Is pop music inherently stupid?

[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.

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.

This is completely true. "formula written songs" though, is not solely the province of pop music. every genre and subgenre becomes formula written at a certain point. that's how artists get pigeonholed into genres to begin with. the innovators of the world, if they reach an audience of enough size, become imitated and duplicated until such point as saturation is reached, and then another "spark" is found elsewhere, repeat. All art has facets of this.

[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.

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.

no I f**king haven't. your straw man has. you are intentionally misrepresenting my points so that you can can have a fundamental disagreement with points that I have not made. further you have tried to attach the term "reactionary" to me at several points, by so doing presumably to mean to say that liking pop music (which I actually don't) is obliquely related to other reactionary thought. My actual argument is that intent is immaterial, there are good musicians working within the confines of Pop music. there are fantastic musicians working outside of those bounds. there is crappy music being made in both "spheres" as well. Since the whole thread is about pop music and whether it is inherently stupid, my defense of pop music and subsequently of "session guys and songwriters" was in response to that, not in trying to elevate them above good, talented indie musos (of which I aspire to myself) will you not admit that there is crap to be found well outside pop music?

[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.

It depends on the person. Some people are suited by temperament to pandering. Some pop is basically musical pandering and glad-handing.

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.

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.

Well, both ends of the argument were produced by you. You stacked it in a way that sure appeared to take a side. My actual point was that you have stated that "the only real intention seems to be the musician indulging his own need to buck the status quo", as if this is a necessary feature, while 'lowest common denominator' as a goal is great, at least where successful, which through itself means smart and capable, and indicates real empathy. I'm not being unfair to your actual statements I don't think. And 'pandering' is in itself dismissive (even as I'm sure it's sometimes true), while your narrative of the sad "self-indulgent" loser isn't. But anyway thanks for explaining.

[jancivil]

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.

no I f**king haven't. your straw man has. you are intentionally misrepresenting my points so that you can can have a fundamental disagreement with points that I have not made. further you have tried to attach the term "reactionary" to me at several points, by so doing presumably to mean to say that liking pop music (which I actually don't) is obliquely related to other reactionary thought. My actual argument is that intent is immaterial, there are good musicians working within the confines of Pop music. there are fantastic musicians working outside of those bounds. there is crappy music being made in both "spheres" as well. Since the whole thread is about pop music and whether it is inherently stupid, my defense of pop music and subsequently of "session guys and songwriters" was in response to that, not in trying to elevate them above good, talented indie musos (of which I aspire to myself) will you not admit that there is crap to be found well outside pop music?

No, it's right there: "the only real intention" which you posed against the intent towards popularity. Now you don't like that argument, so I guess you didn't really mean it. Cool out a minute and read my actual statements. I would call your <strictly from buck the status quo> person reactionary. I did say that when you create that reactionary as a part of your reactive argument, it would seem to follow.

Of course there is crap on all sides. I already said I don't think any "type" of music is inherently stupid, any more than I find that the person driven to strive for hits is more empathetic per se. Thanks for explaining, but your statements sure appeared to elevate this intent over that intent.

[ShawnG]

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.

Maybe if you had quoted and/or read THIS part of my original post?

[IncarnateX]

Thank God there are perfectly objective and measurable notions in music such as "good", "crappy", "stupid" and "intelligent" completely free of any subjective pollution. Otherwise threads like this would be completely pointless.

[jancivil]

"Maybe if you had quoted and/or read THIS"

I did not intentionally misrepresent any statement you made. & in fact, I did read that bit. I was responding to "music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff.". Which I will never agree with. It depends. It's tough for me to write rap, it comes naturally to some.

[Apostate]

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.

The defensiveness you intuit isn't coming from this end...to be sincere I don't consider the original topic to be interesting enough to warrant anymore visits from me. I mean, ask Stevie Wonder (considered by many musicologists as one of the greatest songwriters of the past century) if Pop music is inherently stupid.

You do have some valid points, and you seem to be keeping a level head through all this. That's more than I can say about many KVR debaters

[jancivil]

I have nothing against 'Pop Music' per se, but it seems clear that a lot of it is pandering. I don't know if that has to be true today. I'm old enough to have known when it didn't have to be true. In my parents heyday jazz was popular music, and my experience was my father leaning towards the 'avant-garde' (the distinction was made/the lines drawn at <made to dance to> vs <made to sit there and listen to>) while my mother didn't get that. I don't follow pop really today, so I have no opinion as to quality, and that would have to be specific.

[jancivil]

The defensiveness you intuit isn't coming from this end...to be sincere I don't consider the original topic to be interesting enough to warrant anymore visits from me. I mean, ask Stevie Wonder (considered by many musicologists as one of the greatest songwriters of the past century) if Pop music is inherently stupid.

You do have some valid points, and you seem to be keeping a level head through all this. That's more than I can say about many KVR debaters

No, I didn't think that of you. I may be wrong there was any defensiveness, but the stacked argumentation felt that way. I believe there are geniuses from pop music, that's one of them, and I think Paul McCartney is one (even though he's made some real turds IMO).

[jancivil]

I think Stevie Wonder had hits because how could the songs not be hits, as long as they're out there and promoted, and that kind of naturally followed his talent. I don't know how Kanye has hits, I think he has a tin ear and requires a LOT of help.

[ShawnG]

I did not intentionally misrepresent any statement you made. & in fact, I did read that bit. I was responding to "music that is made just to be popular and sell is much tougher to write than self indulgent artisty stuff.". Which I will never agree with. It depends. It's tough for me to write rap, it comes naturally to some.

Ok, thats somewhat fair. I dont retract the point tho. I find it really easy to write stuff that I like. Melancholic depressive downtempo stuff comes naturally to me. If i were to write uptempo major scale stuff, i don't feel it, and its hard for me to make it good. I think it takes a different level of putting yourself in the shoes of society at large and being able to express different things than what might come naturally to you to create a successful pop song. You could try to say, and you did, that these people are just born panderers, and/or naturally create this stuff, and that might be true to some extent, but i have heard and watched enough interviews with some of these folks, to think that many of them are just very versatile writers and musicians who are just talented at reaching masses of people with their music. Now whether this is genuine to who they are I doubt. But being genuine or not is not a matter of intellgence or talent, so I respect what they can do regardless. that does not mean i disrespect the talent and dedication it takes to keep indie music going, in fact, thats a lot closer to where i live than the pop world.

[Apostate]

The defensiveness you intuit isn't coming from this end...to be sincere I don't consider the original topic to be interesting enough to warrant anymore visits from me. I mean, ask Stevie Wonder (considered by many musicologists as one of the greatest songwriters of the past century) if Pop music is inherently stupid.

You do have some valid points, and you seem to be keeping a level head through all this. That's more than I can say about many KVR debaters

No, I didn't think that of you. I may be wrong there was any defensiveness, but the stacked argumentation felt that way. I believe there are geniuses from pop music, that's one of them, and I think Paul McCartney is one (even though he's made some real turds IMO).

So has Brian Wilson, Stevie Wonder, George Gershwin...Beethoven (check out the Wellington). Nobody has a perfect track record, you know that.

Defensive argumentation is pretty easy to find here, as you're probably already aware (laughing).

[jancivil]

You could try to say, and you did, that these people are just born panderers, and/or naturally create this stuff, and that might be true to some extent, but i have heard and watched enough interviews with some of these folks, to think that many of them are just very versatile writers and musicians who are just talented at reaching masses of people with their music. Now whether this is genuine to who they are I doubt. But being genuine or not is not a matter of intellgence or talent, so I respect what they can do regardless. that does not mean i disrespect the talent and dedication it takes to keep indie music going, in fact, thats a lot closer to where i live than the pop world.

No, I really did_not say that 'these people are born panderers'. Which people?

putting yourself in the shoes of society at large and being able to express different things than what might come naturally to you

It would mean that for me, but there must be people where 'the shoes of society at large' is a nice fit.

There are definitely people that are interested in having a career that involves selling a lot of records that have to work really hard at it, or at least at some of it. I just stated that I don't see a necessity that popular music needs pander. There are people that genuinely share a commonality with all people, and one might say this is a quality of empathy. OTOH! There are people that can gauge the needs of other people very accurately that are sociopaths, con artists.

[ShawnG]

Okay sure. Empathy does not by itself state that what you do with it is necessarily positive. Con artists, sociopaths, and demogogues have a great deal of empathy, they just use it for reprehensible things, as does Nicki Minaj, lol