Pop Is Dead? Pop Is Dead!

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
please make it so

Queen G (Queeng), Thursday, 26 December 2002 10:49 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I demand ten threads on pop being dead. And a new musical name for which to randomly slot bands as postpop. I nominate the Masonic Momus creature for the honour of being the first postpop band.

Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 26 December 2002 15:41 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I wish they wouldn't make you register. I just registered recently and have already forgotten how I registered, apparently.

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 26 December 2002 15:48 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

NYT Online should be idiot proof!

Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 26 December 2002 15:48 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Clearly you didn't read the article.

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 26 December 2002 16:07 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

If anything this is just a demonstration that a notion of "pop" that includes boy-bands but not new country is sort of a broken one. "Pop" has at no point been very constructive as a genre-concept -- closest in the mid-70s, but even then not so much. It's a process, a set of attributes and values that can be applied to any root-level genre. (Though it tends to make things converge toward a certain center -- a new-country "pop" hit and a metal "pop" hit have as much to do with one another as they have to do with the rest of their genres.)

What I wonder is why uber-mainstream pop -- boybands, Britney, whatever -- gets constituted as a "pop" genre unto itself: any honest categorization would have to acknowledge that this stuff is pretty much pop-process r&b, just as much as Shania Twain is pop-process country. "Pop" is on the charts either way -- it's just a question of which popularized genre is occupying the slot.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 26 December 2002 17:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(Oh wait, I see: it's just a remnant of the pop chart race ghetto, isn't it? Wherein Usher is r&b and Justin Timberlake is pop?)

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 26 December 2002 17:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Pop = Popular
NYT = Idiots

David Allen, Thursday, 26 December 2002 19:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

and my two bits:

jameslucas, Thursday, 26 December 2002 19:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Are we discussing Neil Strauss's story from the front page of today's (12/26/02) arts section?

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 26 December 2002 19:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Are we discussing Neil Strauss's story from the front page of today's (12/26/02) arts section? I have a (gasp) paper copy I can consult.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 26 December 2002 19:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink







Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 26 December 2002 19:57 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Strauss isn't an idiot; journalism is the idiot, and the reading public is the idiot. Since Strauss is writing for a "newspaper" he can't just say, "Here are a bunch of records I want to write about," he's got to pretend to spot a trend (because "trend" = "news"). The only trend he cites is that Britney, *NSync, and the Backstreet Boys didn't hit #1 this year. They also didn't release records this year, which might have been an obstacle. Not that they'd have sold as well as last time. But he's just being absurd in claiming that (therefore) the extremes dominated the charts. Almost all the albums he cites (maybe three or four exceptions) is by artists who two or three years ago hit as big as or bigger than they're hitting now. No trend. Two more stupidities are: (1) That Alan Jackson and Jay-Z represent "extremes" whereas *NSync and Britney represent "designed for broadest spectrum possible." Like, *NSync are designed to take in the Jay-Z and Alan Jackson audiences, whereas Jackson and Jay-Z are designed to exclude the *NSync audience? (2) That you can use Number 1 albums rather than total sales to represent the success of a genre. (The trend I was reading about in Billboard midyear: sales of country were slumping and of hip-hop were plummeting; country was failing to break new artists and its midline artists were suffering, while the biz was waiting with fingers crossed for Shania and Faith and the Dixies to come along and save its ass. Indies were the only part of the business to more-or-less hold its own in comparison to previous years, possibly because its album sales aren't diminished by the downloading of hit singles.) But you're better off reading the opening few paragraphs not as a serious statement about music but as an attempt to portray the piece as being about something more than "I'm writing capsules about a bunch of number one albums, and I'm going to get paid to do so." (Is that what happens when you design your writing for the broadest possible spectrum of pseudointellectual dimwits?)

Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

No more Britney and NSync = soooooooo 2001

Curtis Stephens, Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:42 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I'm dubious about any article that tries to chart a trend based on an arbitrary block of 52 weeks. One should not pick a year and then identify a trend; a trend should make itself felt, at which point you can try to ascertain when it began.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:51 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Another way of saying what Frank said, that the demands of his editors and the form "year end reviews" are expected to take, have defeated Strauss who is otherwise not a bad writer.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Blame it on the Raines

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 26 December 2002 21:14 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

First ever Milli Vanilli-NY Times cross-referencing joke?

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 26 December 2002 21:36 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

When I first heard "Blame it on the Rain" (waiting in a car outside the Peace Museum) I thought it was David Bowie.

Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 26 December 2002 21:42 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

He wishes!

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 26 December 2002 21:49 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

The one thing I like about the article, other than noting how well country is doing right now (albeit standing on the shoulders of giants, er, giantesses?), is the lack of the obligatory 'ROCK IS BACK!' trumpeting.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 26 December 2002 21:51 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks, Frank - I didn't mean to say that Neil was stupid, by any means - more lazy & irresponsible, from what I could tell, but I like your kindler, gentler explanation better. Kindler & gentler if you don't mind the general populace being tagged as "uh, duh" instead of one individual.

If people simply saw P!O!P! as the mountain Mouhammed (sic) has to go to, it might be better to understand & accept these so-called trends & sell-outs & mainstreamings.

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 26 December 2002 22:41 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Naw, Iggy Pop is alive and well. He did an interview or 2 like 8 months ago.

Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Sunday, 29 December 2002 01:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

As long as (social ossification) + (human failure of imagination) creates ppl who wish to reference/identify w/ imaginary ppl whose only distinguishing characteristic is a willingness to symbolize the supposed inadequacy of the 'individual' in an idealised egalitarian projected alternative consciousness, 'pop' music will never die!

dave q, Sunday, 29 December 2002 09:57 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Pop was never "alive" in the first place, merely "manufactured" in a cold, antiseptic lab like the soulless product it is.


Alex in NYC (vassifer), Sunday, 29 December 2002 22:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

[to worms:] GET...BACK...IN...THAT...CAN!

Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Sunday, 29 December 2002 22:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.