Surell

But Pop isn't just Top 40, though it definitely can be. It can actually be it's own songwriting ethos; this is why there's a differentiation between Pop and Rock, even though they can both share spots on the charts. It's like how Disturbed and Carly Rae Jepsen could be on the chart at the same time; they both may popular music, but only one is Pop. Or, back in the day, there would have been the Beatles and the Rolling Stones; the Stones were definitely Rock, through and through, even in their experimenting they were primarily based in Rock, but they were on the charts. This doesn't immediately change their status to Pop, even being right alongside the primary Pop band (besides the Beach Boys, who were definitely the most Pop on the spectrum).

__________________

djchameleon

yes yes, I know that. I only used the Top 40 to dig through and find which pop acts were actually in the Top 40.

On the same token, I can't get behind the idea that the indie bands you listed are Pop. Do you feel like that are?

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Surell

Well Animal Collective I would definitely consider pop, at least as far as Feels or Strawberry Jam onwards is concerned. Their newer releases are mostly based in Pop convention: Verse/Chorus Structure, emphasis on melodies and harmonies, full arrangements, and especially utilization of studio recording techniques. Grizzly Bear is a bit of a stretch, but they do put a good focus on melody and harmony. Fleet Foxes are probably more in the Pop realm, though they clearly derive from folk they have that same kind of sheen and hookiness as Fleetwood Mac or the like; they also have a studio obsessive songwriter.

__________________

Danofthebass

I honestly think that the question of whether pop can still be innovative is pretty bogus. Sure, the difficulty to innovate may seem higher, but whether or not it's possible is not a question.

scrapfriends

The definition of pop has changed so much I don't think it means anything at this point, if not young and barely dressed "celebrities" disguised as musicians.

Not that "pop" has ever been a real genre, everything from Frank Sinatra to the Beach Boys and late Genesis have been called pop at some point, so I guess it's more of something that has to do with popularity

__________________
[link removed by mod, no advertising]

Slothinator

Yes, the problem is the song has to be popular which is a huge problem if you set out to be "innovative"

Soulflower

There are alot of innovative and creative songs that have been popular. There is no reason why pop songs today can't be as artistic.

Surell

Very true, though i'm plugging the same band, Animal Collective had a decent success - at least considering their popularity before - with "My Girls," which has a very different structure and sound than pop songs of today or even a lot of the past. I would actually say that "Somebody That I Used to Know" from Gotye was pretty innovative, it was lyrical, had an unusual structure as far as radio songs go, and unique instrumentation.

Still, I don't think we necessarily have to think of Pop in terms of popularity, it's evolved beyond that in many respects. How would Avant/Experimental Pop exist in this regard? Experimental music is never popular, as it dabble in unpopular and unfamiliar sounds, but it's still pop.

__________________

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea

So true, as my recent attempts to get my father, and a couple of my sisters, interested in AC can attest to.

What's interesting is, my sisters at least, are all big Yes fans. At one point Yes used to be considered fairly experimental art rock. But now that they've become so familiar I don't think people think of them as experimental anymore - or, if they do, the familiarity of their music has blunted the edge of their experimental-ness. This makes me wonder if AC will be more accepted and liked in 20-30 years than they are now, as people get increasingly accustomed to the musical style.

There is certainly a generational thing going on, too (my sisters and I are all in our mid-late 40's). Maybe someone here can tell me, but if you go to an AC, or even a Grizzly Bear, concert, are there many people there over the age of about 35-40? I almost wonder if younger people have actually gotten more accustomed to complex and abstract music than people 20+ years older than them, despite the pretensions of the Baby Boomers that their music was musically superior.

My first hint of this was when I tried to play AC to my father a couple months ago (he is 80). Here is a guy who spent most of his life listening to Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler and other classical music composers. This is supposed to be complex music - right? But when I played AC for him, he simply couldn't stand it, told me it was much too busy, and insisted I keep the sound way down. Go figure. Though I also got the impression from him that a combination of hearing issues and crankiness of advanced age lowers one's tolerance for something like that, so that's probably a factor as well.

__________________
Stop and find a pretty shell for her
Beach Boys vs Beatles comparisons begin here

Surell

Yes were arty rock in their day, being a Progressive band, but I think this was usually signified in their compositional expertise as opposed to their embrace of harsher or unfamiliar sounds. It can be hard to get into because of this, such as a disorienting time signature or a melody so complex it's hard to decipher, but overall their sound was based in rock/pop with superb composition and playing. In its day, though, it may have been fairly difficult for the audience, but this was the era when people really loved Sgt. Peppers for being a concept album and having classical undertones - though they really don't stack up compared to Yes' themes and classicism. So it could have to do with the era your siblings/generation came from, with their acceptance of a certain degree of experimentation (do you guys dig Captain Beefheart or Velvet Underground as well?) or perhaps it is age that engrains you in a certain mindset/familiarity with the sounds you know, and anything new is hard to accept. When I'm older, I'm sure I'll have some issue with my children's favorite band just because I'm so comfortable with what i know, it's precious to me and i've known it for too long, I suppose.

BTW: AC shows, from what I've seen, are usually people around my age, late teens to early 20s, but usually i'm all in the zone of the show. I saw some older people around the festival i recently saw them (and Grizzly Bear) at, but there were also older acts at the show, such as McCartney and ZZ Topp, the same night as those bands.

__________________