[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif And if pop is a condition of consumption, essentially shorthand for "popular," I still want to know how the Ramones were a pop group, having never scored a US hit record in their entire long, brilliant career. Same goes for the Velvet Underground.

I wouldn't classify either of those as 'pop'.

Quote:

Maybe what I'm getting at is not so much that the term is useless as it is misused by music critics, most of whom, in my opinion, have zero qualifications outside of some level of interest/obsession with music or the music scene.

I like your point and where you are going with it. Pop is lazy and meaningless music greedily produced by lazy and meaningless music executives, gushingly reviewed by lazy and meaningless critics.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't classify either of those as 'pop'.

I've heard both of these groups referred to as such, including one reference to the Ramones in this thread. This is what I'm trying to wrap my aging brain around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...gushingly reviewed by lazy and meaningless critics.

The thing is, you can't write reviews of classical music (or, increasingly, about jazz) without knowing what you are talking about. You need to understand concepts like key, meter, orchestration, tonal vs. atonal composition, etc.

There are no such requirements for reviewing "pop" music. Or at least pop music writers don't seem to be chosen on this basis.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are no such requirements for reviewing "pop" music. Or at least pop music writers don't seem to be chosen on this basis.

I think the main quality is to be able to follow the trends and perhaps be on the leading edge of them from time to time. Understand what pablum the masses listen/dance to, extrapolate just a bit and point them of in a subtle similar yet different direction. Yeah, that is cool but this is cooler. What a power trip...

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif The thing is, you can't write reviews of classical music (or, increasingly, about jazz) without knowing what you are talking about. You need to understand concepts like key, meter, orchestration, tonal vs. atonal composition, etc.

That's why those genres are generally not lazy and meaningless. It takes thought, inspiration, and real work to be creative.

Well, unless one considers Muskrat Love more creative than Wombat Love.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

From AMG: "But pop didn't rock as much as rock & roll. It was about professional craft, both in the songwriting and the studio production, and had little to do with the edge or attitude of rock."

this part of the amg definition is crucial. that's why it's called 'punk rock', not 'punk pop'. 80's grunge was re-labelled 'alternative rock', not 'alternative pop'. on the other hand it's called 'synth pop', not 'synth rock' for a reason. (part of the reason being that the 80's were THE pop decade. if you want to know what pop as a genre means, look at the 80's.)

i agree however that it's difficult to find a concise definition for pop as a genre - and of course genre distinctions are never that clear-cut anyway.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've heard both of these groups referred to as such, including one reference to the Ramones in this thread. This is what I'm trying to wrap my aging brain around.

the ramones were a pop band only in the same sense that miles davis was a pop musician. this isn't very helpful. if the statements "ramones are pop" and "velvet underground are pop" make your head hurt, ignore them - they are wrong anyway

 

[jonnywolfet]

isn't pop music simply whatever hits the top 40 in the charts?

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnywolfet /img/forum/go_quote.gif isn't pop music simply whatever hits the top 40 in the charts?

For the most part but occasionally something meaningful and inventive sneaks in. Then it gets overplayed x20 so it loses its original charm.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've heard both of these groups referred to as such, including one reference to the Ramones in this thread. This is what I'm trying to wrap my aging brain around.

Again, this is simple. Some people disagree on what it means to be a pop band. Just like people disagree on whether something is Romantic or Classical, or jazz or funk. There is nothing wrong with some disagreement. But there is agreement on so many other artists. Obviously Madonna, Kelly Clarkson, and Sonny and Cher are all pop musicians.

Quote:

The thing is, you can't write reviews of classical music (or, increasingly, about jazz) without knowing what you are talking about. You need to understand concepts like key, meter, orchestration, tonal vs. atonal composition, etc.

I think it depends on the reviewer. Some jazz reviewers clearly have no idea what they are talking about, while some pop reviewers are very erudite and knowledgeable. Besides, knowing about tonal vs atonal or meter doesnt help much when pop music is generally 4/4 and very tonal anyways. Pop music is usually created for much different reasons than classical, so of course the writers are gonna focus on different aspects.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnywolfet /img/forum/go_quote.gif isn't pop music simply whatever hits the top 40 in the charts?

no. lots of bands out there that never saw the charts but are definitely pop.

 

[Jahn]

Pop is many things to many people, but since the OP said "to you" here's what it is to me - in a nutshell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0A7dtdc-nU

 

[donunus]

It might not be a real definition of pop music but anything thats not controversial in any way lyrically, is written by the producers instead of the performer, or just does not have any unique groundbreaking new twist to the actual sound gets tagged as pop in my ipod. Music thats done by bands that have controversy in lyrics, or have some real substance, but have a pretty straightforward conventional sound to it still... I tag as Rock. If it has both lyrical substance and a unique sound by the time it came out during the 90's... I tag it Alternative. and so on so forth... The only ones I tag differently are the ones that are in specific genres ex britpop or grunge for its specific period in history. Synthpop for its sound regardless of lyrics. All music like new order, the smiths, echo and the bunnymen, human league, abc, morrissey, etc... I just tag as new wave instead of putting specifics like post punk/jangle pop etc because it just happens to be a term we use often in the Philippines for all the british 80s influenced stuff so on so forth...

)

 

[Jahn]

Am I a bad man for thinking OMD is new wave, but ABC is pop? Ah, distinctions!

 

[donunus]

ABC is more pop than OMD I guess but I just label them new wave to make things simple. Sort of like spandau ballet and human league (the new romantics). I just label them all new wave... hey If britpop wasn't a movement, I would have labeled suede new wave and oasis rock based on their sound hehehe

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Am I a bad man for thinking OMD is new wave, but ABC is pop? Ah, distinctions!

No, you are not a bad man. But ABC's second album (no airplay, next-to-no sales in the US) sounded to me a lot like a guitar-driven rock record. Go figure. As AMG says:

"The reason that Beauty Stab made such a substantial impact in the U.K. was due mainly to the album's makeshift concept about the band's take on modern England, with Martin Fry and Mark White trying to push their opinions through the buzz of guitars rather than the shiny pop sparkle of synthesizers and drum machines."