smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Christopher Kouzes" <Christopher.Kouzes@baker-taylor.com> |
| Subject | Re: an audacious challenge :) |
| Date | Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:28:53 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I use the term pretty loose and liberally. Especially now when ripping
CDs and needing to tag songs and albums appropriately. Pretty much if
it's catchy and melodic (ranging from balls out to wussy in terms of
power), I'm generally tagging it as "power pop." If nothing else it
helps separate this type of music from more general categories such as
"pop" or "rock."
-----Original Message-----
From: audities-owner@smoe.org [mailto:audities-owner@smoe.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Coxe
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 11:24 AM
To: audities@smoe.org
Subject: Re: an audacious challenge :)
On 7/19/2009 8:04 PM, Daryll Collins wrote:
>
> Personally if this list only encompassed such a narrow aspect of the
> music scene, I'd have little interest. I've always looked at this list
> as pertaining to Pure Pop. A much wider umbrella.
The Audities Magazine model was quite broad. Insanely Great Pop embraced
the quirky, the twangy, the indie, the loud and pounding (Off Broadway's
"Fallin In'" screams Insanely Great!) and (insert pop genre here).
Power-Pop was not the only popism. I remember the first Audities-List
discussions being about Kyle Vincent and That Thing You Do - neither
following a strict power-pop definition. But the magazine took a dirt
nap shortly after the list began, and its mantra faded.
Anyone remember early-on storm over the Ambrosia discussion? Oh the
heresy - the genre whose name shall not be mentioned - AOR! Now that was
fun! Bash vs. the Bomp crowd. Right up there with the Twee death match
of Mason & Oakes.
- Michael
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.