Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (142 of them)
Yes, one premise of the article is that there is a difference between one kind of music (which I'm calling pop) and other kinds of music. This difference rests - I'm suggesting - on the presumption or presentation of an autonomous artist behind the music. What I don't follow is how I'm then defending thoughtless listening. I'm defending a listener-centric listening, perhaps, but that need not be thoughtless.Tom, was this your premise? Some of your comments here don't seem to be endorsing this. Anyway, this is what my comments are meant to challenge. In specific instances you can differentiate between pop and something else, just as you can differentiate between salsa and something else, etc. It doesn't follow that there has to be a general rule as to how to differentiate (you might differentiate differently in different circumstances). And what I really really really do not buy is that overall pop and rock play by different rules. Each performer and performance and context and interaction creates its own rules (albeit as a takeoff on previous performances etc.), but I don't see a general "We're in pop so we don't do autonomy, or at least we do it in 'pop' ways," or a "We're in rock, so this is how we do autonomy." Audiences hold performers and artists responsible for what they do, whether the context is pop or rock, and usually it's the front person who takes the heat no matter who or what else contributed to the performance or the artwork. Singers get held responsible for what they sing, DJs for what they play, dancers for how they dance.
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 23 January 2006 16:49 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't remember what thread we had the discussion on but I was up on this point that pop isn't contra-rock, or contra-classical, or this or that. Pop is at once a subset of "everything else" and the opposite of "everything else" b/c even though you can say "this pop track is rock" you can also say "this track isn't rock -- it's pop!" and they're both true. pop is like a meta-genric social use category.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 24 January 2006 18:39 (eighteen years ago) link
eight years pass...
I'm remembering this thread fondly after finally meeting Mark S in person at EMP Pop 2014. This same debate is still totally going on, unsurprisingly, fueled by recent grouchy screeds in curmudgeonly newspapers, and was addressed or alluded to by multiple speakers at the conference today.
I think it may be close to true that I've changed sides on this topic, sort of, in the years since. Or maybe the sides have changed. Or maybe I've stopped caring. Or maybe I've just stopped thinking I have any idea how one "should" write about music. But the music, at least, seems better than ever.
Anyway, hello to our adorable touchy younger selves so earnestly trying to fix each other's misconceptions right away. Should have just been patient.
― glenn mcdonald, Saturday, 26 April 2014 01:43 (nine years ago) link