Why the Inexcusable Ignorance About the Pop Music of the Past ?

[JP11]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

What about looking at pop songwriting after the development of minimalism, where a song can have a single chord? Or looking at the development of pop music after electronic music, where you can create a work of art that doesn't actually involve any human performance?

Those were fun ideas 30 or 40 years ago...aren't they kind of tired at this point...?

Wow, you guys have posted a lot of stuff...don't have time to disagree with it all right now...

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by Happy Musicfan

I played Jazz for 7 straight years.

It is not a pop music songwriting format or style.

The solos were often several minutes for each instrument. The tours and gigs were in the 100's with *no* singers or vocals or lyrics.

Absolutely, jazz is a different form than rock music. Jazz typically doesn't feature vocals, is longer form, focuses on improvisation, etc.

You know what else is an entirely different form from rock music? Hip Hop! The most important distinction there is that hip hop is primarily not concerned with melody (because it uses mainly rapping) or instrumental skill (because it's based primarily on samples of existing recordings).

Gee, I wonder which musical form is the primary influence on contemporary chart pop?

Originally Posted by Happy Musicfan

The ignorance here is appalling.

Indeed.

Again HMF, I ask you if there is any electronic music that you like. There's a pretty long history of electronic music now, dating back at least to the '40s. Is there any of it that you like? Any of it that you would consider valid art?

And the same thing for minimalism. Are you aware of it? What's your opinion of it?

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by JP11

Those were fun ideas 30 or 40 years ago...aren't they kind of tired at this point...?

Well yeah kind of, considering that they've been a couple of the major driving forces in pop music for those past 40 years. I think you're missing my point. HMF is trying to freeze pop music in the '50s and ignoring any later developments and the larger artistic movements that drove those developments. He's not just dissing Katy Perry, he's dismissing the entire second half of 20th century art and then accusing other people of being ignorant.

In other words I don't really need to defend LMFAO since I can blow HMF's point of view out of the water by simply defending Duchamp, Cage, Stockhausen, or La Monte Young which is a significantly easier task.

[sleepingbag]

Originally Posted by JP11

Those were fun ideas 30 or 40 years ago...aren't they kind of tired at this point...?

Wow, you guys have posted a lot of stuff...don't have time to disagree with it all right now...

You seem really jaded by, just, everything. So, what DO you like? Just not a music fan? I honestly can't tell. I find it hard to believe that you would really feel that every huge umbrella of artistic theory such as 'minimalism' is completely exhausted, even if you aren't a fan of any of the results so far. Nothing new to say in the world of minimalism that hasn't been done 40 years ago? Seriously? How can that be possible?

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by JP11

Those were fun ideas 30 or 40 years ago...aren't they kind of tired at this point...?

Wow, you guys have posted a lot of stuff...don't have time to disagree with it all right now...

They've been fun ideas for around 100 years - with evolution in technology they've just become more fun imo.

Can understand them not being everyone's cup of tea though.

[Brian!]

am i the only one who feels like bashing their head against a wall whenever i see one of this dude's threads?

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by Brian!

am i the only one who feels like bashing their head against a wall whenever i see one of this dude's threads?

I think i can safely say no.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by sleepingbag

You seem really jaded by, just, everything. So, what DO you like? Just not a music fan? I honestly can't tell. I find it hard to believe that you would really feel that every huge umbrella of artistic theory such as 'minimalism' is completely exhausted, even if you aren't a fan of any of the results so far. Nothing new to say in the world of minimalism that hasn't been done 40 years ago? Seriously? How can that be possible?

initialsBB said yeah kind of, how come you're not putting him down?

And according to the notion that minimalism is at least 100 years old, but there's still plenty to do, and "rock" or whatever The Beatles were is not nearly that old, why is it okay to brush that sort of music aside, to sneer at that sort of songwriting...that sort of music is completely exhausted? I suspect if a bunch of new bands started writing songs with all sorts of frilly chords and melodies and harmonies and all that boring shit, you'd be all over it and sneering at "minimalism"...(calling 1 chord songs played by machines "minimalism" seems awfully pretentious to me...)

What do I like...mainly well written songs with great melodies and chord structures and arrangements and interesting or well written lyrics to go with it....how insane is that?

[Dean Roddey]

Actually, you can pick up an acoustic guitar and play most of Pink Floyd's stuff (from their most popular song based period, it might not be interesting to play Interstellar Overdrive on an acoustic), and it would completely resonate with people. Their most powerful stuff is all at its heart not at all about sounds, but about a nice melody over a nice chord progression, performed with gusto and sincerity. The nice sonic landscapes that lay behind them were there to serve the vocal and the emotional content of the vocal mostly, or to set up nice transitions between sections or build tension into the vocal parts. Some of them were pure sonic experimentation even in that period, but mostly not.

I really DO believe in making nice sounds, and I love that kind of music. Pink Floyd is my biggest influence and I think a lot about the sonic landscape of songs. I love bands like Yes, King Crimson, The Jellyfish, etc... who create amazing sounding songs. But ultimately if it didn't have the nice melody and the nice chord progression, and the heartfelt delivery, it wouldn't be anything like as powerful and popular. They had a solid foundation in music theory with Rick Wright, and they used it well.

I think that most artists are interested in a song working if just sung and being accompanied on a guitar or piano, because that's the best way to know if it's really a SONG, as apposed to a collection of sounds. If it resonates in that form, then the foundation is solid and everything else can support whatever emotional content it needs to deliver. And there's a good reason why Wish You Were Here, Shine On, Eclipse, and so forth are vastly, vastly more loved than Intersellar Overdrive, because you can sit down with an acoustic guitar and perform them and make people cry if you do them well.

I think Yes is another great example. Their music was quite complex by pop standards, with a lot going on, long form based songs, etc... But they delivered one massive emotional climax after another in every song, with absolutely gorgeous melodies that don't come off in the slighest as being schmaltzy or overly crafted. They just float above that incredible instrumentatal backdrop.

Another good measure of the fundamental power of a song is if it can be taken up by people from completely different genres and still really maintain the same impact. Songs that are based on a beautiful melody over a nice chord progression generally can, because it's the emotional impact being delivered that's really the important thing, and that can be translated into various different genres, because it's not tied to the sounds themselves, no matter how nicely the sounds originally created for them served.

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by JP11

And according to the notion that minimalism is at least 100 years old, but there's still plenty to do, and "rock" or whatever The Beatles were is not nearly that old, why is it okay to brush that sort of music aside, to sneer at that sort of songwriting...that sort of music is completely exhausted? I suspect if a bunch of new bands started writing songs with all sorts of frilly chords and melodies and harmonies and all that boring shit, you'd be all over it and sneering at "minimalism"...(calling 1 chord songs played by machines "minimalism" seems awfully pretentious to me...)

Where has anyone said that they're brushing ANY music aside or that a certain genre is exhausted other than HMF and his minions?

(Apart from the people pointing out that bad music has always existed of course, but I don't think that's what you were referencing.)

I think what a lot of us are saying is that there's always great music around if you keep an open mind. Obviously there's a lot of crap out there though.

[sleepingbag]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Actually, you can pick up an acoustic guitar and play most of Pink Floyd's stuff (from their most popular song based period, it might not be interesting to play Interstellar Overdrive on an acoustic), and it would completely resonate with people.

I certainly agree that they would, I was mainly disagreeing with the idea that they were not simple. They are very simple chords and melodies for the most part, two chord verses etc., very classic, but not anything intensely "sophisticated" or whatever dude was talking about, especially when you compare them to something like Beatles or, heavens, a contemporary like Genesis in 1973 (seriously, which one really deserves to be the 'classic' one?). And my main point there was that I don't think that's a flaw. Like, at all. A lot of songs past and present have simple melodies and do not use a ton of advanced chords. I do not believe that most songs from Dark Side are any more complex than any chart song from today (Beyoncé - Countdown - YouTube - I find this ten times more musically + structurally interesting than, say, 'Breathe' regardless of which one is the pop trash and which one is the real art), but I will gladly admit that they are certainly more classic than most! Why is that?

Like I said, it's not my goal to rip Floyd apart, only to point out a few things about why we actually like them and about what they were really doing there, not just rushing to call them superlative without examining the real reasons they deserve their status.

I think that most artists are interested in a song working if just sung and being accompanied on a guitar or piano, because that's the best way to know if it's really a SONG, as apposed to a collection of sounds. If it resonates in that form, then the foundation is solid and everything else can support whatever emotional content it needs to deliver.

Eh well that's one way to look at it. But in that case I don't see why the song is valued over whatever you might want to call the "collection of sounds" - like, is a deep dance tune like Burial or something just a "collection of sounds" and if so, is that necessarily supposed to be pejorative? Isn't it possible it took much more effort and originality to create a sound that millions of fans of dance music immediately recognize as original, influential, and important than it would take you or me to find a chord progression that we find pleasant? I accidentally come up with chord progressions that sound cool nearly every time I play guitar if I may be a little less than humble for a moment; I almost never invent new genres of music accidentally

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Happy Musicfan

The ignorance here is appalling.

Oh jeez.

By the way, the 3 minute limit, which was imposed by radio, went out with Hey Jude (The Beatles).

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Kaoz

Where has anyone said that they're brushing ANY music aside or that a certain genre is exhausted other than HMF and his minions?

Mr. Sleeping Bag said this:

"I'm just very very glad that music is the way it is these days. Maybe in some alternate world, Skrillex is writing songs with a busload of pretty 7th/add9 chords and platitudes about love for lyrics in addition to crazy drops, and Lil Wayne is better than Jimi Hendrix at guitar. But I kind of don't give a shit about any of that."

sounds like a sneer to me...

there's all kinds of little sneers and digs and put downs going on in this thread...

Maybe I should step it up a notch...

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by JP11

Mr. Sleeping Bag said this:

"I'm just very very glad that music is the way it is these days. Maybe in some alternate world, Skrillex is writing songs with a busload of pretty 7th/add9 chords and platitudes about love for lyrics in addition to crazy drops, and Lil Wayne is better than Jimi Hendrix at guitar. But I kind of don't give a shit about any of that."

sounds like a sneer to me...

there's all kinds of little sneers and digs and put downs going on in this thread...

Maybe I should step it up a notch...

I think that was more a swipe at HMF's wanting of a pop musical utopia, rather than sneering at the artists and styles mentioned.

Hard to tell without context though.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Kaoz

I think that was more a swipe at HMF's wanting of a pop musical utopia, rather than sneering at the artists and styles mentioned.

Hard to tell without context though.

Okay, whatever, there's a subtle or not so subtle negativity..I mentioned Eleanor Rigby as being a great number 1 hit pop song, and SBag said he never wanted to hear that song again...

I didn't even say I word about Timbaland, and there's this "are you going to crap on it, you won't understand it" attitude...

I said 1 chord songs and music by machines is kind of tired, and Sbag comes back with this "do you even like music" shit...

Well, I'm out!

Have fun music lovers!

[sleepingbag]

Dude I'm truly sorry I come across that way. I still do feel like you're misinterpreting a lot of what I say in many of these exchanges, but you're kind of dead right about the pattern of the above. If I may clarify; it is not my intention to crap on anything, when I mentioned Eleanor Rigby before it was in part to make the distinction that I recognize that things I don't like have value and I wish others (not talking to you here) would do the same. I know that Eleanor Rigby is a classic example of some level of advanced composition in a pop song. I don't happen to enjoy that song, but it certainly shouldn't matter to you what I think about it if you love it.

That said, I think referring to the ideas of minimalism and technology-aided music as "one chord songs and music by machines" is being very reductive and not accurate/not entirely what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by JP11

Mr. Sleeping Bag said this:

"I'm just very very glad that music is the way it is these days. Maybe in some alternate world, Skrillex is writing songs with a busload of pretty 7th/add9 chords and platitudes about love for lyrics in addition to crazy drops, and Lil Wayne is better than Jimi Hendrix at guitar. But I kind of don't give a shit about any of that."

sounds like a sneer to me...

there's all kinds of little sneers and digs and put downs going on in this thread...

Maybe I should step it up a notch...

I'm saying that I'm glad there are those guys doing what they do without feeling the need (or maybe, if you prefer, without being musically studied enough to) to gloss it up harmonically essentially for the sake of appeasing musicians, because in many contexts I feel that combining certain sounds and aesthetics with the goal of "writing the perfect melodic pop song" is totally unnecessary and does not serve the music. I'm not saying that all musicians should abandon using interesting chords, nor am I saying that they have. I've heard plenty of electronic music that uses neat chord patterns and has vocals and sounds like a catchy pop song or creates whatever other mood using those chords, but Skrillex ain't that (well ok he kind of is but you get my point), and I don't think it would be any better - to me, or to any of his fans - if he shoehorned a bunch of extra advanced music theory techniques into his tunes. Just like I don't think James Brown, or Dark Side of the Moon, or Bob Marley need any more augmenteds and diminisheds then what they already have, i.e. nil.

For the thousandth time though, I don't see what's wrong about using simple, even basic chords and melodies if you are gifted enough to be able to create music that people really enjoy from that. That is a talent, not a shortcoming. Maybe the musical geniuses out there in the past might have written songs from the get-go with a bunch of cool melodic ideas, and maybe there are some who still do that, but many are more interested in exploring new production ideas. What is the actual difference, now that recorded music is the predominant art form for a huge number of people making music but not performing it for whatever reason? Using the studio as a tool is a newish art form for most musicians, and an art form that really invites a lot of possibilities, and evaluating the music based on traditional-musical-whatever-rules is probably an unrewarding way to look at it. If that's what people need to do to get through the day though, count the chords in a Katy Perry song and tell me that's why they don't like it, that's fine by me. But why, for the love of god, insist that compositional complexity is the one thing that determines whether you like a song or not! (Or worse, list over and over again the 8 things you're looking for). I don't buy it. I GUARANTEE you that Happy Musicfan (my homie) has music in his collection that he likes that is less melodically advanced or whatever than stuff on the radio right now. He just will never admit it.

Ok, definitely done for the evening here. But yeah, no quarrel here my man, and I will try to be a little less dickheadish if I have the time + patience to camp out in this thread again.

[Dean Roddey]

I definitely agree that the most powerful songs generally are not overly complex. As Perry Farrell said, simplicity and truth are what drive the most powerful songs. If you can create something simple, that delivers a solid emotional punch via a beautiful melody, that's always the most likely winner.

Not that there's anything wrong with more complex music, and you CAN definitely create complex music that doesn't lose touch with the fact that the emotional content delivery is still the purpose of the song. Yes and Rush are two great examples of this. I can't imagine a band with more soaring emotional impact than some of Yes' best songs, but it's certainly far more complex musically than most pop music.

[JP11]

For the record, it was not me who brought up the amount of chords or the kinds of chords or music made by machines (music created without human performance).

If someone wants to "explore" that old minimalism genre, or techno, or electronica or dubstep or whatever the latest name is for that old stuff, or explore "production" and "sounds" using synths and DAWs and all that old stuff, and someone else wants to explore polka music or banjo music or some other old stuff like that, it's fine with me...

by tired, I simply meant not fresh and not new...

[T'Mershi Duween]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Pop music songwriting existed long before rock and roll. And the music in the charts today clearly is not rock and roll, so why would you judge it by the standards of rock? That's over, dead and done.

To think that rock music is "over, dead and done..." is just asinine.

From the rock and roll's "attitude", fashions, instrumentation, presentation, etc, rock music is the foundation of all popular music. Even crap modern country (a bunch of failed rock musicians making hick twang... see: Garth Brooks) What is replacing rock? Dubstep? World music? Bagpipes? Disco?

You'll admit to once being a Milli Vanilli fan? That must account for your, uh, um, dubious evaluation on the importance/relevance of ROCK.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

To think that rock music is "over, dead and done..." is just asinine.

I mean, sure it will never really die just like there will always be some form of ballet, poetry, opera, jazz, etc. But it's never going to be the dominant, most socially relevant force in music again.

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

From the rock and roll's "attitude", fashions, instrumentation, presentation, etc, rock music is the foundation of all popular music.

Blues was a foundational element of rock but that doesn't mean that blues is still alive and relevant in the way it was in the 30s. Of course its influence will always remain, as it's been fully integrated into newer forms of music.

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

What is replacing rock? Dubstep? World music? Bagpipes? Disco?

Rock began to be replaced by electronic music in about 1970 and I think it has just about reached the end of its lifespan now too. The problem is, nobody comes up with proper names for this stuff anymore so I don't think we're going to have these clearcut eras like we did with jazz and rock. But if you look at the common threads between funk, disco, electronic music, synth pop, dance music, hip hop, and dub: the focus on the groove, the use of the studio as an instrument, the move away from bands to a producer-led studio collaboration often in the form of duos, more limited harmonic movement, and sometimes abandoning melody completely -- to me, those factors all defined a musical era that I'm calling the electronic music era for lack of a better term. Basically all of the stuff Happy Musicfan is complaining about in today's chart pop. He doesn't like it because it's a totally different form of music that he's not familiar with. It's all that's in the pop charts right now because it has been the dominant form of music for the past 30 years.

Look at something like the records Mutt Lange made with Def Leppard in the 80s. That's an example of rock music in its declining years fully absorbing the technology of electronic music which is pretty similar to how jazz musicians integrated rock instrumentation into their work in the late '60s when jazz was on its last legs.

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

You'll admit to once being a Milli Vanilli fan?

Well at least my musical tastes have evolved since I was 7. Have yours?

[T'Mershi Duween]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

... those factors all defined a musical era that I'm calling the electronic music era for lack of a better term.

Well, that would include pretty much all of the music of the 20th century onward.

The invention of the microphone, electric guitar, magnetic tape recording, synths, multi-tracks, etc, are all part of the electronic age. So I see your point there. We're probably in a post-electronic age now...

Rock/Pop is a 20th century art form that uses much of what came before and builds on it and expands on it. The music industry, technology, techniques, formats, the album "concept" etc., are firmly rooted in the Beatles era. The gravitational pull of that era is inescapable at this point in time. Rock is a deep and rich genre of music that includes everthing from reggae dub to disco to metal to folk to... well, you get the idea. It's just a convenient definition for energetic, eclectic, rhythm-based song forms usually with vocals and electric/electronic/acoustic instrumentation. Rock and Roll really is a nebulous term for music. I find it's more about the attitude than anything else.

I mean the term Rock And Roll was black slang for sex. It's a verb, man...

I define the "rock" I'm trying to do musically by what Robert Pollard has coined as the four P's.

Power Pop
Progressive
Punk
Psychedelic

Everything musically cool can be included that way!

[JP11]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Basically all of the stuff Happy Musicfan is complaining about in today's chart pop. He doesn't like it because it's a totally different form of music that he's not familiar with.

I don't know about Happy Musicfan...

but someone can be familiar with stuff and not like it...

This form is fricking ancient...

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by JP11

I don't know about Happy Musicfan...

but someone can be familiar with stuff and not like it...

There's a huge difference between recognizing a form of music but saying that you don't care for it, and refusing to even recognize that it is music. HMF is judging a whole slew of non-rock music by rock standards and using the differences to try to argue that the non-rock music is inferior and even destroying music. He may have a passing familiarity with non-rock forms but he clearly doesn't understand them.

Originally Posted by JP11

This form is fricking ancient...

What's your point?

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

The invention of the microphone, electric guitar, magnetic tape recording, synths, multi-tracks, etc, are all part of the electronic age. So I see your point there. We're probably in a post-electronic age now...

There's a fundamental and massive difference between using electronic technology to record a musical performance, and using the technology to create music from scratch that has never actually been performed by a human. Of course there are predecessors to electronic music that stretch back into the first half of the 20th century, but in my opinion it didn't really take off as the dominant form of production until the late '60s.

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

Rock is a deep and rich genre of music that includes everthing from reggae dub to disco to metal to folk to... well, you get the idea.

Yeah, that's called rockism. I don't even know where to begin with you there and I'm too tired to grapple with such a silly statement at the moment.

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

Power Pop
Progressive
Punk
Psychedelic

Everything musically cool can be included that way!

Most of my favorite music probably belongs to one of those four categories and yet I have to say, what a incredibly limited point of view you have. I hope you were joking to say that encompasses "everything musically cool" but it's very telling of the kind of chauvinistic attitudes you and Happy Musicfan are expressing.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by JP11

.

Awesome stuff. Wing absolutely ROCKS.

.

[T'Mershi Duween]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Most of my favorite music probably belongs to one of those four categories

OK, what's the problem?

Originally Posted by initialsBB

and yet I have to say,

Here we go...

Originally Posted by initialsBB

what a incredibly limited point of view you have.

Of what? The entirety of 20th century recorded music? Modernism? Bulgarian folk music? Prehistoric Sumerian dubstep?

Originally Posted by initialsBB

I hope you were joking to say that encompasses "everything musically cool"

For me it does! I wasn't advocating it for anyone else. This is a discussion about POP music and the decline of the art form. Do you find rock/pop music and it's many derivatives too restrictive? Is my post-Beatles vision of music too myopic for your advanced mind??

I'm well aware of your post-modernist twaddle. I've consumed, digested and pooped out more modernist theory than you've ever contemplated. I was into John Cage when you were into Milli Vanilli. Yes, my poop is post-modern.

Originally Posted by initialsBB

but it's very telling of the kind of chauvinistic attitudes you and Happy Musicfan are expressing.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Sounds like a personal problem.

I do know that you using the term "rockism" is trite and very passé.

And quite possibly shallow and pedantic...

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

And quite possibly shallow and pedantic...

I find your meatloaf....shallow and pedantic.... hmmm *twiddling end of moustache*

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Here's a hint: dub is not "rock" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is disco. If you want to say that it's passe to mention rockism then maybe you should try to move beyond your own rock-centric thinking.

[T'Mershi Duween]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Here's a hint: dub is not "rock" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is disco.

No, but like a pillaging Viking or the Borg, we can assimilate those sonic strands and use them without losing any stylistic connection to "rock".

The Clash did pretty credible dub experiments. So does Massive Attack.

Lot's of rock acts have incorporated disco elements. Blondie, Rod Stewart, Bee Gees...

"Rock" is not a dirty word. For better or worse, it is what built the modern recording industry and the music industry attendant thereto.

And it may have played a part in some city planning in San Francisco...

[initialsBB]

wait, I just looked at your list of influences on your about me page and I'm not sure what we're even arguing about. clearly you don't agree with Happy Musicfan that music needs to have a melody, be harmonically complex and lyrically poetic to be considered good music, right?

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

"Rock" is not a dirty word.

I'm not sure why anyone would think I believe otherwise. I haven't said a single thing against rock in this thread, and again it makes up the majority of the music I listen to. But guess what, POP is not a dirty word either! A lesson I think HMF could stand to learn.

Originally Posted by T'Mershi Duween

And it may have played a part in some city planning in San Francisco...

OK, that reference is WORSE THAN MILLI VANILLI. Just kidding, I actually owned that record too when I was a kid.