Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-09-2013, 02:52 PM   #51 (permalink)
Master, We Perish
 
Surell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Havin a good time, rollin to the bottom.
Posts: 3,704
Default

But Pop isn't just Top 40, though it definitely can be. It can actually be it's own songwriting ethos; this is why there's a differentiation between Pop and Rock, even though they can both share spots on the charts. It's like how Disturbed and Carly Rae Jepsen could be on the chart at the same time; they both may popular music, but only one is Pop. Or, back in the day, there would have been the Beatles and the Rolling Stones; the Stones were definitely Rock, through and through, even in their experimenting they were primarily based in Rock, but they were on the charts. This doesn't immediately change their status to Pop, even being right alongside the primary Pop band (besides the Beach Boys, who were definitely the most Pop on the spectrum).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude View Post
Laser beams, psychedelic hats, and for some reason kittens. Surrel reminds me of kittens.
^if you wanna know perfection that's it, you dumb shits
Spoiler for guess what:
|i am a heron i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
Surell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 06:54 PM   #52 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surell View Post
But Pop isn't just Top 40, though it definitely can be. It can actually be it's own songwriting ethos; this is why there's a differentiation between Pop and Rock, even though they can both share spots on the charts. It's like how Disturbed and Carly Rae Jepsen could be on the chart at the same time; they both may popular music, but only one is Pop. Or, back in the day, there would have been the Beatles and the Rolling Stones; the Stones were definitely Rock, through and through, even in their experimenting they were primarily based in Rock, but they were on the charts. This doesn't immediately change their status to Pop, even being right alongside the primary Pop band (besides the Beach Boys, who were definitely the most Pop on the spectrum).
yes yes, I know that. I only used the Top 40 to dig through and find which pop acts were actually in the Top 40.

On the same token, I can't get behind the idea that the indie bands you listed are Pop. Do you feel like that are?
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 09:25 PM   #53 (permalink)
Master, We Perish
 
Surell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Havin a good time, rollin to the bottom.
Posts: 3,704
Default

Well Animal Collective I would definitely consider pop, at least as far as Feels or Strawberry Jam onwards is concerned. Their newer releases are mostly based in Pop convention: Verse/Chorus Structure, emphasis on melodies and harmonies, full arrangements, and especially utilization of studio recording techniques. Grizzly Bear is a bit of a stretch, but they do put a good focus on melody and harmony. Fleet Foxes are probably more in the Pop realm, though they clearly derive from folk they have that same kind of sheen and hookiness as Fleetwood Mac or the like; they also have a studio obsessive songwriter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude View Post
Laser beams, psychedelic hats, and for some reason kittens. Surrel reminds me of kittens.
^if you wanna know perfection that's it, you dumb shits
Spoiler for guess what:
|i am a heron i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
Surell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 07:08 PM   #54 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
Default

I honestly think that the question of whether pop can still be innovative is pretty bogus. Sure, the difficulty to innovate may seem higher, but whether or not it's possible is not a question.
Danofthebass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 01:33 AM   #55 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Austalia
Posts: 6
Default

The definition of pop has changed so much I don't think it means anything at this point, if not young and barely dressed "celebrities" disguised as musicians.

Not that "pop" has ever been a real genre, everything from Frank Sinatra to the Beach Boys and late Genesis have been called pop at some point, so I guess it's more of something that has to do with popularity
__________________
[link removed by mod, no advertising]
scrapfriends is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 05:04 PM   #56 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 11
Default

Yes, the problem is the song has to be popular which is a huge problem if you set out to be "innovative"
Slothinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 06:06 PM   #57 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,304
Default

There are alot of innovative and creative songs that have been popular. There is no reason why pop songs today can't be as artistic.
Soulflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 07:33 PM   #58 (permalink)
Master, We Perish
 
Surell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Havin a good time, rollin to the bottom.
Posts: 3,704
Default

Very true, though i'm plugging the same band, Animal Collective had a decent success - at least considering their popularity before - with "My Girls," which has a very different structure and sound than pop songs of today or even a lot of the past. I would actually say that "Somebody That I Used to Know" from Gotye was pretty innovative, it was lyrical, had an unusual structure as far as radio songs go, and unique instrumentation.

Still, I don't think we necessarily have to think of Pop in terms of popularity, it's evolved beyond that in many respects. How would Avant/Experimental Pop exist in this regard? Experimental music is never popular, as it dabble in unpopular and unfamiliar sounds, but it's still pop.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude View Post
Laser beams, psychedelic hats, and for some reason kittens. Surrel reminds me of kittens.
^if you wanna know perfection that's it, you dumb shits
Spoiler for guess what:
|i am a heron i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
Surell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 11:22 PM   #59 (permalink)
AllTheWhileYouChargeAFee
 
DriveYourCarDownToTheSea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 1,041
Default

Quote:
Experimental music is never popular
So true, as my recent attempts to get my father, and a couple of my sisters, interested in AC can attest to.

What's interesting is, my sisters at least, are all big Yes fans. At one point Yes used to be considered fairly experimental art rock. But now that they've become so familiar I don't think people think of them as experimental anymore - or, if they do, the familiarity of their music has blunted the edge of their experimental-ness. This makes me wonder if AC will be more accepted and liked in 20-30 years than they are now, as people get increasingly accustomed to the musical style.

There is certainly a generational thing going on, too (my sisters and I are all in our mid-late 40's). Maybe someone here can tell me, but if you go to an AC, or even a Grizzly Bear, concert, are there many people there over the age of about 35-40? I almost wonder if younger people have actually gotten more accustomed to complex and abstract music than people 20+ years older than them, despite the pretensions of the Baby Boomers that their music was musically superior.

My first hint of this was when I tried to play AC to my father a couple months ago (he is 80). Here is a guy who spent most of his life listening to Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler and other classical music composers. This is supposed to be complex music - right? But when I played AC for him, he simply couldn't stand it, told me it was much too busy, and insisted I keep the sound way down. Go figure. Though I also got the impression from him that a combination of hearing issues and crankiness of advanced age lowers one's tolerance for something like that, so that's probably a factor as well.
__________________
Stop and find a pretty shell for her
Beach Boys vs Beatles comparisons begin here
DriveYourCarDownToTheSea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2013, 03:43 PM   #60 (permalink)
Master, We Perish
 
Surell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Havin a good time, rollin to the bottom.
Posts: 3,704
Default

Yes were arty rock in their day, being a Progressive band, but I think this was usually signified in their compositional expertise as opposed to their embrace of harsher or unfamiliar sounds. It can be hard to get into because of this, such as a disorienting time signature or a melody so complex it's hard to decipher, but overall their sound was based in rock/pop with superb composition and playing. In its day, though, it may have been fairly difficult for the audience, but this was the era when people really loved Sgt. Peppers for being a concept album and having classical undertones - though they really don't stack up compared to Yes' themes and classicism. So it could have to do with the era your siblings/generation came from, with their acceptance of a certain degree of experimentation (do you guys dig Captain Beefheart or Velvet Underground as well?) or perhaps it is age that engrains you in a certain mindset/familiarity with the sounds you know, and anything new is hard to accept. When I'm older, I'm sure I'll have some issue with my children's favorite band just because I'm so comfortable with what i know, it's precious to me and i've known it for too long, I suppose.

BTW: AC shows, from what I've seen, are usually people around my age, late teens to early 20s, but usually i'm all in the zone of the show. I saw some older people around the festival i recently saw them (and Grizzly Bear) at, but there were also older acts at the show, such as McCartney and ZZ Topp, the same night as those bands.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude View Post
Laser beams, psychedelic hats, and for some reason kittens. Surrel reminds me of kittens.
^if you wanna know perfection that's it, you dumb shits
Spoiler for guess what:
|i am a heron i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
Surell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.