Poptimism THORT for the day

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

"pop is a map of the world at large (everything else is a map of 1xcommunity at small)"

That one submitted by dubdobdee.

Comments

Re: May I humbly refer you to...

[koganbot]

Your Pop-II doesn't always work. Any current music that sounds like the Beatles would be "pop" under Pop-II (and I'm fine with that) but so would any current music that sounds like Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin and the Sex Pistols (I don't think the fact that they only charted in England takes them out of the category) and Metallica and Hole, and I don't think anyone is perceiving this is "pop," since other considerations overwhelm the fact that they're drawing on music that was once popular (one of the considerations that, though being "popular," it wasn't called "pop" in its time). Also, obv. there were no charts in the 15th through 18th centuries, but Beethoven and sonata form draw on musical forms that you could call "popular" (dance forms and religious forms), doesn't he? And, also, Beethoven himself was once popular, and it's pretty hard not to think of his being part of popular culture in America of the first half of the 20th century, even if he wasn't hitting the singles charts, e.g. Toscannini broadcasts, biopics of the fellow on TV sponsored by Disney, etc.

And your Pop-III seems closer to "folk" than to "pop" if you're taking the meaning of "folk" as used by, um, forget the man's name (Becker?), by which the archetypal folk song isn't so much "House Of The Rising Sun" (though it might qualify as "folk") but "Happy Birthday"! It doesn't seem to me that much pop music could be performed by amateurs, given that it's made by professionals in studios with state-of-the-art technology. A karaoke version of "...Baby One More Time" might count, with the original record as source material, but I don't see how the original record itself would count as something an amateur could do.

Re: May I humbly refer you to...

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

Now I think including entire bands was the wrong way to go; entire bands can be within a certain catagory, but it maybe more comes down to elements. On the one hand, I think it would be useful to look at a band that does sound like Sabbath as pop, but I also can't think of any bands (admittedly my scope is limited) that do sound entirely like Sabbath did. There are bands that sound entirely like Zepp and the Pistols did (Wolfmother, Green Day) but those bands are pop. Generally bands that don't think of themselves as pop only incorporate some elements of these genreic-but-pop bands, either musically or methodologically, so those elements would still be pop-II. And these bands are very much pop in some ways. I'm not saying their genre roots should be de-emphasized but I also think these elements have made their way into future genres via pop, not subcultures.

As for III, yeah, needs more refining, but I still think it's useful. Amateurs is probably the wrong word; I more meant whatever the opposite of "artist" is. Crafting music to commercial standards/requirements, rather than following your muse etc., or imitating people who once made art to commercial standards. The "old snob" view. I also think it's genuinely worth drawing a line at the age of mechanical reproduction. The historical precedents are useful but are really part of a different world.

Thanks for the thoughts, though, these are all things I need to consider.

details, details

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

I quite firmly believe that some Metallica ("Enter Sandman" if nothing else) is pop, and in fact planned to mention that in my Chart Championship profile.

I heard "Run to the Hills" over the weekend while (blush) eating lunch at Hard Rock Cafe. It was not Pop then but apparently it is now.