I’ve been reading
recently about the fact that pop
music has gotten sadder, and that somehow this is a bad thing.
Maybe it has, but in
reading this article it’s hard to agree.
Granted, the article is a little tongue-in-cheek, but behind every smart
remark is a guarded opinion, so I don’t feel too bad about rebutting the author.
The research says that
pop music (taken from 40 years of billboard chart data), is slower and played
in minor keys more than ever before, both things that indicate ‘sad’ music. This is hard to dispute, and I won’t, because
I agree. However, when the author of the
article starts providing some examples, this is where I cringe.
Katy Perry singing a
Whitney Houston cover at a concert is supposed to be an example of the sadness
of modern music. I agree it’s a sad
song, not indicative of a generation of Sad Bastard pop fans.
Then the author
invokes Pitchfork as a purveyor of sad pop
music. The reason being that apparently
sad lyrics + happy music = high pitchfork ratings. I can’t agree with this either, especially in
the same week that party philosopher Andrew WK gets an
8.6 for an album that was originally trashed by the site 10 years ago.
The author signs off
by saying that she’ll be listening to the new Missy Elliott singles this
weekend, Pitchfork be damned. I dare say
those same Missy songs will be heavily discussed
and promoted at Pitchfork (and loved by the site if history
is a guide).
If you’re going to
discuss sad pop music, discuss sad pop music and not Hip-Hop (Missy) and not
crappy British folk music that Pitchfork loathes (Mumford and Sons).
No comments:
Post a Comment