What's new about pop-rock (Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne)?

[woomanmoomin]

I don't know where to post this (without breaking my back getting round there) but I've noticed that numerous people on here seem to regard artists like Kelly Clarkson and Avril Lavigne as the heralds of a whole new genre of music or something: 'pop-rock' (or 'pop/rock'). My whole life through, though, I've been listening to music that lay somewhere between pop and rock. Why wasn't that all pop-rock? If anybody here dares suggest it was, they get dissed for supposedly being too old or something, as if Avril Lavigne were the new revolution and anyone who didn't accept it were scum.

What's new about pop-rock?

Is it an emperor's-new-clothes thing? I'm pretty sure that when Martin Luther King talked about having seen the Promised Land, he was not thinking of some stupid city street full of squeaky-clean kids with Avril Lavigne jumping up and down on a car, condescendingly singing that some skater boy did not deserve to be judged on his appearances by some ballerina girl even though actually presented as a stereotype in the song. (God help us if the statement that skater boys are people too is somehow controversial or in-yer-face.)

What am I failing to pick up on here? Maybe somebody can throw some light on this from a tech viewpoint for me.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

What am I failing to pick up on here? Maybe somebody can throw some light on this from a tech viewpoint for me.

1st question: How old are you?

2nd question: Why do you care so much about the future of "Pop rock"? Why care about the future of popular music period? Its not very "rock and roll" to think about the future of anything. Also how can you even use MLKs' statement to justify your statement? That you are even trying kinda puts you on the outside.

3rd Different questions: Are you a Who or Zeppelin fan? Were you around when they were in their hey day? How did you feel when all of the "Lester Bangs" rock critics and experts of the world were trashing them as "destroying rock as we know it"? Do you remember them being popular? Did you think of them as a rock band or a "pop"ular rock band? How did you feel when their obscurities became the norm? Where it became "cool" and trendy to like these bands? Did it kill it for you?

And last questions: Again...how old are you?

And are you this generations LESTER BANG?

[woomanmoomin]

1st answer: I'm 34.

2nd answer: I'm not sure I do care about the future of 'pop rock' or 'pop-rock' or 'pop/rock' or whatever. I just wonder why some people tout the Kelly Clarkson or Avril Lavigne thing as some kind of new dawn in music and presume to tell certain others that they're past it if they don't get it. I genuinely would like to know.

3rd answer: I am a fan of at least the earlier half or so of the music of The Who. I'm not quite as keen on Led Zeppelin. No, I can't say I was really around in either band's heyday, but I'm aware that The Who in particular started out as something of a pseudo-Mod boy band. (The lead singer, Roger Daltrey, has said he used to hate having to flatten his hair to appear as a Mod.) They were also very popular, so I would be inclined to point to them as a perfect example of a pop-rock band that was actually kicking the @sses of Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson long before either woman was even perpetrated. In my opinion, The Who were the real deal, at least once they left behind the pseudo-Mod aspect, and in any case I like the music they were playing at that point as well.

I don't think people like Kelly and Avril are destroying rock or even pop music. God, they might at least try! The point is, some people seem to think that they are destroying rock and/or pop, like some sort of 'avant garde', and resent the suggestion that really the music in question here is just so much rehashed, amplified pap. I asked my question because I wonder why.

Incidentally, I did not refer to Martin Luther King's 'Promised Land' speech in an attempt to justify or refute anything, but perhaps to question the attitude of some people who seem to think the artists in question here are almost God's gift, the future of rock and/or pop. In my opinion, they are something of a parody of the past of rock and/or pop...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

1st answer: I'm 34.

2nd answer: I'm not sure I do care about the future of 'pop rock' or 'pop-rock' or 'pop/rock' or whatever. I just wonder why some people tout the Kelly Clarkson or Avril Lavigne thing as some kind of new dawn in music and presume to tell certain others that they're past it if they don't get it. I genuinely would like to know.

3rd answer: I am a fan of at least the earlier half or so of the music of The Who. I'm not quite as keen on Led Zeppelin. No, I can't say I was really around in either band's heyday, but I'm aware that The Who in particular started out as something of a pseudo-Mod boy band. (The lead singer, Roger Daltrey, has said he used to hate having to flatten his hair to appear as a Mod.) They were also very popular, so I would be inclined to point to them as a perfect example of a pop-rock band that was actually kicking the @sses of Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson long before either woman was even perpetrated. In my opinion, The Who were the real deal, at least once they left behind the pseudo-Mod aspect, and in any case I like the music they were playing at that point as well.

I don't think people like Kelly and Avril are destroying rock or even pop music. God, they might at least try! The point is, some people seem to think that such artists are destroying rock and/or pop, like some sort of 'avant garde', and resent the suggestion that really the music in question here is just so much amplified pap. I asked my question because I wonder why.

Incidentally, I did not refer to Martin Luther King in an attempt to justify or refute anything, but perhaps to question the attitude of some people who seem to think the artists in question here are the future of rock and/or pop. In my opinion, they are something of a parody of the past of rock and/or pop...

Well if you are 34 than you may not get it...unless you are currently working with these girls and then you will think they are kick ass(especially with the money they will be making for you).

But if someone tells you that if you don't agree with them you are the past than they don't get it either.

Its what everyone forgets around here for some reason. No one i've ever known sets out to create music & songs for the sake of being the "dawn of new music". You create cause you are unspired in the moment and its what you feel and you lay it down. Its that cheeky and that simple. The publicists and critics are the ones that attach the labels. The public doesn't really care. They just want to be inspired, be moved or just get laid and have a great time.

The fact that people make it more and over complicate things blows my mind.

Its like they do it just to hear themselves talk(or type in this case).

Or maybe they are not getting laid. And this may be big news for some but you don't get laid with lots of talk. You get laid with lots of fire in the moment and taking action.


If there is anything missing in today's music is just simplicity. Its like people are afraid to be simple.

By the way i liked some of the songs on Kelly Clarksons last CD. Nothing earth shattering or mind blowing but just nice catchy songs about a girl in and out of love.

[woomanmoomin]

I basically agree, accept that I do think some consumers (especially some young consumers) actually believe music began with their generation or something. Increasing numbers of digitally remastered albums may help put that right, but only if people really listen to them.

I was going to say we need more live-wire drunks etc. to become performers, but then it occurred to me that even Robert Plant used to drink tea out of a whisky bottle on stage. (How British is that?!) I suppose there's always been an element of cr@p about the music industry (though not quite to all of the music). Anyway I wouldn't be in a hurry to work with anyone who was too much of a live wire. (That's not very rock 'n' roll of me, I know!!)

[Dirty Halo]

I find Averill Lavine about as "authentic" as those mall pre-fab "punk" stores.

You gotta just laugh.

Same old, same old...and it's pretty old.

-a

DIRTY HALO www.dirtyhalo.com

[djui5]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

I basically agree, accept that I do think some consumers (especially some young consumers) actually believe music began with their generation or something.

I sure did when I was that age! I thought all this new music I was hearing was new, then one day I broadened my horizons, only to find that what I was listening to had been recorded 20-30 years earlier by another artist :)

A lot of times the younger generation doesn't realize that they're new to the game, the game that's been around forever, constantly recycling itself like a tin can that keeps winding up in the green bin.

Kelly and Averill are a "new sound", but pop, or even pop rock, is far from new of course. Pat Benatar ring a bell? She was the Kelly Clarkson of your generation.

[woomanmoomin]

Pat Benatar. Yeah. What a great example!

[Devina]

As long as your music is heard by somebody
somewhere and they can relate to it....isnt that
what being an artist is all about really?

[sourceslut]

i dont think avril is trying to break down any musical boundaries. shes on her own musical journey like the rest of us and it so happens that allot of people want to share that journey with her , including me. i think shes fantastic. that country twang in her voive is superb.and there is no tedious "mellisma" in her vocal either which eberyone seems to love these days.( thats more than one note per syllable).

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by djui5

Pat Benatar ring a bell? She was the Kelly Clarkson of your generation.

Dude Pat Benatar was an opera singer before she started singing rock.

She also wrote songs.

And she didn't have to win some cheesy TV contest for people to know she had pipes on her.

This is a wack comparison.

There was no Kelly Clarkson in our generation. There were your Debbie Gibsons and Tiffany but in my opinon KClarkson is a better singer than both those girls.

And i would take Pat Benatar, Joan Jett, Patty Smyth or Anne Wilson over any of those girls anytime.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Dude Pat Benatar was an opera singer before she started singing rock.

She also wrote songs.

And she didn't have to win some cheesy TV contest for people to know she had pipes on her.

I was referring to the music, and the pop rock'ishness of it, not how they got there...

:)

Kelly made it because of American Idol, but I have a feeling that without the shows presence, she would have been a success anyway.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by djui5

Kelly made it because of American Idol, but I have a feeling that without the shows presence, she would have been a success anyway.

You think so?

She is not the easiest on the eyes if you know what i mean.

And for a girl singer to get past the gate keepers these days she has to be marketable in terms of looks. Avril L is not and ugly girl. And LA Reid had her signed for 2 years before she worked with the Matrix. A label doesn't keep a girl around for that long unless they think they can sell her looks and in this business sex still sells.

Look how many girls sell based on looks more than talent. Its a pretty long list.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

You think so?

Yeah, because she's such a great singer, I think she would have made it anyway. She doesn't look "that" bad really. Better than Ashlee Simpson...haha.

Look how many girls sell based on looks more than talent. Its a pretty long list.

*cough*pussycatdolls*cough*


You're right, the list is longer than my....

[HIGHENDONLY]

OK ill be a lil bitch and admit i listen to Kelly Clarkson i actually think her rockish style is pretty good. Hey it may be bubble gum pop or whatever you name it, but i think her album had alot of great hits and music for that matter....Ok so i came out of the closet and admit im a Clarkson fan, hey it's still better than 90 percent of the other popular shit out there.

[LoopQuantum]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

You think so?

She is not the easiest on the eyes if you know what i mean.

Yeah, Gotta respectfully disagree on this one. She's got the "caught your eye on the sidewalk hottie" thing going. No American pasteurized cheese food here, she looks more real than most. I'm not a fan of starvation, peroxide, and silicone myself.

I think she's pretty. (read with meek pimply teenager voice for full effect.)

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by LoopQuantum

I think she's pretty. (read with meek pimply teenager voice for full effect.)

I guess we are all entitled to our opinion.

Lets just say i will skip the future Kelly Clarkson spread in Maxim.

[C Heat]

Originally Posted by LoopQuantum

Yeah, Gotta respectfully disagree on this one. She's got the "caught your eye on the sidewalk hottie" thing going. No American pasteurized cheese food here, she looks more real than most. I'm not a fan of starvation, peroxide, and silicone myself.

I think she's pretty. (read with meek pimply teenager voice for full effect.)

I'd bang her...





...(drum)

[s.d.finley]

Originally Posted by C Heat

I'd bang her...





...(drum)

after a 6 pack!!

[woomanmoomin]

Marks out of ten? I'd give them one.