Pop music...

[RGA]

As some of you know I teach English in Hong Kong and part of my teaching involves me using pop music.

This got me thinking as to the reasons pop is "popular" and why others seem to hate it so.

Way back it was explained to me that pop music is a confection - simple beats, play a few chords, bang a drum, and the singer usually has a small vocal range - one octave. Mind you this could be said about Nirvana and most other rock bands who sing even worse such that I need a liner note to figure out what the hell they're saying. But the same people who crap on pop will defend Nirvana.

The arguments against pop seem to be:

1) The musicianship is limited to simple cords
2) The lyrics are usually simplistic
3) The singers are second rate
4) The music is overproduced (which I take to mean the equivalent of over the top melodrama in movies or plays)
5) The music is often just slight variations of other songs a decade or two earlier
6) The songs have no staying power (neither do the artists)


I sorta get the first argument - compared to classically trained musicians yes - but still I wonder if this is a fair comparison. Not every electric guitarist can play like Buckethead. We can't assume that had Itzhak Perlman decided to play drums that he would be able to play them as well as Led's John Bonham or that he would have been able to play electric guitar like Carlos Santana. Granted it may be easier for the average person to play guitar and drums competently compared to violin or piano but given that rock and pop are "popular" it may merely be that more youngsters are far more interested in learning guitar and drums and therefore the POOL of possible talent is far larger.

Lyrics are not in play for classical in general - the conversions of foreign opera to English are laughably absurd in most cases. So I don't see a real win there. Lyrics are poetry - how good the poetry is a sliding scale depending on the subject matter. Certainly nothing in the 50s, and 60s stand out as "better" than stuff today.

The same people who rip pop buy Beatles albums and for every Lennon Imagine there is a Hey Jude and She Loves You hit

"Hey Jude, don't make it bad Take a sad song and make it better Remember to let her under your skin Then you begin to make it better Better, better, better, better, better, oh!
Na na na, na-na na na Na-na na na, hey Jude Na na na, na-na na na Na-na na na, hey Jude"

"She loves you, yeah yeah yeah She loves you, yeah yeah yeah She loves you, yeah yeah yeah yeah
You think you've lost your love Well, I saw her yesterday It's you she's thinking of And she told me what to say."

Seriously there is nothing special here or with most 70s rock bands. And again most of them could only play a few cords.

Singers are second rate. I maintain that singing pop is a different animal than singing opera - and some of the better pop singers (in terms of better singing voices) are often less popular than singers who don't have the voice. So there must be some X-factor as to why a limited singer like Madonna can last over 30 years (it's not just sex cause lots of people sold that, looked better, sang better, and didn't last). Mariah Carey is said to have a 5 vocal range - whether true or not in her prime she clearly had/has a better voice than Madonna - also sings Pop, was pretty, solder her sex appeal and was/is nowhere near as popular. Carey people argued could have sung Opera if she so chose. Haley Westenra perhaps is one of those pop/opera crossovers along with Emma Shaplin. Here is a review of Mariah's voice Mariah Carey -Vocal Profile/ Range | Diva Devotee : A Blog About Music's Divas (http://www.divadevotee.com/2009/03/blog-post.html)

The music is overproduced - This is more difficult for me to fully understand. It seems to me that if a song is a hit "Ballad" it is "overproduced." When I was a kid Def Leopard was said to be overproduced while AC/DC was not. Personally, I didn't see a helluva lot of difference. I liked some songs from both of them. If I had a complaint I would have said Def Leopard tended to sound the same all the time while AC/DC didn't - despite that lead singer with a nails on chalkboard voice I liked AC/DC anyway.
I have never had a satisfactory answer to this.

Copying previous music - well the entire rock/pop/trance/house thing all came from something before - classical. That in itself doesn't make it bad. Films pay homage to previous films - so long as it does it well who cares.

Songs don't have staying power - I don't know. Plenty of 70s and 80s songs are being covered by new bands in 2012. 30 and 40 years later these songs are still played on the radio, still played in nightclubs, being sung by new artists. This is not new for Jazz (the serious music) but it's happening a lot in pop.

Why this post - well a kid asked me to play a song from the Swedish 80s Band Roxette

Roxette was massively popular in the 80s and the second biggest band Sweden put out aside from ABBA. I remember working at McDonalds back then and this band was "THE" pop band going. So, I think - wow how does a 13 year old kid in Hong Kong even know about this band. They practically disappeared from the map (or so I thought) - apparently they were on tour here. 25 years later and still going. And I did a bit of looking and yup one of their hits (Listen to Your Heart) has been "covered" by a newer band.
In other words - it has staying power.

So if pop is just a confection - soon to be replaced - then that doesn't hold with 20-40 year old pop tunes that still make the rounds. They must have something more to them than we initially thought.

I went and listened to a few Roxette tunes and gee this is pretty "nice" pop music. Got a nice little beat, rhymes and beats the hell out of most stuff I've heard on the radio. Granted I love saxaphone - you put that in a pop song and I tend to want to like it more.

Just wondering - why is this "bad" Sleeping Single video - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POpWYEG_q_E)

Too over the top? Maybe

What about this pop singer and this song - is her voice bad? Sinéad O'Connor - Black Boys On Mopeds - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14lwdpYkAA)

Perhaps the real reason?
7) Frustration that a given limited pop talent is hugely popular while the band/singer they like is mired in nowhere-ville.

hmm

[dingus]

i've always considered "Pop" to be a specific genre not to be confused with "Popular Music" which is just whatever happens to be popular at the current time. there is definite overlap much of the time (as in early Beatles, Elvis Costello and Joe Jackson, most of New Wave, etc.)

[texlle]

I think it's safe to say that pop music is really mainly popular with the younger age groups <25 years old (even <21 if we're talking a more sophisticated group- college students come to mind). Pop to me is Top 40 hits. Rihanna, Ke$ha, LMFAO. More simplistic bass lines, harmonies, lyrical subject matter. They also employ harmonic styles and effects currently en vogue- like the vocal autotoner that was so big among multiple genres throughout last decade. Successful pop songs are trendy, catchy, versatile. Suitable in the car, at work, at the family bbq, in the club. Pop is simple yet mainstream. Opera is very articulate and complex by comparison, but also attracts a more specific audience- with a more discerning palette.Comparing pop and opera would be like comparing a honda civic si to a jaguar e-type. Pop is a $.99 itunes mp3 where Opera is a limited edition shellac press 78 speed record.

People grow to hate pop so universally because it's nature to evolve so dramatically so quickly by virtue of the minimal principles that define it. The aspects of a pop song that place it in a particular genre are fewer than the more specific style types that define most all other genres like jazz, rap, and metal. This means there's a smaller loyalty to pop. Here today, gone tomorrow. The song much like the listener. Then of course you just have those that hate pop solely because it's mainstream media.

[YBArcam]

As some of you know I teach English in Hong Kong and part of my teaching involves me using pop music.

This got me thinking as to the reasons pop is "popular" and why others seem to hate it so.

Way back it was explained to me that pop music is a confection - simple beats, play a few chords, bang a drum, and the singer usually has a small vocal range - one octave. Mind you this could be said about Nirvana and most other rock bands who sing even worse such that I need a liner note to figure out what the hell they're saying. But the same people who crap on pop will defend Nirvana.

Fans of rock will crap on pop because in pop what you often get are acts who don't write their own music or lyrics, who maybe can't even play their instruments, and who in fact cannot sing (they lip synch and use things like auto tune on their recorded music). To me there is much more integrity in being in a band, writing my own material, and actually performing it. And preferably having lyrics that carry an important message, something which is drawn on the experiences of the one who wrote it (who is also in the band). There is a little more ambition for the music and connection to it on the part of the artist when these criteria are met. Instead of some pop star who is just trying to score a hit song with the 12-16 year old female demographic.



The same people who rip pop buy Beatles albums and for every Lennon Imagine there is a Hey Jude and She Loves You hit

"Hey Jude, don't make it bad Take a sad song and make it better Remember to let her under your skin Then you begin to make it better Better, better, better, better, better, oh!
Na na na, na-na na na Na-na na na, hey Jude Na na na, na-na na na Na-na na na, hey Jude"

"She loves you, yeah yeah yeah She loves you, yeah yeah yeah She loves you, yeah yeah yeah yeah
You think you've lost your love Well, I saw her yesterday It's you she's thinking of And she told me what to say."

Seriously there is nothing special here or with most 70s rock bands. And again most of them could only play a few cords.

I find a lot of the Beatles catalog to be almost unbearable. Their best material is great though, and much better than the examples you gave.


The music is overproduced - This is more difficult for me to fully understand. It seems to me that if a song is a hit "Ballad" it is "overproduced." When I was a kid Def Leopard was said to be overproduced while AC/DC was not. Personally, I didn't see a helluva lot of difference. I liked some songs from both of them. If I had a complaint I would have said Def Leopard tended to sound the same all the time while AC/DC didn't - despite that lead singer with a nails on chalkboard voice I liked AC/DC anyway.
I have never had a satisfactory answer to this.

Really, you don't hear much difference? For the record, I think both bands' music sounds the same. But with Def Leppard, the overproduction came with all the layering and effects (like the echo-ey drums). AC/DC is much more stripped back.

[RGA]

Thanks YBArcam you noted the differences here quite well.

On another board I was in a debate about what constitutes a musician from a true artist. I actually made the case you made.

For me "Art" is something "wholly" created. A band writes the both the music and lyrics and plays the instruments. I perhaps will make an alteration and say that playing your vocal chords "counts" every bit as much as playing a bass guitar. The voice is an instrument.

So I view a "band" as a higher form or art than someone who stands on a stage and sings other people's songs (example; American Idol contestants).

I got into the debate on the other forum because there are exceptional musicians who play in symphonies and never write their own music - they play Beethoven, or Mozart. I felt this was musicianship - and a "craft" more than an art which is to create something new. But that's another issue.

Here is the thing for the Rock fans then - what does the pop act have to do to get respect.

The criteria is as I see it the following;

1) Write your own music and lyrics
2) Sing and play an instrument (do one or both better than your average bear)
3) Be passionate about what you do
4) Communicate commentary in a song that has social, political or satirical commentary.


These are the reasons I was defending Lady Gaga (aside from personal taste) on the other board is that I argued that she clearly does all 4 of the above. She has a classically trained voice - plays the piano well, writes the lyrics and the music, creates her look (and now her smell). And like the Beatles some songs suck lyrically and some don't.

Yes now that I recall Def Leppard did have an odd sounding drum - I thought it was because they had a one armed drummer and they needed a special device to allow him to play.

Music is a very interesting topic with the vocabulary used to describe aspects of music. When people try to compare one type of art versus another as Texlle tried to do.

That if you liked Opera you have good taste and if you like pop or rock you're a slack jawed glue eating hick.

There are plenty of excellent singers and musicians who could if they had wanted to made a career in symphony but instead chose music they liked better (or wanted to make a living or both) and sing rock/pop/metal

This singer could EASILY be an opera singer and a very good one - she chose heavy metal Nightwish "The Phantom Of The Opera" with lyrics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VgLKXD-BoY&feature=fvst)

(ahem the female singer - to be clear LOL)

I am not sure I buy the notion that because one type of music is more difficult to play or is more intricate that it is "better" - just that it's more difficult.

[mlsstl]

I think you've overcomplicated the issue unnecessarily,

Popular music is simply that - the songs that are popular with a large segment of the population at any given point in time.

Mozart was enormously popular in the mid 18th century and certainly can't be accused of being simplistic or second rate. Fast forward to 100 years ago - the wonderful music from the great American songbook by Gershwin, Scott Joplin, Irving Berlin and many others was also popular music at the time.

Come forward a few more years and music by Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald an many others was popular music. Of course, at the same time, some popular music was simplistic and catchy - "Mairzy Doats" anyone?

The big problem these days is the music market has become so fragmented that we don't have a style of music that is universally popular across all age and social groups to the same extent as in the past. Each age and social group is now attracted to a much more narrowly focused genre.

[RGA]

I guess I wonder why some people can only listen like and respect one type of music while others can listen to a variety.

Take Nightwish I linked above - Peter Qvortrup introduced me to that and The Evil Nine. There's a classical guy if there ever was one having been to every symphony hall in the world several times, has one of the biggest and deepest classical music collection going, sits as a judge on classical talent searches and donates to aspiring classical artists. He knows it as well as you can know it.

Yet in his 60s he can still listen to what is new and diametrically opposed to classical as there is.

Other people are jazz guys then there are the rock/blues/country guys.

I suppose I'd like to see a split in terms between Pop and Popular. Perhaps a differentiation between the cookie cutter marketing created singers (Spice Girls) versus pop artists (who write perform and are "in charge" of their created persona).

This isn't to say one will "like" it more because it meets the 4 previous criteria - but perhaps it will give them a little more credibility (respect).

[mlsstl]

I suppose I'd like to see a split in terms between Pop and Popular. Perhaps a differentiation between the cookie cutter marketing created singers (Spice Girls) versus pop artists (who write perform and are "in charge" of their created persona).

Since you're an English teacher, you already know that our language is fluid. The definitions and usage of words evolves over time plus new words come into play. Sometimes those changes stick over the long run ("cool" has meanings other than temperature) and sometimes they have a short life span, never making it outside a small clique. Maybe you need to petition the powers-that-be for your desired change

However, I'd suggest the situation is more easily handled with what's already in use -- simply adding an adjective to the word "pop". You see it all the time: power pop, teen pop, dance pop, bubblegum pop, pop rock, Christian pop and so on. Even classical music has its widely recognized set of "pop" hits. Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" or the intro to Beethoven's 5th is instantly familiar to many, even if they don't know the composers by name. It's pop music.

As noted before, the music market is far more fragmented than in the past. When I was young, variety TV shows like Ed Sullivan had to have something for everyone. They showed the Beatles as well as jazz and opera stars of the day. There were only 3 national TV networks and radio stations targeted a much broader audience.

Nowdays, Sirrus radio has 70 separate music channels, each focused on a narrow genre. Cable & satellite TV have eliminated the broad spectrum variety shows that appealed to a wide range of ages and interests.

So, we're back to the start. Unamended, the word "pop" simply means popular. However, add the adjective, and you'll immediately have a feel for the audience.