Bad

I, pinefox, don't like contemporary Pop music, and harbour a shocking audacity to act like I speak for all humanity when I feel repelled by it.

c) you are into a specific genre: eg classical, although thats obviously not a genre, for whatever reason, and dont really get stuff that isnt in that genre

d) er, a different reason.

Ambrose: I do like pop.

Q: interesting thoughts.

It is not significantly better or worse than it was when I was 10 years old.

This was a big surprise for me, but the more I thought about it . . . well, why would it be any different? It's apparently kept pace to elicit the same reactions from me that it would have 14 years ago -- the same mix of surprise, annoyance, enjoyment, and nausea, all at very low levels. After a few weeks of listening, after I'd sort of re-integrated myself into the playlist so that I could think, "Hey, there's that song again," all it came down to was: pop music is just sort of there. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, but rarely very far in either direction. Occasionally something is fantastic, occasionally something is wretched. Just like any other genre, really, except that with pop you hear a whole lot of it, all around you, and are more likely to be aware of the crap than in some other genre where you don't have to hear what you're not interested in. (Okay, maybe pop's a tad worse, in that it's going to attract a lot more artists who don't really have any musical inclinations. But to that I say: psshaw.)

Summary of Nitsuh's New Opinion on Pop: It's fine. It's pop. There it is, like it's always been.

Having pondered the question for the last day or so, I can't yet escape that maybe somehow I'm too OLD to appreciate pop now. It's possible. Yet Mr. Sinker, of comparable vintage, sez (in the Spice Gurls thread) that the last two or three years have been the best for pop since 81-82. I can't see it myself, but I'd like him to expand on this. I started watching TOTP in 1970, aged 9 and my best periods have been 72-74 (Glam) 76-79 (punk/new wave, disco) 81-84 (let's call it 'new pop'). So I can hardly expect the thrill of hearing T-Rex or The Buzzcocks or Chic or the Human League for the first time, can I? But why the f@ck not? Some pop can still thrill - Daft Punk for example, (although of course it harks back to disco, soft rock, early synth), but nothing made up of NEW ingredients seems any good, somehow.

Ally's description of an osmosis of R+B and Hip-Hop into the whole of the US charts doesn't quite fit the UK charts, but there's still too much. R+B has always struck me as a prissy, airbrushed waste of space on the whole - sure the beats may turn a neat trick or two, but there is no melodic invention at all, ever, and the irritating warbling, quavering style of singing which most of these vocalists (male and female) adopt is tiresome. This style seems to have infected EVERY female 'pop singer' by the way. Hip-Hop, which promised so much, at the commercial end of the scale at least is just bloody dull. There is SO MUCH that you could do with a hip-hop framework - loads of space in the beats to use, lots of room to experiment that the glaring LACK of invention in most hip-hop based chart pop is criminal.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me 5 great pop singles from 2001, and tell me why they're as good as "The Look of Love" or "What Do I Get? or "Golden Years".

I like some of what Dr C has to say, especially about vocals. Vocals in modern chart-pop = major turn-off and abysmal all round.

And you make this sound like a bad thing. But more to the point, you are setting up a ridiculous caricature of what 'r & b' is supposed to be, which makes it easy for you to dismiss it. One might as well ask why the hell anyone listens to any sort of rock, with its rhythmic retardedness, its own unmelodic raspy-voiced singers, and its pathetically self-obsessed pseudo-poetry. "Wait!" you cry, "that's not all of what rock is!" *Precisely.*

As I think Nitsuh put very well above, pop music by its very nature isn't good or bad, and attempts to critically valorize a uniform golden or dark age will never succeed. Here you all are obsessing over a perceived problem when by default there are plenty of musicians whose work you *do* enjoy and appreciate, regardless of what airplay they get. So why are you wasting time setting up straw men to defeat? Are you that ticked off with the minor fact that not everybody's taste is your own, and are you that surprised that radio/TV/media only allows a certain selection of music to slip through at any one time?

"repetitive, dull programming, caterwauling amelodic vox, and exclusively reflexive lyrics"

lucky I try to avoid it most of the time - but it is played in shops, cafes, fast food outlets, booming car stereos and some radio stations such as Kiss and Radio 1. I hate it - the lot - the bleating vocals, inane repeating lyrics, lame smooth production that never changes, the languid programmed beats - horrible. The DJ that I despise most for supporting this rubbish - Trevor Nelson, plays ghastly 100 % inane music.

Room 101 material - RNB/swing/commercial rap/corporate soul/naff chart garage - lock it all in sealed soundproof room. [There is more emotion, creativity, spirit and production ideas in Carl Craig - 'More Songs About Food And Revolutionary Art' - than the entire top 40 chart catalogue of rubbish of above genres for the last 5/10 years on both sides of the atlantic]

I am standing "shoulder to shoulder" with the strong international alliance of free thinkers that is forming - Pinefox, Dave Q, DR C, Alex in NYC.

As Ally pointed out the current process seems to be more one of hip hop AND r&b AND pop all moving towards eachother - actually there's a huge amount of conglomeration within urban and dance scenes generally right now.

I have to disagree with Dr C's findings of zero creativity and wasted potential in commercial hip hop. Listen to a commercial hip hop track from the last couple of years and it's possible to hear influences from dub and dancehall, house and techno, jungle and garage, IDM, booty, Miami bass and rock, as well as the traditional swipes from funk and soul. Musically, commercial hip hop hasn't been more adventurous since the glory days of the Bomb Squad.

The problem with asking for five fantastic pop songs this year is, well, you probably won't like the ones I pick. But here's five anyway:

1) Basement Jaxx - Romeo

2) Philly's Most Wanted - Cross The Border

3) Sugababes - Soul Sound

4) Daniel Beddingford - Gotta Get Thru This (pop hit of da future)

5) Britney Spears - I'm A Slave 4 U

And pray, what is the difference between this complaint and the observation that you're talking about 'r & b' as a monolithic whole?

As for every ingredient -- but surely we've all gargled Drano. ;-)

I'm not obsessing. I don't lose sleep over the state of pop, but since the question was asked I'm attempting to answer it. It's a good question too, and one which FT/ILM should be interested in discussing since Freaky Trigger 'writes about pop'.

"There is SO MUCH that you could do with a hip-hop framework - loads of space in the beats to use, lots of room to experiment that the glaring LACK of invention in most hip-hop based chart pop is criminal.

...and I answered him. But I didn't need to to prove hip hop's brilliance. It wins on the grooves and the rhymes alone :-)

But is it a good question? Nothing against the pinefox, but to state again: the presumption behind it assumes a state of complete and clear opposites a la the Camp Chaos cartoons of James Hetfield ("Contemporary pop BAD! Something else GOOD!") which doesn't work. It draws too wide a focus and attempts to force an answer before the question is even complete.

most of the nay-saying above anyway still has no more actual content (beyond obvious subjective response) than "young black women are involved, therefore it is bland and worthless by definition": for me, it's already the realisation and more of a phase in industry soul-manufacture which never really came off at the time; the technology wasn;t rreally up to what was required of it, and when it plateau'd c.1984-5, it was knocked out of court by the arrival of rap (eg when Kashif producing Evelyn King on songs like "Love Come Down", or Maurice White's for the Emotions).

Basically, I really like the dialectic of power and potential in the vocal-group w.producer, and am currently bored by the mere lumpen collectivity of the rockband per se, which its own creative make-up for granted (who was it on the board said the the Rolling Stones could today only ever revisit their moment of true demonic force by recasting themselves as an Ancient N*Sync?)

Of Tim's list I have heard 1), 3) and 5). I like 1) quite a bit. I can find nothing of merit in 3) and 5). I'm sick of hearing about Spears as if she mattered one little bit. Tim - tell me WHY you think these are great singles.

Now I've seen everything.

thesis of movie ROCK STAR is that the longevity of metal is explained by fact that any given metalband = a tribute band TO ITSELF (but movie then fails to explore throught that this is a GOOD THING!!)

Dave Q - hip hop got dragged in because it's meant to be there - R&B and hip hop and pop all influence eachother hugely, and to some extent are increasingly one genre. See, for example, "I'm A Slave 4 U" - an R&B track done by a pop singer produced by The Neptunes, who generally make hip hop.

Why do I like *R&B* specifically? Since you mention "Caught Out There", I'll start there. I love the way Kelis' vocals move from restrained sass to unbridled harshness so naturally. I love her totally over-the-top lyrics. I love the spoken word interjections, like she's having a conversation with the voices in her head. I love the two-tiered rhythm - cardiac-arrest jitter-beats over a stomping latinate kick drum groove, like robots dancing a salsa. I love the decaying cathode-ray synthesisers - at once suggestive of the failing, decaying relationship, and the hellish rain of fury and revenge Kelis plans to rain down upon her boyfriend like a computer game star-cruiser dropping missiles. Is that enough? I can assure you I could give aesthetically-motivated reasoning for liking every R&B track I like, but I'd be here all night.

ha ha oops steve I read this as "(not least because it was a lot more rockist four years ago)"

Steve it is weird my memories of you as blueski seem like a very different person! I remember complaining that you only got into britney when she collaborated with the neptunes as this was not sufficiently rigorous for my orthodox popism, in retrospect this was unfair of me, you have marvellous taste.

Jeff - yeah that's what I mean.

Which is exactly why there was a market for Oasis in 1995, there is a market for Coldplay today, and there will be a market for similar acts in 2015 and 2025 as well. People don't want the well of songs to sing along to around campfires to dry out.

In the mid 90s, I was happy to see Britpop arrive, reviving the good old song. But then, Britpop ended quickly and I was afraid it was just as short-lasting revival.

However, the trend called "Coldsailor" by some people upthread here has now lasted since "The Man Who", and new bands within that same genre pop up all the time. The trend will change, and sadly it doesn't seem to appeal to the kids the same way "Wonderwall" and "Country House" did. But it is still there, and it is kind of evidence that new song-based music will still appear. So I am less afraid of the future of pop music now than I was in the past, knowing there will always be a market for proper melodic songs anyway. The song in its traditional form will never die.

Interesting thread btw, lots of interesting arguments from both sides. I do of course agree with Phil and Pinefox here, but both sides do make good points from time to time.

It's really weird/embarrassing to read old things where I'd be so tentatively taking the position that "hey, guys, I'm starting to think pop/r&b are kinda good sometimes, maybe?"

ya

Pinefox reject the commercial pop, and drift to the creative margins.

― DJ Martian, Monday, 8 October 2001 01:00 (13 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink