smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | <cpeel@killertracks.com> |
| Subject | Re: That which has no answer |
| Date | Wed, 16 May 2007 11:16:50 -0700 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (3.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Greg Sager, you're completely right on the point (pasted below) that I
blew it by only citing one album as an impetus for Poptopia, et. al.,
Certainly it's more broad and nuanced than that, which I knew when
writing. Wanting to keep the post as short as possible (always difficult
for me - I fear I'm a windbag) threw my judgement off, and I let one
album stand for many. Thanks for the correction.
On a related point I read in a recent digest, I will say that I know a
lot of artists who try to be completely original, that's the point, and
only piont, for them of their art. Is this even possible? I don't see
how. If there's any influence, then what you've got is not wholly
original. Writing for originality's sake, I believe, would lead to some
very sterile music. Originality lies on a continuum, it's place on it,
varies with person and perspective.
I think a more common model is this: A songwriter puts a chord
progression and melody together that arises out of a mood and the chance
combination that mind and fingers put together. When she recognizes it
as not being someone else's song, she might develop it further, often
trying out things new (exciting/pleasing)to her(new harmonies, new chord
combinations). Finally, it becomes something the point of which is that
it conveys something (often it's a bit intangible) they she would like
to get across (planned or unplanned), and very often that can simply be
a particular mood.
On another point, Music is not just all crap these days. Sure we're
bombarded by the mass marketed music we feel is crap, but I'm frankly
amazed at the amount of creativity going on in the music world these
days. Turn your ear to Mexico, especially, and you'll hear a fusion of
things you never thought possible. Totally original, and yet, not
original at all.
______________
Greg's original:
Carl, that was generally a great post about influences and artistic
reference points. Thanks for posting it, since it really crystallized a
lot of my inchoate musings about the subject of power pop. However, I do
think that you went a little overboard with the above snippet about the
first Jellyfish album.
Did it inspire the Poptopia festival? Perhaps ... only Tony Perkins
really knows for sure, right? But *movements* as opposed to festivals?
Yes, lots of power pop aficionados loved (and love) *Bellybutton*, but I
hardly think it spearheaded the entire pop underground of the nineties
and oughts. I don't think *any* one album loomed that large. In fact,
I'd argue that two albums that were roughly contemporary with it,
Matthew Sweet's *Girlfriend* and Teenage Fanclub's *Bandwagonesque*,
were just as influential in the formation of the latter-day pop
underground, if not more so. Both those albums got more exposure (in the
States, at least) than did *Bellybutton*; the title track from
*Girlfriend* reached #5 on the U.S. Modern Rock charts, while
*Bandwagonesque* was named #1 album of 1991 by *Spin* and TFC played
*Saturday Night Live* and toured as Nirvana's opening act at the height
of Cobainmania.
I realize that I'm speaking anecdotally, which means that any larger
conclusion drawn from this observation is immediately suspect, but while
I know a bunch of power pop fans who have never listened to Jellyfish I
can't name one who is unfamiliar with "Girlfriend" and "I've Been
Waiting".
Greg Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.