Does being pro-pop mean you have more fun?

I think of it this way, via total and utter oversimplification -- you like pop and you hear something not-pop and you like that too. "Hey, neat," you say, and life continues. You profess not to like pop and you hear something top 40. "Oh god, how do I justify this to myself?" and then you spend hours of pointless angst on the subject. So it may not mean you have more fun, but it sure means less time wasted.

I'd imagine it would depend on your definition of "Pop".

And "fun."

And "pro".

And "more".

Josh, too much Wittgenstein rots ya brains. ;-)

What we can not speak of, we must pass over in silence. Such as, for example, your post.

The answer to the question is "yes", for me. Certainly I find that people who like pop music *are* more fun than people who don't. There are of course exceptions.

Do you think you can call yourself "pro-pop" even if you don't have a buttload of quote-unquote pop in your collection?

Yeah, of course - pop is a public genre, you can hear it on the radio, on MTV, in shops and bars, without ever having to buy any of it.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say: anyone calling themselves "anti-pop" is putting on. I'm sure plenty would, but I'm not sure I really buy it. I'm sort of with Ned on this one; I don't see it as a battle between "pro-pop" and "anti-pop" in terms of what I listen to and buy- -I just like what I like. However, there are probably far more politics at work in my own tastes and buying habits than I care to admit, and that's something I need to confront head-on for sure.

I'm such a miserable dry pop hating bastard.

As a general question to the pop fans (nb I don't hate pop or anything, I just don't care about it either way) anyway, do you buy pop albums?

Pinefox on the 'Bad' thread said: "My definition of pop, as stated before = pretty much everything in post-c.1955 tradition(s) (to go no further back)". That's also mine, more or less.

I suspect the question presupposes a narrower definition, so I find it hard to answer. But, if it helps, I will suggest that anyone who excludes some of the music within the aforesaid definition is missing out (and since fun - but not just fun - can be had from all music, it follows they are probably having less fun than me, yes. That sounds very glib, but I mean it seriously.)

Ronan - I do buy LPs by acts that have Top40 singles, if that's what you are asking. I find the hit/miss ratio to be about the same as for every other LP I buy.

Maybe they have more fun, but then theres lots of people having more fun than me out there doing all sorts of stupid shit.

Ronan - yeah I do. This year I bought Five's "Kingsize", have asked for Kylie for Christmas and I'm considering Britney and Steps gold.

I don't buy as much pop as I do other stuff (though I finally did getting around to buying 'Discovery' the other day--bajeezus I like it!). Part of the fun of getting music for me is digging and finding really neat and surprising stuff (though it's usually even more thrilling to be truly and genuinely surprised by a pop record), and I guess I feel more exposed to pop, on a day-to-day basis. There are thrills in pop that you don't find much in non-pop, but the converse of that's true too. But it does seem not being "pro-pop" certainly shuts you off from a lot of fun AND a lot of great music. I almost feel sorry for people who can't find the fun in it.

Another thing to consider: Does calling yourself "pro-pop" imply that you've been exposed to lots of other stuff besides pop? It seems to me it does. Your average high-schooler into Puffy and Staind and whatnot would probably never even think to say "yeah i'm pro-pop."

This question is sooo "pop". I don't like it.

How do you ever tell if pop music (on a general scale) is getting shite? What I mean is, if the standards fell through the fucking basement wouldn't alot of the pro pop people still be buying stuff regardless? I mean isn't there a kind of "we tolerate everything" attitude with the pro pop camp?

I'm not saying pop is getting worse, I couldn't give a shit about it personally, but I am questioning the lenient way in which pop is handled around these parts. of course the harsh way it's handled everywhere else is a pain in the ass too, but we need a happy medium.

did I make any sense?

why am I so drawn to these debates about pop? I don't know. but continue.

I dont think so - I think by the time you get onto liking something like Staind you're aware that what you're listening to is different from Britney, and that highschooler would probably say one is pop and one is not, and that they are on that basis anti-pop. Then two years later they might be disdaining Staind for being pop sell-outs cause they're in the charts.

I think that being anti-pop is a lot of fun. You have an enemy, after all, something to define yourself against. If you're in any kind of medium-large community you'll be able to find other people to bond with over that, and you'll have a stronger bedrock for your musical friendships for hating pop.

A by-product of your disliking pop and commercial sounds - accidental, perhaps - might be that you become exposed to stranger and more interesting music than you would have otherwise, which is fun in itself.

Or you might listen to garage punk all your life, in which case you'll have a lot of fun throwing yourself around at shows, and you'll be more accepted because you haven't sold out and got into that pop crap.

You'll have fun because you'll be able to read most rock criticism and nod approvingly rather than getting annoyed, and so you'll be able to fit into rock discourse in conversations and on bulletin boards without constantly having to question the basic assumptions.

There's a lot to be said for it.

Ronan I see your point but I think this applies to any kind of music - you get dance fans saying, it was a good year or it was a bad year for dance, they do know the difference. Once standards fall below a certain point you do see people deserting genres - drum and bass, for instance - and pop is no different really.

I listen to a lot more pop than I did a few years ago because I think its better. Being "pro-pop" in my sense really only means "having faith that the charts will usually contain some good songs". Sometimes the proportion of good songs is very low, sometimes not - but most of the pro-pop people here have pretty high pop standards (cf Pop-Eye which used to get complaints that we didnt like pop enough!). If all the records in the charts got much worse then I'd say that pop had got worse.

this thing about having an enemy is kind of silly though. ok so maybe cranky limp bizkit fans are like "i hate pop, give me real music, dancing is for faggots" but personally speaking I just find pop completely fucking dull. I don't find it annoying, I don't think it's killing music, I just don't care for it much. There are pop songs which I quite like at times, but they are crap compared to songs I like which come under the er non pop heading. I'm sure some stuff I like is somewhere between both camps.

I suppose I'm saying this to you Tom, I won't make it a general statement on pro pop people. I think there is a sort of preconception that anyone who doesn't "like" pop, automatically fits the "die britney you're killing music" stereotype.

Sorry for the rant.

Yeah Ronan but I said anti-pop. People like you who are pop-neutral can also have lots of fun of course - for one thing the energy you're not spending on caring about pop can go into other things.

I'm taking your word that you're pop-neutral of course. I mean as you yourself admit you do end up coming onto these pop threads loads and stressing how very boring you find it all - whereas the actual anti- pop contingent mostly stay away or drop a one-liner in. You seem to be neutral about pop itself but annoyed in a kind of reactionary- contrarian way by the people who like it.

I'm going to the pub now alas, sorry to drop this conversation.

As a further point, I often feel reviewing stuff that I'm scared to like something, obviously this lessens a little bit every time, but I get the feeling people are scared to not like stuff aswell, and that's potentially more damaging. I'm probably telling you you're pretending to like stuff now or something so I'm sorry if I seem arrogant like that.

I just think whatever way pop went people would follow. you know?

Possible point, if pop music is not getting worse (and I'm too young to know either way but bear with me) then how is it that commercial rock and dance is going completely down the toilet and the better artists are becoming more and more underground than they might have been ten years ago. Why have the markers changed? Or have they?

"annoyed in a reactionary-contrarian way"

Am I ever annoyed any other way?

I dont think so - I think by the time you get onto liking something like Staind you're aware that what you're listening to is different from Britney, and that highschooler would probably say one is pop and one is not, and that they are on that basis anti-pop.

That's a good point, Tom. It seems that there are always polarities you stipulate within your own personal tastes, no matter how narrow they might seem to outsiders.

Being 'pro-pop' is like supporting a political party even though they make U-turns every week, or "my country right or wrong", etc. Actually it's even worse, as such a small number of people decide what IS pop. It's like saying "Channel 4 was really good last year, not so good this year but I'm sticking with it!" I mean, WHY?

Also, at the risk of sounding anti pop, it's hardly a coincidence is it that 90 percent of people who listen to pop music have no interest in "music" in general. The concept of selling an art form to people who have no interest in that art form is surely dumbing down at its worst.

Example from yesterday. I was in the bar and some guy goes to the jukebox and puts on all the Coldplay singles. Now we all know how utterly over-played they have been and I bet he has the album, so how the hell can he still want to hear them? Do people actually bother their arse listening to music? It's a subject that's pretty unexplored, for how long on average does the person who buys kylies cd listen to it?

or the average mogwai fan or whatever other band.

Being 'pro-pop' is like supporting a political party even though they make U-turns every week, or "my country right or wrong", etc.

I disagree, Dave. Being "pro-pop" still means you can be ultra- selective with the pop you do like, at least the way I take it. I have a fairly weak definition of "pro-pop" perhaps; I'm certainly not a Pop Patriot, and I think the quality of the Top 40 can easily vary from year to year.

His point is, I think and correct me I'm wrong dave, that it doesn't matter what you're "selecting" cos it's already been selected for you. This could be argued about other genres but not quite as convincingly.

If I'm wrong*

"pop neutral" is such a good phrase. I'd consider myself to be pop neutral: I don't care for or pay attention to the charts, but there's some stuff there I like. kylie, say. or daft punk.

I reckon being pro-pop = having more fun is an untruth. or even for that matter, being anti-pop = having little fun. surely you're going to have "fun" whatever you're in to? except, perhaps, goth.

I get the feeling people are scared to not like stuff as well
I should really only speak for myself, but FWIW my impression is the v. opposite is true. And that chart-pop audiences = the most fickle of all.

I just think whatever way pop went people would follow. you know?
I can see why you might think that, but I suspect it's mostly not the same 'people' doing the following. For the record, I think that chart-pop in general was doing quite badly in the late 90s - or maybe I just lost interest in it (again) for a while - but in the last two years the quality has picked up again.

I too would love to carry on, but my time is up for 2001. See y'all in 2002 I hope.

Just hopefully to clear up my own posts: I don't consider "pop" to mean exclusively "Top 40." And any music you're into is to some extent "chosen for you"--everything has a target market. Plus, though I'm guilty of invoking it, the picture of the masses as sheep feeding on whatever slop's in front of them is beginning to seem really unsatisfying, if only because it's so simple and reductionist.

Being pro-pop is more fun because you can make ridiculous assertions and at least try to get away with them.

Kylie is pop for people who hate pop but don't want to admit it. (cf Spiller). I'm not sure I'd count Daft Punk as pop either, even though they make the charts. However, I consider Radiohead to be entirely a pop band. Go figure...

Ronan - you are correct. It's like 'trends in prison food'

I often feel reviewing stuff that I'm scared to like something

The same, I think, applies to me, except, I'm, er, not reviewing, just listening. I used to think about a group like Steps, 'that's a really great song, but there is no way in hell I could possibly buy it', but now I'd think, 'oh sod it, I could buy it if I wanted to' (which of course I won't because if I really did buy that many cd's I'd be very stupid). I think being anti-pop gives you something to rail against through those lovely angst-filled teenage years that is an easy and seemingly even commendable target - fake, plastic pap in a world full of fakes and sell-outs - but then you realise that some of that stuff is good, damn it, as has always been the way with popular music. That's the problem with 'pop' as a genre, it is far too wide especially if used in its original sense as, to put it basically, anything that is folk music. (i.e. not classical, baroque...)

Kylie is pop for people who hate pop but don't want to admit it.

Fair point. Especially since this year, love 'em or hate 'em, the NME has come out in support of a lot pop - makes it so much more credible to go and buy the records. (Although I doubt some people will accept the words 'NME' and 'credibility' in one sentence, let alone one world.) Once a few people with fairly eclectic tastes say they love that Kylie record, so a lot more people will as their nerves about it relax.

Bill's right on the age factor -- the older you get, the more opportunities you have to define your "self" outside of cultural and stylistic preferences. Losing that self-identification with and personal investment in a particular genre makes it a lot easier to just run with what's entertaining: it ceases to seem as political.

People who don't intellectualize have way more fun. The more you define yourself, the more you realize your taste is a combination of cliches and is actually defined by what the media serves you on a goldplated platter. Or maybe it is the other way around? I am joking. Or maybe not? *switch off brain* Why do we need to know? Confrontation creates internal/external friction. Urgh...

As I said before, lots of people out there doing completely fucking stupid shit are having more fun.

plenty lunatics killing people are having more fun, and also i think it's "fun" we're talking about here with big fucking inverted commas.

Some of us have fun "intellectualizing". Lots of it. Really.

Since when did not liking certain bands become intellectualising?

Basically if you're accusing (and it shouldnt even really be an accusation but it seems to be in the context of this thread)anyone who doesn't like pop of intellectualising then thats complete bullshit.

Remember the thread where we discussed the stupidity of "you're no fun" as a phrase used in general conversation or argument? Anyone?

"Intellectualizing" is what you do when you a.) really care about something, b.) have an intellect. Everyone does it about something; people here intellectualize music. Doesn't mean you're having less fun, it means you want to learn and know as much as possible about something you deeply care about.

Being "pro-pop" and "pop neutral" are pretty much the same thing - neither group loves *all* pop. If there's a line that splits the two its simply a difference between being active and passive, pro-poppers passionately defending the music and sometimes venturing into reverse elitism, pop-neutrallers asking what pop can do for them, rather than the other way round.

So both of those are all right. "Anti-pop", however, is lame: the land of "guilty pleasures" where actual guilt is involved, and griping about "selling out" and "integrity". It's not a very sincere place. It should also be noted that "anti-pop" is not a polar opposite of "pro-pop", or "pop-neutral" - where those last two terms are moderate and selective in their appreciation of pop, "anti-pop" reactionarily defines itself *all* pop. The opposite to that would have to be an irrational love of every record on the Billboard chart.

I didn't accuse anyone. It is not a crime to intellectualize. I merely stated that it can cause friction (if I confront others with my thoughts) which for me is less fun than purely listening to music.

"Intellectualizing" is what you do when you a.) really care about something, b.) have an intellect.
Not necessarily. You can be (or rather I am) stupid and intellectualize. I am merely looking for a reason why I love music.
Isn't intellectualizing =avoiding the emotion (fun).

Does liking King Crimson count?

Does liking Boston count?

"Isn't intellectualizing =avoiding the emotion (fun)"

This is presuming a radical split between intellect and emotion that I, for one, wouldn't be comfortable with. Often intellectualising involves articulating the emotion, which seems to me to involve dwelling on it rather than avoiding it.

Okay looked it up and it says:
in·tel·lec·tu·al·ize (ntl-kch--lz) tr.v. in·tel·lec·tu·al·ized, in·tel·lec·tu·al·iz·ing, in·tel·lec·tu·al·iz·es 1. To furnish a rational structure or meaning for. 2. To avoid psychological insight into (an emotional problem) by performing an intellectual analysis.

Yes the dictionary doesn't say "disliking" does it?

It's pretty lame to go down the road of saying people who don't like pop are examining it any more seriously or "intellectualising" it more than people who do. It's also defensive in a silly kind of way. Like "you don't like what I like cos you're no fun".

So maybe you werent accusing but you were implying suggesting saying or whatever other word you want to use. sorry I'm just being a miserable old bastard now, I'll go back to my basement and curse all that pop music. Damn you kids and your "fun", I don't listen to music for fun at all. No no not me.

Ronan is quite beleaguered on the boards this week!

I'm with Tim on the distinction being arbitrary and inapplicable; our reactions to any form of art combine "instinct" and "intellect," "emotion" and "analysis," in ways that are tricky to differentiate and largely irrelevant to how much "fun" we're having as individuals. No to sound like a cognitive scientist, but the very concept of "fun" is vague, subjective, and completely non- transferrable from person to person, as evidenced by basically everything in human culture ever.

Besides, note how the "intellectualizing" / "no fun" argument can be applied to virtually anything, including things that pop music fans might find too stupid or understimulating to connect with. There's this weird normative assumption being made that pop music is the peak of music being "fun" (i.e., instinctive/emotional rather than analytical/intellectual, if we want to grant that dumb dichotomy), but isn't actually a criticism of pop to assume that it's completely devoid of intellectual content, as if it's just some guy banging on a rock?

Ronan, I think you're reading a bit too much between the lines. I made the comment as a.. invitation to take it any way you want. But that doesn't mean you know what *I* was implying.

And couldn't you have "fun" listening to rock banging in either a "bang, bang, grunt, bang that rock!" way or a "the Rockbangers are spectacularly thought-provoking based on their deconstructive stripping down of music to the pritivism of pure rhythm, delightfully questioning our assumptions of blah blah blah &c." way?

Helen, I think the problem was: "People who don't intellectualize have way more fun."

This is very tough to judge, because people who do intellectualize tend to do so because it is more enjoyable to them than otherwise. As to whether the non-intellectualizing folks are having "way more fun," how could we possibly know? And if intellectualization is not "fun," then what do we call the somewhat different but equally real rewards that intellectualization offers?

what I was of course IMPLYING (wink wink) is that intellectualizing "fun" is hard because the latter is psychological and intellectualizing is all about rationalizing something. (i come here to learn... not to teach. so correct me, i know i am wrong. uh nevermind)

rock and roll and rock and roll and rock and roll and rock and roll and lalalalalalalalala oooooohhhh.

Nonetheless, I hope this clears up all the misconstrued hypotheses this thread has created.

Yeah, but Helen, what's being set up is a screen ... the music incites intellectual activity, and the intellectual activity is enjoyable and "fun." At least insofar as there's any division between the two ...

Honestly, intellectual behavior is about as "fun" as carrying around a colostomy bag for granny. While I do enjoy using intellectual facets to expand the possible realities that may or may not exist, this argument is an argument for argument's sake, to be redundantly redundant. Pop music serves it's purpose...either to make you PEPPY, to SELL you something, or to played in order to engage you in a culture of similarity. This is not to say your opinion is not important. But you know, all of that fretting of the brow is going to make you a sad monkey.

No, I see it as an argument over precisely what you're doing in your post, which is making the really presumptuous assumption that people who approach art differently than you could not possibly be enjoying themselves. It's both rude and stupid.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that the people who post here and run music blogs etc. have more fun doing so than they would carrying around a colostomy bag.

I find it hard to believe people who draw a distinction between some mode of enjoying music and "intellectualizing" it, with themselves on the appropriate side. The distinction is itself an intellectual one, and an indication that the speaker already has a somewhat rational (if not foolproof) system by which they are critiquing the music they're listening to, even if said critique amounts to little more than generalisations, grand statements and vague semblances of ideas. Since this last part certainly doesn't apply to you, Helen, I'd be surprised if you truly do believe the distinction exists.

It is both rude and stupid. And it was suppposed to hold a mirror to yourself, sailor.

JESUS PEOPLE, SEMANTICS!!!! get over your grad-school poseur hipness. pop is music. love it hate it, whatever (whatever = my six-year-old daughter's favorite word, and there's something in that.) turn up your nelly furtado album, shut up, dance, and poke the tofu dogs on the bbq

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Thank you.......both of you.

I think it's right to say that a lot of the fun in my life over the last, say, 12 years has come from pop music. A lot of the fun in any given day in my life now comes from it. It's probably true to say that it is THE main source of fun, lightness, fascination, thrillz and all that stuff in my life.

If I wasn't like this, would I have more fun? Maybe. Should I worry that so much of the fun in my life is somehow dependent on pop music? Perhaps.

In that sense, maybe the answer to the question could actually be NO. But I suppose I am in no position to judge, cos I can barely imagine a life without pop.

God, even Karmik's offhand dismissal smacks of the very thing I'm being bothered by here -- this idea that no one could be pursuing discussion of this point except out of "grad-school poseur hipness." God forbid anyone should find semantic exploration more enjoyable than barbeque!

Doesn't "intellectualizing" music really just mean better articulating a gut level reaction? Somebody could be listening to DMX or something and thinking "Oh wow, he is so gritty, so visceral. The quintessential street man barking out the realness of that particular demographic. How archetypal, how superb" while somebody else would say "DMX is hot. He also has hot beats. I like it". I don't think anybody is having more or less fun here. It's just different ways of dealing with the same invigorating feeling isn't it?

I'm not anti-semantic. I'm an equal opportunity employer.

Yes Honda, that's exactly it. I'm always amazed at how difficult a concept it is for some to grasp.

Yeah it's odd.

I'm surprised to see people taking that attitude here, it's usually taken by the general public against the likes of us, music fans. Like my friends who like Limp Bizkit, "oh just have fun, chill out". You'd swear I listened to other artists because I hate them or something.