allplainstapped: What is it about that stupid song?

"Henry" the Ninja (

allplainstapped) wrote,
@ 2004-06-02 11:09:00

Current mood:	cheerful
Current music:	Right now? Mandy Moore's I Wanna Be With You

What is it about that stupid song?
This morning, I wasted a few minutes of my precious sleep time organizing a playlist entitled "Bad Pop Hits." It seems that over the years, a number of these songs found their way into my music library, so I figured, why not just organize them all into one place?

Then I ran into a little bit of a semantics argument with myself. After all, what is bad pop music. I originally went into this little project with the likes of Britney Spears, NSYNC (couldn't find this one... maybe I deleted it!?), and the Spice Girls in mind. Poppy, synthed tunes, singable lyrics, and catchy refrains. I think we all know what I'm talking about here. But what about Sheryl Crow's If It Makes You Happy? Should that go on my list? Or Evanescence's Bring Me To Life?

So here I go, opening the proverbial can-of-worms with this question: what do you guys think "pop" music is? I'm not really interested in broad definitions here. I don't want to see The Shins on this list or anything. I'm talking about a specific type of pop: bad pop.

Let 'er rip.

(Post a new comment)

	davextreme 2004-06-02 08:29 am UTC (link)
	I think of songs where the artist is singing and dancing on stage — maybe with backup dancers — instead of playing an instrument. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	allplainstapped 2004-06-02 08:34 am UTC (link)
	This is a good criteria and would only make a few of my songs invalid. So Michael Jackson and Madonna would fit here as well? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	crueltywhite 2004-06-02 09:07 am UTC (link)
	reminder that jacko is known as the "King of Pop" (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ediblemouse 2004-06-02 08:41 am UTC (link)
	My loose definition of POP is music is it’s designed to sell to the widest audience and appeal to the lowest common denominator. It’s not progressive or original and is usually a corporate construct rather than an authentic expression of the person performing it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

allplainstapped
2004-06-02 08:47 am UTC (link)

So of the first ten songs on my playlist...

Aqua – Turn Back Time
Britney Spears – Hit Me Baby One More Time
Crazy Town – Butterfly
Natalie Imbruglia – Troubled By the Way We Came Together
Sheryl Crow – If It Makes You Happy
Spice Girls – Too Much
Spice Girls – Spice Up Your Life
Evanescence – Bring Me To Life
Britney Spears – You Drive Me Crazy
Mandy Moore – I Wanna Be With You

...Evanescence doesn't necessarily fit, and I'm a little hazy of the Natalie Imbruglia song. I guess it's a question of what I actually think of her?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ediblemouse 2004-06-02 09:41 am UTC (link)
	I think both definitely fit those descriptions. I don't think either are all that authentic and are designed for mass appeal. (Reply to this) (Parent)

crueltywhite
2004-06-02 09:13 am UTC (link)

In my mind, it's almost the intention of the artist/producer that makes a song Pop music. if you have marketing in mind when you're making your "art" it's pop. under this crappy rule, any artist can create pop music. hard rockers make ballads, rappers use Jackson Five samples, r&b artists get puffy to produce... etc etc.

also, bands/groups created by somethign other than the members meeting eachother somehow are automatically pop IMO. i'm sure there are exceptions but i can't think of them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

crueltywhite
2004-06-02 09:17 am UTC (link)

i shouldve commented on your list..

Evanescence - the band is rock but that song is pop rock. that singer was thrown in by producers and the video sucks every drop of genuine emotion out (and i buy amy lee's vocals as sincere)

Aqua - could you argue that they're making songs for their native and club audiences that just looks pop to the rest of us?

the rest seemed fine. those other singers were discovered and groomed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	allplainstapped 2004-06-02 09:27 am UTC (link)
	"Discovered and groomed." Haha. Yes, but that particular Aqua song I think belongs here. It strays enough from the dancy stuff to warrent a "bad pop" label. I agree with you on Evanescence, in that it's more rock than pop. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sandswept 2004-06-02 09:54 am UTC (link)
	i'll throw in another reiteration that evanescence is not pop. it's rock, or rather popular rock. it enjoys heavy airwave play and is eaten up by the masses. because something happens to be on the radio 24-7 and commands a wide exposure doesn't necessarily qualify it as pop, and shouldn't be a primary determining factor either. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bluemonday1047 2004-06-02 10:25 am UTC (link)
	well, I for one have always considered "Pop Rock" to be another cousin at the Pop Family Reunion. Or else use an umbrella analogy ... I certainly consider it in the same vein. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

sandswept
2004-06-02 11:00 am UTC (link)

certainly a cousin, but not a sibling... extrapolate in the direction you're headed, and practically anything that has any amount of 'popular culture' exposure can be considered in one way or another to be Pop.

that's taken to an extreme though. for the sake of what i perceive kenji's trying to accomplish, the argument can't get too general or widespread, and should be kept in the immediate family. hot & incestuous, pure Pop on Pop action.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bluemonday1047
2004-06-02 11:06 am UTC (link)

defining similar yet not identical items is always a slippery slope.

In my book, these things are the same. More of a my two cents than a practical definition. I see Evanescence and Madonna as the same sort of thing. Thats only in my wqorld, of course. I see mainstream appeal as the ultimate defining characteristic of something being "pop." I would describe Limp Bizkit as a pop-something. I would define any music that is a part of popular culture as "pop," be it rock, rap, anthem dance song, etc.

I do not expect all or any to agree, but thats how I define "pop" myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

crueltywhite
2004-06-02 11:25 am UTC (link)

we obviously use pop both ways. as it's own genre and as a modifier within genres.

Limp Bizkit is pop rap rock in that people like umm... Insane Clown Posse (?) is not..because it's more true to the genre and doesn't appeal to mainstream fans. I wouldn't say they're pop though because i don't believe that Durst sat down and said "i want to be famous...what kind of music can i produce that would make people think i'm cool and get me blowjobs." i honestly believe that he makes the music he enjoys and it just happens to be crap that appeals to wannabe skaters (and me). :)

There's a lot of music out there that is not supposed to be liked by mainstream fans. rap and metal come to mind as art forms that are supposed to be for and about a counter culture. thus the "pop" label is necessary to describe what isn't for or truly about that counter culture.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bluemonday1047
2004-06-02 11:34 am UTC (link)

I do not want to assume to know what made Durst want to make music, but the fat remains that he makes the music. I don't think intent is the issue in defining pop, but I agree here that, regardless of intent, his music is pop-crap or whatever.

I think I agree with what you're saying about hardcore metal and rap. I think, though, that things like Eazy E and Dre get adopted into pop-rap even if they were originally meant to be for an entirely different audience. when suburban rich white kids are "rollin down the street, smokin endo, sippin' on gin and juice," there's got to be something in regards to pop involved in that rap. Cause Mom's minivan ain't no lowrider.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ediblemouse 2004-06-02 11:46 am UTC (link)
	I like your spelling error, almost as if you're calling Durst 'the fat.' I think that's funny because fred durst is fat. (Reply to this) (Parent)

allplainstapped
2004-06-02 12:15 pm UTC (link)

In this super-broad definition of "pop" (and to avoid semantical arguments here), no judgement can be assigned one way or the other. "Pop" as a musical genre based solely on record sales can, by its very definition, be neither good nor bad. It's really a definition that gets us no where except some kind of pretentious notion that we are better than them because we recognize that good music is obscure music. All judgements aside and please, do not read this as an attack on anyone (I sometimes share these pretensions, although I hate to admit it). It's just a statement of the way I see this going.

Everyone's insights have been great, btw. Straying from my original, more precisely defined "bad pop hits," I'd like to say that many bands--Limp Bizkit and even the Goo Goo Dolls--don't start out thinking, "This is going to be how I make my millions." Just because one or two songs are played heavily doesn't qualify them as a sell-out, pop artist. What counts is what happens AFTER that initial, successful album. "You've found the pulse of the masses. Do you continue to produce what they already know and love?" It's why Britney Spears albums all sound the same. It's why all Goo Goo Dolls albums have become sappy rock ballads after "No One." Or why Madonna keeps "adapting" to the current trends in music and fashion.

Anyway, that's just me thinking aloud.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

somebody's got a case of Lastworditis ....

bluemonday1047
2004-06-02 12:24 pm UTC (link)

I didn't see this going in that direction at all, nor do I get pretensious about the whole thng. Pop music, by the broad definition I used for it, remains unjudged. It is, if anything, very widely liked, as it has some universal appeal to it, something that makes it accessible to a large portion of the populace. If anything, this is entirely a GOOD thing.

as for why artists make music, I still think its kind of pretensious in its own right to pretend to know why anyone does anything aside form yourself ...

and I wouldn't necessarily define it as "defined by record sales" so much as popularity. But thats just my take. I don't really hold anything against it at all, nor do I think obscure music is "better" simply based on its obscurity. Pop music gets the same bad rap that celebrities do ... its easy to hate since its so prevelant, and there's something to be said for the fun in being contrary.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: somebody's got a case of Lastworditis .... sandswept 2004-06-02 12:30 pm UTC (link)
	I didn't see this going in that direction at all heheh.. no kidding, you kept right on going. i certainly didn't try to head it off and keep it specific to what i saw as kenji's initial intent with my comment above. :P [poke poke] (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bluemonday1047 2004-06-02 12:32 pm UTC (link)
	wow. okay, should I delete my comments? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: somebody's got a case of Lastworditis .... bluemonday1047 2004-06-02 12:38 pm UTC (link)
	what I mean is, obviously we got off topic, but does that make the conversation going on nonesense, or idiotic? If so, I was unaware of that. I simply enjoyed the conversation. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: somebody's got a case of Lastworditis .... allplainstapped 2004-06-02 12:58 pm UTC (link)
	Now boys... This direction is fine. Conversations are there to evolve, I suppose, and we already had a really good on-topic one. I was just worried it would go this direction right from the start. It would be like when you have two subjects in an e-mail thread, and the person you're talking to answers one but ignores the other. Or kind of like that... Um... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: somebody's got a case of Lastworditis .... cyndercalhoon 2004-06-02 01:27 pm UTC (link)
	So if Fourtet was suddenly widely popular and getting radio play (NOT that this would happen), would we still feel the same way about their music or feel that they 'sold out'? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: somebody's got a case of Lastworditis ....

ediblemouse
2004-06-02 02:14 pm UTC (link)

good point, little hedgehog. that happens a lot. people are all into a band but then they hear it on MTV and suddenly the band is lame. I think that's a stupid mindset. like what you like and if a bunch of people catch on to how cool something you like is then enjoy that. The whole 'I like them first' bullshit is stupid too.

(I denied you satisfaction for your lastworditis)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

crueltywhite
2004-06-02 11:15 am UTC (link)

what continues to facinate me about the industry is how marginally talented people are selected from a pool of other marginally talented people and handed super-stardom.

sean paul and elephant man for example. dance hall reggae is its own genre and its been around for awhile now. suddenly it seemed to some music exec that a dance hall guy could be popular... and then i guess they pulled sean paul's name out of a hat or something? he's not special in any way...but someone thought he had "it".

the star quality that nobody can define but some think they can recognize. *headshake*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

allplainstapped
2004-06-02 09:24 am UTC (link)

I found this interesting article (fragment) that offered a little bit more insight into pop music, all in line with what everyone has said:

The actual writing of songs has been reduced to mere mechanical process, with commercial gain and social manipulation at the forefront of the writer's mind. Because standard patterns are more easily distributed, promoted and recognized in an already saturated market, writers are under constant pressure to conform to formulas. As a result of the standardisation process, sections of songs can be lifted out of an original and placed into other songs without upsetting the overall structure of the latter.

What a bizarre industry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	davextreme 2004-06-02 09:27 am UTC (link)
	i'd say that's also true of typical action movies, romantic comedies, and pulp fiction novels (Reply to this) (Parent)

	vtkikkoman 2004-06-02 09:46 am UTC (link)
	A B chorus A chorus chorus ... profit! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	allplainstapped 2004-06-02 10:04 am UTC (link)
	It's so simple! Why aren't we all millionaires? Justin, you taking notes? (Reply to this) (Parent)

ediblemouse
2004-06-02 09:44 am UTC (link)

The I think a rapper like P. Diddy would be making a pop-rap song when he samples Jackson 5 and makes a single for mass appeal. But, a rap song by cool keith dr. octagon would not be a pop-rap song because it's not designed for the masses.

Likewise, eminem had his 'poppy' slim shady songs to sell records but a lot of the songs on the albums were not pop and were more authentic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

glynnenstein
2004-06-02 11:14 am UTC (link)

I can't back this up as well thought out, but I've long thought of a differentiation of music into the categories of "pop" and "more than pop" as dependent largely on time. More precisely, the perspective time offers.

In my mind, pop music is that which lacks a depth of connection.

The first, most simple sort of connection that I would identify as pop is the catchy tune. Music which features no more depth that an infectious melody can be enjoyed by basically everyone, but as time passes that catchy melody gets pretty thin as a foundation upon which to rest a song. I think most pop music falls into this sort of category.

Another sort of limited connection is music that embodies a moment in time, a mood, an era. It shines because it fits in with where people are at that moment. Years, and sometimes merely months, down the road, it looses it's meaning beyond the stirring of reminiscence.

I would also identify as pop, though a more valuable sort, music whose appeal arises from it's novel character. Of course musical innovation is something I hold in high regard, but innovation without something more to it ends up feeling hollow. I think the perspective of time often reveals this. The classic, most highly regarded songs end up being those which bring new musical ideas in the context of other elements that form a connection with the listener. Musical, emotional, intellectual.

A work that can hold up years later, that can continue to draw new fans who were never there to hear it the first time it was presented, that can maintain relevance in new ways listen after listen is something more valuable than pop.

(Reply to this)

droct
2004-06-02 01:08 pm UTC (link)

While I'm not going to try to really define "pop" as I think its such an amorphous and large catagory, that has so many different meanings (as a genre unto itself, as a modifier, as a concept, etc) that its almost pointless to try to define (though as the discussion above shows, it is fun to discuss).
But I think for the purposes of the original question of what to put in a "bad pop" sort of playlist, I think its somewhere between Dave and Gabe's definitiions.
However, I lean more toward Dave's basic idea, as I think there can be "good" pop music. Here I'm looking at it as a genre, not as a concept or modifier. I think people like Madonna (especially older stuff), old MJ, and Kylie, make excellent pop music, that I actually like to listen to. Its good party music.
As a slight tangent, Jordan came up with an interesting observation a while back that I really like.
Basically it's an observation about how in a lot of ways Punk and Pop are very similar. They are both very simple music designed to evoke one emotion or feeling, without much more depth to it. Granted they are going for different feelings generally, and go about it from opposite directions. Punk does it through "underproduction," by being raw and unrefined, and simple in that way. Pop goes the exact opposite rout, "overproduction." Pop is engineered very specifically and carefully for its one purpose and simple emotion. Just an interesting observation. I think it at least holds some water. (Obviously there are some flaws)
Anyway thats just my two cents for now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	ediblemouse 2004-06-02 01:22 pm UTC (link)
	I didn't say it was automatically bad, I just said it was designed for the masses. I like some pop too and sometimes designing catchy things with wide appeal can be a good thing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	drepbbbbbt 2004-06-02 01:45 pm UTC (link)
	pop sucks. JK!!!!11!!!!1 (Reply to this) (Thread)

	crueltywhite 2004-06-02 02:06 pm UTC (link)
	in parts of the north and midwest it means "soda" and you totally like soda i've seen you drink it you lying bitch! you're just saying this to impress people with your pilates and pom drinking!* * I don't know if you drink Pom. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	drepbbbbbt 2004-06-02 02:41 pm UTC (link)
	justin drinks pom!!! i think it's kinda gross personally. i also balk at spending $5 on a juice. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	destijlgoats 2004-06-02 03:02 pm UTC (link)
	i wouldn't spend $5 on juice unless it had swanky anal bead packaging (Reply to this) (Parent)

	galanomati 2004-06-02 03:45 pm UTC (link)
	I'm really sad I missed this thread. I HATE working in a place with no internet. But I've thought much about this topic and even written on it, so here is my opinion in a nutshell in case anyone is still reading this thread: http://www.leftoffthedial.com/9_01FeatureArticle.htm (Reply to this)

kelarskye
2004-06-02 08:50 pm UTC (link)

Because most people tend to use the term "pop" in a negative way, I tend to define "pop" music as music that is churned out specifically to get record sales. Note, I don't mean "popular" music, because I think there are many popular songs that really just are good songs and that is why they are so huge. I like to think that an intrinsically good song is just going to resound in someone's ear or soul and they will know it, even if they can't tell you why. Which means that some mass appeal songs are mass appeal because they actually are good, not because they are catchy and marketed.

The most notable distinction to me is artist made music vs. studio made music. Most of the boy band, girl band, sacchrine "pop" out there was created by a third party who spews out song after song with little variation. In my brain it is a factory line sort of atmosphere. I usually differentiate "pop" music from just so so "that's my sound and I am not adventurous enough to change or experiment from that sound" musicians, I just consider those mediocre musicians who don't have enough confidence, dedication or ability to delve out.

So I suppose I have a pretty strict (narrow?) definition of what I consider true "pop." And when i turn it over in my head, the main difference between my definition of the negatively used "pop" has to do with an artist who is committed to what they produce versus being committed to their following. We can't always know that balance and our personal assignments of how much an artist is committed influences how we categorize music in our brains.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs