Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Pop as a guilty pleasure

NHTom

By NHTom
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

NHTom

NHTom

Posted
Posted

Ok, it has always seemed to me that most guitarists shy away from POP. Metal, Rock, Blues, even County and Jazz seem to be respected even if it is not "your style" but pop is usually not taken very seriously..........

 

The Cindy Lauper thread made me start thinking.......

 

I remember an Alice Cooper interview where he said he had the Bee Gee's Saturday Night Fever in his car all the time because he thought it was great, but wouldn't admit it to anyone..........

 

What are your "Pop Guilty Pleasures"?

 

a couple of mine:

 

I always thought Annie had a killer voice and thought Dave had a brilliant in its simplicity Strat part.

 

Yes......I'll hand in my Macho card......any John Taylor bass riff is gold to me........and what other pop band made thousands of teenage girls faint......hmm.....oh yeah, the Beatles......

 

NHTom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
NHTom

NHTom

Posted
  • Author
Posted

ok, this is it............I PROMISE!

 

 

 

I'd actually own a Susana Hoffs Rickenbacher if I could find one reasonable.

 

and.....I couldn't sleep tonight if I didn't mention the best girl band ever

 

NHTom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saturn

saturn

Posted
Posted

I'm with you as far as I believe there is some very good, respectable pop music. There is a certain crowd who will discount any song that gets radio airplay. Or any song with a great melody and a chorus with lots of hooks, as if appealing to peoples ears is some kind of musical crime.

 

Having said that I would not pick some of the ones you posted as examples of good pop music. [flapper] Most, but not all of them. [rolleyes]

 

Here's a few from me..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bonzoboy

bonzoboy

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't classify Nick Lowe or Matthew Sweet as Pop singers,I'd be more inclined to classify them as rock and alternative respectively.Nick Lowe has always been promoted as a pure rocker,especially when you look at Rockpile in which he collaborated with Fellow Brit rocker Dave Edmunds.Nick's "Cruel To Be Kind " is also a rock song as is his great up-tempo "Teacher Teacher".As for Matthew Sweet he has proven in songs like "Dinosaur Act","The Devil With The Green Eyes" and "Lost My Mind" that he is classic alternative.The Bangles under the leadership of Susanna Hoffs were always pure pop but her collaborations with Matthew Sweet with the "Under The Covers" Vol. 1 & 2 and soon to be released Vol. 3 are all classic rock covers.

 

As for my pop guilty pleasures, Donovan would probably be in that class with some of his more mellow songs but then again he has released some real rockers such as "Cosmic Wheels","Wild Witch Lady".Harry Nilsson was also a big favourite of mine and I have quite a few of his albums.Chris DeBerg is also a pop favourite of mine as is/was Cat Stevens.Neil Diamond albums have been in my vinyl collection as far back as I can remember.

 

There are also a few pop singers who grate on my nerves so much that I can't change stations fast enough when any of their aural excrement comes on the radio, these "entertainers" are: Rod Stewart-although I used to like him in the early 70s with songs like "Reason To Believe","Mandolin Wind" and "Maggie May".Ann Murray and Shania Twain also make me wretch when they start warbling-although as Steve Earle once said"Shania Twain isn't hard to look at-but she's awful hard to listen to."Topping off my pop turn-offs list is the one and only Barry Mantlenose,with his syrupy sweet maudlin lyrics.Just about all of the current pop drivel that assails our ears through the airwaves these days,is a big turn-off for me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Good/Great "Pop" music is not a "guilty" pleasure, with me. I don't feel guilty, at all

liking it. Music is too important, to let anyone dictate what "you" have to, or ought not,

like! There's plenty of music, that's not my "cup of tea," but...if it turns other's on,

great!

 

Heck, early "Beatles" music, was "bubble gum-Pop/Rock"....but, it was GREAT "bubble gum-Pop/Rock,"

that still resonates, with all age groups, today!

 

Then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkBI3dbpOYc

 

More recently:

 

 

And, what they did, later...well, we all know!

 

"Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!" [biggrin]

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darling67

darling67

Posted
Posted

Ok, it has always seemed to me that most guitarists shy away from POP. Metal, Rock, Blues, even County and Jazz seem to be respected even if it is not "your style" but pop is usually not taken very seriously..........

 

 

I think that the majority of "Pop Music" today is pretty much utter crap... and I don't, as you said, take it seriously. I derive no pleasure from it—guilty or otherwise.

 

For me, Pop Music has always meant music by bands like E.L.O., Elton John, Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac (the subject of discussion in another recent thread)... and The Beatles(!). Of course, there's the definite "Rock and Roll" element to these bands and artists. But the bottom line is that it's brilliant music performed and sung by brilliant musicians! There is nothing "guilty" about that kind of pleasure.

 

As far as guitarists shying away from Pop... I am not one of them, for the afore-mentioned reasons above. I am all about well-constructed, catchy, hook-laden songs. If there is great guitar work in there, all the more better. But I have always been a songs kind'a guitarist—where the song is first and foremost. The technical skills and virtuosity of the guitarist/musicians is not at all important to me.

 

I took a look at the songs being listed by others, and I'd say many of those are simply great songs—Pop or otherwise. Nothing guilty about INXS, or The Bangles, etc.

 

I am not sure where I am going with this response! LOL! [laugh] I guess I am saying that Pop doesn't necessarily = guilty pleasure. On the contrary, the "guilty pleasures" that I have experienced, musically-speaking, have been from certain Metal bands and some Industrial music..... I remember thinking that song, "One" by Metallica was interesting..... and "Breathe For Me" by Prodigy I find to be fascinating how it hooks me in. Stuff I don't associate with or consider "my kind of music", but struck me as worth my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted

I'm with CB regarding my utter lack of guilt for loving pop. To me it is all about the pop producers and writers. Didn't we have an ode to Nile Rodgers thread a bit ago?

 

Old or new, there is always something pop that will catch my ear and make me dance. There is the thing. Some of you hear a song and your hands have a response. I imagine this is the case for darling67.

 

Well, I don't work that way when it comes to pop. I hear a song and my body responds with the sway or the bounce. I went dancing the other day just so I could dance to a new pop song I like. Then there are the sappy love/breakup songs that never get old no matter what because we can relate and those damn catchy hooks and choruses...

 

Nothing wrong with only liking music that your hands approve of, but I can't help it if some overproduced saccharine song makes me dance or sing along.

 

Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines is just so....on!

 

http://youtu.be/yyDUC1LUXSU

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NHTom

NHTom

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Nice!!!

 

Some good ones there I had forgot about. Huey Lewis OWNED radio for a while there, the Knack was great pop rock, and Prince.....the solo on Lets Go Crazy has always made him a cut above regular pop in my book.

 

NHTom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

Frankly I dislike the term "pop" as used at least in the "Beatle to post-Beatle" era because music changed so much from, let's say 1963 to current - 50 years.

 

Not just the music, though, but also the delivery. From perhaps a half dozen "good" radio stations with music-only formats to uncounted millions of web pages, "radio" stations etc., it's just a different world.

 

Frankly I don't listen to "new" stuff for several reasons.

 

One reason is that unless one of the folks here point me to something they find interesting or "good," there's just too much and I'm not exactly in the "youth culture" of today. <grin>

 

The second and a major reason is that there is so much "musical" material with good progressions, tunes and rhythms in the pre-beatle era that I'm kept more than busy in what little free time I have for pickin'. So I mess with potential arrangements for that material.

 

Believe me, that's no insult to anything that arose 1970 and later - it's just that there's such a mass of material that a review is virtually impossible at this point.

 

And... then and now, I think there's a lotta junk along with a very few treasures - and worse, some of the real treasures were, and are, hidden in "for the times" arrangements that get awfully dated awfully quickly.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

"Pop"=Popular, has always been an interesting lable.

 

It seems there are (at least) 2 types, of "Pop!"

Those songs, regardless of genre, that lots of people just naturally like/love,

without any coaxing, from "the in crowd," music critic's, or snobs, and...those

that are (heavily promoted)=pushed off, on people, by those same people, as being

"the new, latest, greatest" that you WILL like, or you're just not "hip!" Mostly

to make money, for their corporations, first and foremost. The actual music, is

just a means, to that end.

 

While I much prefer, and naturally gravitate, toward the former, as do most

people, I believe...in some certain instances, those in the latter catagory, CAN be

good, even great! BUT, chances are, one would like those particular songs, anyway...

Pushed off on you, or not! So...???

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
quapman

quapman

Posted
Posted

I believe I can honestly say I genuinely despise pop and everything it represents to me.

I don't know where it came from and I think even as a kid, I liked non mainstream music.

And I don't consider myself a rebel by any stretch,, but I have always chosen my tastes on what I like, and not what my friends like.

For the most part I was the odd man out on lots of music in my youth, and I was fine with it.

 

I know CB you love your Beatles,, and I do to,, but not until Revolver and after they started experimenting with drugs

did they do good for my ears. To this day I can't stand Love me Do or I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

 

That said,, my guilty pleasure I guess would have to be the movie Saturday Night Fever. When that came out I thought it was an awesome movie.

At the time I didn't know what disco was,,, it wasn't until later I realized what that movie would bring to music that I choked on my own spit..

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

I'm beginning to wonder if "we" are talking about the same thing when we label material "pop" music.

 

To me it's that material that arose especially between WWII and, say 1965, that was almost impossible to categorize and would tend to be played on "rock" radio stations as well as our parents' "popular" radio stations.

 

That time period marked the end of bigger swing bands for most venues, the end of live music radio, and a huge dollop of crossover to the point one might question any sort of label on it.

 

After '65 or so... "popular" as some of the music may have been, it pretty much lacked the breadth of that prior 20 years - at least IMHO.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndyK

AndyK

Posted
Posted

Whilst I don't like "pop" music much, any music played by a BAND on real instruments is passable for me. Hence Blondie I like, and also Chic, cos Nile and Bernard absolutely ROCKED! Heard the live version of "Le Freak" with Slash on lead? Awesome. [thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rabs

Rabs

Posted
Posted

I'm beginning to wonder if "we" are talking about the same thing when we label material "pop" music.

 

To me it's that material that arose especially between WWII and, say 1965, that was almost impossible to categorize and would tend to be played on "rock" radio stations as well as our parents' "popular" radio stations.

 

That time period marked the end of bigger swing bands for most venues, the end of live music radio, and a huge dollop of crossover to the point one might question any sort of label on it.

 

After '65 or so... "popular" as some of the music may have been, it pretty much lacked the breadth of that prior 20 years - at least IMHO.

 

m

LOL.. doesn't every generation say that about the next generations music? :P :)

 

POP music means something different to each person depending on when you grew up.. For me pop music is 80s stuff at least that's what always will come to my mind when people mention it.. Today its the boy bands, Beyonce and the like who are the pop bands and when the kids of today grow up that's what they will think of as pop music..

 

So basically the term POP music means nothing in terms of genre, just what ever happens to be popular in its time.

 

BUT I guess if you want to try and define it, its music that appeals to the broadest section of the population at any given moment and usually a simple song with a great hook..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Well, quapman...I was IN the "target audience" age group, when The Beatles swamped America,

and the world! So, those early songs, are my early teen years, and seemed quite relevant,

at the time. They were catchy, hooky, and well written, certainly as good, if not better, than

anything in that genre, previously. Don't forget, with the exception of "Blues," Rhythm & Blues,

and (a little later) "Motown," our "Rock" had gone almost "underground" due to the various scandals,

and Payola, rampant in the industry. So, it was replaced, by "squeaky clean" "Dreamboat" male

and female singers, doing songs that offended NO one! Then, came The Beatles, Stones, Amimals,

Yardbirds, etc. They brought "Rock" back, to America...Thank God!! LOL [biggrin]

 

But, at the same time, I...even as a kid, had liked the '50's Rock & Roll, as well. Probably

appreciated it, more...later, knowing where most of the then current Rock actually came from.

I think, back then, ALL "rock" music, was considered "Pop," if/when it was..."popular!" Hence

the term "Pop." It wasn't really, until the period you speak of, and maybe 1966, when things

started to shift, towards harder edged, more political, socially aware, music. But, given what

was going on, in the world, that music reflected it, as much as it contributed to it.

So, it was more or less, a natural progression...IMHO.

 

So, "Pop, Schmop"...if it's great music, I really don't give a damn what "box" it's placed

in. That's mostly "marketing," anyway. [tongue]

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

Some good points in terms of definitions...

 

Actually when I say "breadth" of that 20-year post-war "pop" music, I mean that it had more styles and types than some younger folks might imagine. It'd be mariachi-style trumpet in "The Lonely Bull" to "Johnny B Goode" and even the David Rose orchestra playing "The Stripper."

 

If anything I think that there are more very talented musicians involved, and more nicely arranged pieces than what we had in the early days of rock. For example, Buddy Holly's band wasn't exactly playing the most complex music one might hear today. "Peggy Sue" is neat, but it ain't what I'd consider outstanding musicianship. It was, however, typical of "youth-oriented" angles to pop music of the era.

 

So don't take what I'm saying as "An old guy dissing current music," but please, rather as comments from a student of 20th Century music both as an art on its own, and as a business.

 

But as CB apparently agrees, after roughly '65, I think definitions started getting narrower and narrower - including the definition of "pop" versus "rock." I think there also were far fewer "crossover" tunes the more time went on to current.

 

OTOH... before my time, but... I doubt there were more musicians who could play about any genre than in the live radio days. I'm in awe that they could be "possum skillit likkers" in this half hour, then turn to be smooth swinging pop material and the next half hour jump into Dixieland and...

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...