Jump to content

Possible to compose a song with Pop appeal as well as epic and experimental aspects?


TheRain

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think the only way it is possible is if the melody is kept simple and 'poppy' while the arrangement is made epic/experimental. Vice versa wont work. And yeah, the beats would have to be kept poppy, not experimental, when catering to the pop market.

 

Starsailor's 'Four to the Floor' follows this kind of technique I think, with a poppy melody and beats but an epic sounding string arrangement. Of course its still more poppy than epic but its there. I myself am experimenting with eurodance/trance songs with orchestral incorporation, and Im slowly getting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Probably. If gots pop style rythum and radio play appeal with xperimental or unusual elements of instrumentaion voices ect. Or some such. But your more likely to succeed making great music if you make it according to own inclinations ect. Musicians like Marylon Manson & Rob Zombie did their own thing & reached "epic" proportions cause of their naturaly unique things. Rather then from setting out to do that. Same for groups like Opeth. Imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What about some of the later Brian Wilson Beach Boys? "Good Vibrations", "God Only Knows" and "Wouldn't It Be Nice". The album "Pet Sounds" was the inspiration for the Beatles to go to the next level- the result being "Sgt. Pepper". You can get a few glimpses of the never-completed "Smiley" project (due to B Wilson's drugs, alcohol and psychosis) with "Heroes and Villains" and the incomparable "Surf's Up" (it's not a surfer song). I always liked "Sail On, Sailor" a lot, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Isn't that exactly what nine inch nails did with The Downward Spiral? Sure, Pretty Hate Machine had some hits, but TDS brought industrial into the malls and living rooms of the average person. I'd say it sure had its pop appeal, but obviously was epic and experimental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bjork, anyone? Experimental and pop at the same time. Stuff on Post is very influenced by Massive Attack, Tricky, Bristol Trip Hop sound that was fresh and new at the time. Homogenic was symphonic and epic, but heavily processed and experimental beats. Vespertine mixing pop with glitchy beats. I guess most of her stuff is a mix of IDM and pop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Haha,

 

It's interesting that you've all come by to list examples of artists who you feel have reached this combination of musical attributes.

 

I sort of expected a more fundamentally idea driven conversation... like, "Yes, it's possible because blah blah blah" or "I don't think it's possible or it would be difficult because of blah blah blah" ;)

 

I think some of the suggestions here are interesting. I think the idea in my head that I had about what is "Pop" is different than a lot of people's. I'm thinking very mainstream or what would maybe be called Top 40 material or some such...

 

Bjork, I think, on post and Homogenic did reach a very pleasant, almost pop-y yet still strange and intriguing stylistic approach. Vespertine, however, to me is just too dark to be considered pop-y. But I guess that is by my own measure of what is pop.

 

Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody is a really cool example though... It definetly touches on some deep and meaningful elements lyrically in some places... but at the same time it maintains a certain "Entertainment" aspect and light-heartedness that makes it interesting and ammusing to the non music-phile.

 

Peter Gabriel may be a good example also... but I haven't listened to much of his music honestly.... nor am I sure that the songs I think are his are actually his ;)

 

I think, though, that Entertainment is a major aspect of "pop" music. Integrating performance into songs, making the music easily digestable to the casual listener.

 

There's been a lot of discussion on this forum about producing "Pop" music, top 40 quality... mostly sprung on by the presence of Audacity Works on this forum I think. I think such producers have to be much more, if not completely Marketing minded about their music. With that kind of thought process, does the casual listener really WANT epic and experimental aspects in their music?

 

Maybe it can be integrated for the purpose of selling something off as new and edgy? Maybe many a casual listener would like to believe that they are listening to something that is edgy and innovative, but at the same time they don't want to think too much into it, so the music must not force them too much?? Or maybe it is possible to have both at the same time, innovation and epic nature that the casual listener would not notice, or it's even in such a pleasant sense that they prefer it over other pop music??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by TheRain

Haha,


I'm thinking very mainstream or what would maybe be called Top 40 material or some such...


 

 

 

bjork, the chems, the beatles, kraftwerk have all charted before. music doesnt have to be lame to chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, the Beattles are a good example, although that was a very different time.

 

I still don't really think Bjork or Kraftwerk really fit what I'm trying to describe here though. The fact that they may have charted sometime before aside... I don't think they have the pop appeal I'm trying to get at here. But I guess I may be getting at more of a personal perception than a universal definition here so nevermind ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by TheRain


Peter Gabriel may be a good example also... but I haven't listened to much of his music honestly.... nor am I sure that the songs I think are his are actually his
;)

 

Peter Gabriel is who I immediately thought of when I read your post title. You might grab "So" or "Up" and give them a listen for a great example (IMHO) of an artist who knows how to do an epic pop song.

 

I consider so much of his stuff "epic". If you accept that premise, the chart numbers below pretty much say that a real artist can "chart":

 

Peter Gabriel - Chart Positions

US charts for singles

Year Song Highest Chart Position

1977 Solsbury Hill 68

1980 Games Without Frontiers 48

1980 I Don't Remember 107

1981 No Self Control / Biko did not make chart

1982 Shock the Monkey 29

1986 Sledgehammer 1

1986 In Your Eyes 26

1986 Big Time 8

1987 Don't Give Up 72

1987 Red Rain did not make chart

1989 In Your Eyes (remix) 41

 

UK charts for singles:

1977 Solsbury Hill 13

1980 Games Without Frontiers 4

1980 No Self control 33

1980 Biko 38

1982 Shock the Monkey 58

1983 I Don't Remember 62

1984 Walk Through the Fire 69

1986 Sledgehammer 4

1987 Big Time 13

1987 Red Rain 46

1987 Biko (live) 49

1990 Solsbury Hill (re-issue) 57

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

US charts for albums

Album Chart Position Entry Date # of weeks on chart

Peter Gabriel I 38 Mar 12th '77 17

Peter Gabriel II 45 Jul 22nd '78 10

Peter Gabriel III 22 Jun 21st '80 29

Security 28 Oct 2nd '82 31

Plays Live 44 Jun 25th '83 16

Birdy 162 Apr 20th '85 7

So 2 Jun 14th '86 93

Passion 60 Jul 1st '89 14

Shaking The Tree 48 Dec 22nd '90 28

Us 2 Oct 17th '92 17

 

UK charts for albums

Peter Gabriel I 8

Peter Gabriel II 10

Peter Gabriel III 4

Peter Gabriel IV 1

Plays Live 13

Birdy 55

So 1

Passion 28

Us 2

SW Live 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...