[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAnomaly /img/forum/go_quote.gif eh. their 80s stuff is really synth heavy...to much so for me to consider them a rock band. i don't believe in distinct genre classifications for bands, so i would probably call New Order 3-5 things, depending on exactly what period you're talking about, and because defining music is so difficult in the first place.

To me,"Blue Monday" is quintessential electronic rock. Heavy bassline, dark guits, and yeah, heavy synth.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk /img/forum/go_quote.gif the correct definition of popular music is anything that isn't erudite music. i guess.

I have to disagree with that. Sinatra's music is quite erudite. Britny Spears...erm, no. But that's the difference between good music and bad music. Pop can be good, pop can be awful. As long as the word "pop" has some specific meaning, there is a basis for discussion.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jazz is a very broad term, yes. But Miles Davis (himself the recipient of critical hatred for his experimentation) famously referred to Ornette Coleman's music as "psychotic." And Wynton Marsalis, one of the greatest jazz players and conceptualists of all time, has routinely dismissed people like Cecil Taylor as artists whose music, good or bad, is not jazz. I guess I'm arguing against myself here, because I consider both Coleman and Taylor to be pioneering jazz (and classical...different thread, sorry) musicians.

So? As I said, people will argue with what the edges of a term are, but it doesn't change the fact that most people have a pretty good idea of what jazz is.

Even so, Miles definitely warmed to Ornette's music (you can hear Ornette's influence on the 60s quintet.) As far as Wynton being 'one of the greatest jazz players and conceptualists of all time' I will just have to point out that such an opinion is not widely held in the jazz community.

I'll rephrase, terms do not have to be perfect to be useful.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as Wynton being 'one of the greatest jazz players and conceptualists of all time' I will just have to point out that such an opinion is not widely held in the jazz community.

Did you take a poll? Though I guess if you are on a first-name basis with Ornette Coleman, you would just, you know, know these things.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you take a poll? Though I guess if you are on a first-name basis with Ornette Coleman, you would just, you know, know these things.

Poll not needed. It is common knowledge that Wynton is seen as an egotistical jerk stuck in the 60's having no conception or acceptance of the evolution of jazz. Since the early 80's when he termed Miles as a sellout he has fell out of grace with many jazz greats. There are lots of articles since where he has dissed others that paved the way as well as those coming up. Jazz musicians don't trash other jazz musicians. He need just shut up and play.

http://www.hvpress.net/news/155/ARTI...007-05-23.html

 

[Amplitude]

I'd say pop music is something similar to whatever everyone is listening to at the time. It doesn't have to be popular itself to fall into the pop category for me, it just has to sound like the current musical fad. I guess "trendy" would be a good synonym.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Poll not needed. It is common knowledge that Wynton is seen as an egotistical jerk stuck in the 60's having no conception or acceptance of the evolution of jazz.

I'm aware that he is a polarizing figure, that's for sure.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm aware that he is a polarizing figure, that's for sure

By the time I hit quote you had already edited your response. I really do not see how writing 'Ornette' instead of 'Ornette Coleman' is some issue for you.

Wynton's role in jazz is certainly outside the purview of this thread, however.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the time I hit quote you had already edited your response. I really do not see how writing 'Ornette' instead of 'Ornette Coleman' is some issue for you. Wynton's role in jazz is certainly outside the purview of this thread, however.

I edited my post because, upon re-reading it, I thought I was getting a bit snotty. One of my personal projects of late is to at least try to be more polite. I have a tendency to go over the top too easily.

 

[Gatticus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif So? As I said, people will argue with what the edges of a term are, but it doesn't change the fact that most people have a pretty good idea of what jazz is. Even so, Miles definitely warmed to Ornette's music (you can hear Ornette's influence on the 60s quintet.) As far as Wynton being 'one of the greatest jazz players and conceptualists of all time' I will just have to point out that such an opinion is not widely held in the jazz community. I'll rephrase, terms do not have to be perfect to be useful.

I'll agree with that. Wynton is a consummate technical musician but IMO his brother Branford has more soul.

 

[kerelybonto]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s m @ /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3. This is what I'd call the 'old English guy' definition. Many may be unfamiliar with it, but I can assure you it exists within a certain segment of the population. This defines 'Pop Music' as anything that is not Classical, Jazz, or ethnic music. The music of the masses, if you will. People who observe this definition don't know or care about any stylistic divisions within it.

Yes, this really is the traditional meaning of the term "popular music" -- the music of the people, i.e., as opposed to the classical musican of the Western élite. (Some people who still use the term this way therefore also include jazz within the scope of popular music.) This term still has some legitimacy in some contexts, but since hardly anyone uses it this way, it's generally not very useful.

I think of "pop music" as music that is (a) produced more as a commercial product than as art and (b) is listened to, or at least recognized, by a wide segment of a certain population, but only for a fairly short period time, and then it is generally forgotten. You of course can argue about what makes something a product versus art, and clearly there is some music that must be called "pop music" that persists.

Two of The Roots' albums begin with someone saying,
Quote:

Inevitably, hip-hop records are treated as though they are disposable; they're not maximized as product, even, you know, not to mention as art.

This to me is the definition of "pop music" -- music that is not meant to last, that is meant to be played at bars and parties for a few months, and then disappear when the next thing comes along. (If some of it ends up sticking around longer, it's still pop music.) It's main value is its novelty.

So, for me, the style of music isn't really important -- any music can be pop music. Don't think of "pop music" as a genre, think of it as a certain segment of the music in any genre. At any one time, of course, more of the music of one genre than of another will be "pop music," depending on what's, well, popular at the time.

Eric

 

[Gatticus]

Yes, pop music is disposable music says it best. But then we come to, "one man's poison is another man's treasure".

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatticus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll agree with that. Wynton is a consummate technical musician but IMO his brother Branford has more soul.

Branford Marsalis, in my opinion, is a more adventurous musician, both as a player and a as a band leader. He is also a great player.

Wynton Marsalis, on the other hand, has a simply jaw-dropping technical command of his instrument. I grew up listening to the core classical trumpet repertoire, and Marsalis's recordings of the key works (Haydn, Hummel, L. Mozart, etc) are nearly flawless in both technical accomplishment and interpretive insight, again in my opinion.

As for his much-criticized conservatism within the jazz idiom, I see that as a viewpoint and a world view. Not one that I necessarily share, but one that he defends with intellectual and artistic rigor. I think he perceived jazz as becoming watered-down, commercialized and diffuse, particularly in the 70s. He wanted to preserve and promulgate a baseline definition of jazz, and he has done just that, for better or worse.

Meanwhile, he has recently countenanced performances by the likes of John Zorn in his mid-town temple of jazz, and he himself performed just a few months ago with Willie Nelson(!) fronting his band as vocalist.

I don't think he is as doctrinaire in 2007 as he has been over the years.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif My point is that the term "pop" is lazy and meaningless. Still think so, after reading these posts.

I think 'pop' is popular music at the time it was recorded. Barry M. would be pop at one point but he would be looked at as quite out of style today i.e. no longer pop.

Generally I think pop music is lazy and meaningless. Sloppy, flashy, little substance, and does not stand the test of time.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerelybonto /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, for me, the style of music isn't really important -- any music can be pop music. Eric

This is the essence of the question I posed in starting this thread. It's perfectly legitimate to describe music as "pop" on the basis of how it is consumed, rather than what it sounds like. But if you look at 20 music reviews that use the word pop, 19 of them will clearly use the term as a way of describing the sound of the music under consideration, with the clear implication that "pop" is a style or genre, rather than a condition of its consumption. That's where we get the assertion that anything with a clear melody or danceable beat is pop.

As I pointed out before, classical lieder is known for beautiful melody. It's not pop. House music is known as quintessentially danceable, beat-oriented music. Also not pop.

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.

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.