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.
Bookmarks