"Good" Pop
 

Is that an oxymoron? Is there truly any good pop out there? By "good," I mean complex/decent instrumentals and well-written lyrics. Artistic value that can be respected by people. I am in no way insulting another genre of music, I try to keep an open mind to music, but it has been very difficult for me to enjoy pop music. I used to doubt that punk had these elements and that all they did was get angry and play two or three chords, but I proved that a lie. So, can anyone help me on this topic? I'd take both old and new pop, but I really want to know about new pop (Cat Stevens and Sparks qualify as "pop," I guess, but I want to know more). - Thanks

Janelle Monae is a great current pop artist you may not have heard.

Yes.

But really, that's an impossible question to answer. Something can not be "good" to all people, something that is "bad" to me may be "good" to you and vice versa. 'Pop' is even more difficult a concept to define. There are really two schools of thought, A) that it is what ever is "popular" at the time, so if black metal were on your top 40 station it'd be Pop and B) that it is a musical approach which relies on simplicity, hooks, and catchy melodies.

If we're to use this second approach, then your definition of "good" will be hard to fit - as part of the appeal of Pop music is it's lack of complex instrumentals. I can assure you, however, that focusing 100% a melody that people will remember isn't an easy task. That to me is what separates your run of the mill pop music with the stuff that's lasting (say, The Beatles, perhaps).

There is plenty of pop music, however, that I personally think is great. Here are a few of my favorites, hope you find something you like...

Pre-Ambient Brian Eno, Kate Bush... Do Art Bears Count?

It's difficult to tackle. I mean, the traits of pop music are usually:

- Heavy production, and usage of
- Clean crisp vocals recorded louder than instruments. Whether there be instruments or not, vocals dictate the direction.
- Short song structures usually 2-5 minutes

Technically, by those rules, I think you have a basic all encompassing overview. Then again unless you consider the actual popularity value factoring in then no... there isn't much good pop out there.

Popularity has never been a factor in my choice of music, but thanks for trying.

Lykke Li, Michael Jackson, Brian Wilson, The Monkees, No Doubt... oh, and that Ting Tings album from 08 was pretty infectious LOL

Wilson - Any 60's based Best of the Beach Boys and Pet Sounds will do.
Beach Boys Post-Pet Sounds - 20/20

Monkees - Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, and Jones, Ltd., Head (soundtrack), and any really good 2-4 CD Box are good starts.

The Best of the Ronettes
The Best of The Shangri-Las (Walking In the Sand is a great choice!)

After the Lights Go Out/the Best of The Walker Brothers 1965-1967

Pulp - Different Class. Although this mostly gets thrown into the Alternative or Indie style discussions, this is my definition of what great Modern Pop SHOULD be like. Best album to start with...and then go into This is Hardcore for a darker version of their music.

Rialto - First album, especially. Again, usually gets thrown into any "Alternative" or Indie thread, but it's my definition of what a Modern Pop should be.

I could also throw in 1960's Bee Gees: First, Horizontal, Idea, and Odessa.

ABC - The Lexicon of Love

Soft Cell - Non Stop Erotic Cabaret, The Art of Falling Apart, and This Last Night in Sodom

Human League - Dare

OMD - Dazzle Ships, Architecture and Morality, the 1980's Best Of comp (Not into the 90's stuff much.)

...and of course, saving the very best for last for this post, The Beatles' With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale and Past Masters 1. Usually gets thrown in with Rock, but The early Beatles are among the perfect works of Pop music ever in my opinion.

As for the Modern stuff of the last few years, however...I don't know.

Somewhat off the point, but if the theme of this is "pop for people generally pop hating people".

Personally, I am on the fence of checking out Janelle Monae. Definitely sounds intriguing. I started to listen to The ArchAndroid(Suites II and III) but I couldn't really stand the first song(tightrope) being such a snob I am. I tried the same with Kate Bush, and have been somewhat pleased. Am I being too close minded of a ****?

Foxy Shazam

^^ what a bad name for a band, though

As far as genre-wise, I think these guys are alternative or indie. And as far as popularity wise ... well, they're radio worthy but unheard of on the radio.

Minus the Bear!

This is off their latest 2010 album, and my thoughts were:poppy but decent.
Give it a listen if you like:



I've come to expect a lot more instrumental prowess from them, esp. guitarist and drummer... like this for example:



But I think this is a perfect choice for you. I am/was in the same boat as you. But really, when I start to think about it... I do have pop music, sort of...

It might rather be called indie-pop, or alternative, or so on and so forth, but... yea




...like I think in the future, we may retrospectively call some of the RHCP's work pop, especially in the 2000s. By The Way, Zephyr Song, Wet Sand, Stadium Arcadium...

Silverchair's Young Modern Album is pretty damn poppy, but I enjoy(ed) it quite a lot.



The question here is one that has been stated before me in this thread: does something have to be popular in order to be Pop, or do you define simply something that sounds poppy as Pop?

It has to be said: 80's cheese pop: sooo good :P

I reiterate Brian Eno:

I have always loved OK Go, for some reason. I just think they get several extremely catchy songs on each of their releases.

I like Brian Eno, but I've never considered him to be pop music. As for Minus the Bear, I've listened to the before but I didn't see anything I loved. They're decent, though.

Why not? I mean in his more ambient later days of course not. However, there's many reasons I'd consider Brian Eno pop.

A) Vocal based. The vocals are recorded very loudly, and remain a focal point. Words are very listenable, and presented to the listener.

B) There's a lot of experimentation but it isn't necessarily through complexity or virtuosity. It's done very much through very smooth studio production technique.

C) Songs are generally short, and generally not focused on overwhelming the listener with melody. Just very artsy poetry matched with light instrumentation, and clean vocals.

D) Not super-fast, but not super-slow. Easy for the listener to keep up with.

E) Singular marketable central figure who has complete control over the project, and whose personality plus creative vision shines through directly without any distortion to the fact it's him.

If anything, sound-wise Eno was at one point purely pop. I mean, If you consider the Beatles pop during their 'White Album' and 'Abbey Road' phases there's no way you could bar early Eno from that category.

Yea, I see your point. Just when I think of Eno, I think of his later work (because that's what I enjoy the most). But you're right. Come to think of it, I saw that poppy sound from him when he collaborated with John Cale.

I like this list :)
Pop music DOESN'T have to suck you know! - Rate Your Music

Another Green World is essentially the ultimate ambient pop album.

I like that list as well.

For Talk Talk, I always rated It's My Life to be a great Pop album, and a fine continuation of their musical adventures.

I also have the Propaganda album which was something I got a few years after it's release, just when the school of '85 was starting to be a retro memory, although it did bring me back to when I thought Jewel/Duel was a great moment of the time.

Prefab Sprout
Big Star
XTC
Robyn(2005 and 2010 albums)
Jens Lekman
Scritti Politti
Jellyfish



That should get you started.

Big Star and Robyn on the same list?

I agree!

Frank Sinatra is technically considered classic pop/vocal jazz. He's pretty decent. Scott Walker's not bad either, but he's art pop.

This might just be me, but what would make people think there isn't any good pop out there to begin with? Common sense dictates that such a point of view is wrong to begin with.

Pop, AKA music designed to be relatively catchy (choruses, refrains, bridges, yaddayaddayadda) or easy on the ears, has been fused at one point or another with pretty much every genre known to man. Power pop, jazz-pop, pop metal, prog. pop, industrial, ambient, electronic, etc. If you can name it, then in all likelihood there's somebody out there doing it. :wave:

I guess what it comes down to is how interesting and/or catchy a person or band can make a song within the perceived constraints of commerciality, and even that is a rather subjective observation.

Well, I think the biggest problem is what pop is. Pop at one point just meant what was popular. Whether it was classical, jazz, or rock it could pretty much be anything. However, in the 80s it seems like there was sort of a super secretive group or something, I don't know, that decided that pop was a particular sound.

When you really look into it the sound means nothing more than minimalist(in both structure, and instrumental melody) studio based rock n' roll with vocals as the central focus. Tons of music is this way. Some of it necessarily popular, or not. There's both good of it in popular, and non-popular contexts. Ironically, however, from my findings the vast majority of the quality "minimalist studio based rock n' roll" is not popular.

When you look at it meaning what's popular. Led Zeppelin are good pop as are Pink Floyd, Soundgarden, Van Halen, Judas Priest, etc. Things that are poppy in their own regard but not particularly considered pop. Even though, they really are.

Pop itself considered it's own genre always bothers me because it creates a sense that a lot of really poor, untested, music is shoved down our throats because it's the style that is supposed to be popular. IE. minimalist studio based rock n' roll. Which hurts because it makes people assume that all minimalist studio based rock n' roll acts of it's styling are somehow inferior.

It does. I grew up thinking if it's considered pop, it's a lost cause. There would be no real chance that I could possibly enjoy it. None. Well....

I think the very first pop song, radio song that caught my ear was one that featured Santana playing on with Rob Thomas or some other popular act 5-10 years ago. That was very important for me to realize I was wrong. If more pop music had the level of virtuosity on board as Santana playing in the wing, we'd be better off me thinks. But, at least I know it's feasible to enjoy a pop song now.

There's more to the story of the evolution but that was the important bit...

I really wish we could have a more organic pop industry, to be honest. I mean, one could say in the 50s and 60s there was just as much shallow bull****, but at least it wasn't all expected to be popular before it even was at the expense of things that could be popular but are not given a chance.