Popular Indie, Popular Pop, sounds like some boredom to me.

Beat me up, Tom!

But speaking for myself, I like lots in between (I don't actually like high culture much, I'm upper-middle-brow, ha!) and I like a lot of people who like Travis. I'm much more likely to sneer at someone who likes what Ronan likes than someone who likes Travis. With Travis, it's sneering at - or hating, rather - the culture that rewards and aggrandizes it.

It's also that the sound of a gently strummed rhythm guitar is more often horrible to me than the sound of a keyboard pre-set. Travis are a useful example here because their cover of "Baby One More Time", even stripping aside all questions of motive etc., just sounds a great deal worse - sluggish, energy-free, tired singing - than Britney's version.

The sneering comes in because if I see a list of bands/acts/groups that somebody likes and I don't see anything on that list that surprises me, given the rest of the list, I assume that I've got a handle on what that person thinks about music and that they're unlikely to surprise me in the future. So it's not quite sneering, more an internal dismissal. I think that this impulse to sneer is a really really bad habit of mine, I should also say, and one the forums have done a lot to break.

Agreed that Travis's version of BOMT was toe-curlingly awful. But I like a good hummable tune every now and then, and that's what Travis and Teenage Fanclub give you. The comfortable blandness at the heart of their work prevents me caring much about them, but it doesn't wind me up in the way it seems to do to people like DJ Martian. It's only when Fran Healey gets all buttock-clenchingly earnest ('Turn', 'Driftwood') or rabble rousing ('Why Does It Always Rain On Me?') or point-missingly awful (BOMT cover) that it does my head in.

It seems like theres a discrepancy is all I'm saying. A critical one. And if its personal dislike of rhythm guitars or whatever then that's ok, but it's not always clear that that is the case since criticism of said bands comes in the form of more direct (and admittedly more humourous at times) mockery.

Yeah, this is what I mean by upper-middle-brow. The 'highest' culture (not that the term is meaningful anyway) that I regularly listen to is probably Miles Davis and music made by minimalist composers - and I totally suspect that if you ask a lot of people into art music they would see Steve Reich and Philip Glass the same way I look at Travis and judge me accordingly.

Another point - the Merritt quote isn't high brow and low brow - it's "experimental music and bubblegum pop, and nothing in between". The "nothing in between" bit is dodgy because a) it's clearly untrue and b) it establishes a continuum which isn't there. But I can still see where he's coming from - both experimental music and bubblegum have a drive to stimulate, it seems to me.

I'm really inarticulately making that point I realise, I blame the building going on in this room at the moment.

And Nick you're right, I am ashamed of listening to old peoples music. I finally bought "Red Dirt Girl" by Emmylou Harris today and I felt like asking my mum to come to the shop and go up and buy it. It's worth it though.

Also Ronan, Kylie and Travis sound nothing like each other. One has an upbeat rhythm which drives the track, the other has an ambling rhythm which doesn't. And of course I didn't like any of the singles from Kylie's last record. You seem to be assuming that my love of some chart pop equates to a love of all chart pop.

What I think it comes down to, actually, is something the Pinefox once tried to address on a long-ago thread - what is it about the melodists you like that makes you like them. Whoever wrote the Kylie song hit upon a hook ("Every night...") that really gets to me, whereas Fran Healy writes songs that are hummable but whose melodies annoy me. Here is where I run into my technical limitations.

>>> With Travis, it's sneering at - or hating, rather - the culture that rewards and aggrandizes it.

But that same culture r's and a's Kylie M and the other rubbish that's in the chart.

Ronan has a point. I suppose Tom E's strongest defence is quite simply that he likes the sound of KM records and doesn't like the sound of Travis records. Which is presumably impossible to 'argue' with.

I'll try hit the nail on the head in one sentence.

What are the common qualities to both?

There must be some is my contention. Since there must be an overlap in sales, I think.

There are another couple of factors. Firstly, many on the pop side consider many indie fans to be hypocritical for decrying "manufactured pop" on one hand, but on the other supporting a genre which can be as almost as contrived and manufactured itself. Also, the feeling of self-conciousness in many indie projects can be quite off-putting for outsiders. Futhermore, being in a guitar band doesn't make the band bad per se, but being a cutting-edge guitar band these days means you have to measure yourself against someone of the biggest bands and finest pop musicians for the last 40+ years!!! So it's not too surprising that many struggling guitar heroes are automatically met with "heard it all before" type criticism. Which is a bit of shame really, as some it means some decent acheivements of mainstream indie have been left partially unrecognised.

Harumph!!! I'm off to listen to my Fear Factory vs So Solid Crew tape now!!! I may be some time!!!!

Old Fart!!!!!!!

Ronan - wasnt trying to say that Kylie or Travis are only good for one thing or another, just that people might like them for different reasons.

(I don't know whether that refutes what was just said... but like Tom E I don't like the analogy. I like cereal and novels, but I don't like every variety of pop music.)

I don't think Travis are at the bottom rung of their genre, I think they're very typical of their type of music, which isn't a type that appeals to me. It's not a matter of "Oh here's a guitar, they should be better than that", it's a matter of just liking a different style of music.

I really don't have a huge problem with Travis other than that they bore me. I actually think they're one of the top ones of their indefinable-to-me genre (post-Britpop, maybe?). It's just not a genre I think is very interesting or nice to listen to or even vaguely plesant 90% of the time.

The debate is a bit like saying "Well, you listen to Pulp who are a type of pop, so why don't you like Cast who were also a type of pop in the year of 'Common People'?" They're just completely assimilar modes of musical expression, regardless of where they chart.

Is that what it's saying? I'm kind of confused by the whole thing, which maybe means it is indeed a rubbish analogy. I wasn't sure whether we are expected to take Ally's reading of it, or alternatively the Melissa view that a good cereal box is better than a crap novel. What was your lecturer's point, Ronan?

Not really. I just hate bands that suck. ;-)

Good definition would be "something should fulfill its purpose". Something should not try to be something its not. Ie, a great pop band is better than an average indie band, obvious enough, but the Q mag reader types dont seem to think so. It's like "at least its rock music". However I think all discussed pop or indie bands are shite.

er doesnt this work the other way round?

er.....'older' people listening to bubblegum pop designed for 11 year olds?

if so then is this phrase absolutely redundant. i hope so......

Actually the reason I'm so sneery is cause I'm a market researcher - if I feel like I can put you in a cluster then I stop thinking of you as a human being ;)

No, because youth is best. No one ever put fake age spots on their face to look more attractive.

One thing's for sure: "Can't Get You Out Of My Head" has the greatest *swing* of any pop song this year - that solitary handclap following the first set of "la la la"s in the chorus is the sound of a thousand hips simultaneously snapping back into line.

"Better The Devil You Know" is the best though. I played it at the last Sussed and nobody danced - I think I'd hit on some generational hole whereby everyone their was either late-20s or late-teens and so they didn't care about it.

Her "bland" single is better than I'm A Slave 4 U.

I like it about as much as I'm A Slave 4 U - maybe a point-out-of-ten moe.

No, because youth is best. No one ever put fake age spots on their face to look more attractive.

Old Fart!!!!!!!!