August 10, 2004

Pop vs “Real Music”

Pop vs Real Music Ahhh, yes – that old chestnut. Which genre is superior, and more importantly, which genre should be crushed like a bug under the boot of a hefty Latvian goat herd? The answer is, quite simply, neither. Both have a place in the musical landscape, and true music lovers will be the first to tell you so.

“They’re manufactured! They’re not proper musicians! They haven’t slogged their guts out for years to get where they are! They’re not original at all!” scream the antipop brigade.

Blah blah fucking blah. You know what would be truly original? A new argument which isn’t just a regurgitation of some tripe a tosser in the university bar told you when you were young and impressionable. Who says the latest pop star hasn’t slogged his or her guts out? Perhaps they’ve been attending dance and singing lessons several times a week since they were a kid? Perhaps they’ve been doing session work to earn enough money to live on while they try and make it as a pop star? How is that any less hard work than practising your guitar every night, busking to earn cash and doing gigs whenever you get the chance in order to pursue your rock star dreams?

“But.. but pop is crap! Pop has no place in the charts!” they continue, clutching at their Triple J Hottest 100 compilation.

Donnie, I will always love thee A pop group has just as much right to be on the charts as any rock band, and it’s absolute arrogance to say that they don’t. I ask you this question - what did you listen to when you were a kid? I’d love to hear of an eight year old who enjoys Jeff Buckley’s B-sides, or a seven year old who is a huge fan of The Smiths. I like to think I have a very broad taste in music but when I was a little kid, I loved four things and four things only: New Kids On The Block, Kylie Minogue, Belinda Carlisle and Collette – yes, she of Ring My Bell fame. I was only eight years old and personally I was rather impressed I owned an album - any album - regardless of what it might have been. As I got older, I explored more and more different kinds of music. I was lucky enough to have older sisters, one of whom foolishly left her CD collection behind when I was thirteen years old and she moved to the UK. Cue a teenage Jess spending hours in her bedroom marvelling over Soundgarden, The Pixies, Lemonheads and Nine Inch Nails (and learning how to refer to herself in the third person, apparently - twit.)

But the point is - if I didn’t have my beloved pop stars as a child, if I didn’t spend hours listening to “Cover Girl” and dreaming of Donnie Wahlberg as my future husband, I may not have developed a love of listening to music full stop. Thus when I hit my teenage years, I would have ignored my sister’s CD collection and chosen to rollerblade instead - leading to me now being in my early twenties with no love or appreciation for music at all. So why stamp out pop when it has a perfectly respectable place in the development of music appreciation? Pop’s very name stems from the word “popular” - and kids, just because something’s popular and “commercial” doesn’t mean it’s shit - it may be popular for a reason (ie: it’s catchy, fun and enjoyable). Likewise, just because something’s unsigned and independent doesn’t ensure it’s quality either - sometimes, unsigned bands are unsigned for a reason, namely they’re terribly bad.

“But… most of these singers don’t even perform their own material! Talentless!”

Another idiotic argument as far as I´m concerned. Some people write music. Some people perform music. Some very talented people are able to do both, and the kudos directed at them (when the music itself is of good quality) is well deserved. But saying someone is talentless because they’re not a songwriter themselves is just ridiculous. Dusty Springfield, one of the finest female vocalists in the last fifty years, didn’t write her own stuff. Hell, most classical musicians don’t actually ever perform their own stuff but rather choose to play works written by other people when they´re playing in concert. Are you going to tell a classical pianist that he’s completely talentless after he’s finished performing a note-perfect rendition of Rachmaninov´s Piano Concerto No 3?

A new cause has emerged in recent years that the anti-pop brigade have embraced whole-heartedly. That’s right, apparently “stupid reality TV stars are hitting the top of the charts at the expense of proper Aussie rock bands”. I would have to disagree with that. Firstly, while I admit my memory of anything that occurred more than five minutes ago is generally hazy at best, the sad truth is I don’t recall Guy Sebastian´s debut single knocking an original Aussie rock band from the top position of the singles chart - Delta Goodrem perhaps, but not some band full of Aussie underdogs who walked uphill both ways in the snow wearing nothing but a potato sack in order to get to band practice. It is improbable (but not impossible, right Missy Higgins?) that Aussie rock or indie artists will manage to reach #1 in the singles chart. “Unjust!” I hear some of you cry, and you’re spot on - it is unjust that some great rock singles don’t get the recognition they deserve. But that’s the Top 40 singles chart for you - it’s nothing new. Meaningless, catchy pop (reality TV bred or no) has always featured prominently in the top end of the Top 40, and on commercial radio too - it’s a case of “chicken or the egg” as to which one caused pop to heavily influence the other.

Silverchair are a success story, though it's important to remember they've always had a lot of money behind them. On the upside, the Australian albums chart is often dominated with national rock success stories. Bands like Silverchair, Something For Kate, John Butler Trio and more are finding their albums are reaching #1, and personally I think that’s more an indication of success than simply selling a few thousand copies of your single. If anything, I’m pleased to see an increase of Aussie content in both the album and the singles chart, regardless of whether it’s pop or rock.

Please, Fiddy - stay out of our charts! One good thing about Australian Idol which I think is often forgotten at times (other than by Marcia Hines, who mentioned it in a Daily Telegraph article a few weeks ago) is that Australia has been lacking a pop star we could call our very own. “Who gives a shit?” one might say. Well, I do, if it means that our charts and airwaves are swamped by ugly boy bands from Ireland, brainless American bimbos with a penchant for vocal aerobics, or posse´s of ‘gangsta’ rappers who wouldn’t know a decent tune or lyric if it busted a cap in their ass. Word. At the very least, be grateful that the teens of this country are buying Australian.

I find it slightly amusing that many out there who count themselves as “real music fans” (cos like, they were into Nirvana totally before April 1994) are so doggedly trying to label anything Australian Idol related as trash, despite the fact that this year’s bunch of hopefuls contains quite a few talented individuals. Take Chanel Cole for example. I promise you, if the naysayers had stumbled across Chanel singing in a dingy city pub and hawking her independent releases, they would have creamed themselves over her. But no - she entered their consciousness through Australian Idol and therefore she’s utter dross - no matter that in actuality she’s a discerningly accomplished singer. Just as pop shouldn’t be dismissed in an offhand manner as terrible, neither should reality TV show contestants be breezily categorised as ineffectual performers - at least without objectively listening to them first.

The wannabe-cool hipsters seem insulted that pop dares to exist when it’s so often superfluous and lacking depth. Hello! That’s exactly what pop is for! It’s not asking to change the world; it’ll leave that up to the idealistic rockers like Bono. No, pop just wants to put on its shiny gold hotpants and hit the dance floor - it’s here for a good time, not a long time. Acting disgusted over the frivolousness of some pop is as pointless as being disgusted with McDonalds for being fast food. Pop is what it is, and it certainly doesn’t owe the beret-wearing pretentious wankers of society any apology just because it’s not angst ridden or performed by a singer-songwriter in a decrepit city venue.

Fred Durst - while his music is classified as rock (sub-genre is nu-metal), he is undoubtedly bung. Don’t get me wrong - a lot of the pop songs that make the charts can be safely filed away in the ¨Shithouse¨ folder. Not all pop is good, so don’t think I’m defending everything that falls under its sequinned banner. By the same token though, as I mentioned above, not all rock is good. Hello, all you whiney middle-class American white boys singing about how no one understands you! Embracing an entire genre regardless of the quality of individual songs is as futile as dismissing an entire genre. What ever happened to listening to the actual song and deciding whether it was good or not depending on how it sounded?

I have found (after over-dosing on generalisation pills) that there are three kinds of modern music fans.

Firstly, you have the rather scary devout teenage pop lovers. Usually illiterate, always fanatic, this group is largely ignorant to anything musical that hasn’t appeared in the Top 30 count down. Many of the pack are found in Delta Goodrem´s online forums, but they can be also found petitioning for Australian Idol contestant Rob “Millsy” Mills´ movie G’Day L.A to be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster. It is this frenzied, hormone-charged breed of teen that gives pop lovers of the world a terrible reputation.

Secondly, you have the complete opposite - the ubercool more-alternative-than-thou people. Their standard opinion is that singer-songwriters are the only real musicians in the world, and anyone else (all pop stars included) should burn in the depths of Hades. Many people question just what sort of horrendous childhood could lead to such aggression towards something as trivial as pop. In most cases, a scenario involving teenage friends discovering a particularly dodgy album in their collection (think Roxette, Bros, Indecent Obsession) and the humiliation that followed was enough to encourage the troubled teen to turn to angsty rock\metal\anything-with-a-remotely-alternative-vibe. They’ve carried this musical chip on their shoulder into adulthood, and can usually be found venting angrily about the importance of “real music” and often leading pub debates on why pop is ruining the music industry.

The third kind of music fan is the kind who likes music, full stop. If it sounds good, they’re interested. They’re enlightened enough to be aware that some pop songs have brilliant melodies, something that some indie songs are sorely lacking. They respect songwriters, but they don’t automatically assume every songwriter is good simply because they play their own stuff. They know not assign independent bands instant credibility without listening to their work, and they also know they shouldn’t dismiss a pop star´s credibility and musical credentials simply due to the type of music they sing. Uninterested with image or impressing anyone else with how alternative and music-savvy they are, this third kind of fan is a genuine music lover though they’re less noticeable than the more-alternative-than-thou breed of fans, mostly because they’re not often found wearing ridiculous clothes from St Vinnies, drinking soy lattes in Newtown and spouting off about how “music is like, totally my life - but not that ‘commercialised’ crap…”

It’s interesting to me that every real musician (the good and versatile ones without attitude, not the rubbish stare-at-my-shoes-and-whine-while-strumming-guitar-look-at-me-I’m-a-moody-rocker brand of musician) I know has a healthy taste for pop - good pop. I can’t stress this enough. Perhaps it’s because as songwriters themselves, they can see the genius of Britney’s Toxic. Maybe it’s why we’re all partial to Murder On The Dance Floor. It could well be that as aspiring rockers, they’re aware of something that is often missing in rock songs nowadays - the hook. Good pop is pure hook, and perhaps adopting more pop sensibility into rock music is a good thing. In any case, it’s certainly not something to be afraid of.

This rather long and unstructured rant is nearly over, so I’d like to send out a final message to the different kinds of music fans I mentioned above.

Scary Devout Teenage Pop Lovers - I hope that at some point you will learn that death threats are not the best way to defend your idol’s reputation on various websites, and I also hope you will open your minds and ears to the wonderful, diverse world of music out there.

To all the More-Alternative-Than-Thou group out there - I beg of you, take the time to actually listen to songs instead of instantly dismissing them because they don’t fit your ideal of clichéd “proper” music. Pop is your friend - nay, it´s more than a friend. It’s the drunken vapid floozy you go out with now and again when you want a cheap, dirty night of fun. Resisting her lusty charms in order to stay at home constantly with your lovable but often stern wife (indie\rock\metal\etc, for those of you not digging my metaphor) means you’re missing out. ausculture.com encourages your musical infidelity!

Finally, to the I Like Music, Full Stop bunch of music fans - to you, I simply say keep on keepin’ on. The meek may inherit the earth, but who cares? You’ll be heading straight to musical heaven to form a band with Jimi Hendrix, Britney Spears, John Bonham and Cher - or something.

Posted by Jess at August 10, 2004 03:33 PM
— Filed under Articles On Various Topics , Feature Articles

Comments
()
/ Trackbacks (URI)

On September 28, 2004 09:16 PM at Junk for Code:
Radiohead: OK Computer
Joe Carducci put forth a particular view about rock music in his 1994 book, "Rock and the Pop Narcotic." He

On August 11, 2004 01:46 PM, antzpantz wrote:

That was a good rant. I’m with you all the way along there. I think I’m between the “fully-indie-rock-man!” and the “all music is cool” groups… more so the former. Not a big fan of pop, but there are a couple (if ONLY a couple) of songs that I like out of there. Top 30 gets boring, and so does Hottest 100. It’s all good. :)

Search ausculture

August 10, 2004

Pop vs “Real Music”

Comments () / Trackbacks (URI)

Comments
()
/ Trackbacks (URI)