Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The bit from Smells Like Teen Spirit referenced earlier strikes me the same way.
I think it is fair to say that Nirvana was never pop. They were the fairly or unfairly designated face of a generation, but in terms of sales or market penetration weren't a Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, NSYC, Britney Spears, etc.
As a Gen Xer I would also like to say that the band and Cobain's death are an easy to grasp allegory for my generation, but I doudt many would say that Nirvana were the Doors or Beatles of my generation. Some people want them to be just because it is convenient.
As a Gen Xer I would also like to say that the band and Cobain's death are an easy to grasp allegory for my generation, but I doudt many would say that Nirvana were the Doors or Beatles of my generation. Some people want them to be just because it is convenient.
I didn't mean to imply that Nirvana were manufactured or producer driven. I was not trying to say all of the Sub Pop stuff was the same either. I love Soundgarden.
Here's the thing. Every few years the music industry gives another small thriving scene huge amounts of attention. Before Seattle the was Athens, Georgia (REM, B 52s, Pylon etc) after that it was Minneapolis (Soul Asylum, Wilco). Not all branding is intentional. Some of it comes from necessity.
Before Nevermind dropped the Chile Peppers had already dropped 3 or 4 albums, had worked with Andy Gill (Gang of Four) and George Clinton. They were popular on the skateboarding scene having performed at a few big contests and Thrasher magazine was giving away copies of "Uplift Mofo Party Plan" with subscriptions. MTV was regularly playing "Higher Ground", and "Knock me Down". Flea played bass on and appeared in the video for "Bust a Move" by Young MC.
Janes Addition had already dropped "Nothings Shocking," and "Ritual" by 89. "Stop" and "Been Caught Stealing" were in heavy rotation on MTV, and were already doing well on the college circuit.
Alice in Chains dropped "Dirt", "Man in the Box" was in heavy rotation and they were touring as Van Halens opening act.
All of this happened without Nirvana.
C/S,
Rev J
Here's the thing. Every few years the music industry gives another small thriving scene huge amounts of attention. Before Seattle the was Athens, Georgia (REM, B 52s, Pylon etc) after that it was Minneapolis (Soul Asylum, Wilco). Not all branding is intentional. Some of it comes from necessity.
Before Nevermind dropped the Chile Peppers had already dropped 3 or 4 albums, had worked with Andy Gill (Gang of Four) and George Clinton. They were popular on the skateboarding scene having performed at a few big contests and Thrasher magazine was giving away copies of "Uplift Mofo Party Plan" with subscriptions. MTV was regularly playing "Higher Ground", and "Knock me Down". Flea played bass on and appeared in the video for "Bust a Move" by Young MC.
Janes Addition had already dropped "Nothings Shocking," and "Ritual" by 89. "Stop" and "Been Caught Stealing" were in heavy rotation on MTV, and were already doing well on the college circuit.
Alice in Chains dropped "Dirt", "Man in the Box" was in heavy rotation and they were touring as Van Halens opening act.
All of this happened without Nirvana.
C/S,
Rev J
It's possible, but in both cases I could also see some symbolic meaning with the specific words they chose. Especially in context. Come Together seems you be about a fictional character very similar to Rasputin or Charles Manson: A dirty and diabolical man who somehow manages to charm others (particularly women) with mysticism. Smells Like Teen Spirit feels like it's about the duality of being a teen and hating your peers and realizing how idiotic or childish they are, but also hating how the rest of the world automatically discredits or disregards the opinions and feelings of teens.
I don't know though. I didn't write either so I won't pretend to know what the authors' intents were. That's just my perspective as a writer.
You might double check your "facts". If you want to be taken as an authority, you'd best get your chronology correct. Dirt came out in '92 (post Nevermind). Ritual came out in '90.
Aka Bobbysockers & teenyboppers. The current trend I find disturbing is the narrowcasting - it seems easier to only listen to a small sample of music (or tv, movies, news,...). The older Bobbysockers I know could tell you what the lick in the latest tune was referencing, & major acts in different genres that came out 20 years prior. But I don't know many people who don't like music.
I had to slow down & reread: I thought you were saying the Archies were a political, innovative band
I'm sure it's been brought up in here already, and I probably just missed it...
Pop music isn't just about people liking music. It is about entertainment, and the entertainment world has changed radically. 50 years ago, you had network TV, radio, board games, and your personal record collection. Entertainment needed to take time. That's why baseball is the national "pastime." More complex forms of entertainment served a different purpose. Dragging out a verse to build to a chorus was a good thing. Free bird solos were popular. When was the last time anyone wanted to hear 7 minutes of a jam solo in pop music? (Okay, not 50 years ago, but..).
Now you've got technology and social media. Things are immediate and constant. Want to hear any album ever? You can find it online. Netflix says their completion is Facebook and sleep. Hooks need to come faster, and change frequently, to keep eyes and ears connected to a stream of media. Attention is the value, and completion is fierce, and more dynamic than ever. For music to continue to be engaging, it has to keep up with the trend in all forms of entertainment; it has to be more digestible.
Pop music isn't just about people liking music. It is about entertainment, and the entertainment world has changed radically. 50 years ago, you had network TV, radio, board games, and your personal record collection. Entertainment needed to take time. That's why baseball is the national "pastime." More complex forms of entertainment served a different purpose. Dragging out a verse to build to a chorus was a good thing. Free bird solos were popular. When was the last time anyone wanted to hear 7 minutes of a jam solo in pop music? (Okay, not 50 years ago, but..).
Now you've got technology and social media. Things are immediate and constant. Want to hear any album ever? You can find it online. Netflix says their completion is Facebook and sleep. Hooks need to come faster, and change frequently, to keep eyes and ears connected to a stream of media. Attention is the value, and completion is fierce, and more dynamic than ever. For music to continue to be engaging, it has to keep up with the trend in all forms of entertainment; it has to be more digestible.
But is that a good thing? I personally can only see how that degrades and de devalues it as an art. It's not being taken seriously or meant as an art anymore. Pop music is like those cheap prints of paintings you buy at Wal-Mart: They've been mass produced for mass appeal which means they contain as little artistic meaning as expression as possible.
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
Interesting points.... But easily digestible stuff is out there away from the mainstream as well, but I certainly get your point...
Counter point. With all the legalization of 420 out there, you'd think there would be more appreciation for In A Gadda Da Vida type stuff...
I don't think it was serious as art in the first place. It is pop music. I think there was another thread discussing live shows, where someone mentioned an Audience to Crowd ratio; the audience was there for the music, and the crowd was there because they thought they should be there. Pop music is about the crowd, and always has been. It was deemed more precious in an era of scarcity, but I don't think it was more artistic. There was less of it and it was harder to produce, so there was a different yard stick for measuring what was worth being produced. Pop "rock" isn't that old in the scheme of music history. Part of the creativity which was observed in earlier years of it might have just been the fact that there was a new medium and people were testing the waters. Part of the evolution has been trimming what didn't work as much as exploiting what did.
I have no idea how accurate this is, but it seems plausible (and they claim it came from a Billboard source):
THE LISTER: Average Pop Song Length By Decade*
Average Pop Song Length By Decade
1. 2010's: 4'26"
2. 1990's: 4'14"
3. 2000's: 4'10"
4. 1980's: 4'08"
5. 1970's: 3'55"
6. 1960's: 2'59"
7. 1940's: 2'41"
8. 1950's: 2'36"
It sure looks like the songs have generally gotten longer, though not necessarily more complex. I'd bet the main-hook repetition, or the number of hooks has increased. I doubt the additional time has been developing more complex structures, though it could be through some of that evolution; Bohemian Rhapsody is certainly more complex than Johnny B. Goode.
My bad. I was running on approximately 25 year old memories and 3 hours of sleep when I wrote that.
Ritual was still pre Nevermind. All of the other stuff I said about the Chili Peppers is still accurate.
I stand by the assertion that alternative rock/grunge didn't kill hair metal. If you really want to see why it died go on Youtube and watch "The Decline of Western Civilization: The Metal Years". I'm not saying that documentary is responsible. I'm saying it gives you a really ugly look at the personalities behind the music. Like that vicious wildlife commercial said, " You'll flinch because the camera doesn't. "
To quote another old song:
"Everybody loves us,
It's all getting kind of old,
Can't hold a regular job,
LONG LIVE ROCK N ROLL!"
C/S,
Rev J
Oh, I meant music in general being affected by the pop scene as musicians who are trying to be real artists are practically discouraged from doing so because they'll never see the returns that the pop musicians do. And society as a whole is being trained to label complex and artistically creative music as bad because they're conditioned to believe pop musicians are good artists. I hear that all the time from people: "This song is so boring" because it doesn't have an addictive, upbeat electronic beat or "This song is too sad" because it's about anything deeper than your typical break-up song, or "[Genetic Pop Group/Singer] is better; they just won the VMAs" when trying to introduce someone to new music you genuinely think they may enjoy but is a small and actually talented group.
Here is something to think about in terms of music and delivery medium.
Just looking at history.
Just for simple argument sake we will only go back to the 45.
A performer had a 45 which is only enough room for 2 songs one on each side. So the performer had to be selective and pick their 2 best songs. So there is the quality control and there are still a lot of classic songs from that era that we still listen to and love.
Then the 33 LP came around. Now due to a larger storage media the artist could be a little less fussy but still had to pick their best 45 minutes of music to put out and there and you still had budget concerns. But look at the classic albums that came out like "Pet Sounds", "Sgt. Pepper", "Dark Side of the Moon". There were time constraints to the format so you had to be selective.
Then the Double Album. More space but also more expensive to produce less classic albums by virtue of there simply being less of them but you still had "Tommy", "The White Album," etc.
I'm going to skip over 8 tracks and cassettes as very little came out on them exclusively.
Then the CD came out with about 90 minutes of music to fill up. Production costs were lower so an artist could be less choosy about what material that they put out so less effort was put into choosing what to put on there. Still some classic albums came out of that period.
Which brings into the modern day. Digital Audio Workstations that are coming standard on computers, sample libraries, so you don't need to play an instrument, auto tune so you don't need to be able to sing. No producer to tell you it's crap. No record label telling you they aren't going to put out that crap. Virtually unlimited storage media so you don't have to be choosy about what you put out. Working in a virtual marketplace that is unlimited so there is always some place for it. There goes quality control. Thus less classic or quality music.
C/S,
Rev J
Oddly enough, I am much more aware of musicians working as successfully, sustainably employed professionals than in the past. Might just be my circles I travel in. I know people making money and a living playing for TV, movies, video games, and other forms of entertainment beefing music. Guys like Rob Scallon thrive, when 20 years ago, his career options would be totally different from what he does now. He is just one data point, but I think a good example of what new success looks like for musicians. You can blog, you can teach music production online, or in a classroom (MI, Dubspot, and countless other modern EDM and production schools opened up the game).
I also read somewhere that if you can get a thousand people to give you $10 a month you will have a 6 figure yearly income. In this digitized online society it is easier to find that thousand worldwide.
C/S,
Rev J
C/S,
Rev J
Yeah, I suppose that is true. It is easier to make some money off of whatever art you produce today than it ever has been. I just worry that interest in artistic endeavours in general is being slowly eroded as the general populace is exposed to it less and less including in school. The typical person is still being conditioned to think pop art is what is good and is being left without the means to effectively evaluate art let alone create it.
There's a really interesting TED Talk on this, regarding Patreon. I'll see if I can link it up.
Edit: Easily found
How artists can (finally) get paid in the digital age
I guess I'm not as pessimistic about music as many here. My experiences or observations don't really mirror what others are saying. Perhaps my kids being band kids makes a difference, but I don't see this mindless pursuit of simpler pop in them or their friends. In fact thanks to YouTube and apps like Pandora they are far more varied in their music then I ever was at their age. The only difference I see is at dances or when they want to dance. We just danced to whatever the radio hits were. They definitely go to the simple pop song then, instead of their usual stuff.
