My Thoughts on Today's Popular Music

[John L]

The fact that I wrote , "among these functions..." , should tell you that I didn't intend my list to be exhaustive . In the most general sense , emotional expression is obviously a universal musical function . With that in mind , one might ask whether or to what extent pop music is capable of expressing the full range and nuance of emotional life . Can this full range and nuance be expressed through the simple musical structures of pop music or can it only find expression in more complicated 'art' musics ?

It would be a great art music indeed that could express the range and nuances of human emotions embodied in the popular musics of the world.

[B. Clugston]

Amusing to see several posts about Van Dyke Parks in a thread about Today's Popular Music. Fogey alert!

[Chas]

The fact that I wrote , "among these functions..." , should tell you that I didn't intend my list to be exhaustive . In the most general sense , emotional expression is obviously a universal musical function . With that in mind , one might ask whether or to what extent pop music is capable of expressing the full range and nuance of emotional life . Can this full range and nuance be expressed through the simple musical structures of pop music or can it only find expression in more complicated 'art' musics ?

It would be a great art music indeed that could express the range and nuances of human emotions embodied in the popular musics of the world.

I don't see any reason to think that art musics can't equal the expressive range of the vernacular forms on which they are based . Insofar as art music abstracts from the language-bound narrativity of many vernacular forms , and insofar as emotions are ineffable , it would seem art music is better suited than popular music to the expression of the full range and nuance of emotional life . This is especially true if the popular music in question is the 'pop music' of mass-consumer culture wherein extra-aesthetic functions , themselves a function of the economic system , come at the expense of the music's expressive function .

[Teasing the Korean]

Amusing to see several posts about Van Dyke Parks in a thread about Today's Popular Music. Fogey alert!

You may want to read the first post in this thread and then read the explanation of it a few posts down.

[WD45]

Debating whether or not "popular music" is "good music" is somwhat like decidng whether or not a car is what you want based solely on looks. There's definitely cases to be made one way or the other, but really, the main object of a car is transportation, and can you find fault with people and cars who just want something that runs really well? We might want "more" (and/or "different") but if the masses just want a good, steady ride that's not a total piece of shit, hey, that doesn't mean that it's not good. Arguing the esthetics of esthetics while ignoring the fuctionality of functionality is kinda....dumb.

I think of it this way : When someone says , " Today's pop music is awful " , they should be understood not as asserting that aesthetic appreciation is the sole function of music , but rather as asserting that pop music has other functions which they don't value as highly or at all . Among these functions are the promotion of group identification , facilitation of courtship , expression of aggression or anxiety and the enablement of the release of physical tension through dancing . In this way , older people who say they have no use for pop music mean it literally .

Hence the popularity of oldies stations...

[Noj]

Current dancefloor pop is a strange phenomenon. By my tastes, it's annoying and stupid. Used to make people dance, however, it's effective. Its shelf life isn't going to be long, I don't think. It's not "timeless" music. Like the rapper Del said, "dance groups don't last past minute rice."

Edited January 14, 2008 by Noj

[RDK]

What's the best year for pop music?

Thirteen.

[AllenLowe]

"Most of us have been raised in the tradition of tin pan alley, where the songs, beautiful or not, were meant to amuse or beguile, but that's all. They were embellishments on life. What these young people seem to say is that their music isn't just decorative.

And that's the pop music scene today, serious and silly, sweet and grandiose, but all of it coming out of the kids themselves. They are trying hard, but whatever young people do, they tend to overdo. The jury is still out on their social ideas, but the verdict is in on their music. A great deal of it is good. "

well, I was born in 1954, long after Tin Pan Alley had peaked - I learned early of another tradition of songs that were NOT meant simply to amuse or beguile - like that of woody guthrie - Frank Hutchison - pre-war hillbilly music - blues - folk-

there was always lots out there that the jazz press missed -

and I find the second graph a little condescending - if well meant -

[Teasing the Korean]

well, I was born in 1954, long after Tin Pan Alley had peaked - I learned early of another tradition of songs that were NOT meant simply to amuse or beguile - like that of woody guthrie - Frank Hutchison - pre-war hillbilly music - blues - folk-

there was always lots out there that the jazz press missed -

and I find the second graph a little condescending - if well meant -

It's VERY condescending. And if you go back to the first page of this thread, you can find out who said it and which music he was referring to. (post #11).

Edited January 14, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[Rob C]

well, I was born in 1954, long after Tin Pan Alley had peaked - I learned early of another tradition of songs that were NOT meant simply to amuse or beguile - like that of woody guthrie - Frank Hutchison - pre-war hillbilly music - blues - folk-

there was always lots out there that the jazz press missed -

and I find the second graph a little condescending - if well meant -

It's VERY condescending. And if you go back to the first page of this thread, you can find out who said it and which music he was referring to. (post #11).

You keep reiterating that the words in your post weren't yours. Cool. But you haven't said what point you were trying to make by posting them.

[MoGrubb]

Current dancefloor pop is a strange phenomenon. By my tastes, it's annoying and stupid. Used to make people dance, however, it's effective. Its shelf life isn't going to be long, I don't think. It's not "timeless" music. Like the rapper Del said, "dance groups don't last past minute rice."

It doesn't have to be timeless music when there'll be a fresh crop of doofus's coming along to pepetuate the "ignorance."

[Chuck Nessa]

Pop music involves hormones, exposure, current dancability and peer pressure in a random order. These are really important to the folks involved. Scant attention to music as music.

OTOH, old farts will always try to be hip.

[Teasing the Korean]

You keep reiterating that the words in your post weren't yours. Cool. But you haven't said what point you were trying to make by posting them.

Just attempting to get a discussion about how pop music has and hasn't changed. I was also struck by the fact that pop music of the American Idol era has reverted to the "embellishment" that Bernstein attributes to Tin Pan Alley. (I would argue that all comparisons between the two end there). I also thought that the attitude and stance in Bernstein's quote, in addition to the assessment of "today's pop music," would easily be recognized as coming from a different era and addressing the pop music of another era. Either people aren't hip to those subtleties, or they skimmed it.

[JSngry]

Pop music involves hormones, exposure, current dancability and peer pressure in a random order. These are really important to the folks involved. Scant attention to music as music.

A convenient generality.

[Chuck Nessa]

Pop music involves hormones, exposure, current dancability and peer pressure in a random order. These are really important to the folks involved. Scant attention to music as music.

A convenient generality.

So, argue.

[Noj]

The dance tunes are only as hip as the DJ involved, such as the one JSngry came across at his gig. There are dance tunes created with better attention to music as music, but they must be sought out. More often than not, the more artistically inclined pop is not what is being pushed by the majors to pop radio. Isn't that true of every genre?

[JSngry]

To what end? No minds will be changed, and stereotypes will just be reinforced all round. Hardly seems like a productive use of resources.

I will say, however, that there is/has/will probably be enough (and even a little is enough, really) of musical interest in various types of pop to merit keeping an ear open when something good comes along. I for one am always interested in "what's going on" as a matter of personal curiosity, not some out of some "aging hipster" bullshit. But those who seem to love nothing more than to fall for/into the preordained roles of what people are "supposed" to be are going to say that that's ridiculous. Fine, but I think it's even more ridiculous to let your tears, fears and prejudices turn into dogmas about "age-appropriate" tastes in music. Like there's not already enough bullshit telling us what/who we "should" or "shouldn't" be.

And the whole "dancing" = "idiots" thing, here we go again. What a fundamental misunderstanding of the human spirit that line betrays... Sad...

It's really easy to generalize and stereotype, if only because the generalities and stereotypes exist with good reason. But they're in no way the whole picture. To advocate open-minded/ended curiosity in some areas of music and disdain it - not just cop to it not being one's preferred taste, but actually mock it - in others seems a bit...hypocritical? Self-serving? Unable to conceive of a reality beyond one's own?

Bottom line for me - the "Pop isn't reality" line is both obviously true and less obviously a wicked lie. One fails to recognize - and explore - the spectrum of implications that follows from that at one's, if not exactly peril, then at least the risk of developing a social myopia disguised as smug self-justification masking an incapactity of broad-based empathy. Or maybe it's the existance of same in the first place that leads one down that path. Chicken or egg...

Ok, so maybe that is an argument. Probably is. But I still say - to what end? No minds will be changed, and stereotypes will just be reinforced all round. Hardly seems like a productive use of resources, especially since one windbag such as myself will no doubt trigger others to cycle around again.

In the meantime, I've got a dog to walk and a wife to hug. Life is sometimes good and simple, just like pop is.

Sometimes.

[JSngry]

The dance tunes are only as hip as the DJ involved, such as the one JSngry came across at his gig. There are dance tunes created with better attention to music as music, but they must be sought out. More often than not, the more artistically inclined pop is not what is being pushed by the majors to pop radio. Isn't that true of every genre?

Bingo.

[Chuck Nessa]

Thought you needed to "walk" and "hug".

[Chuck Nessa]

OTOH, your dog might be named Bingo.

[Chas]

So, argue.

To what end? No minds will be changed, and stereotypes will just be reinforced all round. Hardly seems like a productive use of resources.

I will say, however, that there is/has/will probably be enough (and even a little is enough, really) of musical interest in various types of pop to merit keeping an ear open when something good comes along.

Funny your use of the phrase , "productive use of resources" , for this takes us to the heart of the matter . I agree with you that pop music , as is true of all styles of music , can on occasion be musically interesting or aesthetically rewarding . It just seems to me that the opportunity costs of exploring it are too high given the constraints on our time and resources , and given that the extra-aesthetic functions of pop music work against aesthetic experience to a far greater extent than in jazz and classical music . Being open to something , and actively seeking something are two different things ; the latter involves trade-offs , recognized or not . If life presents me with musically interesting pop music experiences , I'll enjoy them and count myself lucky , but those experiences won't ever make me irrationally dedicate limited resources to a music far less likely to produce such experiences .

I suppose those who think "dancing=idiocy" as you put it , might cynically see your comments about musically interesting pop music as just the cover story of a guy who really just wants to dance . Instead I'm inclined to take your claims at face value , which leads me to this . Your active seeking of aesthetic experiences in current pop music suggests to me both that you feel that you've had all the aesthetic experiences there are to be had in the jazz and classical worlds , and that pop music can achieve a type of musical significance or interest not to be found even in something as diverse and historically deep as jazz and classical music . With respect to the former , well all I can say is that that will never be true for me . As to the latter , what can I say except that I myself haven't found that to be true .

[AllenLowe]

so Lenny said all that? Am I gonna have to start reading every post in every thread? maybe I'll start a new one with a quote from Mein Kampf, unattributed, of course -

never liked Parks, fussy lyrics, an artsy poseur - Buckley tried to be a semi-jazzer, but fell on his face -

as for new music, there's a local alternative station that is ALWAYS playing new and interesting music in the indie-rock vein - so I'm convinced there's tons of good new music out there but, the ironic thing about this world in the age of the internet is that the more access we have, the less access we have - there's just too much stuff to keep up with, especially if you work for a living or live on a budget -

Edited January 15, 2008 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Funny your use of the phrase , "productive use of resources" , for this takes us to the heart of the matter . I agree with you that pop music , as is true of all styles of music , can on occasion be musically interesting or aesthetically rewarding . It just seems to me that the opportunity costs of exploring it are too high given the constraints on our time and resources , and given that the extra-aesthetic functions of pop music work against aesthetic experience to a far greater extent than in jazz and classical music . Being open to something , and actively seeking something are two different things ; the latter involves trade-offs , recognized or not . If life presents me with musically interesting pop music experiences , I'll enjoy them and count myself lucky , but those experiences won't ever make me irrationally dedicate limited resources to a music far less likely to produce such experiences .

I suppose those who think "dancing=idiocy" as you put it , might cynically see your comments about musically interesting pop music as just the cover story of a guy who really just wants to dance . Instead I'm inclined to take your claims at face value , which leads me to this . Your active seeking of aesthetic experiences in current pop music suggests to me both that you feel that you've had all the aesthetic experiences there are to be had in the jazz and classical worlds , and that pop music can achieve a type of musical significance or interest not to be found even in something as diverse and historically deep as jazz and classical music . With respect to the former , well all I can say is that that will never be true for me . As to the latter , what can I say except that I myself haven't found that to be true .

As for the time/resources/reward thing, all I can say is that I've been blessed to be able to have spent approximately 30 years not doing too much other - literally - than exploring music as a player/fan/listener and being a husband/father. I think the odds that I know about the whole time/resources/reward as it works for me are better than even. One thing I've learned is that deep and narrow ain't really no different than wide and shallow. Yin & yang, front and back, same thing from different sides. Myself, I've tried to travel wide and deep, often at the expense of more...earthbound chores. I have succeeded some and failed some. But I have put forth an honest, earnest, and not unfocused effort.

Now, what's this about "the extra-aesthetic functions of pop music work against aesthetic experience to a far greater extent than in jazz and classical music"? I'm not at all sure about that one...all musics have "extra-esthetic functions", an if you think that hearing the jazz of, say, 1965, or even 1975, and definitely 1955 and forget about 1935, carries the same "esthetic function" today that it did then, I think you're wrong. And let's not even get into the "extra-aesthetic functions" of "classical" music. We don't have enough time or bandwidth...

I am slowly becoming of the mind that the "effect" of any music is at least as dependant on the recipient of the music as it is any intrinsic quality of the music itself. That is, I'm begionning to believe that claims of inherent/congenital/whatever "qualities" of any music are just so much projection. Which is to say that ultimately music is a vehicle rather than an end to itself. Any rewards we do or don't get from any music reflect our relationship to that music at least as much as any "essential" quality of the music itself. That's not going to be a popular notion, and I'm not 100% sure about it myself, but the harder I try to "prove" it false, the more I fail to do so. Personally, I think that anybody who can wax rhapsodic about Bach and shit and not get a raging hardon for a good James Brown cut is either culturally limited/isolated/deprived (in which case, hey, not your fault or problem) or, more likely in these days and times and world, is just faking it and is having a programmed response and is getting a 'nother kind of hardon from being a "good boy". But that's just me, mind you, and no way will I claim that that line of thought is my A-Game.

Other than that, you are making a whole lot of assumptions about where I'm "at", what my musical motivations & interests are, have been, and likely will be, and my personal/esthetic relation to "pop" music at this moment. I daresay that none of these assumptions are even 50% accurate, but I'll not attempt to dissuade you of these notions, if only because I doubt it to be possible.

Why? Because in my experience, anybody who "questions" somebody else's taste by playing the "what I like has Proven Lasting Value and everything else, well, it might be "good" and all that, but brr argh cough spittle piss etc" card just don't even want to entertain the notion of even thinking about other possibilities. If you like Music A, it must be for Reason C, and so on and so on, and if you say otherwise, well, ok wink wink wink if that's what you tell yourself, good for you. Anything else cannot be real because...it can't be!

Now, am I making assumptions about you that are not true? Could be. But I wonder why you see fit to "question" my - hell, anybody's - current (or otherwise) interests and project all sorts of ready-made scenarios onto the whys and hows thereof. If I told you about the immense musical interest I have in the "dance underground" shit I've been into (the only even remotely "pop" music I am currently actively interested it, btw, and if media exposre and access is any indication, calling it "pop" is due more to a failure of imagination than it is any keen powers of discernment...), if I broke it down into highly specific technicalities, would you believe me? Or would there be this continuing underlying condescension of assumptions about "motivations" and such? If I told you about how I personally relate to rhythm and texture, and how in certain hands they can all by themselves speak to me every bit as deeply and meaningfully as melody and harmony can in other people's hands (and how yeah, it's nice when you get all four in one place at the same time, but I myself don't have to have that to get on board for the ride), would you hear me? Or would you start up again with the Match Reaction From Column A To Motivation From Column B Then Compare To My Game game? In short, could you even begin to conceive, never mind perceive, a reality that is every bit as true - not more true or better true, just as true - as yours that is not yours? Am I making assumptions about you that are not true? Could be. But whenever somebody accords me the high honor of taking my "claims" at "face value", well, let's just say that it takes a big woman to weigh 300 lbs, but it takes an even bigger wheelbarrow to carry her around in, and let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I myself don't understand how people come to value the "forgone conclusion" game as much as they do, especially as it pertains to who/what they're going to "allow" themselves to be. But it sure is popular, so I guess there's something to it.

[Patrick]

Go Jim go. Still diggin' the recent Jill Scott album? [i haven't yet acquired it.]

[JSngry]

Ok, kinder, gentler version:

I'm not fond of "broad generalizations" unless they're copped to in advance as being such, and I really don't like being placed under/inside one of them things myself based on little or no "deep background". Without getting too "personal", let's just say that, for a diverse number of personal/cultrual/geographic reasons, the disconnect between "assumptions" and "reality" have been the bane of my existence, and if I had back all the time I've had to spend disproving or otherwise working around them, I'd probably be half my current age.

Also, I find the linking of "classical" music and "lasting value" (or whatever) to be alarm-raising in terms of my own personal sensibilities, which have consistently & constantly evolving away from a, for lack of a better term, "Euro-dependency" for a good long while now. I certainly respect the hell out of that tradition and all that it offers, but I have come of age in a time where "other options" - beginning, for me, with jazz - have presented themselves with enough ongoing access & depth/breadth of availability to make the formulation of a viable personal esthetic not tethered to "classical" music both viable, sustainable, and, above all, wonderfully open-ended in terms of discoveries both internal and external. The "classical" tradition of course has deep and lasting value for those to whom it has a deep and lasting relevance, but any implication that it is the only one that does (and/or that jazz is more or less equates with "the same thing", when in fact, if it is, then lots of other things are too...) will be met with no small lack of... kindly acceptance by me.

It's a bigger, older, deeper, and broader world than any of us know, that's all I'm saying. We all have our "answers", but let's not confuse our answers with the answers when it comes to determining who is what and why. Because you may be right, but you may also be very, very wrong.

And hey- being right is where it's at, ain't it? :g :g