"if pretentious critics can defend britney et all on the grounds of them being "fun" and "pure pop", why not defend hundred reasons for the same reason but in a rock milieu?"

the closest i got was at the tail end of some thread about "important" rock, where tom seemed to imply that context and intent were urgent (and, as they say, key) cornerstones for his dislike of anyone who aspired anything intellectual or philosophical (ie. u2, radiohead et al) in the context of a four minute rock song

which to me is like heaping scorn on a beautiful girl for NOT going into modelling -> "this is what you ARE and this is all you should ever be"

haha whereas people who don't are... actually fun people.

"this is what you ARE and this is all you should ever be"

to:

"this is what you ARE to me and this is all you should ever be"

I think 'we' (pro-pop people) already do what the thread title is talking about, cf my ravings about Andrew WK for instance. It's worth remembering also that there's a lot more to pop than Britney - if you look at Pop-Eye (when we do it) you'll see that the majority of 'pop' gets a thumbs-down - this often seems to get lost if you're baffled that someone likes any of it. So Hundred Reasons are more like the A1 of Rock than the Britney.

1. idea that people are defending britney et al before hearing. ie, on an almost 'moral' level, ie - music itself unimportant.

2. who is 'et al', too much conflation here, and no clarity

3. 'fun' and 'pure pop' aren't actually used that much in defence of britney, perhaps the 2nd to some extent.

4. what is britney representing? and what are hundred reasons representing.

5. blink 182 might be a better example than hundred reasons, but then the differences between BS and B182 are obviously less.

6. is it possible to use 'pop tactics' in a 'rock milieu' when the very idea of a rock milieu is self-defined as antithetical to pop (post 68 at least)?

*the very idea of a rock milieu is self-defined as antithetical to pop (post 68 at least)?*

I don't agree. I see pop and rock as different flavours of the same bubblegum. Certainly closer than either of them is to say improv or avant-garde electronica.

pop and rock may or may not be flavours of the same bubblegum, but rock has seen itself as different from pop since 67/68 (what i meant by self-defined)

if some critics who happen to be outspoken pop fans are willing to make certain overarching concessions at the inclusion of some v. good pop singles, they why can't similar concessions be made in other 'genres' (and i use that word v. loosely to refer to things like 'popular guitar/punk rock', 'popular arena/balladeer rock' etc)

i think the crux of the question is that there seems to be a double standard which favours anything that isn't ashamed of its own exquisitely glossy popness (this is where britney, pink etc etc enter in) and is discarded almost immediately as a result even if (in terms of pop basics like hook, production, etc) it succeeds, albeit in a different language

- 'why?'

- 'because it's fun'

- 'how pretentious'

i'm not flightily changing my opinion till a. i hear them and b. they go top ten

Sugar Ray I don't like for personal reasons. It's a sordid tale.

i've been lurking around ILM for a while, but this is the first discussion to elicit some verbal vomit from me. this topic strikes a very irritating chord. from my experience with music critic friends (including an editor of one of our beleaguered monthlies), the word "fun" seems to have become the preferred code-word for a faux-populist agenda in vogue in some circles. in other words: "[insert name of glossy new popthing here] is fun! and now! and the kids like it and normal regular folks who didn't go to college/grad skuel (like i did) can dig it, and fuck all those elitist eggheads with their "high art/low art" distinctions! power to the people, man!" that's what i hear sometimes when i hear the word "fun" coming from a profession rock critic with a degree and an agenda. like i said, i know a couple of these types, and i know that in their free time they listen to things like SHINY BEAST and the Steve Reich box-set. maybe that stuff ain't "fun," but there's a lot of pleasure there.

i like bubble gum in many flavors -- i enjoy it without even having to think about it (part of the fun, i'm sure)! what i resent is the disingenuous (and, yes, pretentious) populist pose struck by hard-line Popnow!-ists with what appears to be a middle-class guilt complex and job security issues.

Why shouldnt middle class people with degrees like pop?

also, i have no idea why "middle class people with degrees" shouldn't like pop. i didn't say that and i definitely don't believe it.

A lot of people told me that these people - pro-pop critics who 'really' like Captain Beefheart and Steve Reich - exist. I've never come across any myself - plenty of people who dig pop AND Steve Reich to be sure, eg me, but none who profess to like the one while secretly listening to the other.

I've found as a writer - though I don't make any of my living from it - that if you write positively about pop music the basic assumption from a lot of readers is that it's a pose or a rhetorical position, and some people like you link it to class issues. In my experience i) it's not a pose - life is too short to spend time listening to stuff you don't like let alone pretending to like it in print; ii) the class issues involved are interesting and worth talking about not dismissing.

I think part of my interest in pop *is* down to a romanticised conception of 'mass culture' that I formed when growing up - the idea that people all over the country were listening to the same thing as me seemed thrilling and comforting. I don't connect that to any great guilt about my comfortable lifestyle though - in fact if I feel guilty about anything it's the fact that I think a lot of independent artists and labels ARE a lot more deserving of my money than the majors, I'm just in the annoying position of liking most of their music less.

I think what people are objecting to Chuck is the idea that liking pop is a pretence, hard to take at face value. Discussion about music has to be taken at face value really, or else it collapses into rhetoric - why should we believe YOU when you say you like or dislike something, otherwise?

that said, i really don't think that liking pop is a pose -- there's no need to pretend to like stuff that is often irresistibly likable. plus, *i* like it. which might explain why some of the stuff i've read rings untrue to me.

(btw: my beefheart-loving, reich-digging music editor pal is no mythical beast! i could name names, but that's a good way to lose friends....)

I think that the 'consumer responsibilities' Tom hints at here are the crux of some people's ethical problems with pop and the attendant resentment/disbelief heaped on people who KNOWINGLY flaunt same. Not everyone feels comfortable just shrugging their shoulders of all worries and going for pure indulgence, and in fact might feel practically obliged to persuade others to do likewise. If they go too far in that direction, then yes, they're probably wrong. Simple dislike of the phenomena seems like a natural and fair reaction though.

I'm glad more people are adopting my philosophies.

''It may be cynical, but do most of us here on ILM love music itself, the medium, enough that really loving an artist or a song is as much about positively putting our minds to finding the good in it, as anything else. That's not pretending, but I can't escape this nagging notion that we're all a bunch of fucking clowns sometimes.''

I think when you passionately like something then you will passionately dislike others. that's the recipe for a clash of opinions and many bridges are burnt but there it is.

who was chuck bronco?

a john ford picture