From: fullerto@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy dwight fullerton)
Subject: Re: Carping and Per Diem
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:15:37 GMT

In article <P9mLwB3w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:
>fullerto@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy dwight fullerton) writes:
>
>> In article <2csJwB3w165w@dorsai.com> idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) wr
>> 
>> >
>> >I find this a bit naive.  Pop musicians are interested in becoming 
>> >"popular" and in making "money."
>> 
>> 
>> 	Well, I would argue that it is prejudiced to assume that all pop 
>> musicians are in it for the money. Certainly SOME are; Madonna freely 
>> admits it and writes little or none of her own material. Others have 
>> little or no realistic expectation of it even paying for itself, but 
>> write and play because they love it and feel the need to express what 
>> they have to offer -- for example, myself.
> 
>Ah, yes, the joys of the sentiments.  Remember, though, that pop music is 
>by definition meant to be "popular."

	We are working from different definitions. In mine, a style of music
becomes "Pop" after it becomes popular, not before. In my mind, a musician
can write using those harmonies and instrument tones disseminated by the
mass media, or more simply put, in Pop styles, without being bent on profit
and will still be considered a Pop musician.

According to Webster:

	5) pop(adj): 1) POPULAR <~ music> a:of or relating to Pop music
2)of or relating to the culture disseminated by the mass media.


	According to your definition (at least the way it reads) a musician
is not a Pop musician unless (s)he has the ultimate goal of popularity and 
profit. While your definition serves your arguement, it is not a deep enough
definition for how the word is really used.

> As such it usually employs 
>methodologies which can be understood by the multitudes.  Not by 
>definition a problem, but in actuality, because the masses have little or 
>no capacity for exploration - (blame it on the education system!) pop 
>music is usually constructed to be immediately understood as a statement 
>designed to provoke quick sentiment.  

	Many musicians without the benefit of education depend on oral 
tradition. Just because they choose to limit themselves to the mass media for
their sources of harmonic material does not presume profit motive or 
insincerity in their composition. It just means they don't have as much
at their disposal to work with. When I write, I write to please myself first,
although if anyone else likes it and/or wants to pay me to play it, I will not
reject the validation or the money... would you?

	Some are also putting great effort into their education and a great
deal comes out in their music. For example; Gentle Giant, King Crimson,
Neil Pert of Rush, and Steve Vai just to name a very few. I do not even
go into all of the Broadway composers from across the century whose works
have become required study by any Jazz musician.

>Take a song by Metallica - take the notes and the rhythms - play it on a 
>piano - what do you have? - You're basic Scottish/Irish folk song with 
>rhythms of African derivation.  Do the composers know that they are 
>employing these devices?  Of course not, they just know it sounds good to 
>their ears and that their fans will enjoy it.  This is a self-imposed 
>limitation which is fundamentally market-based.  Do you know why you like 
>pop music?  Why you still feel addicted to its sentiments?  Hey, 
>practically every generation since the WWII generation is addicted to 
>rock music and I do mean - "addicted."  

	Again, what is wrong with oral tradition and African derived
rhythm, and (you fail to mention) blue tonality. None of these things are
in and of themselves artistically insincere. To the contrary. I can't argue
for or against the motivations of the members of Metallica. They certainly
are in an enviable financial position, and even if they have swayed to profit
motives now, they have been playing that style of music for a long time...
long before it was this popular. From what I have heard, they take great 
risks.

	Have you ever heard any Van Halen. It seems to me that on every 
album there are two songs that I think are just sophomoric crap, but the rest
of the album is wonderful. Invariably, the two songs that I hate make it to
the radio first. I would argue that perhaps THEY are putting on those two 
tunes to market as a commodity and the rest as art. Again, though, I am
not privy to Eddie Van Halen's motivations.

	What is wrong with Pop sentiment? Do you find IT insincere. You may
argue that the masses and musicains are brainwashed, but not necessarily
insincere. Unless, of course, you go by the definition that Pop musicians 
are NECESSARILY motivated only by profit and sincere artists are necessarily
not Pop artists.

	The only insincerity that I have found is from the record companies
and the way they market hits; for example, the Grammys, based solely on record
sales and not on any qualitative level. It is justifiable, disgusting as it is.
Record companies profit from less than two percent of what they release. They
have to make a killing with it. It has to support the other 98% of loss.

> 
>I write this from a recovering addict's p.o.v.  ;-)  (I hesitate as I 
>type that living in Brooklyn - I still feel drawn to the massive beats of 
>the new hard core rap records you hear in the street).  I believe that 
>the generations which have grown up under rock music's influence are 
>going to have a profound impact on contemporary music - but - only if we 
>question our attraction to its formulae.  I find real African music (not 
>the so-called pop derivatives - "World Beat" or whatever) can satisfy my 
>cravings for electric syncopation without the sentiments of modal pop 
>harmonies.  
> 

	This sounds interesting, can you elaborate? 

		Tim.



	

Newsgroups: rec.music.compose