Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
^ I remember Prodigy and some of the others. Most of the 90s music I was listening to was featured in a late night BBC one sketch dark, often grotesque comedy meets music radio show called Blue Jam (a Chris Morris radio program), which lasted for 18 episodes (a TV show came out of it called Jam). I couldn't imagine something like that on CBC radio (the Canadian equivalent). Some here might remember his Brasseye show, which in one special he fooled Phil Collins into joining an anti-paedophilia campaign called NonceSense (it was nonsense).
That show included songs by The Chemical Brothers.
So the music, such as that of Portishead, PJ Harvey, Bjork, Eels, The Cardigans, Broadcast, Pulp, and Morcheeba I might highly associate with the format of he radio show. I discovered Stereolab through it, and well, I knew Air before, as well as Bjork and some The Cardigans. At first I would skip the music mostly, but realised how integral it was to the, sometimes rather nightmarish and otherwordly experience.
The radio show has been something of a guilty fascination, rather like listening to true crime/ cult stuff can be.
Blue Jam is the kind of thing, though I would have been too tame to make it, I wish I had the creativity and audacity to create. It goes farther than I would be comfortable with. https://archive.org/details/chrismorris_bluejam It can be very fu**ed up and is not for the squeamish. I appreciate the dark and cynical, and quite clinical, psychological angle of it.
So, following past discussion, I will attempt to define pop music in various ways (hadn't put enough effort into that before) since I don't hold to any one definition and to me it is a very nebulous thing. It can mean different things. Note: I am no musicologist and am hardly an authority on the matter, but that never stops me from having opinions and trying. I have done research into this, not as deeply as I would have liked, and shared related thoughts and inferences, plus some "unfunny humour" as I am wont to do (now there's an oxmoron, but then I am something of an oxy moron, oxy meaning sharp, and a moron being dull-witted, which presents its own oxymoronic qualities)
First off, I wrote that this is about pop genres and poppy music, so I should define poppy.
Poppy: a flower, that thing worn on Remembrance Day that may poke you with that needle if you're not careful, or having pop-like qualities (GED - Greg's Egregious Dictionary)
Poppy, poppish, popesque, or popsiquescent if one prefers, or even popalicious.
Clearly to understand the notion of poppy, one must understand conceptions of pop music. There is overlap here:
1. Any music that is popular at a given time and has popular appeal (antonym: unpopular music). Mainstream music.*
* Note that some art pop artists, progressive pop artists, experimental pop artists,or avant pop artists (all can be conflated) sought to deconstruct pop music, to marry the popular with the esoteric, to elevate pop from its lowly roots to a serious art-form, or to create a dialectic between the low art and high art, a sort of conversation and synthesis of two worlds. Some of it is a celebration of the low, some of it is a commentary on the low arts and popular culture. Some is very conceptual. Some artists tried to buck the trends, played with genre bending, form and structure, and even set itself up against the mainstream and the industrial nature of pop manufacture, one might say Pop in Oppsition (PIO/ Avant Pop). Some pop music is more complex than others. There is music deemed pop that not only is not commercially successful but has limited commercial appeal. I will discuss some of these pop sub categories after this list, and talk more about that so-called pop music that might be seen as antithetical to pop.
2. Any music that is simple, has a strong beat, is catchy and is easy for the plebs to digest (antonyms: academic music, esoteric music).
3. Music that is designed to be quickly consumed, shallow, the fast food of music, and is ideal for certain radio formats (antonym: radio unfriendly deep gourmet but indigestible music).*
*Note: some pop is much more timeless, I'd say, than others, and can be deeply emotionally resonant and is more likely to be returned to again and again, and has achieved a classic status (others a cult status).
4. All music that has had popular appeal, including rock, punk, folk music, crooner music, jazzy music, New Wave, BootyWave etc. (antonym: non-popular unappealing music such as Hairy Booty Puddle).
5. Music distinct from rock and jazz that has a softer quality, is catchy and usually follows the verse, chorus, bridge structure (antonym: loud 'n heavy duty jazzcore brutal metal).
6. A modern music phenomenon with verse, chorus structure designed for the charts that is simple and included things such as soul and types of R&B (antonym: stone age rock on skull bonking, although that could provide the beat, hmm...).
7. Any music which is easily accessible to the listener (antonym: music that has been safely locked away).
8: To quote from ExittheLemming "short(er) musical forms* accessible by the widest possible audience with verse/chorus and middle eight structures, repeated 'hooks' at climactic points, consistent cyclic rhythms, craftsmanship rather than artistry, simple lyrical themes..." (antonym: EntertheLemming).
9. Justin Bieber's Baby, Baby, Baby Ooh" and that kind of crap. (antonym: Justin Bieber and that kind of good).
10. A diverse set of styles that fall under a pop banner, this includes art pop, sophisto pop, avant pop, chamber pop, baroque pop, lounge pop, jazz pop, pop-rock, pop-punk, bubbblesgum pop, psychedelic pop, pop electronica, experimental pop, sunshine pop, Arabic pop, K-pop, J-pop, Britpop, Raga pop, progressive pop, singer-songwriter and many, many more (antonym: a non-diverse,non-set of non-styles that fall under a non-pop banner).
11. All of the above and more (antonym: none of the above and less).
What these subcategories are thought to have in common is that they all draw on types of popular music and, generally, have accessible qualities . Some will hybridise with other genres, but still have a pop feel or keep popular music components, but the structure may be changed and experimented with.
Take Avant Pop and Experimental Pop for instance:
Avant Pop is considered to be music that is forward-thinking, innovative, and experimental. It is said to balance an avant garde approach or avant garde approaches with stylistic elements from popular music. It may hybridise avant garde and academic music styles with popular music styles. Commonly it can still be catchy while being different. Bands like Kraftwerk, Can, and Tangerine Dream have all been linked to avant pop, as have bands/artists such as Henry Cow, Slapp Happy, After Dinner, Electric Storm, and Laurie Anderson. So have Scott Walker, David Sylvian, Kate Bush, Nico, and Bjork. The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" is considered an example of avant pop for how it incorporated musique concrete techniques, Indian elements, and avant garde techniques into a pop composition.
Art Pop is loosely defined,and can include a huge amount of music deemed artistic. It overlaps with avant pop and various other classifications. It has been defined as any pop style that deliberately aspires to the formal values of classical music and poetry. It is commonly linked to post-modernism and is said to be a breakdown of the boundaries between both high and low culture, and it plays with signs and signifiers, and so do memes (I still like LOL Cats).*
Note: Art is sometimes considered in contrast to industry, so art pop may not be as commercial, but much that is considered art pop was very commercially successful. Like pop itself, art pop has various connotations and parameterisations (those parameters being amorphous). I try not to box myself (that might give me a black eye) into what are essentially fuzzy boxes (boxes with no clear edges or boundaries, some that I might call hyperboxes, like tesseracts, get it?). Sometimes art is just a term used by snobs to elevate music they like,I might say. Wait,I just did say that. Art can be in the eye of the beholder and beheraer, but in some contexts art is held to be in contrast to industry (I wrote a paper called the Art of the Industry for Sociology about film, and spent much time talking about so-called Art House film. Mostly it was about ideology). Art Pop can be subversive, deconstructing pop conventions, and melding with other forms of music (notably that which is considered to be high-brow art music, or esoterica).
Progressive Pop is music that tries to break with the pop genre's standard formula. It can be likened to progressive rock that tried to break free of the constraints of the rock canon. Progressive pop may have extended instrumentation, break from traditional verse/chorus expectations bring in non-pop influences but still have an underlying pop aesthetic,or pop qualities. Unlike much pop, harmony, simple though pop harmonies ten to be, commonly is not its backing structure. It is generally more complex than other forms of pop, long songs are common, and some might call much of it progressive rock lite -- a crossover between the world of progressive rock and certain pop formats.
Experimental Pop can be difficult to categorise within traditional musical boundaries. It commonly pushes elements of existing popular forms into other forms, or new forms, to create something new and different (a hybridisation of forms), It often will utilise experimental music techniques such as those of musique concrete or incorporate unusual sounds into the music such as the sound of a fat man eating pork chops, or a baby sliding around the floor in a bacon diaper. It can experiment with form, sound, and technique.*
* I would place music such as Pink Floyd's "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" under this label.
Some pop can and will play with form a lot and draw on various genre inspirations while still having popular music qualities. Not all pop must be popular, some just draws on popular music styles, and can be musically related to pop genres. It can be sound, a structure, an approach, all three of those,and a measure of popularity. It can incorporate various styles,,and sometimes, I would say, you just have to experience it and related music. It can cover a huge amount of music. It is sometimes defined by what it is not, for instance, "It's not Academic Music", but it can aspire to academic music and draw on academic music. It is what it is, it is what it is not, and some might say that both statements can be true.
It can be a very amorphous label that can mean different things to different people and mean different things at different times. Some might say, it's silly to deal with all these labels, and we should just be talking about "music". Some will not associate some music with pop that others label pop, to which I would then ask, "How then would you classify and describe the music?" "What sorts of music would you relate it to?" "What do you think influenced it?"
With pop music having so many connotations, imagine how much music could be considered poppy/ poppish, popesque, popsiquescent? For the purposes of this topic, I would say if you would describe the music as poppy, or of a pop genre, then it fits. I wanted to focus on certain styles of music that get associated with pop, but defining that is very open to interpretation. This why I put pop in quotes in the title and spoke of the amorphous qualities of both pop as genre classifications and in regards to poppy music. Pop is a mainstream music classification, refers to popular music, and has genre implications. There are those that draw on generic pop and play with the conventions and will not have mainstream success, some will. Experimental pop can still be catchy and accessible. Much of my favourite pop is playful.
Of course there are many other possible definitions I didn't add and there's much more to say. That said, I hope that clears things up a bit, or it may muddy things even more. Pop is like a box of chocolates, some is sickly sweet, some is bitter, and a lot might leave a bad taste in the mouth -- rather like soda pop. I would hate liver-flavored carbonated drinks. Pop is commonly catchy, but then so is the Corona Virus. I hear certain poppy music qualities that make me think pop when others might think, "That ain't what I call pop." I hold multiple conceptions of pop music, but pop to me is something of a feeling to the music, often that is associated with the singing, but some music I easily lump in under the pop umbrella that is completely instrumental. There are structural considerations and various associations to be made. I don't deeply intellectualise it (as may be all too apparent with this little essay). I associate it with other music that I think of as pop. It is a very associative process, and that's how I tend to think about music under the Prog Umbrella generally -- ProgUm and PopUm I coined such things as. Those catchy verses for me are often a sign, but there's more than that. It need not be simple, some pop music can be very emotionally resonant, it can be deep, much is hardly disposable and does stand the test of time and receives reputable critical acclaim, both at the time and decades later. Sometimes it's just plain fun for me, but some of it really does move me, and not just move my booty.
Note: I have edited this to add more thoughts. Feel free to critique and add to it. I know it could be much better. I spent hours on it, and I hope it's somewhat worthy of comment and consideration. It would be improved with citations and quotes. I'll add it to the first post, since if those goes on many pages it may be more neglected. Many coming into topics also refer to the opening post to get a clearer picture of what a topic is about and this I would have liked to have prepared for my opening post to set the stage more and open up more conversation.
A very wide ranging and thought provoking post that I've yet to digest in full or am even sure I understand. In fact I am sure (I don't)
I wasn't challenging you to define anything in my previous response as we both know our quarry perishes in the killing jar. My first impression is that what I've highlighted in red strikes me as a specious argument in denial that the source of hierarchical aesthetic values is social mobility, class distinction or plain vanilla narcissism. The corollary being that these same values are somehow manifest in the content itself even if we are not present?!. We cannot separate the knower from the known etc
I agree wholeheartedly with what I've highlighted in green: Is there a middle ground between say, God Only Knows* by the Beach Boys and academic/esoteric music that doesn't involve post modern irony or deconstruction? Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault et al have much to answer for and were fluent only in la langue de bois, (the wooden tongue) where facts are socially constructed and empirical knowledge is outed as an imposter. This just seems like fashionable nihilistic nonsense to me, although why their influence has been cited in a music discussion is obscure.
There's clearly niche (read esoteric) Pop but the whole idea that someone like Yes or Led Zep deliver a deeper and more profound reaction in their listeners than say, Justin Beiber or Nickelback strikes me as unfounded. (I'm not even sure such a conclusion can be inferred from your post so I might be barking up the wrong Bonsai there but David Guldbamsen made a similar point a while back in another thread which I vehemently disagreed with initially but have now come round to the conclusion he was right) As previously stated, and speaking very broadly, I consider at least 90% of the artists on PA to be 'Pop Music' without any pejorative implications that such a term might invoke.
* I too don't intellectualize this as when I hear Penny Lane, Some Might Say, Something in the Air, Whiter Shade of Pale, Waterloo Sunset, SOS, Rise, Marquee Moon, Break On Thru, Brown Sugar, My Generation that normally unimpeachable mistress 'Time' seems to stop dead in her tracks for a few fleeting moments leaving me transfixed and cleansed. The same is true for certain pieces by Bartok, Stravinsky, Ginastera, Arnold, Copland, Liszt, Monk, Ellington, ELP, the Nice, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, VDGG. The experience is every bit as deep and moving with the former as the latter.
Strangely enough, my user name on Jazz Music Archives is.... Enter the Lemming
One piece of tasteless levity deserves another: I could have lived without the Corona Virus gag
A very wide ranging and thought provoking post that I've yet to digest in full or am even sure I understand. In fact I am sure (I don't)
I wasn't challenging you to define anything in my previous response as we both know our quarry perishes in the killing jar. My first impression is that what I've highlighted in red strikes me as a specious argument in denial that the source of hierarchical aesthetic values is social mobility, class distinction or plain vanilla narcissism. The corollary being that these same values are somehow manifest in the content itself even if we are not present?!. We cannot separate the knower from the known etc
I agree wholeheartedly with what I've highlighted in green: Is there a middle ground between say, God Only Knows* by the Beach Boys and academic/esoteric music that doesn't involve post modern irony or deconstruction? Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault et al have much to answer for and were fluent only in la langue de bois, (the wooden tongue) where facts are socially constructed and empirical knowledge is outed as an imposter. This just seems like fashionable nihilistic nonsense to me, although why their influence has been cited in a music discussion is obscure.
There's clearly niche (read esoteric) Pop but the whole idea that someone like Yes or Led Zep deliver a deeper and more profound reaction in their listeners than say, Justin Beiber or Nickelback strikes me as unfounded. (I'm not even sure such a conclusion can be inferred from your post so I might be barking up the wrong Bonsai there but David Guldbamsen made a similar point a while back in another thread which I vehemently disagreed with initially but have now come round to the conclusion he was right) As previously stated, and speaking very broadly, I consider at least 90% of the artists on PA to be 'Pop Music' without any pejorative implications that such a term might invoke.
* I too don't intellectualize this as when I hear Penny Lane, Some Might Say, Something in the Air, Whiter Shade of Pale, Waterloo Sunset, SOS, Rise, Marquee Moon, Break On Thru, Brown Sugar, My Generation that normally unimpeachable mistress 'Time' seems to stop dead in her tracks for a few fleeting moments leaving me transfixed and cleansed. The same is true for certain pieces by Bartok, Stravinsky, Ginastera, Arnold, Copland, Liszt, Monk, Ellington, ELP, the Nice, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, VDGG. The experience is every bit as deep and moving with the former as the latter.
Strangely enough, my user name on Jazz Music Archives is.... Enter the Lemming
One piece of tasteless levity deserves another: I could have lived without the Corona Virus gag
Yup, we ultimately assign whatever value it holds for us based on our personal experience and who's to say what each one's experience is. I MAY laugh at the idea that somebody thinks Bieber is the most precious musical offering one could ever think of, but what if somebody does think that and does that make him wrong? The hard truth is, no, it doesn't.
I don't completely go along with the social hierarchy notion of values and would say it's more about how inquisitive a person is towards music OUTSIDE their roots, their circles, etc.
When was Kula Shaker around ? I didn’t mind their debut I think it was - a psychedelic one....??
I quite like their debut, "K". I also got their follow up, "Peasants, Pigs & Astronauts", but that didn't appeal to me nearly as much.
One thing that seemed to be quite common around that time was the use of a long period of silence after the final track before some brief sound that finally ended the album.
Edited by I prophesy disaster - May 03 2020 at 08:50
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
One of my favourite non-prog albums, also from the 90s, is Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik.
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
So, following past discussion, I will attempt to define pop music in various ways (hadn't put enough effort into that before) since I don't hold to any one definition and to me it is a very nebulous thing. It can mean different things. Note: I am no musicologist and am hardly an authority on the matter, but that never stops me from having opinions and trying. I have done research into this, not as deeply as I would have liked, and shared related thoughts and inferences, plus some "unfunny humour" as I am wont to do (now there's an oxmoron, but then I am something of an oxy moron, oxy meaning sharp, and a moron being dull-witted, which presents its own oxymoronic qualities)
First off, I wrote that this is about pop genres and poppy music, so I should define poppy.
Poppy: a flower, that thing worn on Remembrance Day that may poke you with that needle if you're not careful, or having pop-like qualities (GED - Greg's Egregious Dictionary)
Poppy, poppish, popesque, or popsiquescent if one prefers, or even popalicious.
Clearly to understand the notion of poppy, one must understand conceptions of pop music. There is overlap here:
1. Any music that is popular at a given time and has popular appeal (antonym: unpopular music). Mainstream music.*
* Note that some art pop artists, progressive pop artists, experimental pop artists,or avant pop artists (all can be conflated) sought to deconstruct pop music, to marry the popular with the esoteric, to elevate pop from its lowly roots to a serious art-form, or to create a dialectic between the low art and high art, a sort of conversation and synthesis of two worlds. Some of it is a celebration of the low, some of it is a commentary on the low arts and popular culture. Some is very conceptual. Some artists tried to buck the trends, played with genre bending, form and structure, and even set itself up against the mainstream and the industrial nature of pop manufacture, one might say Pop in Oppsition (PIO/ Avant Pop). Some pop music is more complex than others. There is music deemed pop that not only is not commercially successful but has limited commercial appeal. I will discuss some of these pop sub categories after this list, and talk more about that so-called pop music that might be seen as antithetical to pop.
2. Any music that is simple, has a strong beat, is catchy and is easy for the plebs to digest (antonyms: academic music, esoteric music).
3. Music that is designed to be quickly consumed, shallow, the fast food of music, and is ideal for certain radio formats (antonym: radio unfriendly deep gourmet but indigestible music).*
*Note: some pop is much more timeless, I'd say, than others, and can be deeply emotionally resonant and is more likely to be returned to again and again, and has achieved a classic status (others a cult status).
4. All music that has had popular appeal, including rock, punk, folk music, crooner music, jazzy music, New Wave, BootyWave etc. (antonym: non-popular unappealing music such as Hairy Booty Puddle).
5. Music distinct from rock and jazz that has a softer quality, is catchy and usually follows the verse, chorus, bridge structure (antonym: loud 'n heavy duty jazzcore brutal metal).
6. A modern music phenomenon with verse, chorus structure designed for the charts that is simple and included things such as soul and types of R&B (antonym: stone age rock on skull bonking, although that could provide the beat, hmm...).
7. Any music which is easily accessible to the listener (antonym: music that has been safely locked away).
8: To quote from ExittheLemming "short(er) musical forms* accessible by the widest possible audience with verse/chorus and middle eight structures, repeated 'hooks' at climactic points, consistent cyclic rhythms, craftsmanship rather than artistry, simple lyrical themes..." (antonym: EntertheLemming).
9. Justin Bieber's Baby, Baby, Baby Ooh" and that kind of crap. (antonym: Justin Bieber and that kind of good).
10. A diverse set of styles that fall under a pop banner, this includes art pop, sophisto pop, avant pop, chamber pop, baroque pop, lounge pop, jazz pop, pop-rock, pop-punk, bubbblesgum pop, psychedelic pop, pop electronica, experimental pop, sunshine pop, Arabic pop, K-pop, J-pop, Britpop, Raga pop, progressive pop, singer-songwriter and many, many more (antonym: a non-diverse,non-set of non-styles that fall under a non-pop banner).
11. All of the above and more (antonym: none of the above and less).
What these subcategories are thought to have in common is that they all draw on types of popular music and, generally, have accessible qualities . Some will hybridise with other genres, but still have a pop feel or keep popular music components, but the structure may be changed and experimented with.
Take Avant Pop and Experimental Pop for instance:
Avant Pop is considered to be music that is forward-thinking, innovative, and experimental. It is said to balance an avant garde approach or avant garde approaches with stylistic elements from popular music. It may hybridise avant garde and academic music styles with popular music styles. Commonly it can still be catchy while being different. Bands like Kraftwerk, Can, and Tangerine Dream have all been linked to avant pop, as have bands/artists such as Henry Cow, Slapp Happy, After Dinner, Electric Storm, and Laurie Anderson. So have Scott Walker, David Sylvian, Kate Bush, Nico, and Bjork. The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" is considered an example of avant pop for how it incorporated musique concrete techniques, Indian elements, and avant garde techniques into a pop composition.
Art Pop is loosely defined,and can include a huge amount of music deemed artistic. It overlaps with avant pop and various other classifications. It has been defined as any pop style that deliberately aspires to the formal values of classical music and poetry. It is commonly linked to post-modernism and is said to be a breakdown of the boundaries between both high and low culture, and it plays with signs and signifiers, and so do memes (I still like LOL Cats).*
Note: Art is sometimes considered in contrast to industry, so art pop may not be as commercial, but much that is considered art pop was very commercially successful. Like pop itself, art pop has various connotations and parameterisations (those parameters being amorphous). I try not to box myself (that might give me a black eye) into what are essentially fuzzy boxes (boxes with no clear edges or boundaries, some that I might call hyperboxes, like tesseracts, get it?). Sometimes art is just a term used by snobs to elevate music they like,I might say. Wait,I just did say that. Art can be in the eye of the beholder and beheraer, but in some contexts art is held to be in contrast to industry (I wrote a paper called the Art of the Industry for Sociology about film, and spent much time talking about so-called Art House film. Mostly it was about ideology). Art Pop can be subversive, deconstructing pop conventions, and melding with other forms of music (notably that which is considered to be high-brow art music, or esoterica).
Progressive Pop is music that tries to break with the pop genre's standard formula. It can be likened to progressive rock that tried to break free of the constraints of the rock canon. Progressive pop may have extended instrumentation, break from traditional verse/chorus expectations bring in non-pop influences but still have an underlying pop aesthetic,or pop qualities. Unlike much pop, harmony, simple though pop harmonies ten to be, commonly is not its backing structure. It is generally more complex than other forms of pop, long songs are common, and some might call much of it progressive rock lite -- a crossover between the world of progressive rock and certain pop formats.
Experimental Pop can be difficult to categorise within traditional musical boundaries. It commonly pushes elements of existing popular forms into other forms, or new forms, to create something new and different (a hybridisation of forms), It often will utilise experimental music techniques such as those of musique concrete or incorporate unusual sounds into the music such as the sound of a fat man eating pork chops, or a baby sliding around the floor in a bacon diaper. It can experiment with form, sound, and technique.*
* I would place music such as Pink Floyd's "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" under this label.
Some pop can and will play with form a lot and draw on various genre inspirations while still having popular music qualities. Not all pop must be popular, some just draws on popular music styles, and can be musically related to pop genres. It can be sound, a structure, an approach, all three of those,and a measure of popularity. It can incorporate various styles,,and sometimes, I would say, you just have to experience it and related music. It can cover a huge amount of music. It is sometimes defined by what it is not, for instance, "It's not Academic Music", but it can aspire to academic music and draw on academic music. It is what it is, it is what it is not, and some might say that both statements can be true.
It can be a very amorphous label that can mean different things to different people and mean different things at different times. Some might say, it's silly to deal with all these labels, and we should just be talking about "music". Some will not associate some music with pop that others label pop, to which I would then ask, "How then would you classify and describe the music?" "What sorts of music would you relate it to?" "What do you think influenced it?"
With pop music having so many connotations, imagine how much music could be considered poppy/ poppish, popesque, popsiquescent? For the purposes of this topic, I would say if you would describe the music as poppy, or of a pop genre, then it fits. I wanted to focus on certain styles of music that get associated with pop, but defining that is very open to interpretation. This why I put pop in quotes in the title and spoke of the amorphous qualities of both pop as genre classifications and in regards to poppy music. Pop is a mainstream music classification, refers to popular music, and has genre implications. There are those that draw on generic pop and play with the conventions and will not have mainstream success, some will. Experimental pop can still be catchy and accessible. Much of my favourite pop is playful.
Of course there are many other possible definitions I didn't add and there's much more to say. That said, I hope that clears things up a bit, or it may muddy things even more. Pop is like a box of chocolates, some is sickly sweet, some is bitter, and a lot might leave a bad taste in the mouth -- rather like soda pop. I would hate liver-flavored carbonated drinks. Pop is commonly catchy, but then so is the Corona Virus. I hear certain poppy music qualities that make me think pop when others might think, "That ain't what I call pop." I hold multiple conceptions of pop music, but pop to me is something of a feeling to the music, often that is associated with the singing, but some music I easily lump in under the pop umbrella that is completely instrumental. There are structural considerations and various associations to be made. I don't deeply intellectualise it (as may be all too apparent with this little essay). I associate it with other music that I think of as pop. It is a very associative process, and that's how I tend to think about music under the Prog Umbrella generally -- ProgUm and PopUm I coined such things as. Those catchy verses for me are often a sign, but there's more than that. It need not be simple, some pop music can be very emotionally resonant, it can be deep, much is hardly disposable and does stand the test of time and receives reputable critical acclaim, both at the time and decades later. Sometimes it's just plain fun for me, but some of it really does move me, and not just move my booty.
Note: I have edited this to add more thoughts. Feel free to critique and add to it. I know it could be much better. I spent hours on it, and I hope it's somewhat worthy of comment and consideration. It would be improved with citations and quotes. I'll add it to the first post, since if those goes on many pages it may be more neglected. Many coming into topics also refer to the opening post to get a clearer picture of what a topic is about and this I would have liked to have prepared for my opening post to set the stage more and open up more conversation.
A very wide ranging and thought provoking post that I've yet to digest in full or am even sure I understand. In fact I am sure (I don't)
I wasn't challenging you to define anything in my previous response as we both know our quarry perishes in the killing jar. My first impression is that what I've highlighted in red strikes me as a specious argument in denial that the source of hierarchical aesthetic values is social mobility, class distinction or plain vanilla narcissism. The corollary being that these same values are somehow manifest in the content itself even if we are not present?!. We cannot separate the knower from the known etc
I agree wholeheartedly with what I've highlighted in green: Is there a middle ground between say, God Only Knows* by the Beach Boys and academic/esoteric music that doesn't involve post modern irony or deconstruction? Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault et al have much to answer for and were fluent only in la langue de bois, (the wooden tongue) where facts are socially constructed and empirical knowledge is outed as an imposter. This just seems like fashionable nihilistic nonsense to me, although why their influence has been cited in a music discussion is obscure.
There's clearly niche (read esoteric) Pop but the whole idea that someone like Yes or Led Zep deliver a deeper and more profound reaction in their listeners than say, Justin Beiber or Nickelback strikes me as unfounded. (I'm not even sure such a conclusion can be inferred from your post so I might be barking up the wrong Bonsai there but David Guldbamsen made a similar point a while back in another thread which I vehemently disagreed with initially but have now come round to the conclusion he was right) As previously stated, and speaking very broadly, I consider at least 90% of the artists on PA to be 'Pop Music' without any pejorative implications that such a term might invoke.
* I too don't intellectualize this as when I hear Penny Lane, Some Might Say, Something in the Air, Whiter Shade of Pale, Waterloo Sunset, SOS, Rise, Marquee Moon, Break On Thru, Brown Sugar, My Generation that normally unimpeachable mistress 'Time' seems to stop dead in her tracks for a few fleeting moments leaving me transfixed and cleansed. The same is true for certain pieces by Bartok, Stravinsky, Ginastera, Arnold, Copland, Liszt, Monk, Ellington, ELP, the Nice, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, VDGG. The experience is every bit as deep and moving with the former as the latter.
Strangely enough, my user name on Jazz Music Archives is.... Enter the Lemming
One piece of tasteless levity deserves another: I could have lived without the Corona Virus gag
I'm not judging the value of music for others or the inherent value of types of music. There is a distinction made between high art and low art, and some artists (including musicians) have sought to marry what they perceive as low art and high art, and to aspire to perceived values of high art etc.
I have some background in culture theory. Terms such as the low arts and the high arts, or lowbrow and highbrow culture comes from a place of snobbery – the base masses vs. the refined, "well-bred" and well-educated. The idea that there is that which was manufactured for the unsophisticated, and that which is thought to appeal to the sophisticated, the intellectuals, and is created by erudite individuals. An idea that a Bach or a Fellini or has deeper and longer lasting value than the supposed fast-food ephemeral garbage of mass media such as Justin Bieber or some Hollywood action franchise (Die Even Harder., or whatever).
I would say that there has always been something of a dynamic and synthesis between perceived low arts and the high art -- say with Shakespeare -- it can be a very nebulous distinction, and those distinctions change over time. That which is considered of little aesthetic and cultural value at one time might be considered to be of much greater worth later. The pulp fiction writer of the day might be considered a sort of literary genius/ luminary later on. Individual perceptions vary, and general perceptions change over time.
I'm definitely not saying that Led Zeppelin or Yes has more intrinsic value, is deeper or will lead to a more profound reaction than Bieber or Nickelback, it depends on the listener. Far be it for me to dismiss the value that the hoi polloi find in music. ;) It's all very bourgeois. Yes, for instance, is one that marries what is often considered to be high culture forms (elements of classical music) with low culture. Both Zep and Yes would still be considered low culture/ low art to many a classical music snob and others.
rogerthat wrote:
...we ultimately assign whatever value it holds for us based on our personal experience and who's to say what each one's experience is. I MAY laugh at the idea that somebody thinks Bieber is the most precious musical offering one could ever think of, but what if somebody does think that and does that make him wrong? The hard truth is, no, it doesn't.
I don't completely go along with the social hierarchy notion of values and would say it's more about how inquisitive a person is towards music OUTSIDE their roots, their circles, etc.
Music for the subject is the relationship between organised sound and that individual brain. Each experience is unique; each brain is different. No two listeners "hear" or interpret music in the exact same way. We all listen to music through different filters, and I would not invalidate that experience which I may be able to identify with to whatever extent but can never really know. What is meaningful to the individual depends on many cognitive/psychological/experiential factors. We each bring our own sense of meaning, our own perception, and value to our listening, and this is informed by our life experiences and sometimes the situation where we heard that song and the mood we were in at the time. This is the realm of audience reception aesthetics, hermeneutics (how individuals interpret text, and I extend this to art generally), neuroscience and psychology.
Hierarchical notions of values often are too simplistically expressed when there is a huge range of things to consider. The "this good", "this bad" attitude of some to the arts, and the general black-and-white thinking of some, that all too simple dichotomy, is intellectually lazy, as well as potentially dangerous. Simple-minded moral and aesthetic values are attributed by many to "low culture", but one often find it in those who think they are part of, or aspire to, high culture values. I like open-minded attitudes towards music and in general I value stepping outside of one's circle and comfort zone. Getting out of our bubbles helps to mitigate our cognitive/ emotional biases. Staying in your bubble leads to confirmation bias. A bit of Fox news isn't bad for you, but only Fox news is not healthy.
One of my favourite non-prog albums, also from the 90s, is Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik.
that's not a pop album. I know it was famous, it sold well, but calling it pop trivializes it.
I didn't actually call it "pop". But I did place it in this thread because it does satisfy the first definition given in the OP:
1. Any music that is popular at a given time and has popular appeal (antonym: unpopular music). Mainstream music.
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
From Australia, released in 1998, was the electronic Endorphin - Embrace. My favourite track from the album:
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
One of my favourite non-prog albums, also from the 90s, is Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik.
that's not a pop album. I know it was famous, it sold well, but calling it pop trivializes it.
I didn't actually call it "pop". But I did place it in this thread because it does satisfy the first definition given in the OP:
1. Any music that is popular at a given time and has popular appeal (antonym: unpopular music). Mainstream music.
by that statement, Slayer is pop music. Iron Maiden is pop music.
What about mainstream rock? Does it exist or is it pop music?!
It is in a sense, but pop and "poppy" music has many senses, which is why I wrote that long definitional post (which came about because of our earlier discussion).
EDIT:
I prophesy disaster wrote:
From Australia, released in 1998, was the electronic Endorphin - Embrace. My favourite track from the album:
Good stuff, and that downtempo electro vibe fits in very well with kinds of music I was exploring from the 90s. I came to enjoy House kinds of music much more in recent years than in the 90s.
Away from the kinds of music I was considering for myself for this topic, but I heard this on the radio back in the 90s and liked it. Just re-listened after many years and I still like it.
From Australia, released in 1998, was the electronic Endorphin - Embrace. My favourite track from the album:
Good stuff, and that downtempo electro vibe fits in very well with kinds of music I was exploring from the 90s. I came to enjoy House kinds of music much more in recent years than in the 90s.
While we are on the topic of electronic music, this is a track that I like a lot:
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.
This band started in the eighties with a major hit album in Germany and many European countries, but actually their hardly known 1993 release is their artistic peak, 13 songs, no two are similar, and all clever and original. Lyrics in four languages (German isn't one of them.)
1998: Barbara Morgenstern (who now is among my most listened to and most cherished artists) publishes her first album. By far not her best, but quite cool already - and her only one still in the nineties. Actually, re-listening now, very cool and highly recommended. Kate Bush she is not, vocals-wise, but totally unique and unmistakeable song writing and keyboard playing. And she also does instrumentals, quite regularly.
Off topic and just for information: Barbara Morgenstern 2018 - catch the bug!
Well, I genuinely am sorry about that Cristi. I appreciate hearing all the music here and, while I was getting a bit of a headache from spending too much time typing for this thread (to which I chose to do because I wanted to), I genuinely have appreciated the discussion. I wanted it to be fairly free-wheelin' and fun for people. I try to keep open ears and an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out, as the saying goes. Labels, by the way, commonly become less and less important to me as I get older.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.242 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote 
Posted: May 01 2020 at 11:56
Topic Options
Logan wrote: