Perhaps it’s just a Central European phenomenon, but I still can’t help getting irate. Over the last few years, the serious-minded media have tarnished the term “pop” with a snide brush, and the word has come to mean music that is conceived exclusively for financial profit, is then devoured by a dumb populace that doesn’t know better, and is finally and justly forgotten once it has exited the charts.
That’s not the way I remember pop music. To me, it’s a noble art form where talented composers and lyricists strive to shine creatively within the narrow constraints of a three- to four-minute chunk of finely structured music. In an interview I did with Pete Townshend back in 1994, the Who guitarist went so far as to compare the elegance of a good song to that of an Elizabethan sonnet, while renowned conductor Leonard Bernstein once hailed the Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson as one of the most promising composers of modern times. But it’s not just the old rock hacks that have been pushing the envelope. Madonna has repeatedly come up with profoundly mysterious moments (“Bedtime Stories” with lyrics by Björk comes to mind) while “Billie Jean” by Michael Jackson has an otherworldliness that I find enthralling long after Jackson himself has done everything in his power to make us forget the talent that once resided within his slender frame.
But now even the artists themselves act as if pop is little more than another excuse for garish self-promotion, and as Wolfgang Niedecken from German band BAP pointed out when I spoke to him a few months back, it’s perhaps not surprising the guardians of highbrow culture see themselves justified in squeezing pop out of the broadsheets. I really think these people are missing the point: it’s not the job of the critic to say what is and what isn’t art; to my mind it’s the art that makes its inherent value known to the beholder. And if pop music, for lack of a better word, has never made you think or even feel something new and exciting; it’s not the music’s fault. More likely than not, it’s yours.
Monday, 1 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Nick. Nice to see you active!
I know what you mean about disregard of a "genre" purely because it's not tortured artists or 17 years in music school. If we disregard pop as a valid form of expression, then what would have happened to the likes of Madonna, especially in the early years (much as I dislike her music) and David Bowie to name only two?
As a contraction of "popular" the "style" depends on who defines it. If it is "Pop" because it is liked by the Plebians does that invalidate it? Is it only the music critic that defines whether it is "art"? Lots of critics raved about artists that leave me cold and bored (Arctic Monkeys, Kings of Leon, Bloc Party). Much of the music I like depends not only on mood and eclecticism but such things as whether it fits an opening or closing animation (series like BLEACH, see Rolling Star by YUI or My Pace by Sunset Swish). It's funny, I was talking to some youngsters at work and they only knew some artists at all because a song was in a Hollywood movie. But then, what do you associate "Raindrops are falling on my head" with? The use of Radioheads "Creep" in the film Cyclo was a stroke of genius IMHO, as was California Dreaming in Cheungking Express though the critics immediately said the film was "like watching a pop video" which seems to them to be a mark of disdain. Of course, they are allowed to like him when his work is colourful and obscure.
When you want to bounce along on the way to a dull job, give me Kotoko, S.H.E., YUI or Puffy Ami Yumi on my mp3 player rather than some pretentious but critically acclaimed mournful dirge anyday.
Loves you
Post a Comment