The Utter Nihilism that is Pop Music

Cafe Society
1

I’m listening to some of these reports about Michael Jackson and I listen to people struggle to say something meaningful about his contribution to humanity. He was a clown, essentially. His contribution was as meaningful as that of a clown. He didn’t pioneer music in any real way. He pioneered a spectacle that overshadowed the music.

Perhaps part of the reason that people like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears melt down is because their importance is super-inflated compared to their contribution to the scope of human achievement.

Watching people struggle to talk about his ‘pioneering genius’ just makes me wonder at the extremely fucked up and twisted priorities in our society. I remember when all these computer music production softwares came out and people derided that now ‘everyone thinks they are a rock/pop star’, but that’s as it should be. People everywhere should be making music for their family and friends. It shouldn’t be a grand endeavor to make some dance tracks. Michael Jackson’s work while consistantly good is no Mozart or Beethoven.

We have completely lost all sense of proportion in favor of the spectacle, and have taught our children that something that everyone should be participating in and enjoying just because it’s cool is something unattainable and out of reach, ‘for professionals’. The problem is your average pop track is about as complex as a nursery rhyme with lyrics about as sophisticated as bawdy limerick.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Pop music, I’ve been listening to Lady Gaga’s Poker Face over and over recently, but lets have some perspective, it’s not rocket surgery.

2

Get over yourself.

3

You listen to Lady Gaga yet you think MJ made no real contribution to music? IMO, he was one of the most musically talented people to ever live, on a scale with Mozart, Beethoven, and Prince. I know he was very controversial with regard to his personal life, but even the most hating hater has to admit that the man could sing. And dance, and choregraph, and write.

4

I agree that people can and should make music for themselves. It’s creative, fun, interesting and sometimes a good form of self-expression as well. (I dislike the way so many people say they enjoy music but they never make music themselves, often because they were ‘put off’ the subject in their younger years, possibly by the kind of teachers who shouldn’t be let anywhere near young minds. Making music is something anyone can do, although of course some people will have more aptitude than others.)

I agree that pop music is in many ways simpler than, say, classical. It is easier to understand, in most cases less technically demanding, and has less intellectual subtlety.

But the rest of what you wrote just doesn’t add up. It is true that ‘anyone can write a pop song’. It is not true that ‘anyone can write a pop song that a lot of people will think worth listening to and worth buying’. It is exceedingly difficult to do this. Many people try, but only a few succeed. If you think it’s easy, then try it yourself and see how far you get. Good luck with that.

When people enthuse about a pop artist, they are rarely evaluating him or her based on ‘complexity’. They are admiring the fact that he or she has this rare and elusive knack for taking the relatively simple building blocks of popular music and managing to do something with them that a great many people will enjoy. This is a very rare talent, and those who are very good at it tend to be able to enjoy very successful careers precisely because it is so hard and so difficult.

Yes, there are trashy pop songs. There are trashy examples of just about anything. Last week I was sitting in a concert hall in St. Petersburg listening to a classical recital, and some of the music seemed fairly trashy to me. But they also played Tchaikovsky’s third symphony, which thrilled and delighted me. There is rubbish and there is gold, and the joy lies in the difference. There is pathetic, forgettable pop music, and there is also pop music that has greatness about it, and that flows from great talent and marvellous creativity. Pop music that millions of people around the world can find merit in and enjoy, and songs that seem to last forever and be enjoyed by each new generation that comes along.

Greatness in pop music is there to be found. If you can’t find it, the limitation is yours, not that of the genre.

One reason why a lot of people felt Michael Jackson was someone special was because he made pop music that this lasting quality to it, and that a truly vast number of people enjoyed. Songs like ‘Beat It’ and ‘Billie Jean’ are going to be around for a long time, I expect. And once again, I extend my invitation to you. If you think crafting a decent, enjoyable pop song is so easy, do please attempt to do so and put the results online so we can all marvel at your creative talent.

5

What exactly is the OP’s definition of “nihilism”, anyway?

6

Dance, yes. One of the most influential and talented dancers in Western pop music of his generation, no doubt. But musically? For two albums (Off the Wall * and Thriller), yes, he could compose and sing. But that’s it. An important and influential entertainer worldwide, yes. But not a musician for the ages. Sorry.

*And he sang okay for some bubblegum funk with the Jackson 5.

7

I would have to disagree with you there. My parents were young enough to have been fans when he was young and they were too. I was a fan when I was young. My kids, now teenagers most of them, could be fans, and I could even have grandchildren by now that could be fans, but I don’t. That’s 4 or 5 if we count my grandparents that could have been fans, being still relatively young when he started, generations enjoying one person’s music. And not just in a small way- MJ was arguably the most famous person in the world, and influenced not just music and dance, but fashion, videos, and pop culture dramatically. Regardless of any personal feelings about him, I don’t see how anyone can say that he wasn’t that important to music, back in his day.

8

Huh. An important, influential singer and writer/composer of some of the most loved songs in modern history … is not ‘musician’ enough for you. All righty then.

It’s funny, my whole family consists of classically trained pianists, vocalists and one composer/orchestrator, and none of us quibbles about calling MJ a musician whose work has influenced a generation of artists and fans. If there’s another definition of “musician for the ages” I don’t know what it is.

Frank Sinatra was only a singer, didn’t compose anything. Does he get even less credit, then?

9

Okay, both of you make good points, IMHO. Influential musician, big time, yes. Big credit there. At least as much as Sinatra, probably much more. But really…did he create any musically interesting/original/well structured/well crafted songs after Thriller? That was my main point. More like Elvis, less like the Beatles.

Stardom/entertainer’s charisma/cultural influence is another thing altogether.

(True, neither Lennon nor McCartney composed much of interest after they split in 1970. Nor have Jagger and Richards done much of note since, say, 1980. But let’s face it – MJ’s quality musical output is quite a bit slimmer than those two songwriting pairs.)

10

Dan Brown can turn out a book that lots of people enjoy, that doesn’t mean that he’s writing anything amazing.

Writing popular material is more about being either cynical enough to create below your tastes, or having tastes that are popular but also unimpressive.

Certainly, every once in a while something of honestly decent quality will make it big, but this is far from the norm.

11

But that’s what music is today, and has been for quite a while. It’s not just about being a good singer- it’s just as much being charismatic, being a good showman, having a look, having a good publicist, etc. It’s the whole package. MJ was at one time, and for quite a long time, very successful by the standards of today. Back in Mozart’s day, it was all about wearing a white wig and performing for the king or whatever, today it’s all about the pop culture and the impression that you make. And he made a huge one, like a stone thrown into a pond, the effects of his presence will circle outward and outward through several more generations.

12

Well, if this is true, then the definition of the word “music” has changed drastically. It’s no longer about melody, harmony, rhythm, etc., but rather it has become synonymous with “star power” or something. Maybe you’re right, but if so, we’re going to need a new word for what we used to call “music”.

13

You still have to be a good singer to get that huge star status, though. For now. Britney and Beyonce not withstanding.

14

May I ask what reports you’ve been listening to? The reports I hear have ordinary people very eloquently describing the influence of his music, his dancing, his style, humanitarian approach to life, etc.

I suppose you’re familiar with music videos? While Jackson didn’t invent the format he brought it to another level. Nobody ever had a short film about a song appear simultaneously on multiple networks, for instance. The long-form music video may have existed, but again, Thriller was a landmark.

I don’t think Britney Spears and Michael Jackson are remotely in the same galaxy. While they both have the distinction of selling tons of records and having experience as prepackaged teen idols, I think it stops there. I’m not sure if Britney Spears writes her own songs, but the ones you know from Michael Jackson were penned by the man himself. Jackson had a 30 plus year career as an entertainer and holds the record for the bestselling album of all time - that’s in all of human history. I’d say getting a thousand people to buy the contents of your voice box is an accomplishment. Getting 65 million to do so is beyond the ken of virtually anyone on this planet. As a comparison, JK Rowling’s last Harry Potter book sold 44 million copies. I’m certainly not going to state that her contribution to the scope of human achievement is anything less than extraordinary.

Let’s not forget the sales of Off the Wall (20 million), Bad (30 million), and Dangerous (30 million), and HIStory (30 million - but it’s a double album). So even if you detest his music, Jackson is among the top individual marketers of recorded music in human history. That’ll get you a page or two in Wikipedia.

Here you’ve completely lost the plot. Mozart and Beethoven have a few centuries on Jackson’s body of work. Maybe his music will have that longevity; who knows? What does Michael Jackson have to do with “our children” feeling that dance tracks are “unattainable and out of reach?” You know that American Idol has been a phenomenon for the past 8 years in the US, and the whole Idol franchise is popular around the world, right? Some people seem to think it’s in their reach.

Indeed, your comments simply speak to Jackson’s genius. He’s managed to do something that sounds incredibly simple - as you say, “about as complex as a nursery rhyme with lyrics about as sophisticated as bawdy limerick” - and make a career out of it. But you can’t do it, as simple as the formula you’ve laid out. Anytime you want to take a stab at his job, feel free to post your efforts and I’ll be happy to let you know how you measure up.

While you’re at it, it would be great if you could sing it and throw in a dance routine as well.

15

I listen to Lady Gaga but I don’t consider it a contribution to music. Michael Jackson was a pioneer of being a Pop Star, that has little to do with the music. But also pioneering simplistic music isn’t a huge achievement.

16

Right, and that’s exactly my point. He pioneered the superstar spectacle, but not music. His music was schmaltzy and simplistic. It was good, no doubt, but not genius. Almost everything you listed was basically he pioneered being big for being a personality.

Their music is equally complex. And again, what he pioneered was the ability to sell records because he came in right at the perfect time when the format of Television as a vehicle for becoming a superstar was coming into his own. He pioneered being a pop star, but he didn’t pioneer music.

Right, he was very popular, a good ad man, no doubt.

And even in 300 years Mozart and Beethoven’s music will still be more complex than Michael Jacksons. I’m talking about music, not popularity. So it’s not me who has lost the script, because all of your examples are regard for his marketing prowess, not for his pioneering music.

He was a talented musician, no doubt, I am not disputing that.

Right, he was a genius at marketing, but not at music.

Heh, I’m going to just forget this logical fallacy so we can continue to discuss the OP. My inability to make music is not relevant because no one is claiming I am a genius/musical pioneer.

17

You do realize that every generation thinks that the musicians who were very popular were legendary right? Ask a cross section of 25 year olds what they think of Green Day and I’ll bet you a lot of people think they pioneered something.

Also as it regards his marketing genius, he became a beloved pop icon when he was a child. His Father was a marketing genius, or Berry Gordy is a marketing genius, the P. Diddy of his day.

People speak in the same reverent hushed tones about Notorious B.I.G. too, a fat child gangster who rapped about some nasty shit. That’s what Michael Jackson pioneered.

18

This is like saying that Ernest P. Whorrell is one of the most brilliant theoreticians to ever live, on a scale with Einstein, Newton, and Pee Wee Herman. :smiley:

19

Thread winner.

20

boggle! Sang “okay”? My god, I’m not even a fan, but it took my breath away when I heard this yesterday.

Acapella “I’ll Be There”

He was THIRTEEN!

Otherwise I have nothing to add to the discussion. None of the music I love and think is brilliant is a fraction of a fraction as popular or successful as Jackson, but I accept his status as a musical icon, even if it’s not my thing.

I think I’m kinda glad I don’t watch TV though. I’ve only seen the headlines on Huffington Post and the threads here, so I’m not getting exposed to the constant adoration and deification the OP is.