Keep On Moving
Jan. 31st, 2006 03:20 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
freakytigger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
poptimistsTwo things said by the Lex on the Poptimists chart thread:
"Gareth and I were talking last night about how a lot of the pro-pop people appear to have collectively decided that pop is a sonic genre rather than...anything and everything which cannibalises anything and everything else with an eye on the charts and sonic results all over the map, which is how I would want to define and approve of pop."
"I think my view of pop is the, the pure poppist view! the "pop-is-not-a-sound-but-an-ethos" argument which means that anything from Avril Lavigne to Stardust can be pop if it wants but that any attempt to define pop on strict sonic boundaries, or to make music based on these definitions (as many of these Swedes seem to do), is itself r*ck*sm or even worse INDIE"
Worth more discussion I reckons. Maybe we should ignore the whole qn of indie as I honestly think it's a side issue, and let's also try and leave rock1sm out of this until we know what it means, but yeah, is pop a sound or an ethos, or a sound that epitomises an ethos, or WHAT?
(If yr starving for actual YSI fun I will have some goodies for you tonight, including Bosh of the Week)
(Meanwhile for full on comments box madness scroll back to the Now 18 poll and look at the bottom - EEK)
"Gareth and I were talking last night about how a lot of the pro-pop people appear to have collectively decided that pop is a sonic genre rather than...anything and everything which cannibalises anything and everything else with an eye on the charts and sonic results all over the map, which is how I would want to define and approve of pop."
"I think my view of pop is the, the pure poppist view! the "pop-is-not-a-sound-but-an-ethos" argument which means that anything from Avril Lavigne to Stardust can be pop if it wants but that any attempt to define pop on strict sonic boundaries, or to make music based on these definitions (as many of these Swedes seem to do), is itself r*ck*sm or even worse INDIE"
Worth more discussion I reckons. Maybe we should ignore the whole qn of indie as I honestly think it's a side issue, and let's also try and leave rock1sm out of this until we know what it means, but yeah, is pop a sound or an ethos, or a sound that epitomises an ethos, or WHAT?
(If yr starving for actual YSI fun I will have some goodies for you tonight, including Bosh of the Week)
(Meanwhile for full on comments box madness scroll back to the Now 18 poll and look at the bottom - EEK)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:29 pm (UTC)Anyway:
One principle of "poptimism" - for me anyway: The commercial success of music is nearly always interesting, whether or not the music itself is any good or you might phrase it Successful music may or may not be good, but it's rarely easily dismissed. Obviously people dismiss it all the time, but by this I mean that they are lunkheads.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:33 pm (UTC)(i think this is a better thread as it's more general and less these-bloody-swedes)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:33 pm (UTC)Pop that makes one feel miserable is either goth or soul (depending on how good the song is).
Indie = made for the artist to enjoy and b8ll8cks to anyone who doesn't.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:36 pm (UTC)(ps i think this is true)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:39 pm (UTC)But then I think everything is potentially pop.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:42 pm (UTC)But surely something is also pop - or at least takes on some of the magic or characteristics of pop - when its success takes place in a smaller community, a pocket universe like ILM or East London or Poptimism or whatever. So maybe the characteristics of pop are its ability to induce rushes of enthusiasm, excitement, to override 'considered' response?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:53 pm (UTC)I think what differentiates good pop from bad or mediocre pop tends to be the element of surprise. "Well-crafted" is a potential enemy of pop not because craft or precision is at all bad but because it's the point where you recognise the template well enough to spot it
(on the other hand knowing the template = being less ready for the sudden exciting leap out of said template in a word or sound or moment)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:54 pm (UTC)But presumably nobody really agrees with this do they?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:06 pm (UTC)"What counts as pop is left up to you, but it probably includes at least some stuff that gets in the charts."
The caveat is there only as a notice to put off people who are purely into power pop or whatever, Maybe I shouldn't try and put them off.
The 'up to you' think is because part of what I like about being 'into pop' is the possibility of being persuaded that something unlikely IS pop.
(This is because I use 'pop' as something interchangeable with 'what I value'. People's choice of value words - "it rocks", "it has soul", etc. is interesting.)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:07 pm (UTC)Sounds good to me... ;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:09 pm (UTC)Kraftwerk
The Pet Shop Boys
Alison Goldfrapp
Yello
Ron Mael
So it would seem an element of crankiness in Pop is key (for me)!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 04:12 pm (UTC)