Wanted to chip in on Mark's Poptimism thread, a wholly engrossing riff on Marcello's splendid 1985 thing. With big guns like Mark Sinker roaming his comments box like Tyrannosaurus Rex I've elected to do it from the safety of my own webs(h)ite. Coward! Metaphor mixer! (Shit I'm starting to sound like Alan Titchmarsh).
While nowhere near being a Poptimist myself (I couldn't give a flying fish about the charts) I'm sympathetic to their cause. Doesn't pop thrive on blind enthusiasm? Isn't suspension of disbelief at the core of Poptimism? For Pop to do it's job don't it's audience HAVE to think year XXXX represents the best, most shiny thing yet? If you approach Pop (which I unerringly view as unredeemable tosh, the lowest common denominator which yields higher meaning only in the hands of the great and the good) with too sharp a critical eye, aren't you missing the point? That it's power lies in it's hooky intransience, that it excels much like sugar in your tea.
This isn't to say that with the benefit of hindsight we can't sit back and make sound qualitative judgements about the strength of certain years above others, just that for the Poptimist to get any pleasure from his pursuit he can't allow this kind of cynical clarity.
Posted by Woebot at February 8, 2004 09:51 AMThis area is a minefield. You do what I would tend to do and equate Pop with chart music. I think other people involved in the debate thihk of Pop much more broadly. That's one source of misunderstanding; one of many! :-)
'For Pop to do it's job don't it's audience HAVE to think year XXXX represents the best, most shiny thing yet?' Doesn't that beg the question of whether Pop _is_ doing its job or not? I'm not sure that being a Pop fan entails an injudicious and indiscriminate enthusiasm. Surely one can recognize down periods without ceasing to be a fan.
Posted by: mark k-punk at February 8, 2004 05:31 PMIf pop music isn't chart music then what the hell is it? (This isn't directed at you Mark)
I always believed that Pop's key dynamic was one of novelty, and that this could survive independently of other virtues.
Posted by: Matt at February 8, 2004 06:02 PMYeah the main stumbling block is the wideness of frame of reference. I like to set the parameters of 'pop' much wider than 'the charts', maybe I'd set them as 'recorded music designed to have instant appeal to a wide potential audience'. Or I'd try and draw a line between music made for specific communities and music made for imagined communities (a fancier way of saying 'demographics', eek!). Of course every definition can be shot down. Most people set the boundaries of pop wider to be honest, I'm sure I read discussion of the Junior Boys in terms of 'pop' on K-Punk and they haven't had a sniff at the charts! I think I'm going to stay out of the debate from now though because I'm not listening to anything much right now so I'd feel like something of a hypocrite.
Posted by: Tom at February 8, 2004 06:02 PMYou're right, Tom; about the Junior Boys, I mean. Not chart, but definitely 'Pop' --- I suppose my instinct is to think of Pop as 'generically', rather than necessarily actually, chart music ---- This is unhelpfully vague, I know, I know.
Must say, and to belie my reputation as a misery-guts, I'm very partial to that new Britney single. Fantastic strings.
Posted by: Mark k-punk at February 8, 2004 06:36 PM....ah ok i'm getting the hang of this. (Thinks jeez I'm glad i didnt chime in on the k-punk thread, those guys would have torn me to shreds).
to tom
that's a perfectly workable definition...makes sense actually...though i guess pop will always be the charts for me. I've a suggestion though.....(cocky!)......surely "Pop," as you're describing it, is anything with a video. yeah get back to me.
with terms as wooly as these it's no wonder the discourse has exploded!
to mark
you britney spears loving pussy! traitor!
but the biggest joke is, i've just completed a secret survey of bloggers. i pretended it was all anynomous but that was just a lie to get them to reveal their real feelings. the question was-who is your favourite band. some of the results might suprise some of you.
mark k punk-aled jones
matthew ingram-m people
tom ewing-throbbing gristle
simon reynolds-rush
phillip sherburne-marrillion
john eden-the police
ok, i'm bored of making these up now...
Posted by: luke at February 9, 2004 10:49 AMi am t rex! yay me!! grrr arg!! *runs around office w.wrists held tightly to chest and mouth open*
Posted by: mark s at February 9, 2004 12:39 PMhey Rush ain't so embarassing -- 'spirit of radio' rocks, it sounds a bit like husker du.
(whispers) i like the britney too, although as much for the faint whiff of desperation, throwing every trick in the mix, career-salvage about it.
Posted by: simon at February 9, 2004 07:04 PMto Luke
i told you that in strictest confidence, you've made me very very angry.
to Mark S
....aaaaargh, it's a tyrannasaurus rex......
to Simon
Well that's your Christmas presents sorted then.
>hey Rush ain't so embarassing -- 'spirit of >radio' rocks, it sounds a bit like husker du.
yeh, you've come out of it well
>(whispers) i like the britney too, although as >much for the faint whiff of desperation, >throwing every trick in the mix, career-salvage >about it.
Agreed. I make that two cracking Britney singles on the spin.
And as for _faint_ whiff of desperation, check the video: quite a pronounced stench of desperation, I'd say. She still carries it off with more elan than Xtina, though.
That was me btw...
Posted by: mark k-punk at February 9, 2004 08:35 PM