the BADCRAP BARFS more like

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i. ok so out of "scholarly diligence" i watched the repeated omnibus about syd b last night
ii. and confirmed that barrett-era PF = post-barrett PF = post-PF barrett = ALL AS USELESS AS ONE ANOTHER
iii. except then i slept and dremt ALL NIGHT dreams soundtracked by barrett songs >:(

so this raises the deep poptimist question: is a tune that sticks in yr mind GOOD even if you HATE IT -- isn't the craft of melody a kind of nerve-glue to attach you to a ahem "work" so that yr feelings of some particular moment get externalised into it and there replayed?

anyway i am quite happy to grant that SB had an unusual facility with oddly shaped song-flow, burden and refrain* -- except i think i would also argue that the collective direction of the outfit he founded was increasingly at odds with this gift (cf also curtis and JD-NO)... they were fashioning a monumental high-volume drone juggernaut; his gift was quirkily quaint'Nquiet little broke-back ditties -- and that the split (as with joy div) was inevitable on musical grounds; the psycho-chemical context a pretext for sentimentalists and clueless romantics

ps the documentary itself was incredibly lame and lazy in almost every regard

Comments

[mippy.livejournal.com]

I might be slightly wrong then - perhaps I'm thinking of those perennial lyric-analysis features in supplements. There was a Radio 2 doc a while back where they were going into production techniques (specifially autotune on the bit I heard) so I'd be surprised if it was largely uncovered. I've been out of touch with that world a bit for the past couple of years so I'd like to know.

Perhaps you're right, but...pop#s all about the je ne sais quoi, I reckon. Otherwise there would be so many records that are better than they actually are.