I'm interested in how we humans interpret the world differently. How we taste, see, feel, and hear virtually identical things, yet come away with different emotional responses and preferences. "Pop music," to me, offers an interesting window into this discussion, as it's a great example of a polarizing preference that seems to avoid any notions of objective interpretation, and yet, it just is bad. Right?
To start, let's address the genre's name: "pop," as in "popular." I've decided to go from the gut
1
and refrain from doing any research, and assume that this genre, like others, were named after their original defining aspect (like, "Indie" being independent of labels, "country" being solely written in/sung in/about the countryside, "metal" being the exact equivalent of repeated blows to the head with a metal rod
2
, etc.) And yet, these genres have adapted over the years to mean something new. One might hear a song on the radio and vaguely describe it as "indie-esque" without having any idea how independent it is. Similarly, there are pop songs that are by no means popular. For evidence, look at the pop genre on iTunes, and along with the mega-popular hits, there are bands and songs no one's heard of. Writing a pop song doesn't mean you've written a popular song.
So "pop" therefore refers to a style of music that's pretty varied, but is still connected by certain aspects. Off the top of my head, I'd define pop music as generally more heavily produced (less natural sounding, more "clean") with greater importance given to the vocal melody than other instruments/harmonies, greater emphasis on repetition, simple in form, thinner (either fewer instruments, or digitally created instruments), and all centered around that one "hook" that gives the listener the satisfaction they're looking for. Being pretty general, these defining characteristics can easily apply to other genres, too, such as pop-rock, pop-country, etc.
I'm slowly but surely getting to my point. I once heard that pop is the musical equivalent of comically-sweet candy. I'm going to roll with the food analogy here, because taste is also sensory with lots of disagreement on value, yet food seems to be further removed from the realm of art and subjectivity. Re: candy: most everyone likes it, at first. We can't help but enjoy the sugary goodness; we're biologically wired to crave it. Yet, it also makes us sick. It's too much of one thing (sugar) without any real foundation. It's fake, in every sense of the word, from it being a "food" at all (no actual nutrients) to how it's made (no natural ingredients). Alright, you get the point. Basically I'm asserting that everyone initially enjoys pop, but since there's inherently no substance to the genre, it is far less rewarding/enjoyable/good in the long run. We can't help but be attracted to a hook, but the very simplicity and obnoxious repetition that initially got it stuck in our heads quickly becomes a detriment to the song. Music shouldn't become annoying, for if it does, it calls into question the (lack of) innate quality it ever had.
Does all this make me a music snob? Or, do I just want to exude hipster-cred by bashing the mainstream? Hopefully not. But at the same time, I doubt I'll be offending anyone who happens to read this post. Because, as far as I know, there's no such thing as a pop-music snob. Being a snob doesn't sound great, but the opposite isn't great either, and it seems to fit my caricature of the pop-listener: someone who wants whatever "sounds good," wants it easily, and is only concerned with short-term happiness/instant gratification. This description seems to be in harmony with modern western culture, and at this point this post could spin off into a scathing critique of that, but instead I'll (more mildly) say that patience, delayed gratification, being mindful of what we ingest, and investment (as in, being aware and invested in what you're doing, in the moment) are all worthwhile values to have.
I'll change the analogy away from candy, which has connotations of being childish, because I don't want to seem to suggest "good music" is too prestigious for younger/less mature listeners. Again, I don't really think there's an elitist element to this. Instead, I'll say pop music is like fast food: it serves a purpose, and you know what you're getting out if it. In the long run, if you value "food," I'd recommend limiting fast food intake. There's something that a home-grown, slow, home-cooked, fresh meal has on the alternative that's beyond its health value or taste. It just is better food. Right? Maybe it's how it makes you feel hours after eating it (not filled with regret). Or maybe it's just the fact that you could go back to it day after day and not get sick of it.
I can't fault anyone for listening to pop music, but I also sincerely hope those same people give other genres a genuine listen. I think they'll find music to be powerful and rewarding and good in ways pop could never be.
No comments:
Post a Comment