Basics - Genres - Pop 1
Why do people classify in genres?
I realised that many people don't really know what's the deal with different genres. Many people like to talk about "I don't believe in classification of music." or "It's all music, why must you classify them?" For a musician, I would understand the reason that they would like to say that they are not restricted to a particular genre, which is highly reasonable considering two points: 1. They all wish to be unique 2. They do incorporate sounds of multiple genres into their music
Then why classify? Why can't we go by the artistes rather than all that mambo jambo about jazz, funk and all that stuff? The answer is simple: Because each genre of music has its own sound, its own flavour and its own ideals.
I will have a tendency to try to oversimplify everything to reach a common idea - It is not an end-all. There are much intricacies in music and genuine musicians all have their own specialised sounds in their own way. Like how Bill Evans is never truly well replicated in swing trio jazz. How RHCP will never be touched in funk-rock. How Jamiroquai is virtually untouchable in the world of acid-disco-jazz.
But here we're looking for similarities, and where people start crossing the boundaries. We look at how we enjoy music, and why we prefer certain genres, or even subgenres.
This is all in aid to help us understand ourselves more. =)
I shall start with most people's dearest music - Pop.
What is pop?
As the term goes, pop is obviously the mainstay for most people, because it is "popular". Pop goes through many phases of changes, it used to be about jazz, swing, rock'n'roll, R&B, hip hop, blues, disco, country and many other types. But what defines our current pop? I mean the pop that we listen to nowadays. What is the definitive factor for pop?
Obviously we have to start with the most famous, and the most revered of all pop-stars, Michael Jackson.
Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough
Michael Jackson was the first of his kind. Well, not really, there were others who tried to fuse video with music together before him. He was the one who really pushed for the MTV era. This is the true era of pop. Dancing mixed with music, and a full length video of psychadelic effects and a famous boy from Jackson 5. What could this not do?
Notice where the music came from. If anyone has ever heard James Brown, this is a very obvious similar arrangement to James Brown's sound. The groove is still very James Brown based (strong bass groove), but if you heard any of James Brown's music, you'd realise that there is something very different about Michael Jackson's first biggest hit compared to James Brown's music.
What is it? What makes it different from its own predecessor? Compare it with James Brown himself:
James Brown - I Feel Good
I want you to count throughout both songs. Listen to the bassline. Listen to the auxiliary percussion/drums. Can you hear the difference?
There are many similarities, but there is something very different about the two recordings. Can you find it?
There are many reasons why many people do feel that Michael Jackson's music (before all that remastering) sounded really good - it replicated the bombastic sound of a soul/funk band, it uses the funk licks and is bass-centric and a whole host of other reasons why Michael Jackson's music sounds better and more organic than many pop music nowadays. But if you notice, from James Brown to Michael Jackson, was there any loss in energy, aesthetics, or any other things?
If you progress to "Dangerous" in 1991, Michael Jackson's all time hit "Black or White", talking about racism and discrimination:
Black Or White
What is different between it and Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough? What similarities are there? How does the video affect the music?
Why is this really pop? Some people argue that Michael Jackson is not the King of Pop, but the King of Pop, Rock and Soul. But he started the trend for pop after him, so he is inevitably the King of Pop. So what is that really about?
I'll take some time before posting this time. Hope that you guys can discuss. Will cover more on Pop 2
posted by Seow Yi Zhe @ 9:13 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
haha yizhe don't worry on the lack of discussion on your blog, i'm sure many of us have our views and opinions its just that it doesnt help that it's the time for all mugging to begin for us j1s and j2s alike (less for the j1s of course) but yea i'm sure everyone's thinking about all your discussion points so yea your efforts don't go unnoticed (:
Anyway in addressing the reason michael jackson being dubbed the king of pop. If you compare just in terms of structure of the song, james brown's i feel good is similar to a jazz piece where there is a chorus that can be broken down into ABA, AAB and all other permutations and combinations, but basically there's an entire phrase that repeats itself throughout in chunks, so the song has like lets say 4 choruses with 1 chorus at the front and the end for singing and the middle 2 for solos. Hence, i would consider james brown's i feel good to be more of a funk piece rather than pop. It probably was classified as pop because it was popular.
What i think is most common in pop songs today, and what MJ has done in all his songs is to follow a simple structure. Why else can we immediately identify what a pop song sounds like? A pop song's structure usually entails the following:
1st verse, (maybe a pre-chorus),
1st chorus,
2nd verse (maybe a prechorus or an extension of the earlier prechorus),
2nd chorus,
Bridge, (where it hits the 'climax' of the song followed by a pull back in dynamics most of the time - this is more in the case of pop ballads, as for MJ's songs like bad or beat it, the bridge is used to create an ascending tension for a climatic end of repeated choruses)
3rd chorus (usually soft to contrast the climatic bridge - for pop ballads once again)
usually a 4th chorus is added,
and then they might add an outro or simply end on that 4th chorus, or the chorus repeats to fade out.
Because of this verse chorus bridge chorus structure, together with pleasant and easy-to-perceive chord progressions (the most popular progression today being 1 6 2 5 and this progression can probably fit almost every and any song on the radio with a few permutations of these few chords) , we have the creation of a pop song.
Some people argue that pop songs are songs that are popular to people because they are catchy and they appeal to the masses, and some might even be more technical and say that they contain 'hooks' in the music which contributes to their popularity. However, i do not think this is the case as hooks are present in any song, even in jazz pieces where the hook can be considered to be the head. For example, once you hear the melody of the heads of jazz tunes like seven steps to heaven or giants steps or solar or even fly me to the moon, these are considered to be hooks. I mean the song Someday my Prince will come can immediately be identified with the 1st melody line of the head being played and these can also be considered as hooks. As such there are hooks in all music that result in people's interest in them.
Another thing you can talk about might be commercialism which makes mundane music popularised because of the use of celebrities, teen icons to sing such songs, not forgetting endless advertisements and publicity through music videos, radio, tv et cetera. These are probably the reasons why such music is popular.
Hence, i feel that pop music is about a fixed structure of having the verse-chorus-bridge-chorus progression. This makes pop music so identifiable as it is simple and easily listenable to the ears. And also, why not support your favourite pop icon while you're at it as well?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home