Between pop and pretension

[sabriel9v]

I've been following this guy's blog for a while now. He's got some profound stuff to say. I'm working on setting up an interview with him and discussing the music biz, if I'm successful I'll post it.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/feb/06/simon-reynolds-animal-collective

 

 

They're not consensus records in the sense that everyone thinks they're great; the consensus here is simply that this is worth getting worked up about. We literally agree to disagree.

 

 

 

It's a risky business for a band to move from relative unpopularity towards the edge of the mainstream. Their original following, seeing their stock about to get devalued by new fans, may be tempted to dump it and latch on to some new buzz band. Semi-popularity in some ways is a weak place to be situated: you're not going to be the Beatles, you're probably not even going to be Radiohead, and since the difference between having 100,000 fans and 10,000 isn't really that significant (in the grand scheme of things), why not keep your music "pure"?

 

[Poker99]

That was a little too profound for my tastes.

[BlueStrat]

The shift in attitudes toward popularity is one I never thought I see in my lifetime.

 

None of my friends nor I ever got pissed off when our favorite bands became popular; we promoted them heavily and were happy when they made it big. We wanted to be just like them. I remember the first ZZ Top album in 1970. I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever heard, and turned everyone I could onto them. Ditto the Allman Brothers, James Taylor, and many others. We didn't see them as sellouts, we saw them as the public recognizing the same greatness that we saw, and felt validated when they became popular. Same with Petty, the Cars, and lots of others.

 

How things have changed in just 30 years.

 

The whole notion that if something becomes popular, there must be something wrong with it is based on a cynical and condescending worldview that the public is stupid and unhip, and therefore whatever they embrace must be also. Which is a mystery to me and logical out of whack. Why make records, promote, and try to become popular if you think the people buying your records are stupid and will lap up any {censored} they're fed? If you become popular, doesn't that mean your music is {censored}? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the public buys crap. Some do. But that doesn't mean everything they buy is crap. That's like saying since grass is green, then everything that is green must be grass.

[sabriel9v]

That was a little too profound for my tastes.

 

Yeah I like Simon, but sometimes he's a little too high-brow for me. I'll be reading his stuff and catch a real whiff of snobby, supercilious academia. I look up and see him in his ivory tower typing away like a madman, unaware of what us "regular" folk are doing.

 

The guy makes some excellent points though.

 

The whole notion that if something becomes popular, there must be something wrong with it is based on a cynical and condescending worldview that the public is stupid and unhip, and therefore whatever they embrace must be also.

 

Have you turned into a hipster? Cause you sure did tap into the mind of one

[Poker99]

 

The shift in attitudes toward popularity is one I never thought I see in my lifetime. None of my friends nor I ever got pissed off when our favorite bands became popular; we promoted them heavily and were happy when they made it big. We wanted to be just like them.

 

 

Me too! I was actually trying to help the bands I liked get more fans.

 

Kids today feel entitled (not all of them, but a lot). They all deserve attention. They all feel special. That could be part of the problem. They don't like to see others get it.

[3shiftgtr]

The shift in attitudes toward popularity is one I never thought I see in my lifetime. None of my friends nor I ever got pissed off when our favorite bands became popular; we promoted them heavily and were happy when they made it big. How things have changed in just 30 years. The whole notion that if something becomes popular, there must be something wrong with it is based on a cynical and condescending worldview that the public is stupid and unhip, and therefore whatever they embrace must be also

 

Dude, be careful here...when zz top got popular, it was done exactly like you did it. It was cool, and it caught on with the people who listened to it. That's why it was popular: people listened to it and liked it. Basically all record companies did to promote it was posters at record stores, music mags, gigs and radio play.

 

In order for something to be popular today, it must be promoted to the nth degree and shoved down the general populace's throat. Something that is popular in spite of 'marketing techniques' is considered a fluke. And that makes some people cynical to success. A band that is popular today is popular because they are seen on morning shows, heard on radio, do exclusive podcast performances, their music is used in the latest hip car or ipod commercial, they have a viral video, have a bazillion twitter followers, their logo is the coolest thing you've ever seen and their singer just appeared in a feature film. A real music lover has to look past all that to actually HEAR the music. And that creates some cynicism.

 

It ain't like the old days, you old fuddy duddy!

[paulz]

Have you turned into a hipster? Cause you sure did tap into the mind of one

 

300 years ago they were called 'fop', then 'dandy' now 'hipster'

I bet there were even well-placed Egyptian scribes putting on airs when the pyramids were going up.

[sabriel9v]

It's funny I was listening to some old Simon and Garfunkel and I just don't get those guys. To me, they come off very similar to the flavor of the month hipster bands that you see nowadays, but those guys are considered legends. I look at groups like Fleetwood Mac, Simon and Garfunkel, and Joni Mitchell and I wonder if people initially liked them just because of how they dressed and it was cool to be artsy and eccentric. I really doubt it was any different than the hipsters that are into Dirty Projectors and Animal Collective. It's all about scenes that celebrate themselves and want to keep things "un-mainstream" and "un-pop."

[Kramerguy]

Kids today feel entitled (not all of them, but a lot). They all deserve attention. They all feel special. That could be part of the problem. They don't like to see others get it.

 

Haha.. reminds me of a saying:

 

"I'm unique, just like everyone else"

 

 

kids

 

[restart]

 

It's funny I was listening to some old Simon and Garfunkel and I just don't get those guys. To me, they come off very similar to the flavor of the month hipster bands that you see nowadays, but those guys are considered legends. I look at groups like Fleetwood Mac, Simon and Garfunkel, and Joni Mitchell and I wonder if people initially liked them just because of how they dressed and it was cool to be artsy and eccentric. I really doubt it was any different than the hipsters that are into Dirty Projectors and Animal Collective. It's all about scenes that celebrate themselves and want to keep things "un-mainstream" and "un-pop."

 

 

Was it, is it any different? Nah. However, there is a very fine line between capturing the zeitgeist of a given era and using it as commentary or expanding upon it either musically or lyrically, (Simon and Garfunkel, The Police, The Rolling Stones, Nirvana, etc.) versus using said zeitgeist for the sake of making money (The Archies, Milli Vanilli, The Jonas Brothers). That they can both become successful is a testament to our diversity.

 

Further, I don't believe there is any shame if your raison d'être is making money and/or popularity. In my estimation, where there is shame is when actions and motivations are undertaken to conceal or spin their true origin, in a word, hypocrisy. And our culture today is rife with that hyperbole and spin. Thus, hypocrisy may equal "selling out."

[BlueStrat]

 

It's funny I was listening to some old Simon and Garfunkel and I just don't get those guys. To me, they come off very similar to the flavor of the month hipster bands that you see nowadays, but those guys are considered legends.

Far from being the flavor of the month when they hit the scene, they were groundbreakers, one of the first folk acts (along with Dylan) to write about stuff that was culturally relevant in an intelligent yet artistic way. No one was writing lyrics like "Sounds of Silence" or "the Boxer" except Dylan and a few others, and Simon and Garfunkel had the edge on Dylan because their vocals were very good and very commercial for the time. They took folk music beyond "Michael Row Your Boat Ashore" and "Hang Down Your Head Tom Dooley" and made it the voice of a new generation. They paved the way for people like Joni and James Taylor and CSNY and lots of others that followed.

 

You don't get them because you have no historical context for them. I remember when the came out, and how different and profound they were from "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "I'm Henry The Eight I Am" 1964 British Invasion stuff.

[Matximus]

I didn't read the blog;

 

But that won't stop me from vehemently disapproving with whatever he said; Steal more music.

[Jesse G]

 

The shift in attitudes toward popularity is one I never thought I see in my lifetime. None of my friends nor I ever got pissed off when our favorite bands became popular; we promoted them heavily and were happy when they made it big. We wanted to be just like them. I remember the first ZZ Top album in 1970. I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever heard, and turned everyone I could onto them. Ditto the Allman Brothers, James Taylor, and many others. We didn't see them as sellouts, we saw them as the public recognizing the same greatness that we saw, and felt validated when they became popular. Same with Petty, the Cars, and lots of others. How things have changed in just 30 years. The whole notion that if something becomes popular, there must be something wrong with it is based on a cynical and condescending worldview that the public is stupid and unhip, and therefore whatever they embrace must be also.

 

 

 

I think it's more of a reaction to changes in the music industry in the last 30 years than music fans just turning into assholes.

[BlueStrat]

I think it's more of a reaction to changes in the music industry in the last 30 years than music fans just turning into assholes.

 

 

I didn't say they turned into assholes. I said the attitude towards popularity has changed. I can see where my wording might have implied that, though. Not what I meant to say.

Of course it's a result of changes in the music industry. We've discussed those changes here for a couple of years now.

[BlueStrat]

I didn't read the blog; But that won't stop me from vehemently disapproving with whatever he said; Steal more music.

 

 

Why don't you just get a post it note and write down everything useful you have to contribute.

[Blackwatch]

 

In order for something to be popular today, it must be promoted to the nth degree and shoved down the general populace's throat. Something that is popular in spite of 'marketing techniques' is considered a fluke. And that makes some people cynical to success. A band that is popular today is popular because they are seen on morning shows, heard on radio, do exclusive podcast performances, their music is used in the latest hip car or ipod commercial, they have a viral video, have a bazillion twitter followers, their logo is the coolest thing you've ever seen and their singer just appeared in a feature film. A real music lover has to look past all that to actually HEAR the music. And that creates some cynicism.

 

 

I don't know if you remember when Bruce Springtseen first came out. They had a commercial every 5 minutes for " Born To Run" I swore I'd never listen to him just because he was being rammed down my throat. And I wasn't the only one.

But it's a tribute to his talent that he overcame his inital push onto the public and 'made it"

The difference these days is like you state.....they push the flavor of the month on the public and they just become bored....

[Blackwatch]

 

Far from being the flavor of the month when they hit the scene, they were groundbreakers, one of the first folk acts (along with Dylan) to write about stuff that was culturally relevant in an intelligent yet artistic way. No one was writing lyrics like "Sounds of Silence" or "the Boxer" except Dylan and a few others, and Simon and Garfunkel had the edge on Dylan because their vocals were very good and very commercial for the time. They took folk music beyond "Michael Row Your Boat Ashore" and "Hang Down Your Head Tom Dooley" and made it the voice of a new generation. They paved the way for people like Joni and James Taylor and CSNY and lots of others that followed. You don't get them because you have no historical context for them. I remember when the came out, and how different and profound they were from "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "I'm Henry The Eight I Am" 1964 British Invasion stuff.

 

 

Well written Bluestrat....and to add to that, Simon and Garfunkel, Joni Mitchell and James Taylor were some of the best songwriters of the last half century...IMO...extreme talent.

[3shiftgtr]

It's funny I was listening to some old Simon and Garfunkel and I just don't get those guys. To me, they come off very similar to the flavor of the month hipster bands that you see nowadays, but those guys are considered legends. I look at groups like Fleetwood Mac, Simon and Garfunkel, and Joni Mitchell and I wonder if people initially liked them just because of how they dressed and it was cool to be artsy and eccentric. I really doubt it was any different than the hipsters that are into Dirty Projectors and Animal Collective. It's all about scenes that celebrate themselves and want to keep things "un-mainstream" and "un-pop."

 

The scene thing is always a part of it. Sheeple will always be around to bogart that joint.

 

But don't forget that rock music you "LISTEN" to was a new concept in the late 60's. Up until the mid 60's rock music was dance music, essentially. Sgt. Peppers broke that open. Folks began to listen to the record and read the lyrics. No one did that to rock music before that. And S&G, Joni, and the like had a new rhetoric that spoke to their generation in a new way, the same way Cobain talked to his.

[kurdy]

 

But don't forget that rock music you "LISTEN" to was a new concept in the late 60's. Up until the mid 60's rock music was dance music, essentially. Sgt. Peppers broke that open. Folks began to listen to the record and read the lyrics. No one did that to rock music before that. And S&G, Joni, and the like had a new rhetoric that spoke to their generation in a new way, the same way Cobain talked to his.

 

 

I guess we've come full-circle, because now few people ever sit and listen to music anymore. People put it on while they're doing other things, dancing perhaps being one of them, but also exercising, driving, playing video games, surfing the internet. So maybe we really have gone back to the "good ole days" in some ways.

[sabriel9v]

Far from being the flavor of the month when they hit the scene, they were groundbreakers, one of the first folk acts (along with Dylan) to write about stuff that was culturally relevant in an intelligent yet artistic way. No one was writing lyrics like "Sounds of Silence" or "the Boxer" except Dylan and a few others, and Simon and Garfunkel had the edge on Dylan because their vocals were very good and very commercial for the time. They took folk music beyond "Michael Row Your Boat Ashore" and "Hang Down Your Head Tom Dooley" and made it the voice of a new generation. They paved the way for people like Joni and James Taylor and CSNY and lots of others that followed. You don't get them because you have no historical context for them. I remember when the came out, and how different and profound they were from "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "I'm Henry The Eight I Am" 1964 British Invasion stuff.

 

I guess I can dig that...the article I posted is mainly about Animal Collective, but addresses how people will not refer to certain music as pop because then that would be like selling out. For those of you who don't know, Animal Collective is very groundbreaking for my generation. They are a sign of what experimental pop is and where its headed. Nonetheless, there are people that are trend humpers and claim to understand Animal Collective But they do it just cause it's "cool" at the moment and Animal Collective has been one of the really hot bands since Strawberry Jam was released.

 

My point with Simon and Garfunkel was that I don't think kids were that different 30 yrs. ago. You're always going to have your people who want to hop on the train late and for all the wrong reasons, but then look at you as if you're behind and not in tune with whats happening. Those same losers who were doing that 30 yrs ago have kids now and their kids act as if they really give a damn about groups like Radiohead and Animal Collective when they really don't.

 

In my estimation, where there is shame is when actions and motivations are undertaken to conceal or spin their true origin, in a word, hypocrisy. And our culture today is rife with that hyperbole and spin. Thus, hypocrisy may equal "selling out."

 

Simply put, when an artist is dishonest about his or her motivations, people don't like it. Excellent point, but I think your point and Blue's comment are intermingled. It's that PLUS this condescending worldview. I've hung out at wayyy too many hipster spots and places where the "underground" is at. I'm there for the music and I want to see the acts take it to the next level.

 

But the scenes are so self-congratulatory. Many indie musicians will be content to stay big fishes in small ponds and it has nothing to do with a marketing strategy per se (find a core base of 10,000 fans and pimp it as opposed to going to the "next level.") The people in these scenes think the way that they do because they feel that the general public is stupid or just plain ignorant. If the general public likes it, it must be lame because what does your average Joe know anyway? He's just spoonfed whatever "lies" CNN and Fox News tell him and he listens to crappy mainstream radio run by Clear Channel. So because the general public likes it, hipsters plugged into alternative media outlets hate on it. Pop is the epitome of that because it's popular music, therefore, it must suck and be sell out crap.

 

As for Fleetwood Mac, I still don't get em But Joni Mitchell is the {censored}. Joni > Fleetwood Crap & Simon and Funkman.

Whew, let me shut my mouth and take a breather

[paulz]

Nonetheless, there are people that are trend humpers and claim to understand Animal Collective But they do it just cause it's "cool" at the moment and Animal Collective has been one of the really hot bands since Strawberry Jam was released. My point with Simon and Garfunkel was that I don't think kids were that different 30 yrs. ago. You're always going to have your people who want to hop on the train late and for all the wrong reasons, but then look at you as if you're behind and not in tune with whats happening.

 

It's definitely not a new thing, really - it's older than recorded music. The comic part is it is perspective...a lot of people consider themselves the 'intelligentsia' or 'literati' and those doing the more rarified the elitists and the late adopters the fops, poseurs, hipsters, scenesters or whatever that generations calls them -- you probably feel you are in the 'musical literati sweet spot, I probably feel I am, probably everybody here does to some extent -- and other guys are either uptight elitists or sheeple who aren't really listening.

 

like that cure tune "jumping someone else's train" was about that

I think Bluestrat was right about the historical context tho. Its tough to see and understand the impact on one period from another period.

Like for me the thing about S&G and Adler-esque folk-rock and those sorts of things is that it put depth into it, but used accessible forms. The more hipoisie would be maybe stuff like the Mothers or Beefheart and like that.

[sabriel9v]

The more hipoisie would be maybe stuff like the Mothers or Beefheart and like that.

 

I don't even know what that means

 

It's definitely not a new thing, really - it's older than recorded music. The comic part is it is perspective...a lot of people consider themselves the 'intelligentsia' or 'literati' and those doing the more rarified the elitists and the late adopters the fops, poseurs, hipsters, scenesters or whatever that generations calls them -- you probably feel you are in the 'musical literati sweet spot, I probably feel I am, probably everybody here does to some extent -- and other guys are either uptight elitists or sheeple who aren't really listening.

 

You're right. One thing that has always amazed me is how a perspective becomes shifted over time and when we look at things in retrospect, who's perspective are we really getting? They always say that history is written by the victors and conquerors, the people who were suppressed and lost the fight, we don't get their side.

 

No, I wasn't there for Simon and Garfunkel, but their recordings are considered testaments to a different time and era within my country and I'm sort of understanding how people got into them so much. Then again I wonder who dictated that these guys were truly groundbreaking and worth all the fuss. Right now we're hearing a lot about Lil Wayne and Lady Gaga, will these be the music icons for my generation? I hope not! Realistically Lady Gaga is only in the limelight because MIA hasn't released her new album yet and Lil Wayne is a superstar because most rappers don't want to release 300+ tracks about weed, bitches, and guns. He just kept taking shots at the market and finally people were forced to listen. He's not a bad rapper, I like him, but I don't want to look back 10 years from now and think oh yeah Lil Wayne was a musical icon for my generation.

[paulz]

I don't even know what that means

 

just different words. It's the 'class of the hip' like bourgeoisie is the class that has a bourgeois value system - especially the ones that think of themselves as part of that class or see it as a 'cut above' or 'apart' or something

To you they are probably 'hipstesr' or scenesters' to my crowd they are the hipoisie

[sabriel9v]

 

just different words. It's the 'class of the hip' like bourgeoisie is the class that has a bourgeois value system - especially the ones that think of themselves as part of that class or see it as a 'cut above' or 'apart' or something To you they are probably 'hipstesr' or scenesters' to my crowd they are the hipoisie

 

 

Oh I gotcha, so its pronounced hip-wah-ze. I was reading it as hippy-o-c lol

[BlueStrat]

 

Oh I gotcha, so its pronounced hip-wah-ze. I was reading it as hippy-o-c lol

 

 

 

Sort of like 'trustafarians'- those pretentious little twats who run around all summer in dreads and tie-dyed shirts and backpacks touring the national parks and living on trust fund money.