Pop Music in General

Sure, GD, point made. Any "genre" that includes November Rain, Relax, Over The Rainbow, Bohemian Rhapsody, American Pie, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Sex Machine, You Learn and Blister in the Sun (All-Time Top Pop Singles list from GD's link) is too broad to be useful.

But the context of this thread is about commercial bands being crap.

Another thing to consider is that the recording quality was poor. If a band's focus is more on sound than energy/power/groove and songs rely on subtle nuances in the studio for their character, then a bad recording sound will kill it, especially if the vocalist - the main thing in this music - has weak foldback and doesn't have enough stage experience to compensate.

Compare the studio and live of INXS's Burn For You:

Live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzHWcjnDFts

Studio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBsztbSM3U

The studio is a great piece of pop IMO but the live recording isn't too flash.

I hated playing supports for Top 40 bands in the 80s. The crowds would only turn up when the headline act was due to start, and more than once we were sabotaged by their sound crews. The crew for The Venetians left the PA howling with low end feedback for our enitre set. I guess it ensured we wouldn't upstage them - as if that would happen anyway.

There was another gig (forgot the main act) where we were given the most gruesome monitoring and we couldn't get it fixed. My toms were inaudible, my snare was normal volume and my kick sounded like the 1812 Overture!

So good to be out of that scene ...
 
Interesting point about pop, Ken. Still, what label could you apply to songs like Brian Hyland's Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini or The Archies's Sugar Sugar?

How about "commercial" instead of "pop"?

Genre in itself is an interesting topic. I think in the modern world it has more to do with marketing than music, and that is why I tend to be critical of the term. The problem, as you stated, is that any style of music could become pop as long as it sells enough recordings to get on the list. As an example, 'classical music' is a style; but the term is also used as a genre, mostly for marketing purposes. The genre of Beethoven's Fifth, however, is a symphony. That describes how it functions musically. Then you have the Ninth, which was radical because it mixed genres.

I would say that there is something that is pop, and Doggie in the Window, Sugar, Sugar, Diamond Ring, Tea for Two, [ to go back, do exemplify it. I would say there is a quality of the music that is somewhat superficial. The Beatles were 'pop,' and then they changed and took the whole 'pop' music world with them. What about Motown, What's Going On as compared to The Supremes?

Historically it was music that girls (and little kids) liked that was pop, and of course, rock and roll, which guys liked was serious, it was radical, it was revolution. So there is a certain disparagement of the term 'pop' that existed that had a deprecating sense toward young woman. This is still relevant "N' Sync pop, NIrvana 'rock.' Brittany Spears or Celine Dion, pop. Heavy metal not pop.

In the later 70s labels began to realize that if you could get girls to listen to the guys' music, you could double your audience. So Journey got a singer, Genesis became a trio and went light rock, and then your had 'hair metal,' which was about guys getting girls, cars and parties. The was really The Beatles model. They were able to go from being a boy band to a serious band, from 'pop' to 'rock.'

Doggie in the Window is really a waltz, Sugar Sugar is a rock tune and Last Train to Charleston, written by Neil Diamond, is rock and roll. You could say that is its style, and use the more 'culturally' defined term 'pop' as a genre. The way defined through wiki has more to do with these cultural realities than musical realities. What about The Dan, Peg as compared to Deacon Blues. Is Peg, pop? It was written as a single. But is is the same album.

Now the idea has changed because of the rebirth of the single download.
 
Genre in itself is an interesting topic. I think in the modern world it has more to do with marketing than music, and that is why I tend to be critical of the term.

... I would say that there is something that is pop, and Doggie in the Window, Sugar, Sugar, Diamond Ring, Tea for Two, [ to go back, do exemplify it. I would say there is a quality of the music that is somewhat superficial.

... Historically it was music that girls (and little kids) liked that was pop, and of course, rock and roll, which guys liked was serious, it was radical, it was revolution. So there is a certain disparagement of the term 'pop' that existed that had a deprecating sense toward young woman.

... In the later 70s labels began to realize that if you could get girls to listen to the guys' music, you could double your audience. So Journey got a singer, Genesis became a trio and went light rock, and then your had 'hair metal,' which was about guys getting girls, cars and parties. The was really The Beatles model. They were able to go from being a boy band to a serious band, from 'pop' to 'rock.'

... Doggie in the Window is really a waltz, Sugar Sugar is a rock tune and Last Train to Charleston, written by Neil Diamond, is rock and roll.

Ken, love your work :)

The guy/girl nexus is a big one. It happens in terms of instrumentation too. In my experience men tend to be more interested in the scientific aspect of music and women in the expressive aspects, at least expression that's not necessarily intense like blind lustfulness, fury, depressive, spiritual etc. More everyday expressiveness, I guess. Of course it's only a tendency rather than absolute, as with anything. When guys opt for this "half-@ssed" approach by being ultra-accessible and eschewing their own expression, many other guys are not impressed because it's not overtly impressive in terms of skill level Ie. science) and dynamism.

I have trouble seeing Sugar Sugar as rock. At least by today's semantics. To me, labels are about communicating and strict definitions mean less than commonly held views. Agree entirely with your point re: marketing.

If you go to a website looking for Sugar Sugar, you would definitely look under "pop" before looking for "rock". By the same token if you took leave of your senses and decided to buy Doggie In The Window you'd look under "pop"; you'd find Strauss in the "classical" section.

So the genres are really defined by common understanding and "pop" as a label has its place, even if it's as sprawling and as diverse as rock.

Talking of waltzes calls to mind an interesting offtopic aside; my Dad loves old swing music - Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey and ... ugh! ... Kay Kaiser . He thinks all music with an electric guitar in it is just noise. His mother loved waltzes and thought his swing music was primitive noise.
 
Ken, love your work :)

Oh, You're the one. :)

Usually on these sights, I get a lot of criticism for my approach.I guess.

Of course it's only a tendency rather than absolute, as with anything.

This is the whole thing right here, isn't it? There are generalizations, perspectives and insights, not any of which can be taken too seriously.



I have trouble seeing Sugar Sugar as rock. At least by today's semantics. To me, labels are about communicating and strict definitions mean less than commonly held views. Agree entirely with your point re: marketing.So the genres are really defined by common understanding and "pop" as a label has its place, even if it's as sprawling and as diverse as rock.

It may be that you just hear it differently; but I think if I said 'pop-rock' then there would be no problem. Yes, the term 'pop' has it's place, and its place is largely marketing. :)
 
Oh, You're the one. :)

It's a dirty job but ... :)

It may be that you just hear it differently; but I think if I said 'pop-rock' then there would be no problem. Yes, the term 'pop' has it's place, and its place is largely marketing. :)

Here's a coincidence. Just this week a few band members started asking about our direction. We have a fairly eclectic mix of songs in the sets and some members are wondering aloud if we should be filtering more tightly.

Our singer and I had a chat about this (and other things) over dinner last night and he had some interesting thoughts about it. Basically, he felt that we should choose songs whose general mood and feel resonate with us - that represent our personalities - rather than by genre. So, for instance, I wanted to drop You're So Vain because it was less rootsy than our other material (which is mostly blues, RnB, soul).

He was happy to drop it, not because of the genre, but because the sentiment was not "us" - leaning as it does towards bunny-boiler bitter and twistedness about a relationship breakdown. None of us in the band are of that ilk, and are more inclined to quietly go off and lick our wounds than get in people's faces. So our set includes upbeat ditties like Sorrow, Cry Me a River, The Thrill Is Gone, Love Me Or Leave Me which are more "Aw gee whiz" than "YOU LOUSY &*^%$!".
 
Pitch correction and pre-recorded tracks (yes even drum loops) are the modern issues that allow pretty much anyone to be a "success" if the music Gods deem them marketable.

Does anyone in the "pop" arena even attempt to sing live any longer are is it all lip-synching (and not always in "sync")? Anyone who saw the "performance" of Mariah Carey on America's Got Talent a week or so ago or whoever sees Beyonce, etc. "perform" knows that they may as well listen to the CD. No real live singing at all.

Take a pop star like Taylor Swift, cute girl who may be able to write lyrics but cannot hold a pitch longer than 2 seconds...yet tours and plays to 10s of thousands of the traditional pop audience - screaming kids.

In my view, pop music has always been about what is marketable and what will sell. Sometimes other artists "crossover" into the pop area with a song or two and I really don't blame them for taking the money. Bands such as Greenday may occasionally cross over into pop but I don't see the Britney Spears/Taylor Swift/Ashley Simpson/Jonas Brothers crowd snapping up tickets to a Greenday concert. Maybe they will buy one song off Itunes...

As far as the drummers are concerned...some are horrible hacks, but a lot are guys/gals who found a way to make a living doing what they love. Pop music has never featured any instrumental solos (got to keep it in the time limit) and most of the time the drummer is working very hard at keeping the so called artist in time.

A few musicians will make it past the "pop" stage and become true artists (again in my opinion), Take John Mayer for example, comparing his early "pop" stuff to the stuff he does with the John Mayer Trio is a perfect example of growing as a musician.

As far as the Beatles, not sure they ever got past the pop stage...often wonder if people really love the music or is it the aura that surrounds them. Not a popular opinion I'm am sure but hey, I'm entitled to my thoughts.
 
For a lot of people, what is a major passion in our lives - music - is nothing more than "wallpaper" in the "rooms" of their social lives.



You have a real talent for crystalizing things. Another literary gem.
 
I missed that one. Nice :)
 
If you listen to a lot of Bartok, Stravinsky and Elliot Carter, Heavy Metal is pop. What is pop? Is pop a genre? It only leads the way down to unanswerable questions.

Is Green Day really pop? How could Disturbed, Green Day, Brittany Spears and Hannah Montana all be pop? I guess if you listen to a lot of Bartok, they really don't sound that different. :)


Metal is the new jazz, it is in its infancy, but trust me, we're working with odd meters, exploring classical roots, unconventional song structure, playing musically and not egotistically.... metal is not pop, metalcore is, but magerine isn't butter either. Its a fine line between all the little subgenres and there is a mainstream aspect to it, as with any new genre. The underground metal scene is still learning where music came from before it decides where music is going, don't write it off yet, you'll be disappointed.

Green day is pop, that whole band is just a marketed image, there is NOTHING of substance in it, NOTHING creative, NOTHING original, NOTHING inspiring... I am really tired of whiny US kids going out and getting a few tats, and then thinking their punk singing in a fake British accent over a pop troupe. One day mr green day drummer, I will hopefully have the credibility to paste my face over yours on the zildjian poster that says "defining the bay area sound" at guitar center. If all else fails I'll paste another picture of tim alexander on top of it. Any kid with the first funky primer book can define the bay area sound by that logic, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmcommercialized music industry. I'll be here to defend the artistic community from frauds and whores though. I just really hope these guys don't actually call themselves serious musicians, with all the recycling going on you'd think they were with greenpeace or something.

Here's how I define pop: Anything syrupy enough to be "leaked" from speakers rather than played. Anything infuriatingly generic, bland, and of course: unreasonably popular for no musically credible reason. Damn I bet I'd be a better drummer with a D cup. Anything that is an inferior reiteration of someone elses originally good idea. (Disturbed could get a rant of its own, that one interview where the guitarist claimed that all the negative feedback towards his music was because "he wasnt afraid to use "melodies" made me choke.) Anything that makes thoughts like these go through my head:

I whole heartedly hate pop music for everything that it sounds like, and everything it is. Nothing on the top 40 charts EVER requires more than 6 months of drumset experience and familiarity with a metronome. I hate that it all sounds the same, I hate that its all the same tempo, I hate that its all the same feel, that all the lyrics mean the same thing, the fact thats its all in 3 or 4, the fact that they get awards like "Best" album or artist when it should read "most popular"

I hate that most members of the public are too dumb not to get baited by some model run through a million different effects on a soundboard, I hate how condescendingly simple it is to listen to, and how theres nothing else you can do but sit and.....endure it while it plays. I hate that amazing talents are forced into sounding identical just to make ends meet. I hate that it has forced the top quality of musicians who did not have the lifestyles to be famous into mentalities like "Well, it is kinda weird to make music that everyone who hears thinks is revolutionary, but watch the legion of travis barkers get all the recognition from the young un's"

All in all, we need pop. I wouldn't be as inspired to deviate from whats been done before and experiment in styles that are reviewed as "psychedelic-latin-blast-funk" just to see what it sounds like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I hear some 'pop' 'music' i cringe. Like Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga...Songs are very similar, lots of silly lyrics, melodies that can be catchy but usually just annoying. And has anyone heard Lady Gaga in an interview? I know where she got her name, and as much as she says so her lyrics are not intelligent ('I want to take a ride on your disco stick'...gee, that takes a lot of thought!). I also get annoyed when other musicians (like jazz or classical musicians) put in loads and loads of time practising and not getting paid a whole lot while these pop starts playing their teenybopper music get to live the expensive life.

Also, Australian Idol (and probably the variations in other countries)...it's annoying how the judges always comment about the energy of the performer, the feeling they put in, or their passion for music, but hardly ever comment on anything musical such as timbre, pitch, rhythmic tightness etc...

rant over.


edit...the post sounds pretty negative :p there is some pop music i like, usually the earlier it is the more i like it.
 
I don't have a problem with pop/commercial music/whatever. When I was young I had an almost identical attitude to Gusty and Ferret. It all seemed so unfair.

I spent most of the the 90s working in a scientific institution. There were senior scientists with doctorates, professorships and whatever - world authorites in their field. What they were paid was a pittance compared with many run-of-the-mill chartered accountants and lawyers.

They could complain about it but it was their choice to be scientists and not accountants or lawyers. They chose to follow their passion in a area that a lot of people were interested in.
Basically, if you do something as a job that people will do for free as a passionate interest like the arts or science, the competition for jobs is fierce; there's more people wanting to do the work than there are openings. It's supply and demand, so the best jobs give you the worst "bang for the buck" as compared with skills required.

Musos who move into the pop field may or may not gain the same pleasure in creation that uncommercial musos do, but they have different aims. They want to a Number One more than they want to make strong artistic statements. The only thing stopping brilliant musos from moving into commercial music is their own sense of priorities. If they wanted to play the game (and risk being called a sellout by peers) they could waltz into a commercial band. Many prefer to play music they love.

It sucks that the best things in life don't come easy because there's such a crowd clamouring for a slice, but that's how it is.
 
Wikipedia puts it like this:

Musicologists often identify the following characteristics as typical of the pop music genre:

  • a focus on the individual song or singles, rather than on extended works or albums
  • aimed at 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 acoustic live performance
  • a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments

The same musicologists would never accept wikipedia as a credible source. Sorry, had to do it.
 
Here's where it all started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujcYw2QTPzM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otW2gCM3gms

another good one:

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

Isn't what you are talking about really progressive metal or metal jazz fusion rather than heavy metal? Not that genre labels are really that important. It's either good of it's not; and if it's good, it is probably not that easy to classify.


Essentially, my point with that post is that like jazz, "metal" is an umbrella genre with a million different sects under it, so it shouldn't be written off for it's mainstream facets like numetal and metalcore, which suck.

I call it tech-prog metal, that's what the other bands who are kinda out there call it. That description was what my drum teacher classified us as.

Polly, I will die a fiery death and burn forever in hell before I stop to think that any of the mainstream cardboard cutouts deserve a shred of respect. I dare blink 182, green day, evanessence or any other confused pop band to actually be creative. In the 100% chance case that they won't, I WILL push myself to be creative and move music forward to the next generation, and if it means being poor and largely unrecognized, I'll settle for knowing I actually deserve every penny I get. It doesn't matter to me that there's a ton of competition for this job, I just want to see at least a few more of the right guys get the job, and the guys who aren't up to par at least admit they're lucky to have hordes of 15 year old daddy's girls to fuel their repetition.
 
More than General, actually I'm curious to know how much pop music there really is in The Colonel?
 
When I hear some 'pop' 'music' i cringe. .. edit...the post sounds pretty negative :p there is some pop music i like, usually the earlier it is the more i like it.

Heya Gust, where'vyabin? Playing, I hope.

Its should be no surprise that pop music is intrinsically formula music which is born with a commercial or business objective in mind rather than a interesting musical idea.

To work off a lowest-common-denominator principle works best in these circumstances.
Something that will please everybody/Nobody will hate it. Minimize the chance of failure, eliminate risk, don't take any chances.. in other words do everything diametrically opposite to what 'music creation' itself believes in.

A middle of the road musical statement if you will. ( We all know what happens if walk in the middle of the road...you get run over )

Take someone that has commercial appeal/potential, broad-base it so that you can close as many loopholes as possible, make him/her likable/acceptable to as many people as possible, change their hairstyle and promote the heck out of them.
If you hit gold, you are the man, and if you tank.. dump em and move on to the next best thing.

Funnily enough though, sheer talent, thoughout the history of pop has often broken through these corporate confines of musical expression and shined through despite the 'ball & chains'.

As an aside, I was reading Sting's autobiography the other day and he quite clearly states that for him POLICE was a commercial vehicle that he choose to ride only to get him to a point where he could then play 'his music'.

I think you've got a real grown up head on your shoulders and musical tastes & talent to match so I'm not surprised you're gagging at a lot of whats out there.. ; )

Hang in there, Gust..


....
 
More than General, actually I'm curious to know how much pop music there really is in The Colonel?

I'm sure if you asked nicely The Colonel could come up with something that might be classified as microtonal concrète pop/jazz experimental music ...

Britt said:
The same musicologists would never accept wikipedia as a credible source. Sorry, had to do it.

Britt, apology accepted. Just don't do it again :)

Ferret said:
Polly, I will die a fiery death and burn forever in hell before I stop to think that any of the mainstream cardboard cutouts deserve a shred of respect.

Don't do it, Ferret! It sounds painful! Dying a fiery death and burning forever in the bowels of Hell probably wouldn't tickle either ...

Actually, I like some pop music a lot - or should I say the genre formerly known as pop? :) Now Ferret, before you think "bah humbug!" about me, remember you're talking to someone who owned 14 King Crimson albums in the 70s and now has 150 King Crimson MP3s on her hard drive.

Some commercial music is boring to me, but someone has to make music that speaks to teenyboppers and adrenaline-charged teenage boys. The kids no doubt find a lot of my music boring too. Fair enough, since music is made by people so it attracts and repels us just as we variously attract and repel others.

The main beef about pop seems to be the idea of commercially-minded cynics bastardising music for profit - barstardising that which we consider sacred. I suspect that's where you're coming from. But superficial music wouldn't be created if the demand wasn't there, if the big record companies couldn't find a way of tapping into humaity's lowest common denominator in order to make a buck.

But hey, they're businesses, and businesses are about making bucks - paying for mortgages, early retirements, private school education for the kids, overseas trips etc.

My beef's a bit different to yours - pop production. My irritation isn't aimed at the musos but the record companies. They have conditioned people's ears to expect mega production for music that doesn't warrant it (ie. not Sgt Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon). It puts bands deeply into debt (ie. under the company's control) and they polish up simple pop that should take 2 weeks to record. This, in turn, squeezes out indie bands who can't compete production-wise. Sometimes they still break through, most mostly they have to settle for niche markets to make a living. Or get a day job.

My other beef is how changes to licensing laws in my state have allowed our bars to be infested with lines of poker machines - bars that used to have live music. The poker machines pay better and the bar owners don't have to deal with rock'n'roll crowds, who tend to make a mess. Sydney's live scene is much the poorer for this, as compared with the glory days of live bands in this city during the 70s.

Edit: I posted at the same time as Aydee. It seems we're saying some similar things.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure if you asked nicely The Colonel could come up with something that might be classified as microtonal experimental concrète pop/jazz experimental music ...

Aye Polly, I've been asking him to lay down his brushes ( on a bed of roses ) , and do an mp 3 of Ngudu's Billie Jean groove for me.

...and forever banish the myth and the stuff they say about jazz players in hushed voices,.... at wine tastings ; )
 
Here's where it all started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujcYw2QTPzM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otW2gCM3gms

another good one:

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

Isn't what you are talking about really progressive metal or metal jazz fusion rather than heavy metal? Not that genre labels are really that important. It's either good of it's not; and if it's good, it is probably not that easy to classify.

Ken, I'd say prog metal has at least as much to do with the below songs as those of Jolly John's Frantic Virtuosos or Chick's Hyperactive Speed Kings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkE2r4lJ6Kg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE3yUHbLcwI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZfsyu9-Xsw

I prefer this side of KC and the Sunshine Band (below) 'cos I'm not a metal chick, but I love them in all their bizarro diversity :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWNkOr2ZxzY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxa2X6IdV90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trE5GT3FpTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk9NfhRWNX0 (if you're impatient with this one, just skip to 3:23, settle back, and marvel at their brilliance)

PS. Aydee, maybe if you make playing BJ sound as thought it's something subversive?? Hope he doesn't read this or the cover's blown ...
 
Back
Top