Of Pop And Polls And Fun

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Following on from a discussion between Frank and Julio and I on the P&J thread about what "Let It Blurt" by Lester Bangs was doing there (you hopefully don't need to read that discussion to understand this post tho...)

Frank says: And assuming that a vote for ["Let It Blurt"] is a joke is no different from assuming that a vote for "...Baby One More Time" or "Stars Are Blind" is a joke.

But equally some of those votes MIGHT BE JOKES! Just cos we disapprove of irony or mockery as a way into (or deflection of) enjoyment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

To look at the social context of dancing rather than the social context of polling, if you play Britney in a club full of people who mostly like credible rock or alternative or punk or dance music (not too dissimilar from the voter base of P&J), some people will dance who wouldn't describe themselves as liking it, because they're making a joke or showing off or striking a pose or whatever.

Same thing happens in a poll, and just like dancing there's a continuum: as a poll gets bigger and more formal, voters take it (and themselves) more seriously, and the ones that don't get statistically ironed out and so results which MIGHT carry an implication of private enthusiasm or private irony (same difference, statswise) become fewer and fewer. The P&J poll these days is definitely at the serious end of this continuum, the Poptimists polls generally at the frivolous end due to the fact that the social element of polling is much more explicit here.

The '79 singles results are P&J at an earlier stage in this process than it's reached now and I was delighted to see the Bangs single placing because it seemed to me to carry traces of the 'social-ness' of P&J (and 'rock criticism' itself, if you like).

Which may be just as patronising to Bangs-the-musician, but there you go.

Comments

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

Polls aren't your best medium for that. Democracy = not very rock and roll.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i disagree -- i think the notional quasi-scientific sobriety makes them an excellent context for playful disruption!

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

hmm, but it's not the disruption YOU planned is it? (unless it's something like the example Tom mentioned on the other thread of Stylus poll voters plotting in advance to get Schnappi in).

At best it's an accidental result - and more likely it's the New Conformity or the New State (of Pop) that already existed but you didn't realise existed until the results appeared.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

accidental result (ie something none of us expected) = the best possible outcome under any circs HURRAH!!

which only becomes the "new conformity" when we revert to worrellist bean-counting to keep it this way next time!!

(actually by "disruption" i don't necessarily mean a result publicly visible in the poll afterwards -- i just mean something which energsies and destabilises the process as it proceeds)

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

No argument from me on the first point (taken on its own). Good example being "I Want You Back" winning the ILM 60s poll, which I'm willing to bet good money nobody would have predicted ex ante. [Although the result (the accident) is explainable ex post]

Second point = you got me, but I also think you're undermining your first point by making it. There's no point in having a poll in the first place IMHO if you can't extrapolate from it, if you can't make something out of the accident.

(NB: the above doesn't mean I am in favour of polls necessarily or think they are a good measurement of anything. My position is based on an acceptance that other ppl are/do and keep on bloody well starting them.)