Music is notoriously difficult to categorise. The music press love to put labels on all music but as far as you all know by now, there are only two types of music; good and bad. However that doesn’t stop the media devising ever more complicated structures of genres and sub-genres with which to box up every known utterance. In truth, pop music never really went away no matter what the media would have you believe and I cannot remember a time when rock music dominated the singles charts. So the second question is not only, is it true, but does it matter?
The singles chart has always been the more frivolous sister to the deadly serious older brother album chart and there is no reason why this should not continue. At its extreme in the late 60s and early 70s the singles chart was cut adrift in an open boat. After all, no rock band worth its salt released singles as it demeaned their serious intent, thus the singles chart was a veritable cauldron of silly songs and one hit wonders. Just don’t get me started on ‘Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep’…
Rather ironically, it was the anti-establishment punk bands that broke the stand-off in the mid-70s and rock once again vied for contention with pop and the singles chart reverted to basically what it was designed to be – a barometer of what is popular (but not necessarily any good). But then you did get Top of the Pops and Pan’s People to act as your guide so it wasn’t all bad. As far as I can recall, the singles chart has been that way ever since so quite where all this ‘pop makes a comeback’ nonsense came from is debateable.
Personally, I like a bit of pop me, provided it falls into the ‘good’ category (Gaga, Abba, Madness) and not the bad (Black Lace, Gary Glitter, Dawn) and don’t really care a fig if the serious bands don’t join in. I wonder what will be the epitaph of 2010?
8 comments:
I'll honest here, I don't really keep up with what's on the charts. After listening to these "hit" over and over again I tend to get bored and then yearn for something "new". So I dig deeper to musicians' catalogs. Here I often find more fascinating music. In the end, I begin to wonder to what's the point. To me, music is just really of taste...
Drew - Yep, you're just about spot on. The current 'chart' is virtually meaningless and has been so for a year or two now. As you say, the only way forward is to dig around on your own to find the nuggets. Always more satisfying to do it this way, rather than being led by the nose.
I've always felt that singles were the band's way of advertising. They put their more accessible material out there to catch the listener's ear in the hopes he/she will enjoy it enough to purchase the whole album in order to get the deeper and more creative cuts. The trouble is, some bands let that success go to their heads and put out entire albums of singles that are rather enjoyable at first but inevitably the listener grows bored of them as there's nothing more there to hold the listener's attention.
Actually the singles are what sparked my interest in Chicago... but if not for their deeper material from their first few albums I would have lost interest in their music ages ago. And honestly the stuff that first caught my ear, I rarely listen to any more. It's the deeper more creative material that keeps me "returning to the well" so to speak.
Perplexio - Yes, I got into Chicago through their singles as well. Trouble is, these days singles are not around long enough to do any good. They peak in week 1 and then disappear. Once upon a time they worked their way up the chart and then faded back down - say 6-8 weeks which gave you enough time to decide whether you liked it or not.
The arena for singles now days is Country. They are hitting the market hard and staying on top for weeks. I even like some of it. I agree with you though. The charts and Rolling Stone are a bit out dated. I really never bought something because it was a hit, although I have bought things because I heard them on the radio (The Black Keys) and really appreciated the heads up.
Thanks for your viewpoint.
Hi Dan. Interesting point. Here in the UK the market really isn't big enough to split into genres so everything gets lumped in together. Since the inclusion of downloading rather than just hardcopy sales the transience of the chart has accelerated significantly meaning nothing really gets a look in. The way around this is to play single releases on the radio weeks before they are released to increase awareness and thus demand.
Like you, I tend to pick up on stuff as it is played rather than where it is in any 'chart'. I think, in reality, the singles chart died a death several years ago and the fact that TV chart shows don't exist any more proves it.
I agree with you completely when you say 'music is notoriously difficult to categorise'. As I've said many times this year, the very idea of trying to categorise an art form seems ridiculous to me.
Besides, who takes much notice of charts these days? I hardly even watch music video programs any more. Most of it seems to be the same stuff regurgitated over and again.
I mostly rely on word of mouth or reading my favourite music blogs/magazines and, most importantly, going out of my way to hear new music. It might sound conceited, but I like to think I'm the only one who can properly judge what I would like.
My two cents...
YourZ
YourZ - Don't be shy! This is how we all like to operate and it is by far the best way. I'm sure, like me, you have developed a 'sixth sense' when it comes to sniffing out new music which only requires the merest hint from an obscure source to sent it into overdrive. It's what being a music fan is all about.
All the best for the New Year!
Post a Comment