie and TV On the Radio instead of BSS and Deerhoof. Then I think more people would have "got" what you're saying.
Also, I have no fucking clue who David Icke is, and I'm an avid reader.
-
I hear Death Cab and TVOTR even less than I hear Broken Social Scene, though that's probably because I live in Canada and the CBC plays Broken Social Scene tracks.
I think Tommy that if you had tried to argue the "pop sensibilities" point a bit further I'd agree with you more but unfortunately this is falling really under the ridiculous critical-establisment absorption of the term "pop" to mean basically everything that isn't abrasive noise, which is a stance that really hampers genre criticism. Suddenly you're classifying Kelly Clarkson with Broken Social Scene and that's really unfair to Ms. Clarkson's music.
-
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.
Granted, in revisionist terms, I can retrospectively admit that Def Leppard, Queensryche and AC/DC had some redeeming moments, but I still would not care to own any of their albums again. And there really is just no excuse for me listening to shit like Poison and White Lion other than "I didn't know any better".
I mean, I never even heard a pre-Steel Wheels Rolling Stones song until I was like, 25 (I never listened to classic rock radio) and if it weren't for Douglas Adams I probably would never have bought any Dire Straits album other than Brothers in Arms, which would have been a massive catastrophe.
-
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 (http://www.freedom-from.com/hairpolice/) 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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah I'm not going to lie I basically try to write poppy stuff. But thank you!
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!"
-
Oy vey.
LIST:
my boyfriend Justin Timberlake
Madonna
that Gwen Stefani ft. Akon song
many, many other horrible pop songs that I find catchy.
-
or just that this thread is.
-
OMG LOL
-
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.
-
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.
-
It's like fighting about consciousness or phenomenology.
A lot of bullshit about semantics and technicalities, then grudging agreement to disagree.
Fun to read.