Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCINEWS.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!SCINEWS!todd
From: todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Good and bad music
Message-ID: <170@SCINEWS.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 18:12:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCINEWS.170
Posted: Fri Jun 21 18:12:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 08:15:42 EDT
References: <2652@decwrl.UUCP> <1087@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 54

> > Face it. You are never going to prove that top 40 or any kind of
> > music is bad. All you can ever prove is that *you* don't like it.
> > And even then, what you might really be proving is that you're too 
> > much of an elitist to allow yourself to enjoy the simple pleasure
                                                      ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
                                                  You said it, not me!

> > that pop music has to offer. This is not meant as a personal flame,
> > but rather as a spark to cause you (and others) to examine your 
> > motivation for wanting to insist that pop is "bad" and that the 
> > music you like is "better".  [SETH JACKSON]
> 
> The one thing you may be able to prove is the shoddiness surrounding
> certain elements and instances of the music.  I'm referring to
> industry music, music designed not by musicians but by managers and
> salesmen geared for sales, flaunting the singer's looks or some such
> nonsensical attribute rather than the music, or designed to copy
> directly from an existing successful piece of music, involving a
> straight uninspired "lift" rather than a "respectful" quote or a
> significant embellishment on the original.  Examples of the first
> might include Wham! or Rick Springfield, examples of the second
> might include Phil Collins' theft of 1999 in Pseu-Pseudomusico (Susudio).
> Note that this doesn't discredit the genre:  examples of this may or may
> not exist to some degree in various musical genres.  In fact, I defy
> anyone to define the Top-40 "style" of music.  Top-40 is defined as whatever

While you can't define a "style" of Top-40 music, you can find common
aspects in pop music. Production techniques ensure that this music
sounds optimal through little bitty car stereo speakers. This is
achieved by utilizing a lot of dynamic compression. Top-40 music
often imitates itself-look at all the Prince clones on MTV (Madonna
clones to follow). Top-40 music usually relies on established
formats. Too great an artistic risk and you stiff.

> is selling at the moment, and as time goes on EVEN the American public
> learns to like a new and different thing (if it's packaged right!).  If
> anything, one can only hope to prove that Top-40 is the most prominent
> "genre" of the sorts of business manipulation just mentioned, but this
> hardly defames the music itself.  Only low quality can do that.  (and what's

Pop music isn't bad, but there is bad pop music.
Jazz isn't bad, but there is bad Jazz.
Baroque music isn't bad, but there is bad Baroque music.
Disco music isn't bad, but there is bad Disco music.
Rap music isn't bad, but there is bad Rap music.

> "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

    ||||| 
   ||   ||
   [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
    \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
    | _ |
    |___|