BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Girls Aloud

  
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 9

 
 
suds
13:30 / 09.01.03
look, it's my opinion and i'm entitled to it. i don't mind debating with people on here but i don't want my personality to be attacked for chrissakes!
 
 
suds
13:32 / 09.01.03
& by the way, till you go thru my record collection i'd rather you didn't make wild assumptions about what i listen to!
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:37 / 09.01.03
Runce is right, just because I said that your comments in the thread were shallow, it doesn't mean I think that YOU are, neccessarily. Still, you do have to be careful of the generalizations you make, because some of the things you have written in this thread definitely qualify as being fairly ridiculous when examined, and this frustrates me because I know that you know better than that.
 
 
No star here laces
13:44 / 09.01.03
I think the point about context is that, like it or not, it's here and it won't go away, and it does affect our enjoyment of music.

Context is neither necessary nor sufficient for musical pleasure, but if it provides a frisson all its own, then there is nothing wrong with that.

And evidently when we find an obscure 1940s record that we know nothing about in a charity shop, then that provides contextually as much (if not more) enjoyment than watching Xtina's scrawny ass gyrate in a pair of chaps on MTV. Similarly, the pleasant satisfaction of canonical approval involved in listening to classical music and the quiet sense of "like me these people care not a jot for fashion" experienced as one surveys the auditorium are equally significant contextual adjuncts to the music.

So I'd paraphrase Suds' argument as "given that all music has a context, I prefer music with a context I find exciting as this adds to my pleasure" which surely we can't argue with too much, no?

Less understandable are the feelings (which I'm sure we have all experienced) of "how dare they" when an artist radically changes their contextual trappings from something we do not like to something we do. Recently irking me in this fashion is that abysmal "Danger! High voltage!" record which made my guts twist. How dare that rockist authenticity snob Jack White mock disco! No fair! I don't mind Daft Punk doing it, because they understand.

I think it falls into that phenomenon where if you don't like someone, their arguments never convince you, no matter you rational they are.
 
 
deja_vroom
14:07 / 09.01.03
A frequent criticism of Pop artists is that they "use sex to sell records", and it's commonplace in even the most otherwise right-on and respectable music publications to compare certain female artists to sex workers...

A few months ago, I saw a Mariah Carey video. I don't know which song it was, but it had her on jean shorts and a top with a huge cleavage(sp?). Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, she goes to the balcony, singing, and then they start (I'm not kidding, I wish I had taped it) showing close-ups of nothing but her big giant breasts in slow motion, bobbing up and down and side to side. It was so funny it was morbid. And then it started raining. And they start showing close-ups of nothing but her big giant breasts in slow motion, bobbing up and down and side to side,wet. For seconds that seemed to last forever. I felt like I was in a bad tv-satire show, they weren't even bothering to be a little more low-profile. It was just tits and, sometimes, an annoying hand (you know, she *has* to use her hands) appearing quickly on the screen.

And Britney. Why does her voice sound so much like a 10-year old singing? Actually, *all* of the teenage female Pop stars these days sound like children trying to sound seductive.

The fact that Britney, or Christina Aguillera, or any of these unindistinguishable clones are engineered towards a maximization of their sex-appeal (check their clothes in any of those MTV Weekly Awards, or the choreography they use) is undeniable.

Now, so far we have:

a) Consciously engineered short life-span.
b) Minimization of the musical factor in the equation in favor of image and sex-appeal.
c) Marketing techniques that make the artist similar to any other commodity available in any supermarket. (Pink didn’t change from r&b to hip-hop or rock’n’roll for artistic reasons. They’re milking her - sorry for the expression - while they can, because she’s reaching her life-span limit).

Again, why should I bother? It just feels like it’s somebody else’s business, somebody else’s gigantic ego-trip, somebody else’s obscene short-term profiteering. It’s so detached of my everyday concerns, like if I was listening the distant noise of a gig happening in the peripheral area of my neighborhood...
 
 
No star here laces
14:19 / 09.01.03
Jade, nearly all of these criticisms were levelled at Madonna at one point or other and she is now hailed as showing remarkable longevity and as a positive and empowering role model. So your point (apart from you don't personally happen to lke this music) is...?
 
 
deja_vroom
14:39 / 09.01.03
My point is that Pop music is utterly irrelevant in avery aspect but the commercial one, and the anthropological one. That it fails to communicate any other thing than shallow happinness and a reducionist, chauvinist vision of human interactions. It's a tremendous tool for stupidification (unless you're an intelligent, *outrageous* kid who subverts Pop... by liking it!, but that's another thing that woul ask itself for a new thread).

It's as reducionist factor for usic as well, turning it into nothing more than an accessory that might or not match with the shoes you're sporting, depending on the ocasion.

That exist people that regard Madonna as a positive female role-model (Madonna, who used to sport "Boy Toy" t-shirts when she started?)is just another sign that a solid marketing strategy (which leads to unquestionable remarkable longevity) can disguise itself as solid artistic merit.

If you detach the social values that are usually connected to Madonna and stick to the music... what do you get? Shallow music. Great tunes to dance to, of course (that's why she has all those r&b and dance producers). But other than that...?

Will come back with more later, boss just arrived.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:45 / 09.01.03
I think the thing with Madonna is that people recognize her ability to market herself and transform herself to meet market demands as being her art, and that virtually everyone can agree that her music is rather secondary to Madonna As Mass Media Icon. It's definitely valid to consider that kind of marketing a relevant talent, art, and phenomenon, and to examine it all from a social anthropological perspective; but I think what Jade's problem is is that kind of thing has nothing to do with him, and nothing to do with what he wants from music. Which sort of ties into what I'm trying to counter in this thread - this notion that all music can and should be considered on the same terms as pop.
 
 
deja_vroom
14:56 / 09.01.03
Quickie:

Also, Madonna is an entirely different animal. Not a Pop act like the teen bands/girls, she is targeted to a market that is known for it's adoration of divas, a market not as worried about artistic merits as about the great memories of parties past, that follows her long after she stopped making good tunes, lingering to her image and the associations that this image brings. It's still a marketing strategy, but of a different kind.

And before someone even starts, I know that many of the bands I like have solid, big-money companies working behind them to promote them. Radiohead wouldn't have get this far without a healthy dose of money (all those adverts in the subway, you know how much that costs?). But music has much more weight in their marketing/selling equation than, say, sex-appeal, I think.
 
 
No star here laces
14:58 / 09.01.03
Well, it depends what you mean by "on the same terms" as pop, flux.

Is it any different if Jade dismisses pop music for being "shallow" and "marketed" (subjective and contextual factors respectively) orsomeone else to dismiss Bright Eyes for being tuneless and liked by wusses?

In both cases someone is applying contextual and supposedly objective criteria in an inappropriate fashion, but that isn't to say that contextual factors are never an appropriate tool for analysis...
 
 
deja_vroom
15:07 / 09.01.03
Shallowness is not a subjective notion. But oh how do I wish it were:

That's Where You Take Me
Oh baby Oh baby
Oh baby oh baby
The love and your belief
Never found inside of me
Built these walls up so high
Needed my room to breathe
Oh baby, oh baby
You tear them down
Can't believe you changed my mind.
Oh baby, oh baby
I saw you smile
Stay with me a while
All things fall into place
Me heart it feels so safe
You are my melody
That's where you take me
With you I get so high
Lost in the crystal sky
You are this melody
That's where you take me
I've never fell before
How did you find the door
The key to my soul
To you forever more
Oh baby, oh baby
You make me rise
And never did I once think twice
Oh baby, oh baby
You make me smile
Stay with me a while
All things fall into place
Me heart it feels so safe
You are my melody
That's where you take me
With you I get so high
Lost in the crystal sky
You are this melody
That's where you take me
A phrase will let it all inside
Now I wanna hear you
Stay with me a while
Stay with me a while
La la la la la la
La la la la la la
La la la la la la
La la la la
That's where you take me
All things fall into place
Me heart it feels so safe
You are my melody
That's where you take me
With you I get so high
Lost in the crystal sky
You are this melody
That's where you take me

Britney Spears, That's Where You Take Me

And I never (this is the last time I say it) said marketing per se was a bad thing, to be avoided at all costs(check my comment on Radiohead). But there are types and types of marketing, as we're all well aware...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:17 / 09.01.03
No, of course it's not different. But it still doesn't do anything to defend the "music that doesn't involve gossip and fashion is DULL" position, nor does it do anything to counter my position that the concepts of 'gossip and fashion' have at most a negligable relevance in discussing or analyzing a wide range of music; and that it's just ridiculous for anyone, regardless of their personal tastes, to say that because the factors of 'gossip and fashion' don't play a big role in many things, that it makes them inherantly less interesting. It's always ridiculous to make sweeping generalizations like that.

Yes, yes, YES, of course music exists in social contexts, but it doesn't mean that context really matters most of the time - if you're going to say something like "well, only beardy types like old jazz", that's a) anecdotal and stereotypical, b) irrelevant to the actual music. There are plenty of times when the audience is a major factor in considering music, but not ALWAYS. Can we please just quit it with the universal systems and generalizations? It's just a mess to deal with, and pointlessly reductive.
 
 
that
15:23 / 09.01.03
suds...my main problem with what you've been saying here is that it seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the turn the thread has taken. If you want to gossip about or slag off bands/band members and such, here might not be the best place to do it, especially now that the conversation has turned from 'Me like'/'Me no like' to wider issues... no one is attacking you personally, in fact Flux and Runce have made an obvious effort not to say anything that could be construed as such.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:39 / 09.01.03
Jade, I think you should be careful of falling into the "bad, simplistic lyrics = bad music" trap, because I'm sure that if you think about it for a bit, you'll come up with a lot of examples of very good music with awful, shallow lyrics. Especially if you happen to love psychedelic music...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:41 / 09.01.03
Recently irking me in this fashion is that abysmal "Danger! High voltage!" record which made my guts twist. How dare that rockist authenticity snob Jack White mock disco! No fair!

I think you're way off on this one, Bitchlaces, and here's why: 'Danger! High Voltage!' seems to me to be an utterly fantastic, utterly sincere DISCO tune. There's nothing ironic or mocking about it, is there? Mind you, this presents a whole other take on the context argument - first time I heard that tune, it was on a mix CD sandwiched between Kylie/Fischerspooner and Har Mar Superstar, and I had no idea who it was by. But I like/want to believe that it wouldn't have made any difference if I knew Jack White (who I quite like anyway) sang on that record... I think you (insert borderline insulting "of all people" here) should be applauding that record, Laces, because it's the sound of a supposed rock hero expressing his deep love for the D, the I, the S-C-O!

Jade, I don't really know where to start with yr posts - there's just so much ill-informed subjective generalisation there presented as common sense, no nonsense facts; so many preconceptions that I'd thought people had moved beyond; so many icky personal issues (yeah, that *is my way of saying "you don't like it - there must be something wrong with you", but when Jade has the nerve to suggest I'm only saying I like this stuff to be outrageous, he has it coming).

Mariah Carey really hasn't ever done anything half-decent apart from that one with ODB, but that's hardly a reason to tarr a whole macro-genre with the same brush - and if you're trying to claim that there's never been single rock/indie/alternative/etc music video or other piece of promotional material that fetishized the artists' bodies... well, we'll have some fun with that one.

The lyrics thing is possibly the most laughable, though, as Flux has pointed out in a slightly less hostile manner. You bring this up when punk rock has already been mentioned - how much of The Stooges 'No Fun' before you abandon this nonsensical tack?

Mind you, if you were trying to impress me via the clear implication that you're a close personal friend of Pink's with whom she discusses her motivations for making music honestly, you've succeeded. Because how else would you know that the change in her music was motivated purely by commercial concerns, especially when the available evidence (interviews, prevailing commercial trends) suggest otherwise? Oh, I forgot... here's the equation:

"Pink = pop artist therefore any claims of artistic rather than commercial motivation = inherently invalid because artistic rather than commercial motivation = inherently irreconcilable with being a Pop artist by definition."

There's a word for this kind of logic: circular. We see it again when you admit that there are artists whose music you like who receive funding from huge corporations and enjoy the benefits this brings, artists who are aggressibely marketed... but these artists are not primarily about commerce - why not? Because they say they're not. Why should we believe them? Because they're artists whose music you like. Why is Pink primarily about commerce, even though she says she's not? Because she's not an artist whose music you like. And so on and so forth... Is any of this getting through?

There's loads more to say about this thread, will have a think.
 
 
deja_vroom
17:03 / 09.01.03
Jade, I think you should be careful of falling into the "bad, simplistic lyrics = bad music" trap


Flux and Flyboy: Re:Psychedelia:

Perhaps that would be the case where the sheer ambition and the will to make sonic experiences that are attempts to move music forwards, to make some sort of artistic statement, would compensate the poor lyricism often found in psychedelic bands. Art is not only found in words, but in the sonic experience. Kurt Cobain's lyrics were often a mess disguised as Burroughsnisms, but still there was something there, that's hard to describe, but that anyone can recognize instantly.

For what I've seen in the telly, and heard in the radio, there's nothing good that can compensate the shallowness of the Pop acts discussed in this thread. It's the same insipid, washed out, melodramatic r&b tunes with some dancey drum patterns and filtered childish vocals.

just so much ill-informed subjective generalisation there presented as common sense

Flyboy: Care to be more specific?
 
 
deja_vroom
17:07 / 09.01.03
Also: I have been pointing out aspects which I consider to be negative in the whole Pop-fabrication scene. I would love to see some positive ones (I know they must exist) brought into the discussion, so I could measure and, who knows, change my points of view in this subject.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:09 / 09.01.03
Ah, and Flyboy in some way brings this thread full circle...

Sometimes it is hard to do when you dislike or distrust someone, but I think it is a lot better to give musicians, pop or otherwise, the benefit of the doubt as far the sincerity of their love for music goes. Just because Pink's choice of genre conveniently ties into a shift in how she is marketed, it does not mean that Pink's music is insincere because of that. I'm sure Pink loves her own music, and is glad to be allowed to release a record that suits where she may find herself now, and if she's going to get a hit off of that because of changing market trends, then hey, more power to her. That Mizunderstood album could have flopped horribly, and that's what a lot of people at her label thought would happen. It its own way, her new record is just as bold a gamble artistically and commercially as when Radiohead put out Kid A. Just because Radiohead are arguably have a lot more to do with art and notions of purity in music doesn't change that fact. I don't think it's fair to accuse Radiohead of making artistic decisions based on what the market will bear, and I don't its really fair to accuse Pink of the same, even if maybe there's some chance that she does.

I'd also take issue with the notion that a recording artist who uses sexual imagery of themselves in their visual representation is always indicative of musical flaw or corporate exploitation. Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera are both good examples of pop stars who've lost a major chunk of their audiences because of how they have chosen to visually represent themselves of their own volition - both of them have been urged repeatedly by their labels and publicists to be less overtly sexual, and have chosen not to do so because it was what they wanted. If they wanted to keep setting record sales records for themselves, they would definitely NOT be dressing the way that they do in public, they would tone it down.
 
 
deja_vroom
17:21 / 09.01.03
It just occurred to me that I'm discussing Pink. And Britney Spears.

I will keep following the discussion and will reply with good will and an open mind, but color me... uninterested from now on, OK?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:21 / 09.01.03
I absolutely fail to see why the "sonic experience" of say, a J.K. And Co. song with dodgy lyrics, is inherantly different from a Britney Spears tune besides being in different genres. There are obvious differences in genre, but I don't think that it is very smart to try to position one genre as being inherantly better than another, regardless of personal tastes.

Grand artistic ambition alone does not make music great, and commercial ambition does not make music bad.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:26 / 09.01.03
It's the same insipid, washed out, melodramatic r&b tunes with some dancey drum patterns and filtered childish vocals.

"just so much ill-informed subjective generalisation there presented as common sense"

Flyboy: Care to be more specific?

And they say irony is dead.

Let's compare it with the flipside: when talking about why Kurt Cobain's lyrics are good, you say there was something there, that's hard to describe, but that anyone can recognize instantly. In other words, it's presented as universely self-evident that there was something good about these lyrics and this music, even though you can't say what it is. Nirvana are self-evidently good. Britney is self-evidently bad.

This is called subjectivity: why not just admit it and move on? Why the need to bring in the moral dimension, or the claims of varying artistic "worth"?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:30 / 09.01.03
Incidentally, if this kind of music is so uninteresting and beneath you, Jade, why do you seem to spend at least 50% of your time here telling us what you hate about Pop music? You keep saying you ignore it, that it's off the edge of your cultural radar, but you obviously have a great deal invested in yr opposition to it. So much bile. This is pretty much the definition of being a 'hater' that someone else nailed above...
 
 
deja_vroom
17:32 / 09.01.03
Ok. I will type this real slowly now. Because I'm repeting this for the last 45 posts or so:

I fucking DO KNOW that Pop and pop music are sold based in a wide range of aspects, just re-read my previous posts and you will see that.

Sex, style, politics, music itself(yes, it's hard to believe) etc are some of these aspects. Lots of "pure" rock acts use sex as a commercial booster - The Rolling Stones in the beginning are the first example that come to my mind. The division I use when I think about the pop and Pop scenes is based on THE WEIGHT OF EACH OF THESE ASPECTS INTO THE EQUATION.

What is the priority in each of the pop and Pop acts which we have been discussing? I already conceded that "pure" alternative music is not infallible in its lyricism, and I also conceded that many "pure" rock acts wouldn't work without big marketing schemes supporting them. Because when I conceded those points I also presented arguments which I consider strong, that counter-balance their existence. How narrow-minded and laughable is that?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:39 / 09.01.03
What is the priority in each of the pop and Pop acts which we have been discussing?

What's the priority of all music? To make you smile, to make you cry, to make you want to shake ya butt. To break your heart, to make you want to go out, get wasted, get laid, fall in love. To make you feel as if this piece of music was written with YOU, right HERE, right NOW, in mind, and that no-one else will ever know what this song is about like you do, or will capture the way you feel like this song does. To soundtrack the moment, to soundtrack eternity.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:42 / 09.01.03
(Too many posts; thoughts coming thick and fast.)

The division I use when I think about the pop and Pop scenes is based on THE WEIGHT OF EACH OF THESE ASPECTS INTO THE EQUATION.

So, there's a certain amount of sex one can bring into one's music and/or image, and when that's exceeded music becomes bad? Where do you draw this line? Presumably this means you find Peaches, who is almost exclusively concerned with sex, much more offensive than Pink, who sings about sex comparatively rarely and presents herself in a much less sexual manner?
 
 
deja_vroom
17:42 / 09.01.03
if this kind of music is so uninteresting and beneath you, Jade, why do you seem to spend at least 50% of your time here telling us what you hate about Pop music?

I will tell you. Really slowly.

I'm not interested in telling anyone "how I hate it". I told you how I considered it, and presented one reason for that was contested by Byron (the "shallowness" argument). That led to an interesting reply from Flux about how important is the lyrical aspect in pop and Pop music, a discussion I would be way more interested in pursuing than the current one. I replied to that. This is where we were. And I'm still waiting to hear about positive aspects of the Pop scene. Because I still find it utterly boring and irrelevant.

Out of the office now.
 
 
deja_vroom
17:47 / 09.01.03
Damn. FLyboy, the Nirvana comment. I can tell you what was there to make it good and worth the time and money spent. I can write an essay about it. Time constraints prevent me, though. At work, you know. (Which has always has been the main reason why I avoid getting involved in lenghty discussions in the board. Which is perhapos for the greater good. Alas, see you bunch tomorrow).
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:20 / 09.01.03
Positive aspects of the Pop scene? Don't ask me, ask other Lithers.

I saw Pink at a big pop festival on the weekend, and she was far and away the best performer I've ever seen. She had so much presence even her bad songs... were completely entrancing and amazing. Afterwards I was speechless and could only hyperventilate and point at things, including the Pink T-shirt I had to buy even though it was ugly, the wrong size, and more than I could afford... I was so excited I almost peed my pants! I have been ecstatically happy ever since, just charged up with the energy of it.

"Come Into My World" is like the most happy sex. I am exhilerated by this song. When she sings "I need your love" I want to run down the streets with my head back, my arms out, and I don't care how it makes me look.

Too much stuff to quote in this thread, in which several people had this conversation already - see why I confuse you with june?

You know, this kind of stuff gets discussed all the time - this thread may also be of interest - and I can't believe you've just somehow managed to miss it all. I suspect it's just not ever going to get through. Ah, well - some fell on stony ground.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:57 / 09.01.03
And I'm still waiting to hear about positive aspects of the Pop scene. Because I still find it utterly boring and irrelevant.

...and it's all about YOU, right?

I think one thing you're not understanding is that pop music, even with a corporate stranglehold on the airwaves and most media, is still a democratic thing. Just because a record label puts a lot of money into the promotion of a record, a song, or an act; or puts all the sex they can cram into the videos and adverts, it doesn't mean that it will automatically be a hit. The cut-out bins of the world are full up of pop records which didn't catch on or couldn't find an audience because the public just wasn't interested. In general terms, people like pop music, by definition. You don't have to like it, you don't have to like or approve of anything, but there is nothing wrong with people liking music. If you want to be told one thing positive pop music, that's the best answer. People like it. Some people really love it. That's a great, positive thing, and it's not any different from loving any other kind of music.
 
 
The Falcon
23:09 / 09.01.03
Another pleasing thing about good pop music is the transience of the experience, and how a la mode it has to be. It's locational.

And you don't have to pay to hear it, normally.

I'd rather listen to Justin Timberlake than, say, Feeder. Or Ash.
 
 
deja_vroom
09:34 / 10.01.03
Flux:...and it's all about YOU, right?

In the context of this discussion, yes. In my first post I said that Pop music was irrelevant *to me*. Nobody seemed to have a problem with that at that time. I'm only exposing my arguments on why I feel this way. In no way I'm trying to convince anyone that the Pop experience should be universally (i.e. to every person in the world) irrelevant. This aspect makes Flyboy's contribution on the positive aspects of Pop [I saw Pink at a big pop festival on the weekend, and she was far and away the best performer I've ever seen. She had so much presence even her bad songs... were completely entrancing and amazing. Afterwards I was speechless and could only hyperventilate and point at things, including the Pink T-shirt I had to buy even though it was ugly, the wrong size, and more than I could afford... I was so excited I almost peed my pants! I have been ecstatically happy ever since, just charged up with the energy of it.

"Come Into My World" is like the most happy sex. I am exhilerated by this song. When she sings "I need your love" I want to run down the streets with my head back, my arms out, and I don't care how it makes me look.
] irrelevant. The experiences lived by other Lithers don't interest me, it's a thing of personal taste and values, and is subjective. When I asked about positive things about the Pop scene, I was thinking more along the lines of objective, hard data (just as the negative aspects that I pointed out and that, kick and scream as much as you want, are real). Like this one: Pop music is good for the health of the music industry, and as such, in the long term, is good also for the alternative acts. Big companies with successful teen acts have more money, thus are more willing to take risks.

Flyboy:So, there's a certain amount of sex one can bring into one's music and/or image, and when that's exceeded music becomes bad? Where do you draw this line?

You know, this one is really easy. When the amount of time you spend considering the sex (or the politics, or the style etc) surpasses the amount of time you're spending crafting the songs, working on the arrangements etc, then the thing starts to stink. Because you'll be hearing some bland shit that someone wrapped in shiny paper and that's shallow and, as I said many times, only an *accessory* to the musical experience. DO you feel fulfilled having a musical experience when the music side is left behind in favor of close ups of someone's pelvis?

I asked: What is the priority in each of the pop and Pop acts which we have been discussing?

and Flyboy answered: What's the priority of all music? , which is not the same thing. Music per se doesn't have priorities of political agendas, etc. Music is only sound, and the lyrics - the part of it that may carry the values mentioned above - are crafted by people. People have priorities, music doesn't. So please read more carefully before you start waving your tiny arms and jumping around. And I'm always suspicious of the priorities of the people behind the Pop acts we've been discussing.

Flyboy:Incidentally, if this kind of music is so uninteresting and beneath you, Jade, why do you seem to spend at least 50% of your time here telling us what you hate about Pop music?

That's a cheap shot, Flyboy, and you know better than that. Don't confuse my passion for good discussions with passion for hating (or adoring, for what matter) pop or Pop acts.

Flux:There are obvious differences in genre, but I don't think that it is very smart to try to position one genre as being inherantly better than another, regardless of personal tastes.

So, the genre that exists solely as sonic support to sexual choreographies and that is cynically engineered to exhaust the commercial possibilities of the Pop act dujour (Backstreet Boys, anyone?), that is (pay attention to this word - it's very important) *purposefully* made that way is as relevant as a movement such as, say hip-hop in the 80's, with its origins in the streets, a whole load of social commentary, expertly crafted kilometric lyrics, innovative use of pickups and sound effects etc etc? If you say yes, then... I don't know. Relativism has taken over and nothing has a measureable value in itself anymore - let's just hold our hands and sing "We Are The World". Whatever.
 
 
No star here laces
09:52 / 10.01.03
Jade, if it's only about man-hours put into producing a record then manufactured bands win every time. You have probably weeks spent by a professional song-writer crafting lyrics and melody. Then you have weeks more with the producer taking the basic template from the song-writer and experimenting with different arrangements and then obsessively re-mixing and re-editing until the music has the required degree of polish. Then the band or singer will work with an expert voice coach on laying down the lyrics which will be done in an extraordinary number of takes, before the producer finally takes his chosen recording of the vocal and re-edits it onto the track. Then, of course, it may be sent to several other producers for remixes before a final version is agreed on.

So don't tell us that the music is made simply or easily, because that is patently just not true.

If you're going to argue over the craft of lyricism, most successful commercial songwriters have written literally thousands of songs, only the pick of which are then sold on. Many of these people, such as Cathy Dennis and Andy McClusky, have been musicians and artists in their own right before becoming songwriters.

And finally, down to musicianship, pop records have their pick of the hot producers and session musicians available, individuals who are at the top of the game as far as musical virtuosity is concerned.

So don't claim no talent goes into the production.

Hard evidence as to quality? Erm, okay, how about things like melody, catchiness, relevance to ordinary people, and yes, sex (in the musical sense) and that's not even to get into actual singing, and area in which commercial RnB is literally untouchable by any other genre.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:11 / 10.01.03
I was thinking more along the lines of objective, hard data (just as the negative aspects that I pointed out and that, kick and scream as much as you want, are real).

Give me *one* piece of "objective, hard data" that you've used so far to support your argument and which isn't as applicable to other genres of music as it is to Pop.
 
 
deja_vroom
10:22 / 10.01.03
Byron:Mmm. You raised some fine points.

Yeah, I can see it. I think only a reckless, unprofessional producer would put out an act with badly engineered (engineered, not composed, mind you) songs. You're right on this one.

But for my personal tastes, it's still... strange that an army of experts (on the technical aspects of musicianship, mind you, not necessarily connected to issues like good taste) is employed to create musics for the artist. Which is, I presume, one of the major complaints among the haters: "They don't write their songs!", and so on... My personal opinion is that there's so little to extract from the Pop experience when compared to others, that all this effort to defend it should be employed to more fulfilling ends. Like learn to knit.
 
 
deja_vroom
10:47 / 10.01.03
Flyboy:Give me *one* piece of "objective, hard data" that you've used so far to support your argument and which isn't as applicable to other genres of music as it is to Pop.
And you talk about stony ground? Yeah, "irony is dead" my ass...

I can't do that, Flyboy, because as I said before, what I consider to be bad about Pop music is not those elements I mentioned by themselves, it's the importance they have in the package. That the PR department will prioritize someone's boobs instead of someone's music. To make it easier: With the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger's sex-appeal was an accessory wrapping a primarily musical bluesy act. With Christina Aguillera, the inverse happens. Music becomes an accessory wrapping her butt . How can I make this clearer to you? because this is starting to get ridiculous.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 9

 
  
Add Your Reply