Pop Culture

Most people are quick to discard pop music as devoid of all merit. One can say catchy tunes are frivolous, but it's not easy to craft a song that will make the masses smile.  If it were, everyone would do it and make a zillion dollars. 


Sure mediocre artists become popular with hit songs that are slick and polished sounding, but that's because the real talent is working behind the scenes.  There are an army of gifted songwriters, musicians, engineers and producers making sure that what you hear will stick in your head on repeat until you want to bite your own ears off.  It's usually the person performing the pop music who is vapid. (e.g. Britney Spears) 

Even though she's a bonehead, I am able to recognize that the songwriting doesn't totally suck. There is something going on, when it comes to the structure and execution of her music.  People gravitate to her songs because of the well crafted design, whether they know it or not.  Britney, thankfully, has nothing to do with that aspect of her career.  She's too busy staying famous for all the wrong reasons.  


There often isn't enough credit given to music that is readily accessible.  I say to you, dear readers, that quality and mass appeal are mutually exclusive.  You can have one without the other, and yes, sometimes you can even have both!


The Beatles were the poppiest of pop bands back in the day, yet they always had a level of quality that they upheld.  I'm not sure anyone would argue that a song like Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen, is anything but a musical triumph.  That very song was able to climb the charts 2 times in a span of 15 years because of its ability to capture the listener. 

Frank Zappa never enjoyed popular success, but churned out quality while staying under the radar.  Artists like Pitbull release dog shit by the heap, yet remain at the top of the charts.    

I am a fan of good music, regardless of genre.  I will always give a song a chance, no matter how popular or obscure.  There are some songs that slay me on an emotional level, and there are some songs that challenge my intellect lyrically/musically.  There will always be songs that are just there for fun and amusement.

Having been a professional musician for some time now, I've run into this issue on the creative side.  I like to write every song that comes to mind. The process is like fishing, some days you cast out your line and get nothing.  Other days, you get a few nibbles, you start to reel it in, but then it falls off your line. Then there are those days where you catch a whopper, despite a huge drawn out fight.


Once you've caught this musical fish, you say to yourself "do I want to record this song and put it out for people to purchase and support my career?"  This is an important question for every artist to ask if you want to continue making music for a living.  All bands have to make concessions at some point and realize that it's not an entirely self indulgent endeavor.  If you've done good, you've created a song that you like, and think others will like too.  


I often have arguments with musicians who say that they aren't in a band to make music that sells.  To them I say, have fun with your hobby band, because the longer you remain an elitist, the less likely you'll gather an audience.  Music is an inclusive artform.  It is the immediate, visceral translation of a sound into emotion, and vice versa.  Anything that is published must first go through a process of editing.  Unless you're Jack Kerouac - whom you are not.


Being a music snob must be exhausting.  The equivalent would be like eating filet mignon every single night.  Sure it's totally yummers, but every now and then, it's nice to have In 'N' Out Burger.

Cars Parked in the Sun

My LA experience has been nothing short of phenomenal.  I've had an unbelievable reception from the greatest of welcome wagons.  Friends, new and old have been incredibly accommodating and want nothing more than to help out in any way they can.  Though it has its detractors, LA is truly an inspiring city.  A lot of people would sooner gag on a spoon from hearing me say that, so to them I say, "bon appetit."

It's a whole different scene out here versus Long Island, New York.  My general experience here has been that people just want to help you out.  Everyone is here to work, to get jobs and to give jobs.  However, one always has to factor in the LA "flake" quotient.  Being from New York, I tend to say what I mean and do what I say I'm going to do.  If we agree to meet or do something, I'll hold you to it.  People in LA ... not so much. 

It's been about a month and a half since I arrived in this sunny city of Angelenos, and I've discovered that the music scene here is alive and well.  I've seen many local bands including Shadow Shadow Shade, Telstar, and most recently The Child.  I make it a habit to go out just about every night, just to see what's crackin'.

The Child was quite impressive with their spacey David Bowie-esque sounds and atmosphere.      They had an eclectic look, solid rhythm section and you can't beat a band that has 2 chick singers.  It was their EP release party, and it was a lot of fun to watch. 

At this show I ran into Dhani Harrison (Son of George), and had a bit of a chat with him.  I was quite impressed with Dhani's words and wisdom, having recently seen him in the Scorcese documentary "Living in the Material World," about his father.  The son of the famed "quiet" Beatle was exceedingly nice and was somehow convinced that he had met me before.  He was sure that I was one of two Aristotles that he knows and that I was the one he had met while hanging out with Zowie Bowie.  I insisted he was mistaken, though in retrospect, I should have just went along with it.

The GaGa Saga - Round 2

---

Dyami wrote:

Nice post. Hope it drives traffic and further talk. That said, if we were debating I'd win because I don't see how you've disproved my point, which I'll re-state here:

 Pop Music - The music is irrelevant (to make Lay Gaga relevant, which she probably is, you've called here a "singer/songwriter who unapologetically forgoes coffeehouse angst ridden folk music". Yep. She's more than a Pop artist. If she was all pop, she'd be all crap). Pure pop artist are about the show, the entertainment. Not the music.

To diverge from my point, and explain my reasoning, as a non-professional musician I will re-state that what's important to me is if I enjoy it. Nothing else. I can respect Lady Gaga for many things but she don't float my boat.

By the way, it's Pearl Jam, Frank Zappa, Tito Puente & Vaeda.

---

As I stated in my previous post, we were sure to hear again from my good friend Dyami (follow his blog here -> The Penultimate Woodshop) about my beloved GaGa. I really have to thank him for igniting a fire in my belly about this issue and inspiring me to start posting again. I haven't been this fired up with angst about something since they stopped selling cheez waffles at my local 7-11!


So Pop music is purely about what you see than what you hear, eh? This is an absurd statement, since music is to be heard. Where does one get to SEE a show on the radio? What you're describing is pure entertainment, which could probably only best be demonstrated as... I dunno, a chimp in a suit, riding a bike...

But even still, you'd have to train the damn thing, and I'm sure there's an art to that... This has nothing to do with music.

If it's music we're talking about then the fact of the matter is: Pop connects with the largest audience. Plain and simple. That is what makes Pop(ular music) popular. To me, your statement is fatally flawed regarding the subject of debate... thus making me the winner by default! :)

I'm not going to argue that you should like her music, but I am going to discuss the inconsistencies in your approach.

Now you may say that all Pop music is successful because it's the "least common denominator." With that I would tend to agree that this happens more often than not. But in rare cases, you actually find an artist, like GaGa, who can extend her reach beyond the depths of mediocrity by actually connecting with the masses by providing music that is both good AND popular. Again, the greatest example of a group that was able to do that (and there really are a precious few) would be The Beatles. Is GaGa's music as good as The Beatles? Fuck no. But I think my point here is clear.

Regarding music in general you've stated that "as a non-professional musician... what's important to me is if I enjoy it. Nothing else." I can accept that you don't enjoy her music, though there is the insinuation that because I am a professional musician that is the only reason why I do. This is where you have painted yourself into a corner, my friend. Sure, I am able to relate to her on that level but one needn't be a musician to get down with GaGa. I would imagine that most of her fans are non-professional musicians... and/or as gay as a Summer scarf... but that's neither here nor flair.

With my expertise, I am only able to intellectualize and explain WHY she has such musical mass appeal. Nothing else.

Just as all tall buildings must have a reliable structure so that they can stand; or how all visual arts have universal principles of design that dictate what one is likely to find pleasing to the eye; or even how great cuisine requires knowledge of flavor proportions: -- music follows the same basis in method. The most irresistible foods are those that can be fundamentally expressed as a balance of fat, salt and sugar. If you mix those three components elegantly along with skill and understanding, you will please most palates with the tastiest of treats.

This is Pop music.

Like Pop, pie can suck or pie can be orgasmic. Granted one also needs protein and fiber to survive, and that's why every once in a while it's nice to eat a big hearty piece of GaGa Pop Pie.

Are you adding a note or a person?

So, everything that I mentioned in my last post (i.e. her excellent production value, skillful songwriting, strong melodies, lyrical content, infectious rhythms etc.) ARE the very reasons WHY people find music enjoyable... whether they perceive it or not.

This is why a select few producers, engineers, mixers, instrumentalists, songwriters get paid millions of dollars to do what they do... because they make recordings and create sounds that are enjoyable for most people's ear holes in any given genre. Though any of these professionals would be the first to tell you that they've "polished a few turds" in their time just for a payday, but again - GaGa is someone who rises above in her standards.

(Frank Zappa was extremely popular at being unpopular. A genius in every way, he was a pioneer who I'm sure made it easier for people like GaGa to exist in the mainstream. There are even those who would discount GaGa's artistic legitimacy simply because of the fact that she's overcome obscurity. What is wrong with connecting with millions? It just means more people like your work! What was Zappa's most commercial success and considered his masterpiece? That's right, "Joe's Garage!" He connected with most people with the music on that album because he sarcastically wrote in a POP rock format. Writing in a fashion that connects to the masses is truly a gift and a musical art form. Zappa was an artistic virtuoso... but I digress.)

Fundamentally I just think her music sounds great and I find her to be... cool. Her sound sucked me in right away because it was catchy and bold. Upon further investigating I became intrigued after seeing her on television all suited up in her unconventional duds, challenging audiences with her provocative performance pieces and constantly defying her interviewers with witticisms. I was sold once she revealed that she got her name from the song "Radio Ga Ga" by Queen.

On this subject I am winding down as I think I've thoroughly illustrated my position on what I consider quality music. I don't want to over inflate GaGa's stature (not that she needs any help) but I absolutely have to give her credit where it's due.

Thanks again to Dyami for his contributions and his nod to my favorite band... Vaeda!