Joined: April 2003
||Posted: June 08 2008, 10:51
I have problems with that kind of approach; firstly because, well, how do you define what you'd throw on the "pop" bucket? Would you throw Sigur Rós into it? Radiohead? Kraftwerk? Aphex Twin? And if those artists aren't "pop", are they "classical" as well? I think they're far closer to "pop", and I refuse to believe there aren't objective ways to approach that music; matter of fact, that's how I listen to them every time. Of course I "like" them, but only because they passed on my filter (which is honestly not very restrictive, but that's for later).
Secondly, even if we take only the "pop schlock" of lately, is it true that there's no possible "objective" criteria to them? But then, how can we explain why some songs become hits and others flop? Magic? Chaos theory? I don't know, I think making a "perfect" pop hit is a very precise, almost mathematical affair, because people need something to cling on (or how they say, a hook), you need to capture the listener right from the start, you can't let the song lose steam, and so on. It is an objective affair - perhaps TOO objective, even, and that's what makes it so little fun: the humane, uncertain, experimental, spontaneous approach is what makes stuff like Mike Oldfield, Sigur Rós, Radiohead, Kraftwerk and Aphex Twin so great, in my opinion.
Of course, I reckon there are cases like here, in Brazil, in which the guy just makes whatever the hell he feels like doing and if it sticks, it Styx...
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com