Seriously? No pop thread?

What do you listen to?

Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Bye Bye Denver Diva » Mon May 26, 2014 3:43 am

I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed.

Pop music is great. It's legit great. It's music for the heart, and has held on to that title with almost no contradiction for almost 100 years. It's the type of brilliant, unfathomable and magnificent creation that could only come from a capitalist world. A perpetual motion machine of influence and reinvention, born out of fierce competition, that has seen it adapt to every musical trend adjacent to it, often exploring realms its predecessors hadn't even considered. It's distinct from something like jazz or classical, in that the compositions have remained, roughly, the same in all these years. It excels at the art of communication, it evokes through the way it interprets and frames its melodies. Askew priorities to some, but it has made more developments and strides in its short time on this Earth than its predecessors did in hundreds upon hundreds of years. I think it's time we took our hat off to it, and rubbed our hands in giddy delight at the potential it has over the next century.

Some essential pop records, for the sceptic to consider.

In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning by Frank Sinatra (1955)


Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys (1966)


Rumours by Fleetwood Mac (1977)


Substance 1987 by New Order (1987)


Homogenic by Bjork (1997)


Merriweather Post Pavilion by Animal Collective (2009)


Kaputt by Destroyer (2011)
  • 9

Don't upvote any of my comments, please. That shit's not for me.
User avatar
Bye Bye Denver Diva
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:37 pm
Show rep
Title: Propagating Musical Supremacy

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby CleverDick » Mon May 26, 2014 4:16 am

Early Talking Heads:
Take Me to the River, from More Songs About Buildings And Food

Mid Talking Heads (became more weird and experimental here):
Remain in Light (whole album)

Then everything after that was pretty straight-up pop:
And She Was, from Little Creatures


Some may know that I like Sara Bareilles. Have I ever mentioned that? I don't think I have.
Lie to Me, from Once Upon Another Time

Parking Lot, bonus track from The Blessed Unrest

Gonna Get Over You, from Kaleidoscope Heart


I like some Feist, although I've only listened to The Reminder so far.
1234

I Feel It All
  • 7

Last edited by CleverDick on Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ashtherion wrote:We're not worse at drinking, we're just better at being intoxicated, so we don't have to spend so much on beer.
Suck our tiny economical dicks, white people.
User avatar
CleverDick
Dr. Jan Itor
Dr. Jan Itor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm
Location: In a sexy French depression
Show rep
Title: Dozenare

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Jack Road » Mon May 26, 2014 4:23 am

Forgive me for nay-saying, but is not pop music a genre of popular music which originated in its modern form in the 1950s, deriving from rock and roll? Do not musicologists define it as having the aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology, an emphasis on craftsmanship rather than formal "artistic" qualities, an emphasis on recording, production, and technology, over live performance, a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments, and a tendency to encourage dancing, through dance-oriented beats or rhythms? In which case, none of the tracks you present fall into that category. Pop music is garbage. Pure advertisement designed to sell as much as possible. It is catchy in the way heroin addiction is catchy.
  • 0

Jack Road
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:38 pm
Show rep

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Bye Bye Denver Diva » Mon May 26, 2014 4:31 am

JackRoad wrote:Forgive me for nay-saying, but is not pop music a genre of popular music which originated in its modern form in the 1950s, deriving from rock and roll? Do not musicologists define it as having the aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology, an emphasis on craftsmanship rather than formal "artistic" qualities, an emphasis on recording, production, and technology, over live performance, a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments, and a tendency to encourage dancing, through dance-oriented beats or rhythms? In which case, none of the tracks you present fall into that category. Pop music is garbage. Pure advertisement designed to sell as much as possible. It is catchy in the way heroin addiction is catchy.


You described current top 40, and not even very well. I mean, "dance-oriented beats or rhythms"? If that were the case, why would we even need to distinguish the dance oriented kind with terms like "EDM", "electropop" or even "dance-pop"? How does an emphasis on recording, production and technology at all contradict my examples? Heck you might as well be proving my point with "a reflection of existing trends". I did mention that, by the way, perhaps I could have communicated it better. But it progresses by taking influence from its contemporaries, that should go without saying. Is mass appeal an exclusive concept to craftsmanship or artistry, really? Honestly I'm struggling to know how to go about correcting you because it's all so fabulously wrong. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but really...
  • 7

Don't upvote any of my comments, please. That shit's not for me.
User avatar
Bye Bye Denver Diva
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:37 pm
Show rep
Title: Propagating Musical Supremacy

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby CleverDick » Mon May 26, 2014 4:39 am

And just because of your avatar and nickname:
  • 7

Ashtherion wrote:We're not worse at drinking, we're just better at being intoxicated, so we don't have to spend so much on beer.
Suck our tiny economical dicks, white people.
User avatar
CleverDick
Dr. Jan Itor
Dr. Jan Itor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm
Location: In a sexy French depression
Show rep
Title: Dozenare

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Jack Road » Mon May 26, 2014 5:02 am

Everything except the last three sentences are actual quotes from people in the industry defining the industry. The last three sentences are quotes from actual critics critiquing the industry.

Image

Pop music has the same impact on music as tide commercials do on the Super Bowl. It is all advertising. There is no real artistic impact to glean here. As much as I enjoy Ke$ha, and I really do, she is saying nothing about us as a species. She is selling coke. Actual coke, like the soda.
  • 1

Jack Road
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:38 pm
Show rep

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Jack Road » Mon May 26, 2014 5:03 am

Double Post, Sorry. Damn you Max User!
  • 0

Jack Road
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:38 pm
Show rep

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Bye Bye Denver Diva » Mon May 26, 2014 5:19 am

"People in the industry defining the industry" would, by and large, agree with my assessment. Why else would they coin terms like "indie pop" or "hypnagogic pop"?

Look, it doesn't matter anyway. People's definition of any genre is bound to differ. I elect to choose the definition my peers have chosen, the definition that artists like Kate Bush, Animal Collective, Scott Walker and Serge Gainsbourg had in mind when they were creating their records. It feels like a slap in the face of decades of music history and development to confine "pop" to electronic dance music. But that's your prerogative, after all. This thread probably isn't going to be for you, if that's your definition.
  • 7

Don't upvote any of my comments, please. That shit's not for me.
User avatar
Bye Bye Denver Diva
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:37 pm
Show rep
Title: Propagating Musical Supremacy

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Jack Road » Mon May 26, 2014 5:38 am

I define pop as popular music. Is that not what 'pop' means? If so, let us look at the top ten tracks in the United States right now.

1. All Of Me by John Legend
2. Not A Bad Thing by Justin Timberlake
3. Talk Dirty by Jason Derulo Featuring 2 Chainz
4. Ain't It Fun by Paramore
5. Best Day Of My Life by American Authors
6. Fancy by Iggy Azalea Featuring Charli XCX
7. Sing by Ed Sheeran
8. Turn Down For What by DJ Snake & Lil Jon
9. Me And My Broken Heart by Rixton
10. Dark Horse by Katy Perry Featuring Juicy J

Feel free to show me how these songs have a significant artistic impact. They are all songs that are copied off of other successful songs, based on a formula of successful songs. They are designed to do nothing but make money. If you compared them to paintings, they would be Jackson Pollocks. Actually no, they would not even be worth that. They would be the color by number paintings you see in ritzy hotels.
  • 1

Jack Road
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:38 pm
Show rep

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Bye Bye Denver Diva » Mon May 26, 2014 5:52 am

Image

Pop refers to a popular style of composing. And even then, it's just a name. You'd be hard pressed to find commonality between traditional and contemporary jazz, despite them sharing a name. Popular music isn't necessarily pop, by the same token music termed "pop" isn't necessarily popular.

Look, either you're just trying to get a response out of me (well done, I guess) or you came into this thread looking for an axe to grind. Either contribute something other than your misguided and uninformed pedantry or try to find a thread that caters to your tastes. I had hoped for a nice, jovial exchange of ideas. But that's what I get for not making a rock thread, I suppose.
  • 2

Don't upvote any of my comments, please. That shit's not for me.
User avatar
Bye Bye Denver Diva
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:37 pm
Show rep
Title: Propagating Musical Supremacy

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby CleverDick » Mon May 26, 2014 6:04 am

Ignoring what actually constitutes pop music, since I've lost track (Ha! "Track".) (for the record, my music teacher defines it very broadly as anything that appeals to a lot of people, which includes stuff like Bohemian Rhapsody), pop music being simple or formulaic doesn't, in my opinion at least, make it worth any less than 'arty' music. Maybe Katy Perry won't change the backdrop of music for generations to come (we really can't know this until we see the results), but she undeniably resonates on an emotional or physical level with some people, and isn't that the purpose of music?
  • 10

Ashtherion wrote:We're not worse at drinking, we're just better at being intoxicated, so we don't have to spend so much on beer.
Suck our tiny economical dicks, white people.
User avatar
CleverDick
Dr. Jan Itor
Dr. Jan Itor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm
Location: In a sexy French depression
Show rep
Title: Dozenare

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby CleverDick » Mon May 26, 2014 6:12 am

Anyway here's some Tegan and Sara:
Back In Your Head, from The Con

The Con, from The Con

Nineteen, from The Con

Hell, from Sainthood

Alligator, from Sainthood

Goodbye, Goodbye, from Heartthrob

Now I'm All Messed Up, from Heartthrob

This is where they went more dance, when they used to be post-punkish. Predictably, some fans didn't like the new direction, and I prefer The Con myself, but I think it's a great album.
  • 6

Last edited by CleverDick on Mon May 26, 2014 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ashtherion wrote:We're not worse at drinking, we're just better at being intoxicated, so we don't have to spend so much on beer.
Suck our tiny economical dicks, white people.
User avatar
CleverDick
Dr. Jan Itor
Dr. Jan Itor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:06 pm
Location: In a sexy French depression
Show rep
Title: Dozenare

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Matthew Notch » Mon May 26, 2014 7:28 am

Balls, an argument about pop. Well let's do this as not pretentiously as we can.

JackRoad wrote:Forgive me for nay-saying, but is not pop music a genre of popular music which originated in its modern form in the 1950s, deriving from rock and roll?


Yes. To be frank I always just assumed "pop" music was short for "popular" music anyway.

JackRoad wrote:Do not musicologists define it as having the aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology, an emphasis on craftsmanship rather than formal "artistic" qualities, an emphasis on recording, production, and technology, over live performance, a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments, and a tendency to encourage dancing, through dance-oriented beats or rhythms?


To answer that question we have to first address just what a musicologist even is. *clears throat*

Wikipedia, on Musicology wrote:In the broad definition, the parent disciplines of musicology include history; cultural studies and gender studies; philosophy, aesthetics and semiotics; ethnology and cultural anthropology; archeology and prehistory; psychology and sociology; physiology and neuroscience; acoustics and psychoacoustics; and computer/information sciences and mathematics. Musicology also has two central, practically oriented subdisciplines with no parent discipline: performance practice and research, and the theory, analysis and composition of music. The disciplinary neighbors of musicology address other forms of art, performance, ritual and communication, including the history and theory of the visual and plastic arts and of architecture; linguistics, literature and theater; religion and theology; and sport. Musical knowledge and know-how are applied in medicine, education and music therapy, which may be regarded as the parent disciplines of Applied Musicology.


All that up there is saying is that a musicologist is a person who takes something that appeals on a primal level and writes a book on why that is, which does NOT appeal on a primal level. It's like a good painting: a little extra explanation, a little more back story, okay. I can use that to appreciate the painting more. But people who put WAAAAAY too much thought into why this painting does this or that to the human psyche are the kinds of people I laugh and point at when I go to the art museum, which is why I have a lifetime ban from the one here in town. Of great import, though, is the subdiscipline of music theory.

See, by and large music is just arranging certain frequencies together in a way that doesn't sound cacophonous, unless you're making noise music which is actually just noise, so never mind that I even made that exception. It's carefully applying math to pure aesthetics in an effort to make something greater than the sum of its parts. What's the point of it? I mean, really, what's the point of ANY artistic endeavor? The answer is that there are many answers. Surely someone out there sculpted a brilliant piece of art just because he or she happened to really enjoy breasts. I started playing guitar because I wanted to pick up chicks. Some wish to use music as a force for social or political change; its efficacy in those endeavors is questionable. Music, though, has a powerful psychological effect on people. I did my senior project in high school (which was, like, I don't know... last month? Maybe? No? No.) on the social, psychological and physical impact of music.

At any rate, moving on...

JackRoad wrote:In which case, none of the tracks you present fall into that category.


I would argue that Sinatra counts as pop because nobody was bigger than Sinatra for a while. Of course the Talking Heads are still played on various Top 40 throwback stations. The Beach Boys are definitely pop because that's exactly what Brian Wilson wanted to make; "God Only Knows" is quite literally my favorite song of all time. It's also Paul McCartney's favorite song, and it would be very difficult to argue that the Beatles were not a pop band. As I understand it they were bigger than Jesus.

I'll agree, though, that Bjork and Animal Collective are hardly what I'd consider pop. Back in the Sugarcubes days Bjork did pop music, but at some point it became her mission to make the most intentionally weird music she could. Animal Collective is very appealing on a primal level, but I'd characterize what they do as a little avant-garde for such a label, although they definitely use many elements of pop music in their own, not to mention a penchant for Beach Boys styled harmonies.

ANNNNNNNYWAY

JackRoad wrote:Pop music is garbage. Pure advertisement designed to sell as much as possible. It is catchy in the way heroin addiction is catchy.


How about it's like a candy bar, instead? It really doesn't have any sort of lasting benefit, but I'll be darned if it isn't delicious. There are people in this world who pride themselves on their healthy bodies and refuse to eat any sort of candy except for once in a great while, and they tend to look down on and disdain both those products and those who consume them. So yeah, pop music isn't for everybody in the sense that not everybody is willing to admit that candy bars are tasty, or not everyone is willing to eat something that isn't packed with antioxidants, etc. Me? I'm a fatty, so candy is great. And so is pop.

And again, if I had to cite the most influential musicians of our time on ANY sort of genre, from the esoteric to the very well visited, I would probably have the Beatles in there, and Michael Jackson who was, of course, the King of Pop, and pretty much all the rest would be musicians or bands who, if they weren't pop bands, were bands of a different cloth TRYING to play pop. Radiohead comes to mind.

I mean, obviously THIS is a pop song:



But I'd argue this is also, if not a pop song, at least very close to one:



I mean there's even a "woah woah woah" in it. As far as pop's only role being advertising, I can both agree and disagree with that. If you think about the need for immediacy and retention in songcraft, it becomes almost an art form unto itself, right? It's like haiku: it exists and flourishes as a poetic device precisely BECAUSE of the limitations it places on the poet; he or she has to think creatively to say what needs to be said, because there are only so many syllables to say it with. It's much the same with pop. You have only a few subjects that can be safely broached, and the manner in which those topics have been addressed over pop's history narrows the field more and more as time goes by, so the songwriter must be that much more creative. Pop is like any other genre, of course; there will be well-executed pop and horrendous pop. Radiohead is my number one band, but for the most part any band that could be considered "art rock" that isn't them is just pretentious and awful in my opinion. There's actually good country out there, and there's actually bad rock and roll. Actually a lot of rock and roll is pretty crappy anymore. But anyway, I say that because some of those songwriters are going to rise to the challenge and write something that could be considered original, at least in part, whereas other songwriters will fail and write something utterly derivative. It's unfair, though, to say all pop music is such, in the same way it's unfair to say that all Mexicans are lazy and stupid. It's not all of them, just me.

Anyway that's my take on pop. I don't usually say it's one of my favorite genres because I don't consider it a genre anymore, since so much could fall under its umbrella and frankly what's pop to one person is pickle juice to another. But I do listen to the pop station on the radio more than anything else when I'm driving, and if I don't always admire the production values I can appreciate good songcraft, and vice versa when the time is right.

Whoo! So, did we do that unpretentiously?

I JUST wrote:If you think about the need for immediacy and retention in songcraft, it becomes almost an art form unto itself, right?


Damn. Sorry about that.
  • 8

It's Dangerous to Go Alone


"I desperately want Jiggery Pokery now."-- Pikajew

"I do feel that if she happens to favour attractive, successful, intelligent men I will be at a disadvantage."--Anglerphobe

"I have a beautiful sphincter and Mexico is gonna pay for it."--Kate
User avatar
Matthew Notch
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:48 am
Location: The ICT
Show rep
Title: The Last Finisher

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Dr. Ambiguous » Mon May 26, 2014 7:51 am

I'm a bit out of my element here, but I've also been under the impression that the term "pop" or "pop music" evolved from the word "popular" to refer to popular music, it soon grew to being a genre in and of itself (and of course it's myriad of sub-genres) and that for the label "pop" to be accurate the music doesn't require any degree of popularity but rather the requisite musical characteristics, though I concede that I'm not very informed on the genre and I wouldn't be able to define those very well (and I sure as hell couldn't pick apart it's sub-genres).
  • 4

<@Tesseracts> your stalking skills make you the #1 counter-stalker

Not sure how to use the forum? Read the TCS Forum Guide
User avatar
Dr. Ambiguous
TCS Admin
TCS Admin
 
Posts: 2560
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 8:38 pm
Show rep
Title: Random Pointless Rule Nazi

Re: Seriously? No pop thread?

Postby Bye Bye Denver Diva » Mon May 26, 2014 8:38 am

JugularNotch wrote:I'll agree, though, that Bjork and Animal Collective are hardly what I'd consider pop. Back in the Sugarcubes days Bjork did pop music, but at some point it became her mission to make the most intentionally weird music she could. Animal Collective is very appealing on a primal level, but I'd characterize what they do as a little avant-garde for such a label, although they definitely use many elements of pop music in their own, not to mention a penchant for Beach Boys styled harmonies.


I never found Bjork's music weird enough, I suppose. I can't even contemplate how she would be considered anything but pop. So if you're looking for an explanation here I'm afraid I came woefully unprepared. I had hoped it would be understood. A mistake I will try not to make again. I just can't quite understand why James Brown, D'Angelo, Prince and Justin Timberlake's 8 minute funk jams are "pop", but Bjork's much clearer melodic focus is "avant garde". There's just too much of a discrepancy there, you know?

As for Animal Collective, I'll certainly grant you that not all of their albums are pop. "Merriweather Post Pavilion" is, though. It's the poppiest freaking album I ever heard. The song I linked was literally just three pop hooks in a row. Songs on that album like "Summertime Clothes" or "Bluish" don't even have traces of irony or abstraction in them. They're as blatant in their intent as music can get. Not that abstraction and pop music are exclusive concepts, but I digress. MPP has just as much of an emphasis on its hooks and its viscera as any top 40 record, just through different means. The basic philosophies are all there, any avant-garde aspects of that record are superficial, at best.

Other than that, I kinda agree with your writeup. Once again I think there's a bit of a discrepancy between the way some people choose to interpret genres. It'd be difficult to find two definitions of pop music that are perfectly identical, I think people shape their interpretation based on their experiences with the music. To me there's a clear and distinct philosophy running through every pop record. A philosophy I note on "Homogenic" and "Merriweather Post Pavilion" just as much as on "Like a Virgin" or "FutureSex/LoveSounds"
  • 5

Don't upvote any of my comments, please. That shit's not for me.
User avatar
Bye Bye Denver Diva
Commenter
Commenter
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:37 pm
Show rep
Title: Propagating Musical Supremacy

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron