pop-as-sound vs pop-as-ethos

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

This is something which came up a) between Gareth and I last night at Lovelife, and b) in the comments box of the last post in the wake of Sweden's first round upset/The Knife's dominance of the pie thingy.

It's been noticeable recently (over the past year or so definitely) that the ahem 'online pro-pop community' seems to have collectively decided that 'pop' is a fixed sonic genre: synth-based, very gay (large elements of androgyny and burlesque), very white (a deliberate move away from turn-of-the-century r&b-influenced pop eg Britney, Xtina), and Swedish for preference. I don't like much of this stuff as I find it all very bloodless - those I approve of (Annie, The Knife) often have a harder electro edge, but for the most part it's incredibly unimaginative and wimpy (Bodies Without Organs, those terrible people whose entire career seems to be based on covering the Pet Shop Boys) - and as we all know, WIMPY = INDIE.

But surely the entire point of 'pop', the point of music made with commercial impact in mind, is that it can never be rooted in any particular sound: it's anything and everything which cannibalises anything and everything else, leading to sonic results all over the musical map. It's an ethos rather than a genre - I think the scattergun Xenomania approach typifies it quite well - which means that the pop umbrella can cover everything it or you or the public wants it to.

How do you view pop? And what's your view on the trend towards wimpy, bloodless Scandinavians being held up as some sort of ULTIMO-POP?

Comments

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

The problem here is "with commercial impact in mind" - Bodies Without Organs and Robyn have a fairly big commercial impact in Scandinavia. They know what the Swedish market likes! Are they pop there but not elsewhere? (I've had this conversation with Dr Thomson)

I like big synths and campiness, though I don't think my tastes in pop are remotely fixed to those.

I was thinking yesterday - in the context of Tokio Hotel vs Go Team -that what I want from pop is generally a bit of vulgarity.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Yeah I gathered that Robyn was "big" over there too - I think my argument isn't so much that they're not pop as they're not the embodiment of pop. I like big synths and campness too but I also like a bit of EDGE with them - BWO et al are all people who seem to think that PSB were great because of the synths rather than because of the words.

What I like for is basically bangingness (or a really soppy ballad).

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

I thought the PSBs were great because of both and both contribute equally to their magnificence.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Yes, I probably agree, but BWO...missed half out.

[the-roofdog.livejournal.com]

You probably know better than me, but I wz under the impression that Bodies w/o Organs had made very little impact in their native land, their two biggest markets are Russia and the UK. Which probably backs up Lex's point, tbh.

*sniff*