I was talking with Tom the other night about the state of our musical revolution...hmm yes. anyway, i was just thinking...what makes a good song in this modern era of pop/sterile mainstream music.
i see music as form of expression, a piece of art. so if something is accepted by the masses, it is a bonus. but firstly, making music should be about the feeling you get when you create, not something made for the world. i guess this is why i have a problem with 'pop'. i put it inverted commas cus i feel this word has been hijacked for evil. im not the kinda of person who only likes music when its undeground, and as soon as it breaks into the mainstrean, i ignor it. pop is ment to mean popular music..and therefore, to an extent i suppose all music you or i listen to is pop, even if you listen to slipnot or manson. the fact that they are known in mainstream media must mean they have some form of pop. but pop as we know has taken this ugly meaning of being pre packaged, pre made music that is lacking soul and has a spokesperson in the form of your britney's, christina's fronting it. pop has become a dirty word for anyself respecting musican...i mean look at eminem, he refused to go on TRL till recently as they refered to his slim shady show record as 'pop'.
In the uk, do to the deomgraphics and sheer size it is not such a trend in america, but in the Uk, the mainstream music scene is dry and predictible. i believe this be to 2 major factors. firstly, the charts in uk are set out as such: 50% single sales, 50% airplay. now lets think about this. firstly at any given point on that island, your probably only getting about 5 or 6 radio station that play music..current music that is. so record companies will farm out the artists new single out to these few stations and pay for rotation..and of course the record companies that can afford to do this are the big rich ones who sign 'pop' artists. smaller indie ones, who sign the up and coming band and ppl have no money to do this, so they will get no exposure. the bands who do get through to the mainstream like frans ferdinad and travis have had to be on the circut for years before getting anywhere. so the public are given a very small cross section of music and told to make do. the second factor is in the single sales...did led zepplin plan on writtiing a bunch of great singles? no of course not..one song is part of a body of work like an album. a "pop" single has been fomulated and created with the right hook to sell not to evoke thought or feelings. but the positive flipside of this is that rock and rap dominate the album sales, as 'pop' album actually suck...they have one or to hits on them but no consistancy. but for some reason the industry has forced us to messure the quality of someone by a single and not an album, which i feel is much more telling of an artist and their abilities. so its always rather depressing that when you hear that brittney is releasing her new single that you know its going to go number 1, its could be miss spears farting on a snare drum and it would still sell. quality seems to be secondary when making it big in the music world.
now you may say, well that may be some what true but it cant contribute for all the reasons why 'pop' is top. maybe people enjoy this pre-made, catered music. then i ask you this, have we really let ourselves become so accepting with generic mediocraty? and generic mediocraty that has been endorsed by major coopartions. when has a piece of art needed coorparte sponsorship. we have the mainstream music world, the music thats going to reach the most people, telling you to buy this drink and those clothes, and some of the time the even sing about it, what the hell is that like a glorified commerical jinngle? doesnt that worry you. in the imortal worlds of bill hicks "any performer who endorses a product is removed from the artistic world. i dont care if you shit mona lisas out of your ass on que..you have made your choice". and the scary thing is, the government are accusing rock records of having subliminal messages that make their audience want to kill themselves. yet they cant see overt cooparte mesages in pop? and anyway WHAT kinda performer wants his audience dead, i mean it wouldnt be the best career move in the world. i want music with a message, something that make me think about something or question something. i want my musicans to play from the heart. the fact that the blew their brains out or did enough coke to choke a camel is irrelevent. nobody protested van gough's paintings because people may go off and cut their ear off when the get depressed, and if they do! who cares..its their choice. a nanny state is putting pressure on the industry to reject music with a message as it may, dare i say it, enlighten the people. but i guess its hard to support an artist like rage against the machine, who are deploring everything that the industy is and stands for.
i suppose 'pop' music is safe, it doesnt cause emotion, it doesnt change society, its constant, regualted and sterile. but why are we embracing it. do we want are children to hear music that makes them want to be different by conforming? i think its ironic that the music we hear all the time is probably doing more harm on a social fabric level, than all this music middle america fears.