Where is the line between “rock” and “pop”? To start on the same page, consider “rock” to be music in a guitar band format that knowledgeable music heads (or “Townsmen/Townswomen”) would consider worth listening to and discussing, especially 5 or more years after its release. Consider “pop” as hit-driven product that is only fresh until its sell-by date.
I think we can all agree that all ’50s, most ’60s and some ’70s music (like The Beatles and The Eagles) fill the rock requirements while being huge pop hits. For The Eagles, note that I didn’t say it had to be good, but I don’t think many would argue that they are not “rock musicians.”
At some point these 2 categories broke apart. Consider Counting Crows. I know a number of folks who own and will listen to August & Everything After (myself included). After they did the big pop hit from Shrek, they went to the pop bin never to be taken seriously again. This may have something to do with the realities of marketing movies to children.
Wait, it gets worse.
Rob Thomas‘ solo work (even if this particular tune is pretty good) is clearly pop, but where does Matchbox 20 fit in? Does this one bring enough rock to the table for a re-think?
xNrtcG1Nfbg]
Who are some other bands that fall into this gray area?
Two more examples that illustrate what I’m going for are Duran Duran (mostly rock up through Rio and pop after) and The Fray, who seem lodged in the pop sphere due to their association with that crappy hospital show but whose way with a vocal melody (and rockin’ guitar choices in the following video) gets my attention.
fFRkpvvop3I]
Are we missing out on useful musics by ignoring pop artists because of some false categorization? Or should I just spend less time with the Adult Alternative channel on MusicChoice? Any thoughts?
I’m thinking you’ve got to lay off that Adult Alternative channel, but I am reminded of my belief that Taylor Swift’s “You Belong to Me” is better than any “alt-country” dreck I hear now and then (ie, Old 97s, or whatever that band’s called, and their ilk).
That’s too much Rob Thomas in one post for me. I don’t know where I draw that line between rock and pop, but I’m pretty sure it’s like a one way valve with me. But I do think that outside of record collecting geeks and rock nerds, almost all rock music should be rarely listened to after a few years. That;s what keeps it moving and fresh. This stupid way we do it now has stagnated it.
Mr. Mod, Taylor Swift is more interesting than The Old 97’s? You need to spend this vacation day inside, resting. You’ve obviously taxed yourself too much or spent way too much time in the sun and eating rich food. The Old 97’s are swell, and most of their ilk is, too.
Taylor Swift? That’s more pop than I was willing to go. I thought it might get rough putting Rob Thomas and Adam Duritz in front of you guys but Mr Mod steps in front of the bullet. I certainly find more to enjoy with Alt-Country (Blitzen Trapper is kind of good) than Ms. Swift. But back on topic, does she really have anything to offer?
Interesting idea that a very small set of rock music should be listened to after it is made. That would involve a lot more keeping up with the current scene (including purchasing more music) than digging back through my mostly free stock of unwanted vinyl. Since no one is giving me CDs or digital music these days, I was kind of looking for cool things that might otherwise slip by because they are too “pop”.
What I said was, that one Swift song blows away anything I’ve ever heard by the stinking Old 97’s. Real country artists crap out the stuff that 99% of those alt-country artists slave over, and I’m not even a fan of country music!
Big Brown Eyes is better than any crap George Jones ever took.
Ah, found one mistake in my 1st post. The last Youtube link should be to The Fray’s “Over My Head” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFRkpvvop3I
See, I told you it gets worse!!
The Old 97’s are a fine, straightforward rock band with a few country touches. Rhett Miller stays rock even on his solo albums, which are a bit more sophisticated and varied in approach than the band work.
All that makes them far more country than Taylor Swift, which would explain Mr. Mod’s struggles with them.
I like free music as much as the next guy, but I know people that ONLY buy from thrift stores and garage sales and think a dollar is too much for a record. To each his own, I guess, but I like my records to be what I want them to be, not so much someone else’s throwaways. If you’re gonna listen to Blitzen Trapper (good choice, by the way – I’ve got Furr and I really like it), you kind of have to buy it new. It won’t hit thrifts and garage sales for thrity years or so.
Mod’s Neil Diamond thread is a good example over here. Neil started out as a Brill Bldg songwriter, had a few big pop hits and went Hollywood ham. Later, someone digging through their (parent’s) record collection realized that a few of his tunes (“Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon”, “Solitary Man”) work great in a rock context.
I’ve never been moved by the Old 97s, either, but I loved Rhett Miller’s 1st solo album The Instigator when it came out. I haven’t listened to in years and have yet to hear any of his other solo material, though.
As for Taylor Swift, she’s like Avril Lavigne but with a few pedal steel guitar twangs and bits of fiddle thrown in to make it “country”. Plus, I just don’t believe that song coming from someone who looks like her.
@2000 Man – If you like country music, then George Jones is one of the all time greats. Just based on “Good Year For The Roses” alone he has surpassed the Old 97’s (who are currently residing in the “where are they now file”).
Dudes, please get off the notion that I’m making a case for the entire catalog of Taylor Swift or that I give even a fart whether she’s “country” or not or whether she has any personal investment in her one hit song I like. I’m saying that one of her hit songs blows away 99% of the alt-rock stuff I hear, including The Old 97’s AND Rhett Butler’s solo album.
Not to hog k.’s thread, though, but think of all the “cheesy” stuff from our parents’ collection that has been accepted as “cool” rock: some Neil DIamond, as k. mentioned, that Brazilian stuff, The Association, and the like. I wonder what “pop” of today will gain critical weight in coming years.
A recent example of pop music that straddles many lines: I’m blanking on their name but E. Pluribus loves them – 2 sisters and a chunky woman who sings lead. They’re kinda kountry and caused a storm a few years ago for criticizing Bush. They’re supposed to be a good band, not just a “country-pop” band, but guys like me still don’t give them the time of day.
Wha…? Plurbie likes the Dixie Chicks?! They’re awful! Or, rather — they’re awfully mediocre!
Plurbie loves the Dixie Chicks – no joke. I’ve barely heard them, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve got songs better than most of that alt-country stuff too.
Uncle Tupelo has a number of completely great songs–if you don’t know that, I’ve got better things to do than convince you of it.
Hankfan, I don’t take much of a stance either way on country music. It’s like The Beatles to me. Some good, some painfully bad. George Jones is one of those guys that has either great songs, or horrid songs. I think if you stacked them up, they’d look like an iceberg with a few great things on top, supported by mucho ickiness below.
Then again, I really like Uncle Tupelo and I’m with Plurbie on The Dixie Chicks – I don’t have any of their stuff, but I’ve always enjoyed what I’ve heard.