Posts
“Do I listen to pop music because I'm miserable or am I miserable because listen to pop music?” (John Cusack)
Back in tha day there was a backlash against “that hot new sound”: rap music. A flurry or columnists, journalist, politicians, concerned citizens, and future bloggers (read: puritanical uptight sissies) raised a stink. They complained about obscene lyrics, how you couldn’t understand what was being said or what it meant, and the general offensive tone and beat of the music itself. A similar sort of backlash struck the emerging heavy mental scene as well. Both musical styles, more or less, successfully defended themselves in the court of public opinion, growing in popularity and legitimacy as musical styles with genuine talent.
But there still exists offensive music that shouldn't be allowed. While these songs might sound like rap, metal, or whatever, they are, really, instances of “pop music”. They’re typically boo-hissed by genuine fans of music. Here I wanna explain why, despite how you feel about gangsta rap (or other “offensive” music), the real offensive music is valueless pop music.
First off, I wanna differentiate between “pop music” and “popular music”. The latter is music that becomes popular in virtue of its own goodness; the former is thrust in with popular music despite not gaining notoriety of its quality. Pop music, instead, is designed and promoted as that which is (or, according to some, should be) popular. Here I’m only arguing against “pop music”. (“Popular music” is okay.)
While pop music got started back with, I dunno, the Monkees, it seems that pop music has exploded in the last decade or two: It has been growing in presences and "legitimacy" and there’s now a constant influx of new “artist”; from Brittney Spears, to Lady Gaga. These pop artists are often at the fringes of legitimate musical styles; they aren't really rap, metal, or whatever simpliciter. Instead they're bastardized creations made by hacks that are pushed and promoted by record labels. And there are instances from all kinds of music genres: the Theory of A Deadman types representing Rock’n’Roll; the Chingy types representing Rap; the Aqua types representing Electronica; and the Ashlee Simpson types representing…. I don’t even know what. A lot of these people don’t write their own music, or do any kind of performing other than singing (or, I should say, lip syncing; see Simpson link). Their tunes are manufactured and polished by producers working behind the scenes; working not for the art of it, but to fabricate the next “hit” to sell and make another cool million bucks. These crappy musical products are designed to be (one way or another) attention getting. It’s superficial and “soulless”. This is a case-in-point of where capitalism and Big Business have tainted the arts and our culture.
So why hasn’t “pop music” faced the same persecution as other kinds of contemporary music? Anyone that’s not a 14 year old girl and has an I.Q. over 40 can’t deny that pop music has no redeeming qualities. I mean, come on, it’s obviously inherently crap. Sure, a lot of it might not be offensive in the same say Metal and Rap was accused of being offensive. But pop music is offensive in its shittyness and fakeness (which, perhaps, is such a subversive kind of offensiveness that it gets missed; which would make it a more dangerous kind of offensiveness). It’s overly commercialized nature certainly doesn’t help it. By tolerating pop music we’re allowing the record industry to dictate to us what’s “cool” and what we should listen to; by tolerating it, we’re acting like sheep.
But let’s face it, we like pop music (even though we’d never admit it). It’s catchy. And a lot of it just somehow make you wanna dance. I mean, I can dance like John Travolta, but I hate to do it. Nevertheless, a lot of pop music just makes me wanna get out there and crunk up a storm. Does this redeem it? Not at all. Despite the superficial attractiveness some pop music might be conceded as having, its other detrimental qualities surely trump that and make it frustratingly objectionable. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
3 comments:
But...but...surely if everyone buys/listens to pop music, then it's not the case that we are all being sheep for liking what the big faceless musical conglomerates want us to like. Surely, the music companies are just responding to the demand, by giving us more of what we have shown a willingness to purchase?
You also said pop music was just inherently crap. Considering your normal intense attention to definition, this sorta surprised me. Pop music, I guess, is only crap if you think the most important thing for music to do is challenge our opinions, and make us think. BUT if you think the most important thing for music to do is make hot women bump and grind on a seedy nightclub stage, then I'm guessing this post would have seen you railing against classical music. It all depends on the role you think music should play.
In conclusion, Womanizer was a lyrical triumph and a cultural watershed.
Alex
I disagree with parts of this post and agree with parts of it; which is not hard because it seems bipolar. You say "So why hasn’t “pop music” faced the same persecution as other kinds of contemporary music?" and then answer it a paragraph later with "But let’s face it, we like pop music (even though we’d never admit it). It’s catchy."
That's your answer. It's music because it's a rhythmic progression of sounds that people like. It's arguably good music because it does this well and on a large scale.
This sentence: "By tolerating pop music we’re allowing the record industry to dictate to us what’s “cool” and what we should listen to; by tolerating it, we’re acting like sheep." is the kind of knee-jerk anti-commercialism that doesn't really think of what the actual issue is. Like Alex says, companies produce music that people want to listen to; not the other way around! Companies don't make crappy pop music because it's cheap and easy to make (it's not, they spend millions on new stars and tracks), rather, they make crappy pop music because — and this is important — the "superficial attractiveness" is the desired effect. People honestly like it.
Nah, you're both wrong.
First of all I wanna say that I don't think (and this is in regard to a point Alex raised) "the most important thing for music to do is challenge our opinions, and make us think." Instead I would say that good music, like good art, is intrinsically valuable; it has intrinsic value because of the positive contribution it makes to our culture. Sure, this could be done by challenging our opinions, but it could also be done other ways (e.g. uniquely expressing important emotional content). I'm not convinced that any pop music makes a positive contribution to our culture; without which it's objectionable; pop music cannot be "good" music because it fails in this regard. The standard that music has to meet for it to be good is higher than that suggested by Kyle: "it's a rhythmic progression of sounds that people like. It's arguably good music because it does this well and on a large scale." The fact that it's likable is insufficient for it to count as good.
Now, turning to the business of music, the two of you got it ass backwards. Sure, most businesses cater to pre-existing demands. Others, however, create demand for their product (which otherwise would not exist). Sure, people can be said to demand music, but before Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" came along no one was like: 'Damn, I wish itunes had a song about reading my poker face set to a tencho beat I could buy.' The pop music industry, like some other industries (e.g. fashion), create an artificial demand for their product through marketing a public relations. No one demands the next fashion trend, for instance, because no-one knows what will be trendy before we're told what's trendy. Sure, we demand shoes, but stilettos are only a product in demand because we've been convinced that they're something we should want (not because people inherently want them). The same holds true for pop music.
The confusion here might stem from a failure to grasp the "pop music"/"popular music" distinction I talked about. Popular music becomes popular and mainstream because of it's quality and the demand for it that spreads. Pop music songs are in demand because we're convinced to want them for other, dubious, reasons. This makes pop music objectionable crap.
Post a Comment