NEW guitar-pop which sells a lot : possible?

On a more constructive note, would you count Wheatus as new? It's sort of new, but it reminds me of 70s pop guitar stuff like Dave Edmonds and Rick Springfield.

A

Good though the bands you mention are, and pop though their records often are despite themselves, I wonder if their records could only have been made in a context where pop had ceased to be the point (either through being refused, or through leaving the bands behind).

I'll be back in a moment to explain what I mean by that.

First: what do we mean by "new?" While I understand what it is that the question asks, the term "new guitar-pop" is almost an oxymoron, in that it asks for something to be different enough to be called "new" but the-same enough to still be called "guitar-pop." So it's my assumption that you're not talking about a radical shift of the sort that, say, guitar-oriented jazz is when compared to guitar- pop -- you're talking about a version of the three-minute verse- chorus Conventional Western Pop Form that is played by guitar bands but still seems like something new. (I have thoughts on the plausibility of a radical-shift "new" as well, but we'll save those for another time.)

So the thing here is that the conventions of rock'n'roll guitar-pop have been pretty much the same since the inception of the form -- the shifts from Buddy Holly to Weezer's "Buddy Holly" have had more to do with the sonic presentation of the song than with the written song itself. And yet throughout that history, despite the absence of any root-level, substantive shifts, we still isolate a lot of things which we call "new": acid rock seemed "new," glam rock seemed "new," punk seemed "new," indie rock seemed "new." This is, in part, a testament to the flexibility of the form -- despite all adhering to most conventions of what guitar-pop is, the Hollies, Pinback, and T Rex are hugely, hugely different bands. I'm reading the topic largely as a question of "can something new happen" in the sense of something as new any of those styles above -- a modern equivalent to the "newness" of punk, or glam, or whatever else.

And my answer is essentially: yes, except it's a bit more difficult now. Weirdly enough, I think it's the presence of independent music production that's responsibile for that difficulty, in that they make it possible for semi-"new" things to be heard -- as opposed to the pre-punk possibility of "new" forms to develop, largely unheard, into vibrant, vital genres that could suddenly explode into the larger attention. (Changes are a lot harder to see if you're watching them the whole time, seeing hundreds of tiny individual advancements and lamenting the lack of any sudden leaps forward.) The other issue is that the presence of so many different guitar-pop threads to follow (supported by an entire architecture of independent production and distribution) lessens (a) the feeling of some pressing need to break through into something different, since there's bound to be some already-established vein that captures one's attention, and (b) our own ability to see advancement as big steps forward as opposed to just one band doing good stuff. I think there are plenty of innovative guitar-pop bands out there who would, if placed in a world consisting solely of one type of guitar-pop, gather movements and genres around themselves -- but peoples' view of music is broad enough now that those bands are just taken as unique and individual. Sonic Youth, as mentioned above, could very well have shaped the entire direction of rock music if it weren't for the fact that any band taking after them was immediately derided as a Sonic Youth knock- off. (If that weren't the case, I firmly believe that by now, a few good bands might have been able to reduce what is uniquely good about Sonic Youth into a flexible pop format, something I'd have loved to hear; the only example of coming anywhere close to this that I can think of is a heard-once, half-remembered record that I completely flipped for but can't mentally locate anymore.)

Regardless -- I think it's possible, and I think it happens, except that whole new "genres" don't accrete around it. As for my earlier comment, well, this is something that I've been thinking about a lot while making music -- how incredibly easy it is to slip into one of those pre-established guitar-pop threads and wind up neutering one's work. So, in OuLiPo fashion, I've been setting up constraints and doing experiments to try and keep myself alert and creative instead of falling into patterns. (Constraints such as "I will not use any chords in this song," or "I will not use my A or G strings during this song" -- experiments such as covering a Mouse on Mars song entirely on acoustic guitar or writing a song in which no chord progressions or melodies are ever repeated.) In doing these things, I think I've convinced myself that there are plenty of things that can be done with song structure and sonic presentation that haven't been done yet. My new challenge is to sort out which ones are most coherent together -- i.e., which ones don't sound like a technical experiment but actually create an overall feel with some vitality and panache -- and once I'm done, I'll let you know what my bid is for a "new" guitar-pop.

It won't sell, obviously.

Also: I'm not completely sure, but a bit of research is leading me to suspect that the half-remembered band mentioned above might have been a Boston group called Turkish Delight, whose singer (Leah Callahan) later got more attention in a group called Betwixt. I'm completely unsure of this, and need to investigate further; anyone here know anything about Turkish Delight? (Beyond the mis-titled, mis-sorted AMG info, which only includes my fairly-positive review of one of their records?)

I didn't NECESSARILY mean that, but that's what MBV did, so why not?

**...would you count Wheatus as new?**

I'd count them as shit, sorry.

Tom said **Good though the bands you mention are, and pop though their records often are despite themselves, I wonder if their records could only have been made in a context where pop had ceased to be the point**

That's almost exactly what I'm getting at (although of course you've expressed this better than me). Could they have ever catalysed an artist to make guitar-pop where pop was 'point'?

Maybe there's a much bigger question here concerning how pop and 'art- rock' (for want of a better term) rub up against each other, if at all. What determines which of myriad of 'experiments' floating about will eventually get into the mainstream and what influences when they will? Maybe one of the things which I was trying to say in The Pinefox's 'bad pop' thread was that some of (IMHO) the 'best' sonic innovations (god, that sounds pompous but you knowworrimean) seem to have fallen by the wayside and never developed any. One way to develop something is to get orders of magnitude more people to see/hear it. In 2001 the LAST thing I want to hear is a band from South London or Chicago who are influenced by The Pixies and Sonic Youth, as great as the source material is/was. Yet there should be a better USE for their old clothes. To get to (some sort of )point I see guitar music, to all intents and purposes to have stopped being of influence or interest. (I'm not at all sad about this by the way, it's just an observation).

Nitsuh - you have too much time on your hands ;) I will read through your lengthy post later on. Should be interesting.

I think there is new sounding guitar pop - I don't think it will sell - not in the next few years.

Its funny that Pinback have been mentioned as I was reading the list of replies wondering whether to bring them up.

They make guitar pop that is new sounding...and though they aren't selling nearly enough to describe them as mass market it doesn't sound like it couldn't be mass market. Distinction between sounding like it can sell and actually selling being a whole load of non musical factors.

I saw the Dudley Corporation at the weekend and have been listening a lot to their album. It's a fantastic album. They describe themselves as Math-Pop and owe a debt to Pinback, though they don't actually sound too much like Pinback they have that same freshness of sound combined with deft guitar pop sensibilites.

I don't know if there are any mechanisms left in the pop industry for bands like that to become popular at the present time. After the show I was chatting to Keith, a DJ at the popular club Optimo, who was also at the gig and was suggesting that the Dudley Corporation should actually play clubs like Optimo as it was where the audience was. It would be interesting to see what happens if it comes off. The 'Dance' audience are receptive to new and exciting music but possibly not receptive to 'not-Dance' guitar pop. The mainstream guitar rock and pop audience seem only interesting in existing or even retro sounding music.

I think it's the digital manipulation of the guitar's "real" sound that potentially gives it a lease on life, because it allows old sounds to be placed in new contexts. Unfortunately "guitar pop" as Dr. C really means it is very much tied up with values of live musicianship, band interaction, spontaneity etc.

I find it interesting that Dr. C mentions MBV and Disco Inferno, as both were strongly influenced by contemporaneous hip hop and dance, although they both managed to individualise that influence to make it more like "inspiration". The two bands I can think of that do the same are Radiohead and The Beta Band, although I think both would a need to do a bit more twisting of their sources in order to make the results as unique as MBV or Disco Inferno.

and,

--------

I've thought that a guitar song which could translate the rushing, euphoric (and I'm not talking about drugs) feel of trance would be well worth listening to.

--------

That's 'Loveless' right there.

Actually this is a good idea for a thread.

I've posed too many half-formed questions on this thread. Maybe someone can help move 'em forward.