Quote:
Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I agree with your first paragraph. All guitar-based rock is the same. Rolling Stones. Sex Pistols. Allman Brothers. Circle Jerks. Velvet Underground. Melt Banana. Foreigner. G.G. Allin and the Murder Junkies. All the same. Except, as you note, for the chords and the words and the attitudes. Oh, and also the fact that some grew out of a rhythm and blues history and some completely rejected that and some is played very fast with repetitive aggressive chords while others are based on traditional blues-oriented chord progressions while others adhere to different traditional song structures, and some have an emphasis on improvisation and/or solos while others completely eschew solos, and for some vocal harmonies are key to the song structure whereas for others the vocals may be nothing more than aggressive shouting or even guttural noise. But they are all guitar-based rock and are all the same. I cannot disagree with you on this point.
As to your point that "it is all pop music," I suspect that you and Hank are going to pull your old trick and argue that, implicit in your statement is a limitation that "it" only refers to music that is poppy. But the Boredoms are not pop music. Throbbing Gristle is not pop music. The Dwarves are not pop music. Pop stands for popular. Music that has, to borrow the name of a college radio program I used to listen to, "no commercial potential" is not pop music.
The LSD fat deposit confession is the only thing you have written over the past two days that sheds any light on anything else you have written over the past two days.
|
Someone somewhere likes it; its popular.
Semantics again. "Pop" to me includes the most underground of the underground music you can find. If its rock-based, its pop as far as I'm concerned. The Velvets are pop, and they never hd any commercial potential in their day. ale Blue Eyes could be sung by Sinatra or Minsitry. Its pop - its fungible. Very good, but still pop. I'm surprised you'd use such a literla meaning of "pop."
I think words like "pop" are fungible. I can pervert their meaning and use them differently from sentence to sentence and day to day. Perhaps this is why I'm frequently chided for using negative terms to mean positive things at the office. Language is boring if used rigidly. I guess the fallout, however, is that many people never know what I'm talking about. Fuck it. I find it boring to be concise, organized, etc... a dull outlook provides a dull day. I might develop my own language like Burgess. See where that gig takes me... probably to the idiot farm. Not the nut farm, the idiot farm.
