I am probably preaching to the choir here. By the very fact you are reading this blog means you are immersed in the digital age. By proxy, I can assume you already value modern popular music at some level. There are some people out there who don’t, though, and it is infinitely frustrating to hear comments like these:
“Today’s normative music [synonym for pop music] bypasses the intellectual achievements of our musical history…we locate the height of modernity in a normative music confined to monosyllables and repetition.” -Julian Johnson, “Who Needs Classical Music?”
Here are some things that need to be understood about popular music:
1. “Pop music” is a ginormous umbrella term
The phrase “pop music” can take on a number of meanings. For some, “pop music” might be the Top 40 on the radio. In other words, it is what’s popular right now. This becomes problematic because, for example, Rossini’s operas were the popular music of their time in Italy. But no one today would be caught dead calling opera “popular music”.
For others, “pop music” might be anything that is not classical, jazz, or folk. That would cause a lot of different artists to be lumped into one genre. I think it is pretty hard to find strong commonalities between Elvis, Pink Floyd, Korn, and Adele. But then again, people who lived during the 1700s might have said the same thing about classical composers. Back then people had much more sensitive ears to the classical music style. They could hear significant differences like we do in today’s artists. But today, we associate Mozart and Haydn as having a similar type of “sound”. We have no problem lumping them together. In that case, let’s zoom out and try to imagine how people will hear today’s music in 100 years from now.
Does “pop music” refer to a specific type of sound? My issue with that is once you define exactly what that sound is, you have prevented the genre from moving forward. The genre becomes shelved in a museum and fixed in a specific moment in time. Let’s say we decided Michael Jackson’s sound was the definition of pop music. Someone like Rihanna would not exactly fit into that mold, but I think most people still consider Rihanna pop music. At least for the time being, “pop music” does not seem to embody a static “sound”.
“Pop music” could also be defined by how it functions: a music that is designed for mass distribution and universal consumption. But then how do you explain a group like Radiohead? They make short and catchy songs, put out CD’s, and tour like any other pop musician does. And yet their music is so intellectual, complex, and experimental it functions more like classical or jazz music. The term “pop music” does not account for strange ambiguities like this. I’m not saying it needs to; I’m just saying we need to be aware that when you and I think “pop music”, we might be thinking wildly different things.
2. Immediate or long lasting?
A lot of the people think the music on the radio today is junk. The singer doesn’t sing well enough, the song isn’t written well enough, and/or the lyrics aren’t clean enough. These comments were the same ones that were leveled at rock and roll in the 1950s, but you don’t hear people slamming that music anymore. What gives?
History has a way of filtering things out over time. To use an example, I will talk about modern wind band music. There are a lot of composers writing wind band music right now and for good reason: it is where there music is going to get played. There are simply more wind bands in the country than there are orchestras. On top of this, wind bands are dying to play new pieces of music while orchestras are a little bit more hesitant. As a result, a huge influx of new music for wind bands is being created by new composers looking to make a buck. Because of the sheer quantity of wind band music out there, we are currently wallowing in a lot of crap. People are still working out which pieces are worthwhile and which ones are not. Move 100 years into the future, though, and most of the crappy music will have fallen to the wayside. What will be left is the really thoughtful music. Extending this back to my other point, maybe there was lots of crappy pop music in the 1950s we just don’t remember. So even if some of today’s popular music really is junk, there will be many gems that will be more resistant to the passage of time than others. “Pop music” is not always synonymous with “disposable”.
Some might say I’m now missing the point. What about the pop music that is meant to be disposable? Not all pop music is meant to endure for 100 years. Some of it is meant to be fun, light-hearted, and “in the moment”. It is supposed to be an immediate reflection of the culture and times we are submerged in. This is valid too, and I will talk about this more when I talk about “value systems”. But I think the best pop music (or maybe more accurately: the pop music I like) can strike the perfect balance between instant gratification and lasting thoughtfulness. It can have a good beat that you can dance to, but it can also carry subterranean layers of meaning.
3. Musical Elements
Have you ever seen the video called “Pachelbel’s Rant”? While this video is hilarious, it demonstrates the incorrect way to analyze pop music. A quote taken from the video: “Punk music is a joke, it’s really just Baroque”. You can’t determine the worth of pop music based on standards set by classical music. The skeleton of classical music is mainly constructed around two musical elements: form and harmony. Things like sonata form and the I-IV-V chord progression are the vehicles that drive most classical pieces from beginning to end. Pop music is centered around three musical elements: rhythm, timbre, and lyrics. Just because “all songs have the same damn chords” in pop music does not make the songwriting unoriginal or uninspired. You are listening for the wrong things.
Here is one listening experiment. Throw on a rap song and listen to the beat. It is very steady and easy to follow. Now listen to the way the person raps over this beat. Their sense of rhythm is enormously complex. They lay back certain rhythms, end phrases at irregular points, and use hemiolas (a rhythmic wheel within a wheel effect). It gets more complex. People think rapping involves only pure rhythm, but have you ever heard a rap in monotone before? Listen for pitch inflection and how it emphasizes the rhythm. And don’t forget about the rhymes in the lyrics. All of these things interact to form a complex skill rappers like to call “flow”.
Here is another listening experiment. Flip through some radio stations and see how quickly you can identify what style of music is playing. I’m guessing it will only take you 1/10th of a second. You couldn’t do this with classical music. This is because pop music is heavily based on timbre and tone color. Each song inhabits its own unique sonic world that features a blended variety of sounds. This is the result of electricity: electronic equipment such as synthesizers and amplifiers can produce infinitely more timbres than acoustic instruments can. This is also created through the process of music production, where the sound board in the studio becomes an “instrument” in itself (putting on effects, mixing/editing the music). Another point is that pop singers are not formally trained to sing in a uniform way like classical singers in a choir might have to do. Each singer has a style of singing that is distinctive and easily recognizable, kind of like their own vocal fingerprint. I mean, what is Queen without the voice of Freddie Mercury? These ideas of timbre and music production are how 16 songs can have the same chord progression but be entirely different entities. I would even argue that this might be the number one factor that governs the creation of pop music.
One final point about the elements of pop music. There is something to be said about making music with a simple message and universal appeal. This is an incredibly hard thing to pull off. I would even dare to say that writing a 4 minute pop song with mass appeal can be as difficult as writing an entire symphony. A symphony is hard to write because it needs to take the listener on a journey through many motives, sections, and layers of meaning. Pop music is hard to write due to its brevity and its all-encompassing message. Now combine this with the considerable skill it takes to manipulate rhythm, timbre, and lyrics and you have something as equally complex and time consuming to write as an hour long symphony. It is no wonder that musician Steve Wilson is fascinated with, “the idea of the pop song as a kind of experimental symphony”.
4. Value Systems
“Different musics are not neutral in terms of value systems; they are positioned because they quite literally do different things…[and] we should be more self-aware of how different musics are positioned” –Julian Johnson
There are lots of kinds of music out there. On the one end of the spectrum you have music that is simple, universal, and maybe even a little disposable. On the other end of the spectrum you have music that is complex, thoughtful, and experimental. Then there is everything in between. None of these positions are inherently bad. All forms of music have their own function and purpose. David Byrne has a great analogy comparing music to beverages:
“Some artists are the Coke and Pepsi of music, while others are the fine wine…or the funky home-brewed moonshine”
Here is the bottom line: we as listeners must learn to correctly identify how a song is positioning itself in terms of value. Otherwise, we will judge a song based on something it is not trying to be. Katy Perry is not trying to be high art, just as The Mars Volta is not trying to get their songs played on every radio station across the world. It is our job to develop our own value system and determine what aspect of our listening needs (or other needs) is being satisfied by the music. Is this music meant to be danced to? If so, does it make me personally want to dance? Why or why not?
Of course, these value systems can get very subjective and ambiguous. My favorite example is Ke$ha. Part of me thinks her music is completely disposable. The other part of me thinks she is pulling a bait and switch: her music is a parody of ridiculously brainless pop music. It’s satirical commentary. Does the fact that her music conveys a meta-awareness make it valuable in a thoughtful way, even though the music itself is still intrinsically mindless?
Up to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment