[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "Pop" Music -- !!NEW THREAD!!! maybe, if anyone's interested

At 11:50 AM 5/8/96, Andrew P. Rodenhiser wrote:
>On  8 May 96 at 10:28, psavage\!/toronto.cbc.ca wrote:
>}Odds could only hope to string together a song that could match anything
>}Matthew Sweet has written.  All pop should be as beautiful as the songs on
>OK, you folks toss around this word "pop" like it's a good thing.  I
>thought that "pop" music was whatever is currently appealing to the
>masses, as opposed to being a definable genre of musical style.  So
>when you folks say that Sloan or TH or the SFz or whoever have a
>nice "pop" feel, what the \!/%#$ do you mean?  Define "pop" as a
>musical style rather than simply anything on the Billboard 100.
>I always equated pop with Top 40 radio, as something to be avoided.
>Why do you indie-rock types suddenly embrace it?

Ah ha.  The dilemmas of the hep lexicon.  Remember rock was also once a bad
word.   As bad as pop.  Its kinda like they've both been reclaimed both
with heavy doses of both irony and honesty.  Pop is a more accurate
description of a musical style now, than it is of record sales. Listening
habits have become much more fragmented than they once were. There is no
easily identifiable core or pop(ular) music.  Sure, we know that shit like
Hootie and the Blowfish often sells better than anything good but there is
no one common "hit parade" anymore.   (does anyone remember hoiw long Sam's
kept this section in their stores?  tee hee)

So we can reclaim the word pop to mean many different things:  light,
catchy, hooky, disposable (meant in a good way), stealing from the formerly
derisive Bubblegum pop etc etc

Margie Borschke
editor-type, STIM

STIM 632 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10012

212-253-7046 (STIM)
212-253-7015 (FAX STIM)