The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[TockTockTock]

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Originally Posted by Il Duce

[Paedantic Basterd]

Haha, what's the problem with dream pop? It's a valid genre. I listen to a lot of it.

[blastingas10]

Nothing I guess. I think the labeling is just getting a little excessive. At least its a little more detailed than the broad "pop" term. I guess the labels are needed to give the listener an idea of what they are getting into. But if someone just told me that something was "pop", that really tells me nothing about the music. And that is why I think that term is pointless.

[Paedantic Basterd]

It's a sub-genre. It's not excessive, because Cocteau Twins sound absolutely nothing at all like Of Montreal, yet they both contain pop sensibilities and a heavy emphasis on melody. That's why distinctions are necessary between dream pop and psychedelic pop, so on and so forth.

[blastingas10]

I see what youre saying. My problem is with the term "pop".

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I see what youre saying. My problem is with the term "pop".

Obviously the term pop can sometimes used in a derogatory manner. It's true, we do it all the time here, but despite that fact it's also a genre and a fair and accurate adjective to show how an artist sits within the collective taste of the culture at large. This is where the term pop culture gets its lemony zest; Pop is short for popular and The Beatles certainly were, although I would definitely agree that I'd call Tomorrow Never Knows a psychedelic song before I called it anything else.

[blastingas10]

Im glad somone is starting to see things a little like I am. Yes, The Beatles were popular. Is there a difference between pop and popular? Pop is short for popular, so in that sense, I guess not. Pop is such a broad term, it might as well just describe whatever is popular. Were The Beatles just a poppy formulaic band? No. And I think a lot of people try to make them seem that way.

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Im glad somone is starting to see things a little like I am. Yes, The Beatles were popular. Is there a difference between pop and popular? Pop is short for popular, so in that sense, I guess not. Pop is such a broad term, it might as well just describe whatever is popular. Were The Beatles just a poppy formulaic band? No. And I think a lot of people try to make them seem that way.

But The Beatles were Pop, as in "a poppy formulaic band", perhaps not throughout their entire music career, but it put them on the map. The Beatles were also popular. They are the epitome of near-timeless pop culture. The Beatles were pop.

[blastingas10]

If they were a formulaic band then all their albums would of sounded like the first one. Theres no way they were that. Sure they were inspired by Buddy Holly, but, those first albums set off a mass of bands that were imitating their sound. They were setting the trend, not going with it. They were one of the most innovative bands of their time.

The song "Norwegian Wood" is now acknowledged as one of the cornerstones of what is now usually called "world music" and it was a major landmark in the trend towards incorporating non-Western musical influences into Western popular music. Other production innovations included the use of electronic sound processing on many instruments, notably the heavily compressed and equalised piano sound on "The Word"; this distinctive effect soon became extremely popular in the genre of psychedelic music.

The list of innovations is pretty long. They were far from a band who found a sucessful formula and stuck to it. They were always changing and experimenting. Certainly not a characteristic of a formulaic pop band.

[Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra]