pop-as-sound vs pop-as-ethos
Jan. 31st, 2006 03:11 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
alexmacpherson.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
poptimistsThis 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?
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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:44 pm (UTC)but really, how DO you rationalise and reason that?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 05:22 pm (UTC)