Is pop music inherently stupid?

[Apostate]

That would mean the Beach Boy's Pet Sounds and Smile were inherently stupid, or Beatles' Day in the Life. I'd have to answer a resounding NO in that context.

By the way, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik could be considered Popular music, same Rondo Alla Turca, Beethoven's Fur Elise.

[ShawnG]

without an actual firm definition of what the hell "pop" music is in the context of this discussion, the whole thread is inherently stupid. I mean we'll have 11,000 seperate narrow interpretations of pop that are essentially just hipsters ragging on everything except their favorite chosen genre/artists. Or we could go with a broad definition of pop music in which we will all eventually realize covers 99 percent of all existing recorded music.

I don't personally believe any form of music is inherently stupid. my four and a half decades on the planet has taught me that in every genre of music there are true artists, and there are also musicians just trying to cash in on the "hip new thing". Sometimes even those people stumble on brilliance though, so it's tough to slag them off either. music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff. trying to put yourself in the emotions of others requires an empathy not present when an artist just transmits his own emotions. not to say its better or worse, but it is a tough assignment to write a hit, and people that can do it consistently are smart, talented people. But even leaving aside "good" pop music, even the worst sort of turgid lowest common denominator crap is no more inherently stupid than the music performed on the bleeding edge where the only real intention seems to be the musician indulging his own need to buck the status quo.

(youtube video "4 chord song" Axis of awesome, totally hilarious but everyone has seen it a billion times)

Ok... is your point that harmonic structure is the only facet of pop music? cause I'm not sure that is an answer to, or a discussion of any of my actual points?

[JJ_Jettflow]

music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff. trying to put yourself in the emotions of others requires an empathy not present when an artist just transmits his own emotions. not to say its better or worse, but it is a tough assignment to write a hit, and people that can do it consistently are smart, talented people. [/ quote]

Ok... is your point that harmonic structure is the only facet of pop music? cause I'm not sure that is an answer to, or a discussion of any of my actual points?

Like the quote says, you said you thought it would be a tough assignment to write a hit and as you can see many "hits" are pretty much made from the same four chords which would in fact make it quite easy then.

The fact is the ones who do it consistently, do it for a living. Many of these songs that become "hits" are either heavily worked on by song arrangers or are completely ghost written by record company songwriters.

[jancivil]

music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff. trying to put yourself in the emotions of others requires an empathy not present when an artist just transmits his own emotions. not to say its better or worse, but it is a tough assignment to write a hit, and people that can do it consistently are smart, talented people.

Bullshit. It depends on the person. Some people are suited by temperament to pandering. Some pop is basically musical pandering and glad-handing. A lot of this is knocked off, and the craft very mechanical. A lot of what makes a hit can't be predicted, I mean at all, and there is surely an element of dumb luck in some of it. Some is genius and part of the genius is a sense of the universal in music. Some 'art music', or if you prefer your dull reactionary tag 'self-indulgent' was someone pouring every ounce of their soul into it. We aren't even talking cases, yet the very concept of, I'm going to say music qua music, is something to posit as negative per se; you tell us about intent for both types, as though a broad generalization is appropriate.

even the worst sort of turgid lowest common denominator crap is no more inherently stupid than the music performed on the bleeding edge where the only real intention seems to be the musician indulging his own need to buck the status quo

I suppose we have some basic disagreement as to the definition of the terms <stupid>, and <inherently> then. You have posited the intent to reach the lowest common denominator (oddly enough including the phrase just to be popular) against the reactionary intention 'indulging this suspect need. This latter construct, well, I've never met this person. I also notice that you're adding weight to your side by saying the intent to be popular involves empathy, vs. this assholish self-indulgence. I find the entire tack unreasonable & reactive, so naturally the need of your straw man is reactionary.

[ShawnG]

music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff. trying to put yourself in the emotions of others requires an empathy not present when an artist just transmits his own emotions. not to say its better or worse, but it is a tough assignment to write a hit, and people that can do it consistently are smart, talented people. [/ quote]

Ok... is your point that harmonic structure is the only facet of pop music? cause I'm not sure that is an answer to, or a discussion of any of my actual points?

Like the quote says, you said you thought it would be a tough assignment to write a hit and as you can see many "hits" are pretty much made from the same four chords which would in fact make it quite easy then.

The fact is the ones who do it consistently, do it for a living. Many of these songs that become "hits" are either heavily worked on by song arrangers or are completely ghost written by record company songwriters.

sure, but lots of non hits, avant garde tracks, and crap use the same four chords as well. music isn't just a chord progression. there's rhythm, basslines, melody, lyrical content, counterpoint, style, sound design, performance, production. chord progressions are so ubiquitous they aren't even copyrightable. it's still a tough job to write a hit, witness the many thousands who try and fail. Your point about ghostwriters is taken, but those people are who I'm talking about. you can look down on songwriters, producers, and session musicians if you want, but I don't. Those people put at least as much and usually more dedication to their craft as the indie muso does.

[jancivil]

Those people put at least as much and usually more dedication to their craft as the indie muso does.

Which people? Which 'indie muso'? In general, the pop guy is <usually> smarter, more honest, harder working and more dedicated - a better person - than this sad, posturing muso, is that what you really want to argue? So, Kanye West is by nature better than everyone that doesn't go into it for the money.

[Apostate]

even the worst sort of turgid lowest common denominator crap is no more inherently stupid than the music performed on the bleeding edge where the only real intention seems to be the musician indulging his own need to buck the status quo

I suppose we have some basic disagreement as to the definition of <stupid>, then. You have posited the intent to reach the lowest common denominator (oddly enough including the phrase just to be popular) against the reactionary intention 'indulging this suspect need. This latter construct, well, I've never met this person. I also notice that you're adding weight to your side by saying the intent to be popular involves empathy, vs. this assholish self-indulgence. I find the entire tack unreasonable & reactive, so naturally the need of your straw man is reactionary.

I know of certain bands (a few on a personal basis) that make music troublesome to access mostly out of

a) sheer cantankerousness, the will to antisocial "cool",

b) they think (despite their relative lack of compositional skills) it'll make them sound like (Schoenberg, Stravinsky, someone serial/insert name), just because it's difficult/ very dissonant/ "atonal". Most of these dolts have no understanding of serial composition anywhere beyond a very shallow level. They think by just going overboard they're cutting edge. Kind of like monkeys wearing pants.

c) They figure they're not going to make any money anyway, so just make a lot of noise and be good at acting like "misunderstood artistes".

d) all of the above

A few of the aforementioned acts are fairly popular in the "Progressive" genres.

[IncarnateX]

Wow. Some of you really discuss this as if the question made sense in the first place. Impressing. If you want to go that route how about starting from scratch and define
1) Pop music
2) "Inherently"
And
3) "Stupid" in a musical sense

so us lesser priviliged can catch up.

[ShawnG]

music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff. trying to put yourself in the emotions of others requires an empathy not present when an artist just transmits his own emotions. not to say its better or worse, but it is a tough assignment to write a hit, and people that can do it consistently are smart, talented people.

Bullshit. It depends on the person. Some people are suited by temperament to pandering. Some pop is basically musical pandering and glad-handing. A lot of this is knocked off, and the craft very mechanical. A lot of what makes a hit can't be predicted, I mean at all, and there is surely an element of dumb luck in some of it. Some is genius and part of the genius is a sense of the universal in music. Some 'art music', or if you prefer your dull reactionary tag 'self-indulgent' was someone pouring every ounce of their soul into it, nothing easy about it.

even the worst sort of turgid lowest common denominator crap is no more inherently stupid than the music performed on the bleeding edge where the only real intention seems to be the musician indulging his own need to buck the status quo

I suppose we have some basic disagreement as to the definition of <stupid>, then. You have posited the intent to reach the lowest common denominator (oddly enough including the phrase just to be popular) against the reactionary intention 'indulging this suspect need. This latter construct, well, I've never met this person. I also notice that you're adding weight to your side by saying the intent to be popular involves empathy, vs. this assholish self-indulgence. I find the entire tack unreasonable & reactive, so naturally the need of your straw man is reactionary.

both ends of that argument are straw men. My "side" is not to be in favor of either extreme. the music I listen to is not often labelled as pop, and yeah, I've met that person (the "I have to be different from everybody to be legitimate" I've met many of that person.) To your first point I have little actual argument. you didn't quote parts of my original post that supported your points. my point stands, even if the original intent is to "pander" to use your dismissive term, it still takes talent and craft to produce something the masses will enjoy on a CONSISTENT basis.

[ShawnG]

Those people put at least as much and usually more dedication to their craft as the indie muso does.

Which people? Which 'indie muso'? In general, the pop guy is <usually> smarter, more honest, harder working and more dedicated - a better person - than this sad, posturing muso, is that what you really want to argue? So, Kanye West is by nature better than everyone that doesn't go into it for the money.

no that is completely not my point, you are having an argument with a made up person in your head. I suspect that you may do this a lot.

[jancivil]

I know of certain bands

So do you believe that this anecdotal stuff amounts to the intent of 'avant-garde' per se? I think the anti-social nature applies to a lot of rock, punk rock for instance. Does it mean that that's a necessary feature of that kind of music? You're talking about something other than the musical intent, there's this psychological analysis going on, same as Shawn's 'empathy' of the person not only driven to make, but successfully makes, hits. No, that quality of argument doesn't work for me.

[JJ_Jettflow]

music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff. trying to put yourself in the emotions of others requires an empathy not present when an artist just transmits his own emotions. not to say its better or worse, but it is a tough assignment to write a hit, and people that can do it consistently are smart, talented people. [/ quote]

Ok... is your point that harmonic structure is the only facet of pop music? cause I'm not sure that is an answer to, or a discussion of any of my actual points?

Like the quote says, you said you thought it would be a tough assignment to write a hit and as you can see many "hits" are pretty much made from the same four chords which would in fact make it quite easy then.

The fact is the ones who do it consistently, do it for a living. Many of these songs that become "hits" are either heavily worked on by song arrangers or are completely ghost written by record company songwriters.

sure, but lots of non hits, avant garde tracks, and crap use the same four chords as well. music isn't just a chord progression. there's rhythm, basslines, melody, lyrical content, counterpoint, style, sound design, performance, production. chord progressions are so ubiquitous they aren't even copyrightable. it's still a tough job to write a hit, witness the many thousands who try and fail. Your point about ghostwriters is taken, but those people are who I'm talking about. you can look down on songwriters, producers, and session musicians if you want, but I don't. Those people put at least as much and usually more dedication to their craft as the indie muso does.

Yes but everyone of those songs that appeared in the video on there own sounded heartfelt and original listened to on their own yet together sounded like copies of one another which, in reality is what you get with formula written songs.

[Apostate]

I know of certain bands

So do you believe that this anecdotal stuff amounts to the intent of 'avant-garde' per se? I think the anti-social nature applies to a lot of rock, punk rock for instance. Does it mean that that's a necessary feature of that kind of music? You're talking about something other than the musical intent, there's this psychological analysis going on, same as Shawn's 'empathy' of the person not only driven to make, but successfully makes, hits. No, that quality of argument doesn't work for me.

To be completely honest, and without meaning any disrespect at all, I couldn't care less what you think of the argument. That's what I've experienced in my dealings with people, bands, musicians. It's not even an argument, it's over twenty five years of experience.

Again, no offense.

[jancivil]

Those people put at least as much and usually more dedication to their craft as the indie muso does.

Which people? Which 'indie muso'? In general, the pop guy is <usually> smarter, more honest, harder working and more dedicated - a better person - than this sad, posturing muso, is that what you really want to argue? So, Kanye West is by nature better than everyone that doesn't go into it for the money.

no that is completely not my point, you are having an argument with a made up person in your head. I suspect that you may do this a lot.

Oh the irony of these two sentences one following the other. You actually just constructed a suspect person to pose your argument against.

You have consistently argued on intent. The intent to make a hit appears to result in dedication and intelligence that a person with the other intent is lacking in.

[jancivil]

It's not even an argument, it's over twenty five years of experience.

My very point though was all of that is arguing intent. I would say the intent of those bands is "inherently stupid", but the context, where the thread was at that time was someone arguing better intent; and while it may be your wide experience, I don't accept it as a universal about 'avant-garde' or whatever, nor do I find the intent to have hits universally psychologically sound per se. I don't think any particular type of music is 'inherently stupid'. I am finding a defensiveness resulting in storytelling and strawmanning.