It's time to redefine "pop."
The label "pop" has come to connote predictable, safe(sometimes the safety is in the moral misadventures of lyrical content)and bubblegummy. Realizing that "pop" is simply short for "popular" and that popular is as popular gets, it should be obvious that a combat to expand the definition of popular music becomes a patriotic duty ambitious or conscientious musicians would do well to realize.
There are simply too many good musicians writing good music for all the suck we are forced to endure. Listeners have a special bond with music we musicians cannot enjoy. Both factions, as according to human nature, will continue their search for meaning through sound- because they want to. Stronger musical ammunition becomes more incendiary against the status quo it replaces. Both parties will be forced to think more, work harder. I should hope such a form of subversion(one which incites to informed action)just sounds plain fun. I know I can't wait to change the world. And I'm 30. Am I an idealist, a revolutionary, or just an overgrown kid? Can I be all three? And when can I finally get sweet revenge on the city snowplow?
posted by TheAdequateDer @ 6:43 PM
3 Comments:
Listeners have a special bond with music we musicians cannot enjoy.
say more about that?
A musician perceives a performance as "something that can be done." He/she recognizes a progression, scale degrees and rhythms in the melody, the physical act of making music. Listeners who do not play cannot quantify what they hear- they can only appreciate the magic(for lack of a better word; it seems it would remain unknowable)and that just might be a more pure form of enjoyment.
Yes, musicians understand this magic. Yet, I can't shake the image of a group of illusionists reminiscing with each other how that one trick fooled every patron in the theater.
magic.
yeah, okay. I get it.
you know we're all jealous of musicians, right? all us mere mortals?
Post a Comment
<< Home