Of course not, but sophistication just isn't what's inherently interesting about pop music, and anyone who approaches it thinking it is tends to miss out on lots of great things, or ends up listening to dreadful prog dross like Emerson Lake and Palmer or Genesis. An example: Motown records are fantastic pop tunes, but not especially sophisticated or complex musicologically speaking. Their greatness can't be reduced to purely sociological or historical factors either, although those factors are clearly important when considering the role of black music in the USA. They're first and foremost great pop tunes, in and of themselves, it's a ding an sich thing. An analysis that starts from how sophisticated or otherwise they are has almost nothing of interest to say about them. Applying the aesthetic criteria you use to judge, say, Beethoven, to the Sex Pistols is probably missing the point of both. OK Computer is a sophisticated record, but The Stooges' Raw Power or the Velvet Underground's banana record are incomparably better pop music. -- Ian
I don't think that's necessarily true actually. As far as I'm concerned, in the present context 'sophisticated' effectively just means novel, interesting, different, etc.; 'unsophisticated' just means formulaic and unimaginative, with flat-footed 4/4 rhythms, four-bar phrases, tune-and-block-chords texture and the same old tonic / submediant / subdominant / dominant chord sequences ad infinitum. I don't care much about music being "clever" or whatever for its own sake, simply about music that doesn't all sound the same - and not sounding the same requires breaking from convention in order to sound different, which is basically all I mean when I say 'sophisticated'. All I'm interested in is hearing good music that I haven't effectively already heard thousands of times over, without just being wackily way-out for the sake of it like some of the more drug-fuelled Beatles material. With decent pop songs we can generally identify, if we can be bothered to look for it, some features of the music which are unique or at least interesting and give the songs their catchiness and character; this is certainly true of, for example, an awful lot of the Motown stuff you mention. Surely it's not too much to ask that a great album be as far as possible individual and devoid of predictable, unimaginative, hackneyed material? And there certainly have been 'pop' records which can reasonably claim a high level of invention, originality and quality in purely musical terms without being unapproachable or "dry"; Automatic For The People springs to mind, as does the Divine Comedy's Regeneration, both of which are currently resident in the PeteH 128MB portable. However, neither of these, nor any other 'pop' I've heard, are as assured, imaginative, powerful or downright majestic as OK Computer. Nor (FWIW in case you think I'm some kind of Thom Yorke groupie ) is any of Radiohead's other output to date - the early albums show some imagination but aren't nearly so inspired, though The Bends is a decent album considered on its own merit; after OKC they seemed slightly to lose sight of what they were really good at, namely writing music, and while there are good things on Amnesiac and Kid A they're both much too full of gimmicky sound effects and not full enough of actual musical content; and Hail To The Thief is a terrific album and a strong return to form, though just not quite so consistently magical as OKC, despite some remarkably good tracks.
I recorded it and watched it last night. It was an entertaining program but of course the order was not to be taken seriously. Too much beatles and Oasis. And what was Radiohead doing at No.1? Ian is right when he says the program reflects the demographic of the voters. A lot of pop music has an emotional connection to peoples experiences in their youth and this is often independent to the quality of the music. But that what pop is all about. Regarding radiohead, personally I'd much rather be dancing around the room to James brown or the HMs or Bob Marley than sat rigid listening to OK computer wanting to slit my wrists after 15 min, regardless of the theoretical musical quality/complexity.
Noel Gallagher always makes me laugh. When he praises any band (in any interview I've seen him in) he always HAS to reference Oasis... for example... ''the libertines are a great band, they've got that ability to really perform live the way that Oasis do'' or something like that. They are really popular, but to my ears happy mondays, stone roses, the charlatans, the list is just really long of bands of the same veign that I think are so much better. The order of the music was a nonsense... 'ok computer' is class.. but best album ever (!) best album ever was always going to be a silly concept ..but still.. the top ten should have been stuff like... sex pistols velvet underground led zepplin beatles bob dylan and why not ella fitzgerald nina simone billie holliday elvis john coltraine james brown in fact, why not take the most influential artists in each genre and pick one of their best albums? humbug !
Well that's an entirely different question, and somewhat stretching the accepted definition of "sophisticated". On that definition I completely agree. Although I'd still take the VU over Radiohead, even on that definition. However, your comments that, for example, some of The Beatles' music is "wackily way out for the sake of it" do suggest to me, that you don't respond to pop music in quite the way I do. I accuse you of not being down with the kids, daddio. -- Ian PS. I hope you haven't abandoned PFM
I'm NOT reading through all this (got my performance review later - oops!) but... WHY... is "Nevermind" always above "Bleach" is "Sgt Pepper" always above "Revolver" BOTH of these are stale follow ups to mould-breaking albums... At least Love's "Forever changes" was in there - somewhere! EDIT - just seen bloody ABBA are in there! Just goes to show the masses have no taste... ...oh - and "Brothers in arms"... Why is "Love over gold" never on these things? FAR superior, and wasn't responsible for helping to spawn the monstor of CD... BLOODY NORAH - I've got 66 of the 100 - that's not bad going
You might very well be right! However, "Revolver" is far more technologically (and musically) advanced - "Tomorrow never knows" is even more complex than "I am the walrus", which is probably the second-most complex track (technically at least) that the Beatles ever did. Plus it's got the best acid track ever - "Dr. Robert" - how can you miss?
I've always preferred 'Revolver' to Sgt Pepper anyway. The latter has the ghastly 'When I'm 64' and 'Within You, Without You' both of which far outweigh 'Yellow Submarine' in the unlistenability stakes.
I dunno - they're oddly quaint and "When I'm 64" has EXCELLENT memories attached to it for me - for some reason that one track got well worn out the night before we all went on our 5th year French trip (1991, straight after our GCSEs).
The only memories they hold for me is having to get up off my fat arse to move the needle to the next track(s).
The masses never have taste unless it corresponds with one's own. Contrary to R. Williams, Dido, Eminem/Public Enemy (and any other rap album ever issued ), and looking back, they were certainly original and refreshing. If new generations like it and get a good feel about/from it (which is what what pop music should be about), then it can be considered something special. Which is what (part of) the list seems to reflect. I didn't like Thriller at the time it got issued. There's no record I spun more over the last year then this best selling album ever. Well maybe Off the Wall. What a shame that Isaac Hayes' Hot Buttered Soul was not included.
I have to disagree about 'When I'm 64' and 'Within You, Without You' versus 'Yellow Submarine' but prefer Revolver anyway. But then I like 'Obladee Oblada', so what do I know?
Rubber Soul's probably my favourite nowadays. And side two of Abbey Road. I've never thought much of Sgt Pepper as an album, aside from the two or three acknowledged classics ("A Day In The Life" et al) it has some quite weak songs by The Beatles' standards. -- Ian
Rubber Soul (and Revolver) indeed. Sgt Pepper was Macca's (concept of) view to record (vaudeville) theater through new production methods. As this overwhelmed the sheer (competetive) song writing skills they had, it is the only Beatles album that sounds outdated.
I'm quite sure that's true. I suspect there's tonnes of music you're able to listen to and enjoy which would bore me rigid; that's no claim of great discernment or taste on my part (and of course is easily interpreted as narrow-mindedness), just a statement of fact. As in fact is my 'sophistication' argument; that's not a manifesto or mission statement of any sort, simply a description of the sort of music that I've found I tend to like. You said you don't think 'pop' music should be evaluated in terms of its intrinsic musical/compositional quality; I think there's a small subset which can be, and to be honest I'm not really interested in the rest. Undoubtedly true also. Having said that though I think it's also true that a lot of people aren't particularly demanding of the music they listen to; if it's got a beat and they can dance to it, well, they're happy, which I personally think is a bit of a shame in the sense that music can offer so much more. Now clearly when it comes to boozed-up socialising then cheesy disco classics (or whatever, to taste) are very much the order of the day, but in my book that's more of an occasion-based and social experience than a strictly musical one, as are live 'pop' gigs very often IMO. Doubtless I'll be unable to resist another lengthy argument over there at some stage sooner or later . I've had enough of PFM just for the moment; given the various interpretations of my contributions - an exposure of my total lack of understanding of music or 'musical listening' or both, an elaborate smokescreen to disguise my total lack of understanding of the language, an elaborate smokescreen to disguise my total lack of understanding of everything, an unintelligibly nerdy load of dreary rubbish, a sadistic attempt to spoil everyone's fun and sink the entire hifi industry, and so forth - it's probably fair to say that PFM has had enough of me too.
Some good stuff in the programme i thought (sorry to chime in late on in the thread!) and some not so good. As with everything else, everyones tastes are different. Mind you it would still appear that im the only person who cant stand Radiohead. Ah well.
I somehow thought that Radiohead's the Bends was their most appealing record. At a certain time I liked it more then OK Computer, as it sounds less pretentious (maybe that's what caused my thoughts), but haven't heard the latter for a long time as I lend it to a friend who next moved abroad.
