The Utter Nihilism that is Pop Music

Cafe Society
21

John Hughes syndrome all up in this place. Not that big of a surprise, considering.

Jackson was a pioneer of the modern video music era. He revolutionized how music video’s were thought of, let alone done.

Musically, he was quite talented. That being said, I don’t think it’s fair to compare him to, say, a Mozart. The talent there is REALLY different. It’s like the difference in talent between a very talented professional video game player, and a very talented video game programmer. In the same sphere, but very different in what they actually did.

He also, I think, revolutionized dance choreography for men. And he was an exceedingly talented dancer. I mean, if Fred Astaire was a fan of his dancing, that should be telling you something.

But I have to agree, to a certain extent, that one of his biggest skills was in marketing himself. And that might not have actually been him, per se.

22

mswas, you’re comparing apples to oranges. If MJ wrote classical music you could make apt comparisons, but he was a singer, songwriter, producer, dancer/choreographer, and icon. You can’t consider any of those skills in isolation. Certainly there are better skilled individuals in all of these categories. But how many people can even rate in two of these categories, let alone the five I mentioned?

Popular music in the twentieth (and twenty-first) century is evaluated differently than music 300 years ago, and I doubt that in the future, people will ignore the other aspects of what makes an artist legendary.

In your opinion his music is simplistic and schmaltzy. I don’t think Mozart or Beethoven are lauded because their music is complex, though it might be. With my very rudimentary musical skill I can plink out a serviceable Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony on a piano - melody of course, and people will recognize it. The amazing thing about the legendary musicians of the past 100 years is that so many are not virtuosos - the great blues musicians, for instance. Virtuosity and complexity might coincide with great musical entertainment, but it’s not exclusive, IMO.

For whatever reason, at a time when mass communication was a reality, this guy’s music, dancing, and visual appeal caught and held the world’s attention. It wasn’t as if his contemporaries didn’t have the same goals and tactics at their disposal.

And while his marketing skills (and those around him) were excellent, it’s not like the product was middle-of-the-road pablum. I suppose that’s a matter of taste, but I’ve heard very few people say that his music was poor. But of course, it’s the whole package, the entertainer deal. I don’t think MJ set out to rival Mozart; he set out to rival Astaire and James Brown and Elvis.

My point about you composing something on the level of Jackson’s was about how you view pop music. If you think it’s so simplistic and inferior to classical, certainly there’s not much deter you from thinking so. But just as it would be ridiculous to dismiss Beethoven because we don’t know how he looked on stage, or because he didn’t move much conducting, it’s ridiculous to take a 20th century artist and say that the other aspects of the media don’t matter. If you can admit it’s not quite as easy as writing a nursery rhyme and tacking on an instrument, maybe you can acknowledge that the music is more complex than you initially presented.

The stuff about making music inaccessible still doesn’t connect to Jackson in my mind, so you might have to explain that again.

23

:dubious: You lie.

24

Older woman checking in here. I have always thought MJ was extremely talented. For you young kids his music videos were majorly innovative at the time. His voice was so sweet.

With no proof whatsoever, I believe he had a horrible life due to exploitation by his family. Just look at the difference between when he was a kid and what he grew up to be. I hope with all my heart that he was not an actual child abuser.

IMHO he was the male, black Judy Garland of the late 20th century. Heh, maybe he would like that.

25

The “greatness” of Jackson’s songs is comparable to the greatness of McDonald’s Big Macs. Sure, both are consumed and digested by huge numbers of people, but applying the word “great” is simply absurd. Jackson’s song are “great” in the sense that a Big Mac and fries are high cuisine. Jackson sold millions of records. McDonald’s has served millions of Chicken McNuggets. Big deal.

In all seriousness, the main difference is that how music is used by the average person has changed a lot over time. Mozart and Beethoven could expect a minimum degree of musical education and understanding that simply isn’t commonplace anymore. Most people couldn’t even begin to describe the difference between simple and compound meter, or between tonic and dominant, for example. Comprehending musical form (for example, the harmonic drama as the basis for sonata form) in any meaningful sense is simply not going to happen. No wonder some musical illiterates actually think it’s possible to equate Mozart and Michael Jackson: they have never even taken the first step toward understanding what Mozart actually contributed to the art.

And now, more than ever before, music is merely something in the background. Listening attentively is not the primary activity for most people when they experience music: driving, dancing, arguing loudly in the pub, setting the mood of a scene on TV or the movies, or something else is.

Jackson made some decent Big Macs. That’s about it.

26

I bet it’s always been this way. When hasn’t charisma counted for a lot?

27

Yes, it does. It is amazing, remarkable, rare and a notable achievement to be able to write something that many people want to read. You can’t do it. He can. If you think it’s easy, let’s see you try.

I am not arguing that popularity is a test of quality or merit. I am arguing that to be able to create something that proves very popular is a rare and astonishing achievement in and of itself, quite separate from any discussions we may have about quality or merit. If you disagree, try it sometime.

People can sneer at pop music, but invite them to try and create a pop song and they find it’s really very difficult. They can sneer at popular fiction, but invite them to try and write a best-selling book and they can’t. It’s easy to criticise from the back row, but try getting up on stage and see if you can do better.

Really? Fine. Let’s see you do it. You may find it’s massively more difficult than you think. If not, and if you’re right, then you should be able to write a few best-sellers and make yourself wealthy. Good luck with that. Please allow me to bet very heavily against your managing to achieve this.

Already conceded. This is true of any field you care to name. By definition, the commonplace isn’t that remarkable and the exceptionally good is rare. True of pop music, Schubert songs, pages written by Charles Dickens, speeches written by Shakespeare, Einstein’s thoughts and shots taken by Roger Federer. What’s your point?

28

It’s not terribly much of an achievement if you just happen to be born with popular taste. Given enough time, somebody has to be born with the most banal, mass-consumer tastes of anyone. Probably lots are, but don’t seek a job in the arts.

It might be impressive to be born with eleven fingers, but it’s not an achievement–and not everyone is going to find it to be all that impressing.

29

Although I’m no fan of MJ’s music, I believe that a lot of people are honestly moved by his songs. I know of a few people who fog up at the first notes of Ben. That is what music is about. It is not about the complexity of the piece, it is about the emotional response people get by hearing it. And that can be any sort of emotion, from longing for a lost love to having fun and dance. Picasso’s Guernica is less complex than Rembrandt’s Night Watch, but that doesn’t make it any less Art. Art is about the response, not about the piece itself.

Yes, Mozart’s music was complex and impressive. MJ’s music was less complex, but equally impressive. I really do believe that he is in the same league as Mozart and Beethoven.

30

My favourite artists are acts like Peter Gabriel, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Kate Bush, King Crimson, Steven Wilson, etc. Complex, challenging music that asks more of the listener than just “Get funky!”

But when I was six, in 1984, Michael Jackson was it. The music, the videos, the moves… Rock, funk and pop, all rolled into one. He may not have been a great “artist” (though that’s debatable), but he was a master at performance, showmanship and songcraft. He was the epicentre of the dance-rock scene in the '80s, and an unstoppable force in pop culture.

Not everything worthwhile has to be “art”. Great craftsmanship is of value as well.

31

Seriously?! C’mon, you’re yanking our collective chain…

32

What a lot of people here seem to be saying is that:

Pop music isn’t as “good” or “cool” or whatever as classical/artrock/altfolkwhatever, and therefore is not worth notice.
MJ created pop music, not any of the above, so whatever he did wasn’t noteworthy.

BS on both counts.

Whenever someone dies, there’s a lot of hyperbole that gets thrown around about how wonderful they were. You have to engage your filter about ANYone in that situation.
Pop music is a form until itself, just as classical, jazz, country, etc. are. Condemning it because it doesn’t measure up to the standards of another genre is a straw man argument that has no weight. I could say the same things about Bach by using jazz as a yardstick. “Sure, it’s very neat and intricate, but my god it’s so rigid and dull! Where’s the freedom, man?” sigh

I know and enjoy classical music – used to play it as a matter of fact. That doesn’t mean I don’t like a good pop song. There is NOTHING like a well-crafted pop song in our modern era that can what it does. Creating that confluence of writing (music, hooks, beat, lyrics), arrangement, and performance that makes that mega-hit single is damned hard. Some people have a gift for it and can do it repeatedly, some people are lucky enough to catch some lightning in a bottle once or twice. Some people break new ground in doing so and shape what comes after.

If you are like most people – and I know that galls some of you to think you might be, you pride yourself on not being, but whatever – and you hear one of those ground-breaking songs the first time, it can hit you hard. I remember reading an interview with Sting years ago where he talked about being at a public pool when he was a kid, and someone had a radio on. The Beatles “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” came on and it was the first time he and most of the kids had heard it. He said that everyone went nuts. They were just so gobsmacked by the experience. I’m sure most people here revere The Beatles, yet is “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” musically complex? Are the lyrics deep and meaningful? Didn’t think so.

As I said, I know and appreciate and have even played music from many genres. I like layers, and complexity, and lyrics that are more than spoon/moon/June. Yet, when I heard “Billie Jean” the first time, I got goosebumps. I heard it on the radio yesterday morning for the first time in years, and the same thing happened. The person who made that happen isn’t a hack or a clown.

MJ WAS innovative, both in dance and music. He admittedly and happily borrowed from the best (dance and stage movement: Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, James Brown) and mixed genres in his songs in ways no one had quite done before. Because of his upbringing and odd life in the spotlight from an early age, I would never say he was an intellectual genius. I would also never compare him to Mozart as some have done, not by a long shot. He was, however, a creative and performing genius, and by god that’s rare enough and special enough to celebrate.

33

You got that right! :cool:

34

I like M&Ms too but I don’t consider them pioneers of gourmet chocolate for being the most popular candy.

35

Nah, I’d give Michael Jackson being at least the Quiznos of Pop Music, certainly a cut above the average fare but still fast food.

36

And this concisely outlines the problem. It is considered condemning Pop Music to accurately consider it the fast food of the music world. That it is blown so far out of proportion that considering it accurately within it’s context is considered insulting.

Michael Jackson was a great Pop Star, but he didn’t contribute something to the advancement of music. If anything he contributed to its dumbing down, because what everyone values is the ability to be a star. No one cares about musical proficiency anymore, they care about the ability of the musician to be a superstar charismatic face.

Like I like Lady Gaga because she makes me want to dance and fuck. That’s it. She writes her own music just like MJ, she writes other people’s songs, just like MJ, is a classically trained pianist, but you know what? I’m not arguing that she’s contributing something great to music, because she isn’t.

37

This is it- you are, as stated above somewhere, I believe, comparing apples to oranges. Classical music is great and all, but music has evolved just like everything else, and now there are different genres, and just because they’re not classical doesn’t mean they’re not good. If all you like is classical and your opinion is that everything else is inferior, that’s fine, that’s your opinion. But note that there are others who don’t see music that way. There are also probably people out there that think that those talking movies are inferior to the silent ones of way back.

38

The guy was a better singer at age 10 than you or I will ever be. His Jackson 5 songs have remained popular after 40 years, and “Thriller” is coming up on 30. I don’t think he’s comparable to Britney Spears or other modern pop stars - These days auto-tuned vocals are the standard, while Jackson could actually sing. I’m not a huge fan - I don’t own a single record of his, but only because I’ve heard his songs countless times on the radio. Is he a genius on the level of Beethoven? Of course not, but who is? I do think that he wrote some of the greatest dance songs in the history of recorded music. Isn’t that achievement enough?

I’m curious what you think about Elvis, seeing as he didn’t even write his own material.

39

Pop music is a devolution of music, not its evolution. If we are using biological metaphors, classical music is a higher life form than Pop Music.

It’s not about inferior/superior, it’s about knowing the difference between a cheeseburger and foie gras.

40

Popularity is irrelevant in judging the musical composition which should be judged by its own merits. And do you really think that Michael Jackson’s vocals weren’t level balanced?

Also a pop musician.