If you listen to Pop, do you like it as much as prog?

[JKL2000]

I just listened to something on NPR where the host liked some old music like Bill Hailey but didn't have newer music she liked, so some guy was playing different music to see if she liked it. EVERYTHING he played sounded so incredibly boring to me. I could never imagine intentionally listening to it. (I actually find about 95% of the music NPR features to be totally boring. They have bad taste in music, IMO.)

For me, the music I like that I consider pop is stuff like Warren Zevon, Neil Young, The Alarm, maybe Zeppelin if they aren't prog. Music that in some way(s) approaches prog, via music, lyrics, sonics. (Lyrics alone would never do it - unless it worked as great poetry.)

But the pop that to me is kind of average yet still gets created and consumed? I find myself thinking that people who like it have poor taste in music. I guess this makes me a type of prog snob (shocking!), and I'm not saying I'm right, because I know there's pop I find boring that others here like ( such as all Beach Boys, and most Motown music).

But if there's pop you like that doesn't approach prog (as you understand it) in some way, do you like it as much as the prog you like? Do you mentally have to lower the bar, does it stimulate a different part of your brain (or body)?

And you may be wondering in what way The Alarm approaches prog for me. Hard to say - their earlier albums have somewhat complex constructions, with what seem like lots of bridges and varying choruses. Their later albums it's some of that, and also just being very well recorded with great sonics.

Also, about Motown, I can appreciate they had a very varied roster, so I might like some of it. But it's hard to imagine sitting down and actively listening to a Motown album. Maybe "active listening" is the key phrase - music I like needs to be worthy of or applicable to active listening.

[zravkapt]

I like 'good' music, I don't care what style people label the music as.

[bob_32_116]

I don't have tons of Motown albums, but if one of those ealry classic songs by the Supremes or Four Tops comes on the radio, I enjoy hearing it.

The only Motown albums I own are Stevei Wonder - Innervisions, and Marvin Gaye - What's Going on, and they are both very different from the usual Motown fare. The Marvin Gaye in particular is more like jazz-funk fusion than the soul pop for which he became known.

[JKL2000]

I like 'good' music, I don't care what style people label the music as.

The opinions expressed in my post had nothing to do with the labels. But I guess then your answer to my question is "Yes," which is fine.

[arabicadabra]

Yes and no. I sit mesmerized by some pop or classic rock songs that have an unusual part that holds my interest, like the guitar part thruout the song Honky Tonk Women or the bass guitar on any of the Rabin era Yes (awesome pop band). But the current and perpetual state of pop music? It's all "Whip/Nae Nae" to me. Awful.

[JJ88]

My idea of pop...Bacharach/David, Goffin/King, Phil Spector, ABBA, Carpenters, The Bee Gees, The Beach Boys etc. Do I listen to it as much as prog, yes, maybe more.

I also love 50s/early 60s rock 'n' roll but that's a different kettle of fish again, and something which I never really get to discuss on here, unfortunately.

RE; Motown. Really if you're talking about albums, as far as I can make out it wasn't really until the early 70s that the albums were considered as a proper entity there. Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, (one of my 10 favourites) that was maybe the watershed. You're better off with compilations before that, it seems.

[Baribrotzer]

Well, this is one of the periods when the Big Time Music Biz has it all figured out. They know what people want, they know what will sell, they know - in detail - the formula for a hit, and they're all busy crankin' them sausages. Most of the pop stars aren't particularly good musicians, or even musicians at all, but they've got the look to sell lunchboxes, the personal life to sell magazines, and the ability to follow orders in the studio. In most cases, the real artists are the producers, although they're closer to craftsmen than what the term "artist" tends to imply. And so far, the system is working.

But the result is that everything sounds the same.

However, what you also see at periods like that is a really interesting underground. We've got that too. You just have to look for it. And eventually, people will get bored with product, start looking for music as music - as opposed to music as commodity - again, and somebody will bubble out of that underground and change everything. Or at least, that's what's happened in the past. Maybe our craftsmen are savvier than the old-timers in the early Sixties or late Eighties - they do have access to market-analysis tools Berry Gordy or Stock-Aitken-Waterman could only dream of - and their reign won't end. Historically, though, it always has.

[JJ88]

^What's charting now (written by the likes of Max Martin, Ryan Tedder etc. who seem to dominate), obviously I hear a lot of it by osmosis but I wouldn't ever choose to listen to it myself. I think the over-the-top production does not help, there's no 'air' in a lot of the music.

[SteveSly]

The other day I was discussing Cheap Trick with a friend of mine. They would be an example of a pop / rock / hard rock band that I absolutely love, but has nothing at all to do with prog. As another poster said, good music is good music regardless of genre. On the other hand, I get what you are saying about Motown. I grew up in Michigan, so of course Motown was always huge here. I can appreciate the talent, but do not own a single Motown artist album that I can think of.

[zravkapt]

How familiar with modern pop are those who dismiss it entirely? No different from a 'pop' fan listening to an ELP album and saying "all that prog shit is garbage." Here's some modern 'pop' I enjoy:

[No Pride]

I like 'good' music

That's my answer too. I'd say a fair share of the pop I listen to isn't exactly popular, though some of it is. I like different kinds of music for different reasons and though I tend towards music that's harmonically interesting (to me), I'm not above appreciating a good diatonic 3 chord song. Music is like food; so many diverse flavors that taste good in a myriad of different ways.

[100423]

I frequent popularmusicears.org/ too.

[JKL2000]

My idea of pop...Bacharach/David, Goffin/King, Phil Spector, ABBA, Carpenters, The Bee Gees, The Beach Boys etc. Do I listen to it as much as prog, yes, maybe more.

I also love 50s/early 60s rock 'n' roll but that's a different kettle of fish again, and something which I never really get to discuss on here, unfortunately.

RE; Motown. Really if you're talking about albums, as far as I can make out it wasn't really until the early 70s that the albums were considered as a proper entity there. Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, (one of my 10 favourites) that was maybe the watershed. You're better off with compilations before that, it seems.

I probably should have explained more what I meant by Pop. I was really referring to any pop or rock that we definitely wouldn't categorize as prog - so nothing with prog tendencies. But not jazz, classical, real country, bluegrass, etc.

So for these purposes, The Beach Boys and Elvis would be equivalent.

[bill g]

Yeah, if it moves me, I like it, I don't care what the label is. However it does seem that what I like most of what is labeled 'pop' (later Tennis, later Swing Out Sister, mid-period Stereolab, Young Dreams, Tears For Fears, M Coast, etc...) tends to always have progressive tendencies (interesting chords, emotional melodies, good playing) and my very favorites seem to be mostly prog. But Swing Out Sister's 'Where Our Love Grows' or 'Somewhere Deep In The Night' which are very Bacharachesque, I find more of what I like about prog in, than most later Yes or Pink Floyd. I guess the idea of a more progressive Bacharach I find moving, wishing Bacharach would have grown into this, so I suppose there are exceptions.

Edit: When I wrote this, the above disclaimer of what 'pop' we're talking about wasn't there yet. I can't think of any pop that is not at least a little proggy or artful that I like very much. The Beach Boys I do not equate in any way with Elvis, I find some artful things in the Beach Boys, mainly later BB of course. Same goes for the Beatles.

[JKL2000]

^What's charting now (written by the likes of Max Martin, Ryan Tedder etc. who seem to dominate), obviously I hear a lot of it by osmosis but I wouldn't ever choose to listen to it myself. I think the over-the-top production does not help, there's no 'air' in a lot of the music.

I agree, but I hear very little of it ever. I'm surprised, really, that they don't have a harder time getting it heard, but I guess there are more people still listening to commercial radio than I thought.

I FINALLY knowingly heard Adele the other day riding in a co-worker's car, and I was really struck by how incredibly ordinary and bland her voice and the song sounded. Meanwhile, my three coworkers were all totally into her, and two of them had plans (separately) to see her live. I really just don't get it. IMO their standards are very low.

[JKL2000]

How familiar with modern pop are those who dismiss it entirely? No different from a 'pop' fan listening to an ELP album and saying "all that prog shit is garbage." Here's some modern 'pop' I enjoy:

The interesting thing about all three of these (especially the first two) is that they're nearly wordless. They do have some interesting sonic stuff (well, only really the first one to me) so it's kind of ambient or something, but they all seem very repetitive. To me. I guess pop can be as subjective as prog, but I really couldn't imagine listening to more than a few minutes of any of that.

BTW, Grimes is the funniest name for that girl "Hey Grimes, when are ya' gonna return that ladder ya' borrowed!" Nice cans though.

[PeterG]

I have always listened mostly to rock and pop that isn't Prog than rock and pop that is.
And I have always preferred pop and rock that isn't prog

3 pop acts that I like
Squeeze
Madness
Human League

3 rock acts that I like
Black Sabbath
Neil Young
The Stranglers

[Buddhabreath]

I don't doubt that there's good pop music around and it would be pompous and ignorant to dismiss it outright having only heard a tiny fraction of it.

What we call Prog is the music of my youth and the pop of my youth was in part disco and I was a "disco sucks" guy. I think each generation finds their own identity in the music that resonates with them and as such today's pop no matter how good would not do that in the same way as the music with which I grew up. Nevertheless the pop that I do hear to my ears is bromide, tired and superficial, formulaic in style, simplistic and hence boring to me. Pop music in the late 60s and 70s could be daring, innovative and original and still make the charts - I don't see that happening today but perhaps that's because I don't follow it closely. Even critically acclaimed developments like rap and grunge to me are respectively unmusical or retro. Are there really new musical forms or expressions that have emerged from pop music after say 1980?

I always thought rock music should be about breaking new ground, taking a risk, being a little dangerous and rebelling against imposed soicietal norms imposed by previous generations and not another corporate product carefully honed by market research. Perhaps that is a difference between pop and rock and why I gravitate towards RIO.

Of course what transcends all of the hand-wringing and cultural effeteness is that a good tune is a good time and a good song is a good song. That is for each of us to decide.

[Rarebird]

I like a lot of music, even stuff that is frowned upon by music-connaiseurs. I don't feel I have to lower any bars, to appreciate non prog music that I love.

If I write music myself I often tend to make things more complicated, by adding extra melodies and more instruments. I think it's great if people can write a simple song, that is appreciated by a big audience.

[Buddhabreath]

Well, this is one of the periods when the Big Time Music Biz has it all figured out. They know what people want, they know what will sell, they know - in detail - the formula for a hit, and they're all busy crankin' them sausages. Most of the pop stars aren't particularly good musicians, or even musicians at all, but they've got the look to sell lunchboxes, the personal life to sell magazines, and the ability to follow orders in the studio. In most cases, the real artists are the producers, although they're closer to craftsmen than what the term "artist" tends to imply. And so far, the system is working.

But the result is that everything sounds the same.

However, what you also see at periods like that is a really interesting underground. We've got that too. You just have to look for it. And eventually, people will get bored with product, start looking for music as music - as opposed to music as commodity - again, and somebody will bubble out of that underground and change everything. Or at least, that's what's happened in the past. Maybe our craftsmen are savvier than the old-timers in the early Sixties or late Eighties - they do have access to market-analysis tools Berry Gordy or Stock-Aitken-Waterman could only dream of - and their reign won't end. Historically, though, it always has.

Well stated.

[Jerjo]

[QUOTE=JKL2000;499624]I actually find about 95% of the music NPR features to be totally boring. They have bad taste in music, IMO./QUOTE]

Man, you're listening to the wrong NPR station.

[bob_32_116]

I frequent popularmusicears.org/ too.

Speaking of which, their site seems to be down right now. Wonder why?

[Scott Bails]

I'm finding that the stuff that gets me most excited is pop that goes a little beyond what's normally heard on the radio, or more proggy stuff that has a pop sensibility, if that makes any sense. So, the things that have really piqued my interest the last few years are bands like Frost*, Flying Colors, Lifesigns, Sound of Contact, the Producers, Downes/Braide Association, etc. None of that is really "prog," as many would define it, but it's more than just pop or rock, IMO.

[PeterG]

Probably contrary to what a lot of members feel here, I find a lot of the prog from the 80s onwards to be mindnumbingly soulless,cold and boring. Some current music that I like is the new breed of folk bands like First Aid Kit , Mumford & Sons, and the new breed of young, back to basics bluegrass bands. And it is clear now, and has been now for a few years that the new young folk and bluegrass bands are not afraid to keep their sound pure. The days of crossover country and pop-folk are thankfully far behind us. If I never hear Garth, Trisha, Rory or Billy again it will still be too soon.

[Mstove]

I agree, but I hear very little of it ever. I'm surprised, really, that they don't have a harder time getting it heard, but I guess there are more people still listening to commercial radio than I thought.

I FINALLY knowingly heard Adele the other day riding in a co-worker's car, and I was really struck by how incredibly ordinary and bland her voice and the song sounded. Meanwhile, my three coworkers were all totally into her, and two of them had plans (separately) to see her live. I really just don't get it. IMO their standards are very low.

I get not liking her music, but saying her voice is incredibly ordinary and bland is a stretch, IMO. I like some of her songs and others fall really flat to me, but it isn't because of her voice.