smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com> |
| Subject | pop vs. rock |
| Date | Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:20:20 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (5.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:24:58 -0400
> From: Kevin Mathews <kevin@powerofpop.com>
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: "Hard" Pop recommendations
> Message-ID: <200307020424.ALM62859@ms4.verisignmail.com>
>
> Michael wrote: -
>
> >From
> >a later reading of British music history of the era the
> word "pops up"
> >more frequently. And of course Singapore is yet another
> matter.
>
> Yeah, exactly, having a British colonial past, it was always
> pop in Singapore - y'know Top of the Pops etc Beatles and
> other 60s British bands were all thought as pop bands. Sorta
> became rock with Led Zep, Sabbath and Deep Purple in the 70s
>
I don't think it ends there. The word "pop" continues to have
different connotations in the Commonwealth than it does in America. It's a
more inclusive term in Commonwealth countries than it is here, and it has a
less pejorative ring to it. That's because the Brits and the other
Commonwealth nations have managed to snap out of the conceit that music has
to have a heavier and more complex orientation in order to be taken
seriously. Here in the States, more ponderous sounds and artists seem to be
overappreciated, and anything that aspires to melody, harmony, concision,
and charm above all else gets dismissed as either vapid pubescent dance
fluff or off-the-radar (and therefore irrelevant) retro novelty. "Pop", in
other words, is disposable music for teenagers, whether by boy bands or the
latest teen-girl role model (Annette Funicello begat Debbie Gibson, who
begat Brittney Spears).
Several Auditeers here in the States have remarked in the past about
how frustrating it is to describe their favorite music to friends and
acquaintances as "pop", only to be derided with some sort of sarcastic or
condescending response. I think that it's because American Auditeers tend to
have adopted the more inclusive and accepting British definition of the
word, in spite of the fact that to most Americans "pop" immediately conjures
up thoughts of Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera. It's why I
generally avoid using the word outside of Audities to describe my tastes; a
word can only effectively communicate an idea if the speaker's intended
definition is also understood and accepted by the listener. Even the term
"power pop", which dates all the way back to 1966 and has a sturdy heritage
among popular music insiders in terms of describing a discrete rock'n'roll
subgenre with its own set of pioneers, heroes, and purveyors (and its own
set of institutions, such as IPO, Audities, Not Lame, and *Amplifier*),
doesn't always register with the general music listener. I can't tell you
how many times I've had to explain the proper meaning of the term to someone
who thought that I was referring to a particularly punchy Madonna number
when I uttered the words "power pop".
That's why I generally stick to describing my preferred style of
music as "rock'n'roll". It's a little more generic, but a lot less confusing
and frustrating.
> >
> >I do remember when bands began being called rock - like the
> Kinks and
> >the Who - and absolutely hating the term.
>
I agree with Michael's assessment of rock as describing music that
often tends to be a bit too overwrought and a bit too detached from its
roots. Of course, I like a lot of what I'd describe as "rock", but the music
that generally tends to resonate with me is what I call "rock'n'roll" --
basic, musically economical, short, hooky, and immediate stuff like power
pop, rockabilly, garage rock, old-school punk, etc. I'm like Keith Richards
in that regard -- the popular music that I like almost always tends to have
at least a little Chuck Berry in it somewhere.
I've always found it interesting that Paul Stanley of Kiss, a guy
whom I would otherwise not consider much of a thinker on this or any other
subject, has repeatedly maintained that his band was not a heavy metal band.
Nor does he like to call Kiss a "rock" band. He's always preferred the term
"rock'n'roll" to describe Kiss (a la their signature song, "Rock and Roll
All Nite"), because, as he once put it in *Creem*, "We don't write intricate
little ditties that you have to sit on a stool to play. We write simple,
basic stuff that you can play while you're jumping around onstage."
> Interesting you mentioned the Who, as everyone on this list
> knows, Townshend coined "powerpop" to describe what the Beach
> Boys and Small Faces were doing in 1965.
>
... not to mention his own band. The singles that the Who was
putting out around the time that Towser gave the interview to *Hit Parader*
in which he coined the term "power pop" -- singles such as "Substitute" and
"Pictures of Lily" -- remain as definitive of the subgenre of power pop as
any. I've always held that the only reason why a lot more power pop bands
sound like the Beatles or the Byrds or Big Star or the Kinks than they do
the pre-*Tommy* Who is because the Who is one of the most difficult
rock'n'roll bands in history to imitate, if not *the* most difficult.
> I think in the UK,
> rock came to the fore with Jimi Hendrix and Cream...
>
Same here in the States.
Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.