what are your opinions on pop music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGcQgUnxY14

I like the Dream.

  On 6/21/2010 at 1:05 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 6/20/2010 at 11:17 PM, Masonic Boom said:

 

But the number one (with a bullet) reason I love bubblegum pop is - it's actually physically impossible to be depressed while listening to bubblegum. Good bubblegum, whether it's the Archies or Girls Aloud - I don't know if it's because it raises your heartbeat or what, but it's the one thing guaranteed to cheer me up, no matter what.

 

high fuckin five

STRAIGHT UP, G!!!!

Yeah, The-Dream produced the Electrik Red album which was one of my albums of the year last year, so big love from me.

I love some good "crunk/rap" anthems from time to time. Hustlin', Still fly, That's that shit, Drop it like it's hot etc.

What on earth has fashion got to do with it?

Maybe you listen to music because it's fashionable to do so or not, but I (and most of the people I know, or at least, the ones I like to talk to) listen to music because we enjoy it, or get something out of it, be that intellectual interest or just happy dancing funtimes.

I think a lot of people go through a phase in their late teens and early 20s where they are overly concerned about the Statement that their musical taste makes about them as a person. (And automatically assume that everyone else is doing the same thing - unless they're "mindless sheep" or something.) And they're so caught up in this worldview of musical taste as Cultural Capital (not sure how, given that things like Hype Machine have exposed exactly how uniform and widespread the supposed alternaculture is) that they can't quite get their heads around the idea that people outgrow this notion, and go back to just listening to music, regardless of the source, because they enjoy it.

Cause I don't really know what it means to like something "ironically". Is that like having an ironic erection or something?

There's very little pop music on the radio that I like. Every couple of months there might be something that strikes a chord with me, but I usually don't follow through and buy the album or anything... I liked that La Roux single a lot too but I haven't heard anything else by them. That Elly Goulding, "starry eyed" track is kinda nice too. I do listen to some more obscure pop like Frou Frou, Astronaut Wife, a bit of J-pop... usually stuff that's quite electronic based.

A lot of pop music depresses me though, because it's so sexed up and clearly aimed at children. Black Eyed Peas is a perfect example, it sounds like something from a qoofy kids show, and kids will listen to it I'm sure, and it's all about getting wasted and stuff. Black Eyed Peas and stuff like that are the musical equivalent of a Bratz doll.

  On 6/21/2010 at 1:54 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

I just have a hard time understanding how people can listen to music that demonstrates a thorough knowledge and execution of musical concepts (let's use squarepusher as an example here) and also get enjoyment out of listening to the latest mindless pop tune.

 

I don't watch the wire and then tune into two and a half men.

 

as for the fashion part, I'm talking about how it seems trendy to like pop music if you listen to more alternative music. these type of people try to tell me to be open minded about all music but to me pop music is just bland and over-compressed. pop music sounds like the music you hear in ads, each song is mastered so overly loud that it just becomes samey and tiring.

OK, because I have a hard time understanding how someone can dismiss an entire musical genre with a 40-year back catalogue as "mindless".

To me, that kind of lack of critical facility and reflexive dismissal seems a lot more mindless than enjoying the occasional pop tune.

I don't watch television so I don't really get your metaphor. But to me, the metaphor is more like: OK, everyone *knows* that really everyone should eat more whole foods. And sure, it probably takes more training and skill and acquired tastes to develop a palate for haute cuisine. But, you know, sometimes I fancy a perfectly balanced and organically sourced 3-course meal as cooked by a gourmande with a degree from the Culinary Institute of America. And sometimes I want, like, a hot fudge sundae.

Life would get pretty boring if I ate nothing but brown rice and organic spring greens all the time (even though I know that yeah, that might be better for me.) And also, the kind of people who go on about how much better and more *moral* a person is because they eat nothing but haute cuisine, ever - they're really annoying and preachy. There's really nothing wrong with eating the occasional hot fudge sundae, so long as you don't live on nothing else.

And also - there's quite a lot of variation, even within the hot fudge sundae. Some are cheap and nasty and made with processed whipped cream and the fudge is overcooked. Some have had a lot of thought and preparation put into them, changing the flavour of the ice cream, using fresh whipped cream, a marascino cherry on top.

Sure, if you don't actually like ice cream, there is no hot fudge sundae on earth that is gonna satisfy you. It's just that there is a big difference between Ben & Jerries and some 99p ice cream you get at Lidl (or whatever the antipodean equivalent deep discount shop is) and it *is* small-minded to dismiss all ice cream because you don't like Lidl. There's good, amazing pop music (like, I said, where people have used the limitations to come up with something truly original & amazing) and there's bad, poorly produced pop music, like there's good IDM and shitty, poorly produced IDM.

I *still* don't understand your fashion talk, and your "trendy" comments. I'm a middle aged woman, I stopped paying attention to fashion and trends a long, long time ago. That's an adolescent identity thing. And also, well, isn't *disliking* music or people because they're popular just as stupid and reactionary and trend-based as deliberately *liking* something because it's popular? It just seems to be too reactive, too based on other people's tastes, rather than deciding for yourself if you like something or not.

For my money, I just find that so much indie snobbery (and that's what it is, whether it's focused on guitar music or electronic music) is about trying to prove that one is somehow a better *person* for liking music X over music Y. And that's absurd. Not to mention the resulting panic when... OMG, what happens if something you've liked for ages suddenly becomes popular? How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?

I kinda wanted to say something to Springymajig's post about the sexualisation of children. Because yeah, that is something that troubles me. Not even so much the sexualisation part of it, but the marketing of highly sexualised gender roles to young children. That does trouble me. But pop music is far from the only place that that happens.

  On 6/21/2010 at 2:43 PM, Masonic Boom said:

For my money, I just find that so much indie snobbery (and that's what it is, whether it's focused on guitar music or electronic music) is about trying to prove that one is somehow a better *person* for liking music X over music Y. And that's absurd. Not to mention the resulting panic when... OMG, what happens if something you've liked for ages suddenly becomes popular? How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?

I think we're a similar age iirc, and I used to be guilty of such snobbery myself once, I used to baulk when stuff like The Fall or New Order used to break into the Top 40 because it wouldn't be so exclusive to me and people with 'shittier' (as I saw it then) music tastes might like it. For a long time now though I've not owned a radio or listened to one consciously, so I don't know what the kids like these days and couldn't give a fuck. I just care about what music passes as worthy of my tastes and attentions, and I'm not too bothered about other people's. I agree that what music people doesn't dictate how they should be judged; if that was the case I wouldn't have the friends I do and I'd have disowned pretty much all of my family.

  On 6/21/2010 at 3:23 PM, Caretstik said:

  On 6/21/2010 at 2:43 PM, Masonic Boom said:

For my money, I just find that so much indie snobbery (and that's what it is, whether it's focused on guitar music or electronic music) is about trying to prove that one is somehow a better *person* for liking music X over music Y. And that's absurd. Not to mention the resulting panic when... OMG, what happens if something you've liked for ages suddenly becomes popular? How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?

I think we're a similar age iirc, and I used to be guilty of such snobbery myself once, I used to baulk when stuff like The Fall or New Order used to break into the Top 40 because it wouldn't be so exclusive to me and people with 'shittier' (as I saw it then) music tastes might like it. For a long time now though I've not owned a radio or listened to one consciously, so I don't know what the kids like these days and couldn't give a fuck. I just care about what music passes as worthy of my tastes and attentions, and I'm not too bothered about other people's. I agree that what music people doesn't dictate how they should be judged; if that was the case I wouldn't have the friends I do and I'd have disowned pretty much all of my family.

Ha ha, yeah, I remember as a teenager, listening to the local college radio station, and the DJs (college age kids) were OUTRAGED at the success of New Order's Brotherhood, like how DARE their special indie band have a song on Top 40 radio. And I remember being very confused, like, wait, is it still OK to like New Order now? (And you know what? today I rate Brotherhood as one of the very best pieces of *music* let alone New Order's music, ever committed to tape.)

And I did go through a very indie snob phase in my late teens and early 20s - so perhaps I am projecting, because the whole thing is, before becoming an indie snob, I loved stuff like Duran Duran. And my indie snobbery was very much about peer pressure and being worried about what cool college-age boys would think of me if I admitted to liking them, so I taped over my DD albums with, like, Jesus and Mary Chain B-sides. And sure, I *love* the Mary Chain, it's not like I was pretending to like late-80s indie. But I *WAS* pretending *NOT* to like Duran Duran and Technotronic and Madonna. So was I ironically *not* listening to Duran Duran or something?

There was a massive outbreak of indie snobbery on another board I frequent recently because OMG Boys Noize produced a track on the new Kelis album and you could see teenage boys heads exploding with cognitive dissonance. So it's an important lesson that, you know - you will *not* actually DIE if music you love becomes popular.

honestly, i find imagination entertaining. doesn't matter whether it is pop or not. i love good, solidly produced pop music.

you can find elitism and snobbery in any musical circle, pop music included. in fact i find mainstream pop music fans by far the biggest snobs, incredibly myopic in their tastes with absolutely no interest in the other 99.9% of musical ideas that exist on the planet yet endowed with a naive sense of cultural superiority. and perfectly happy to lift ideas from hardworking+starving independent artists of 10 years past, meanwhile ignoring and shitting on the present-day risk-takers, until it is hip to leech from them again.

but those problems are politics, not music. there's gems to be found in any genre. plus sometimes pop music is really just a vehicle for other things than just the music--i find lady gaga's tunes sound like watered-down ace of base, but i love how her videos are designed to subvert the youth.

Twiddlebot, are you sure that your dichotomy isn't about obsessive music fan vs. casual music fan, rather than obsessive pop music fan vs. obsessive non-pop music fans?

  On 6/21/2010 at 3:47 PM, TwiddleBot said:

i find mainstream pop music fans by far the biggest snobs, incredibly myopic in their tastes with absolutely no interest in the other 99.9% of musical ideas that exist on the planet yet endowed with a naive sense of cultural superiority.

I find this to be true as well, there often seems to be an attitude that if artists aren't popular then they must be shit because noone buys their records. I've just grown to agree to differ, in fact I don't make an effort to talk to people about music unless I know we like similar things and they don't mind how anal I am about it. Not because I think they're beneath me, but just that it's a pointless conversation piece if there's no kind of common ground, and I just get blank looks at best when I ever do mention what music I love.

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:08 PM, Caretstik said:

  On 6/21/2010 at 3:47 PM, TwiddleBot said:

i find mainstream pop music fans by far the biggest snobs, incredibly myopic in their tastes with absolutely no interest in the other 99.9% of musical ideas that exist on the planet yet endowed with a naive sense of cultural superiority.

I find this to be true as well, there often seems to be an attitude that if artists aren't popular then they must be shit because noone buys their records. I've just grown to agree to differ, in fact I don't make an effort to talk to people about music unless I know we like similar things and they don't mind how anal I am about it. Not because I think they're beneath me, but just that it's a pointless conversation piece if there's no kind of common ground, and I just get blank looks at best when I ever do mention what music I love.

OK, here is where I start to split hairs about Pop Music (the genre) and Popular Music (the phenomenon) and although they are often used interchangeably, we don't always mean the same thing. (And also fuels the idea that anyone who likes "Pop" is just an ignorant sheep going along when whatever is on the radio, when there are actually people who choose to listen to Pop as an artform.)

In my experience, the kind of "snobbery" being talked about here (i.e. "What's so great about that weirdo music you listen to, if it were any good, it'd be top 40. It doesn't sell well, so it must be shit..." etc. etc.) isn't about the difference between "Pop" fans and fans of other music, but between obsessive fans and casual music listeners.

This, to me, is a far deeper divide than between fans of Genre X and Genre Y.

And it doesn't really matter if the casual music listener listens to Pop (the genre) or Hip-hop or Country and Western (or whatever the dominant musical tradition is within their culture) - it's this (not illogical, mind you, it's very democratic) notion that the wisdom of crowds is best - goes along with Free Market Economics that the market is the best decider of value and that what appeals to the most people is most likely to be good value for money.

It is a logically consistent argument, even if we obsessive music fans think that it is wrong-headed.

In opposition to that is the notion of the fanatical music obsessive, who will seek out novelty of sound, and depth of knowledge - and it doesn't matter if this obsessive is into IDM or 60s Bubblegum or Tuvan nose-flute music. It's an entirely different way of thinking about music. The idea that cultural phenomena such as music (or films or books) possess an objective quality independent of their market value, and that the acquisition of said knowledge and appreciation of said art provides a kind of cultural capital.

So if you're talking to someone that says something like "they're not popular, so clearly they're not any good" the problem is more that you're talking to a casual listener rather than an actual Pop Music Snob.

I'm not saying there aren't Pop Music Snobs (I know several) but they're much more likely to be telling you that you should be listening to some obscure amazing singer whose record company didn't payola the right radio stations instead of Madonna-derivative dross like Lady Gaga.

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:08 PM, Caretstik said:

  On 6/21/2010 at 3:47 PM, TwiddleBot said:

i find mainstream pop music fans by far the biggest snobs, incredibly myopic in their tastes with absolutely no interest in the other 99.9% of musical ideas that exist on the planet yet endowed with a naive sense of cultural superiority.

I find this to be true as well, there often seems to be an attitude that if artists aren't popular then they must be shit because noone buys their records. I've just grown to agree to differ, in fact I don't make an effort to talk to people about music unless I know we like similar things and they don't mind how anal I am about it. Not because I think they're beneath me, but just that it's a pointless conversation piece if there's no kind of common ground, and I just get blank looks at best when I ever do mention what music I love.

exactly, plus mainstream pop culture is about disempowering the masses, portraying creativity and 'genious' as being far above the common person, creative success being more about who has the most plays, conveniently ignoring that mainstream pop is a purely commercial venture supported through heavy advertising and payola and teams of committees.

a local country band where I grew up got signed to a major label. they went into the studio and discovered that there were session musicians there who were going to record for them and they were like WTF, why are we even here? there's no interest in personality or individual character in the industry, in other words, all the things that matter to creative practice in general. it's mass produced, like a McDonald's burger. mainstream big label pop music is about patronizing the masses rather than treating them like intelligent beings. and being patronized is never fun.

i think it's just a general trend in the big business of entertainment, including film and video games. instead of embracing new ideas they simply want to stick with what they think will work and make money. meanwhile the independents are where all the cool ideas are.. and sometimes if big business sees a market for success with an idea developed by an independent, they will jump on it after the fact.

in light of all of that, i think it is amazing when talent and cool ideas still seep through the cracks.

But lots of things that are mass produced and made with session players are still AMAZING.

What about the first Byrds album? (Which most people who aren't 60s psych or country-rock obsessives still rate as the most quintessential.) All the non-vocal music is all done with session players with a bit of Roger McGuinn over the top.

What about the Ronettes and Be My Baby? Phil Spector ran such a production line that he regularly swapped out singers without the public even noticing! Completely mass produced, and yet still amazing and special.

(I only bring up 60s hits because those are ones that have stood the test of time enough for even music snobs to recognise that they are classics. I mean, if you think there aren't latter day examples, what about the KLF?)

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:36 PM, Masonic Boom said:

So if you're talking to someone that says something like "they're not popular, so clearly they're not any good" the problem is more that you're talking to a casual listener rather than an actual Pop Music Snob.

I know plenty of casual listeners who have their own tastes whom I wouldn't consider snobbish in the least. The whole point of the above is to put down anyone that disagrees with your own personal tastes while propping up your personal tastes and clique as the Only Possible Correct option, and IMO that is what elitism and snobbery is all about. There are plenty of edjumacated academics who have incredibly vehement opinions about music they never put an iota of effort into listening to either.

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:43 PM, Masonic Boom said:

But lots of things that are mass produced and made with session players are still AMAZING.

 

What about the first Byrds album? (Which most people who aren't 60s psych or country-rock obsessives still rate as the most quintessential.) All the non-vocal music is all done with session players with a bit of Roger McGuinn over the top.

 

What about the Ronettes and Be My Baby? Phil Spector ran such a production line that he regularly swapped out singers without the public even noticing! Completely mass produced, and yet still amazing and special.

 

(I only bring up 60s hits because those are ones that have stood the test of time enough for even music snobs to recognise that they are classics. I mean, if you think there aren't latter day examples, what about the KLF?)

The 60's is before the era of payola, you'd be hard-pressed to find major labels putting out the crazy kinds of krautrock and fusion now that they were putting out then frequently.

But I do agree, there are gems to be found, likewise even hollywood puts out pretty decent films from time to time. Usually from people who are accomplished enough to have a bit more pull with what they do.

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:50 PM, TwiddleBot said:

The 60's is before the era of payola

?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? o_0

The 60s were the GOLDEN AGE of Payola. Haven't you seen Dreamgirls?

fair enough, i guess it dates back to the 50's, possibly earlier. but why did major labels slowly and progressively lose their sense of adventure? bitches brew for example was a bizarre album for the time and perhaps heavily criticized by jazz purists, but still a commercial success. i'm trying to think of a modern equivalent of a major label taking such a risk..

it's fair to talk about pop music being for the masses, and personally i'd rather see people happy than not happy.. but there are plenty of people out there who are casual listeners who still hate what's on the radio. the masses do require a little more meat+potatoes than what is offered them from the mainstream, and plenty of people give up on new music after a certain age, IMO largely because of this. or like a bunch of my friends, they turn to classical or something.

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:36 PM, Masonic Boom said:

In my experience, the kind of "snobbery" being talked about here (i.e. "What's so great about that weirdo music you listen to, if it were any good, it'd be top 40. It doesn't sell well, so it must be shit..." etc. etc.) isn't about the difference between "Pop" fans and fans of other music, but between obsessive fans and casual music listeners.

Yes, I can see this. Maybe we should distinguish between pop consumers and pop fans, although that might open up a whole new semantic can of worms.

  On 6/21/2010 at 5:07 PM, TwiddleBot said:

fair enough, i guess it dates back to the 50's, possibly earlier. but why did major labels slowly and progressively lose their sense of adventure? bitches brew for example was a bizarre album for the time and perhaps heavily criticized by jazz purists, but still a commercial success. i'm trying to think of a modern equivalent of a major label taking such a risk..

 

it's fair to talk about pop music being for the masses, and personally i'd rather see people happy than not happy.. but there are plenty of people out there who are casual listeners who still hate what's on the radio. the masses do require a little more meat+potatoes than what is offered them from the mainstream, and plenty of people give up on new music after a certain age, IMO largely because of this. or like a bunch of my friends, they turn to classical or something.

Well part of the problem is, that the music industry as a whole is in the midst of the biggest shakeup / paradigm shift since the invention of the gramaphone. Add that to the increasing competition for the home entertainment dollar from videogames, DVDs, etc. and you got a bunch of people running scared. The response to running scared is either to circle the wagons or take an even bigger risk.

But, to open another can of worms... the thing is, I'm not so sure that the Major/Indie distinction is really that important when talking about Pop. I mean, don't forget that the biggest players of the cashcow mega-Pop era of the late 90s/early 00s were, technically, on an indie label (Backstreet Boys and N'Sync were all on Jive). It's repeatedly been the case that new innovations in pop will come out of smaller labels with big ambitions, and then either the artist or the whole label gets gobbled up by (or even becomes) a Major as they prove their success.

The churn rate can be amazing - the speed at which pop culture, memes, fashions, move and grow. I find that aspect of it absolutely incredible, how 10 years ago it was all about Timbaland productions, then it was all about Xenomania productions, then it's Bloodshy and Avant, and right now everyone's looking at The-Dream (and even that might be five minutes out of date by the time I hit post.) You want insane, wacky, adventurous records coming out on major labels - I mean look at P Diddy signing Janelle Monáe! You want a weird out there record on a major label, check out an R&B concept album about androids.

It's easy to point back at the 60s and say "shit was so much more adventurous then" because time has sorted the wheat from the chaffe. Don't forget that, like, the biggest selling record of the 60s wasn't Miles Davis or the Beatles - it was, like, Ken Dodd & The Diddymen or something. You don't have to pick and choose and sift and search when looking at 1960s music because it's all been cannonised. Who knows what, looking back from 50 years in the future, will be the shocking "OMG, I can't believe they released THAT it was so far ahead of its time" record from 2010.

I think people give up on music as they get older, and retreat to the safer choices of yesteryear because it's easier to pick the good stuff out of an established cannon than it is to do the legwork and the research and find the good pop coming out right now. Hence why people start listening to nothing but classical, or oldies (and maybe that's why I'm going back and digging out records from 1992 instead of looking for the Aphex Twins of today...)

^Very good points.

man i missed a fun discussion. oh well.

  Quote

Don't forget that, like, the biggest selling record of the 60s wasn't Miles Davis or the Beatles - it was, like, Ken Dodd & The Diddymen or something.

actually #1 and #2 are the beatles, #3 is ken dodd and the diddymen. but your point still stands, it was early beatles, and going from skiffle songs about freight trains to the beatles was a bit of a jump anyways.

PARADIGM

SHIFT

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:36 PM, Masonic Boom said:

 

 

And it doesn't really matter if the casual music listener listens to Pop (the genre) or Hip-hop or Country and Western (or whatever the dominant musical tradition is within their culture) - it's this (not illogical, mind you, it's very democratic) notion that the wisdom of crowds is best - goes along with Free Market Economics that the market is the best decider of value and that what appeals to the most people is most likely to be good value for money.

 

 

Except it's not the free market that decides, because there is not true competition. You have collusion among a cartel that decides what gets sold (and at what price too!). That's slowly changing, but the labels and distributors/providers still have near monopoly power.

  On 6/22/2010 at 9:39 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 6/21/2010 at 4:36 PM, Masonic Boom said:

 

 

And it doesn't really matter if the casual music listener listens to Pop (the genre) or Hip-hop or Country and Western (or whatever the dominant musical tradition is within their culture) - it's this (not illogical, mind you, it's very democratic) notion that the wisdom of crowds is best - goes along with Free Market Economics that the market is the best decider of value and that what appeals to the most people is most likely to be good value for money.

 

 

 

Except it's not the free market that decides, because there is not true competition. You have collusion among a cartel that decides what gets sold (and at what price too!). That's slowly changing, but the labels and distributors/providers still have near monopoly power.

It's not like this cartel is pulling genres out of a hat, it's going with trends. Something gets popular amongst those who are on the bleeding edge of things, music industry takes notice, repackages it for the mass market, and you have a new trend. The free market DOES dictate what's popular. The shift from nu-metal to garage-style-rock didn't come out of nowhere, it came out of the fact that garage-style-rock bands were getting popular with the indie crowd. Likewise with the latest trends in pop. Notice how a lot of pop musicians are starting to sound vaguely 8-bit? It's certainly no coincidence that bands like Crytal Castles started to get popular with hipsters (and geeks for that matter) a few years ago.

And even price is dictated by the free market. Remember when CDs were 20 dollars or more? The price has gone down significantly thanks largely to Wal-mart and the internet.