Trivial pop bands: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

As demanded by Christie Malry via Nitsuh. Do trivial pop bands enrich your life or plague it? Is there even such a thing as a "trivial pop band"? Which pop bands are the trivial ones? How does the concept of "disposable music" fit into all of this? Do I get bonus points for boiling the prime conflict of ILM down to a single thread?

― Dan Perry, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Of course it all depends on how you define a "trivial band". Since a good portion of what I love would probably be defined by the average Joe as pretty trivial, then they make life worth living.

― Sean, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I define trivial pop bands as bands whose existence is pretty unconsequential in the long run, but could be more or less enjoyable in the moment. Obviously, it's a highly personnal interpretation of the term, but Classic Trivial Bands for me would include Tindersticks, Lemonheads and Mazzy Star.

― alex in montreal, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Lemonheads-in-retrospect: trivial. Lemonheads-at-the-time: not so much. Difficult as it may be to believe, they seemed somewhat relevant up until It's a Shame About Ray. Even more shocking, from today's perspective, is that the same was true of Buffalo Tom -- and, come to think of it, just about everyone from Boston.

― Nitsuh, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i thought the point of pop was to be trivial which is to be important which is to be trivial?

― Geoff, Thursday, 20 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For an actual answer, I'm going to interpret this question -- the "trivial pop bands" part -- as "trivial pop bands who you clearly know are trivial even at the time." And I'm going to say classic, for two reasons:

(a) Much pop is trivial to begin with, only people don't notice at the time. One might as well add to that stew pop that is obviously trivial, and therefore has a lot more freedom to be actually interesting -- i.e., pop groups whose triviality verges on novelty success.

(b) Trivial pop is, of course, incredible years later, when you've completely forgotten that it even existed in the first place and you can either have a nice laugh at how stupid it was, start loving it as kitsch, or realize that it was actually way more interesting than anything else around at the time.

Negative responses to trivial pop bands seem to come mostly from Serious Music Listeners who mistakenly infer that people's likings of said band represent an opinion that they are not trivial. (And it is sometimes true that run-of-the-mill pop listeners will claim some great importance to something that is clearly and obviously trivial and unimportant and soon-to-disappear -- exhibit A: Hootie and the Blowfish.) But this is just not worth getting excited about.

― Nitsuh, Friday, 21 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

theres also the diff between 'trivial pop bands' and 'trivial pop records'. ie: i might concede strawberry switchblade or the criminal minds or len barry as 'trivial' artists. yet since yesterday, baptized by dub or 1-2-3 are anything but trivial records.

― gareth, Friday, 21 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Trivial bands = CLASSIC. An army of termites levelling the country houses of the Quality. The urine running down a specially-commisioned- by-council Public Art Piece. All that stands between us and RadioSpiritualMassive suffocation-by-Quality future.

― dave q, Friday, 21 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

how does Sugar Ray or matchbox20 fit into all off this?

― Michael Taylor, Saturday, 22 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Trivial bands don't necessarily make trivial music. M20 is too appallingly pernicious and dangerous to be trivial.

― dave q, Saturday, 22 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.