Sinister: Rock and pop?

[the duke of harringay]

Stuart Gardiner wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Jamie Huxley wrote:
>
> > "The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll"
>
> >
> > Discuss
> >

> don't think it is possible to differentiate
> between rock and pop (ie
> popular) music. However I do think you can
> differentiate between rock and
> POP! (ie deliberately populist) music.

argh!  So now we also have a distinction between
Pops!!  Phew... i'm not into it though.  Not at
all.  I don't define Pop as being a shortened
version of anything, be it 'popular' (where do you
define the line between not popular and popular?
is it in terms of 'sales', if so, what number?)
nor 'populist' (by whose definition?  is this also
tied to sales figures?  if B&S then go in to sell
millions of record are they too 'populist'?).
It's simply(?) a personal evaluation of the state
you might be in a certain moment, in response to a
stimulant.... usually aural :-)  And i happen to
believe it's to do with what i talked about
before...

> That's why B&S would say they had
> rock influences, because they have never written
> music purely because they
> think it will be popular (as people like the
> Spice Girls or Wet Wet Wet
> do); they write it because they like it, it does
> something for them.

this is cruelly unfair on Spice Girls or Wet Wet
Wet, because who are you to say that when they
write or perform a song it is not also 'doing
something for them'?  Or to the fans who embrace
their noises and who also will tell you that the
noise 'does something for them'?  Are you calling
these people stupid simply because they don't like
the same music as you do?  Dangerous ground...

> There
> seems to be a great confusion over what pop
> means, because someone like
> Radiohead are popular without being populist.

ah, but they ARE... because by their very actions
they conform to a set of fairly strictly written
traditional rock rules.  They also sell a lot of
records...

> Similarly Bon Jovi produce
> populist rock, whereas Iron Maiden simply
> produce popular rock. There are
> no clearcut definitions, no exact opposites;

but there ARE clear distinctions and exact
opposites, the point is that everyone has their
own idas about what they are, because everyone
defines their Pop for themselves, regardless of
sales figures and perceived ideas about the
reasons for an artefact being produced in the
first place.

> Forgive my ramblings, forgive me if I appear to
> have contradicted myself,

contradictions are intrinsic to Pop, you have to
embrace them for it to make any sort of sense... i
discovered this as i grew older :-)

> but I think things like this are very hard to
> put into words; music is all
> about feelings,

which is why the definitions about what makes a
certain noise 'Pop' or not is entirely personal,
and why global distinctions are ultimately
irrevelvant.

> I just
> think it's worth trying.

ditto.  and the very fact that we try is surely
proof of our continued delight at the fact that
noise can make us so excited and inspired.  long
may it continue!

keep the faith,

the duke

--
Tangents On-Line
http://www.virtual-pc.com/tangent/
Tangents On-Paper: PO Box 102, Exeter, EX2 4YL, UK

tangent at mail.zynet.co.uk



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.     This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list.
.        To send to the list please mail "sinister at majordomo.net".
.  For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see
.            http://www.majordomo.net/sinister
. For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister at majordomo.net
.    We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes.  Aren't we?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------