whogivesaflux

art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality. It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither.

Ok, we'll start here. In this particular situation, to confabulate is to attempt to retrieved and assemble a composite whole from fragments of thoughts or memories. Within this context I am referring to a popular music classification. This is NOT genre debate. This is not genre bending. The term "Art Pop" has been used MANY times over the years to describe various bands/artists that feign a supposed uniqueness that sets them apart. Most often in the form of glamor (Bowie/T-Rex) or trend (Radiohead/Beck). These same AP wielders are much more radio marketable via the corporate media's (labels) push. This being as opposed to their esoteric and more so true to personal stringent musically convicted brethren, their peers. The first thing that a marketable quantity must do to survive is to find a market. Labels/Radio work together to create those. Can anyone possibly be gullible enough to think that the song "Creep" received air play based solely in and of it's own merit? I don't think so. That's called the corporate push. So in order for a group to prosper in a truly popular sense, they MUST be marketed by an organization that is potentially capable of insuring their health in a vastly fluctuating market. Radiohead has that behind them. People can blab on till their blue in the face about their Indie status, and how they have been true to themselves, but the truth is, that stopped just as soon as their song got significant air play. They receive incredible amounts of direction and production aid. That's a fact. EVERYONE, save the absolute cheese whiz, gets their start in the Indie music community. It's up to the Corp. scouts to recognize and forward in momentum that individual group's potential as a bread earner for themselves. The rest is just critical wind in sales for which Radiohead has done an awesome job of maintaining a high level of controversial interest. You can thank the marketers for that. This being both from fans (the Radiohead defense clique fanboy base of operations ;-) and from professional critics alike. Meanwhile, a long ways off in dusty dirty basements and halls you have their musical counter parts, the true progressive musicians and artists. Progressive music means specifically to be taken beyond an accepted boundary with respect to musicianship, cultural influence and composite musical make up. Radiohead is none of these whatsoever. They are a pop band. Specifically an Art Pop band. The musical Genre they belong to is Rock. The family of Rock is Alternative. The reason why the species or exact animal is Art Pop is because of their moderate electronic and experimental leanings. No more so mind you, than that which is deemed acceptable by their market. They are therefore centric to their market as opposed to those that are eccentric. The eccentrics are much more so your true Art Rock/Prog Rock classifications. You don't find them touted highly on popular music message boards or the radio, but they are hundreds of times in most cases more talented and UNDER RATED than their brethren from the other side of the tracks. So to speak.

Now, I probably missed the mark of your exacting question, but at least you know that I am sincere.