Archive for May 12, 2008

Proclaimer – popular opinion

{ May 12, 2008 @ 11:32 pm } · { Personal Opinion }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

This post serves as somewhat of a retrospective (since I’ve already made two posts) proclaimer for my angle on popular music.
It’s a proclaimer, but it’s not those singing Scottish twins, so hold off on the “da-da-da-da”s for now, OK?

If you haven’t you might want to read my post titled “Definition of Popular” under the category academic research, before you read this post, because this follows on from that.

If you’re too lazy to read my last post, then I’ll tell you that it ended with me saying:
“What’s so wrong with popular music? It’s popular for a reason, right?”

This leads to my first point about this blog – I’m of the understanding that we are not denigrating music that is more popular, but rather we are filling a gap in the music press, which ignores styles we like equally or even more than the types of music that receive greatest attention in the industry. Put simply, we are not lowering popular music, but attempting to raise the attention paid to other styles, which are just as worthy.

I’d be interested in the responses of other group members to this idea.

Forgive me if I use unreferenced generalizations, as I am attempting to overcome such generalizations by considering academic perspectives on the matter, but there simply are no academic sources which can conclusively distinguish between pop and alternative, and this is exactly the point I am trying to make: labels are useless for something as fluid as music!

This leads to my second major point: Music is interpreted in different ways by different people, which makes classification of music by genre labels (which are the basis for distinguishing between pop / mainstream and alternative) completely irrelevant.

I contend that “alternative” styles are just as fad-driven as “popular” styles, and that “alternative” music is often simply the next popular music before it becomes popular enough that it replaces whatever was called popular before that. Many music fans of “alternative” music take pride in placing themselves at the opposite end of the linear spectrum to pop, but music culture is not linear, but a cycle; an endless continuum.  I would argue that what we call pop music is simply the most popular artists from all genres. This is how a band who starts as alternative, can become popular, and then be considered pop music, without their sound changing. All that’s changed is their level of popularity, and suddenly we call them ‘pop music’, which implies a certain sound. SO – instead of artists changing to become pop, the definition of pop changes to mean the styles which are currently popular. This fits with my previous assertion (in the post about academic definitions of popular), that pop is at least as easily, if not more easily and often defined by what it is not.

The Wikipedia article on pop music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music) also takes the stance that pop isn’t a sound, but a socially defined term:
 “Pop music is music charted by the number or sales, plays, etc., that the work receives.[1] It is not a particular genre or style of music, but simply that which is the most popular for the tracked period of time. … Although pop music is produced with a desire to sell records and do well in the charts, it does not necessitate wide acclaim or commercial success: there are bad or failed pop songs.” (Wikipedia)

So, if the definition of pop always changes, then the definition of alternative must change with it, so as to maintain the pop / alternative dichotomy / binary opposition, which some seem to live and die by.

The popular music press will report on whatever is popular at the time, so this will include alternative happenings, as long as they are widespread enough (i.e. popular enough) to be significant enough to warrant a report. With this in mind, what this blog attempts (at least what I think it attempts) is to give attention and support to styles of music what are currently not achieving mainstream popularity, but which we think deserve just as much attention as what is currently popular.

I can only hope that we won’t stop liking it once it becomes popular. Please see my next post for what I mean by this.

Heath Johnson

Definition of popular

{ May 12, 2008 @ 11:04 pm } · { Academic Research }
{ Tags: , , , , , } · { Comments (4) }

Since we’ve established our blog as anti-popular / alternative, I find it appropriate to at least attempt to define popular music.

NOTE: The below is from essays previously submitted for CMNS2350 in semester 2 2007.

Anderson et al. define ‘popular’ as “referring to anything that is widely liked … although this may be used in a derogatory way to imply a lack of artistic merit” (2005: 178).

This is concurrent with other theorists’ definitions of popular, such as Williams, who maps the evolution of the meaning of ‘popular’ from being synonymous with “low” in the first few centuries of the term’s use, to the late 18th Century meaning of “widespread”, to the late 19th Century, at which time the word held more positive connotations (Williams quoted in Kassabian 1999: 113-114). Kassabian notes the significant shift from the term being a way to look down on what appealed to the masses towards celebrating what the common people enjoyed (114).

These two definitions correspond, in that ‘popular’, as it relates to culture, is something that is liked by the masses, but traditionally non-elite.

Popular music is often defined by what it is not. The above definition of popular defines what we deem to be popular music. For example, Kassabian says, “the term has taken a ‘populist’ turn, ignoring what I call ubiquitous musics” (1999: 113). Ubiquitous musics are “the kinds of music that no one chooses for herself or himself but that nevertheless wash our everyday lives with sound” (ibid). That is, ubiquitous music is not included in popular music.

Adorno continues this trend of defining popular music as distinct from other types of music. He sees it as separate from ‘serious’ music (1941: 211).

Cranny-Francis (1994) summarises Adorno’s view by saying:

popular music is constituted by Adorno as the modernist equivalent of ‘formula’ or ‘genre’ fiction with all the negative connotations that entails (35).

She extends this to say:

Adorno’s theory of popular music is today engrained in common sense attitudes: popular music is often regarded as inferior music simply because it is popular (ibid).

In his article ‘On Popular Music’ (1941), Adorno defines popular music as distinct from ‘serious’ music (211) and expounds this by characterising popular music as standardised, whereas ‘serious’ music is unstandardised (211). He says:

the melody and the lyric of a popular number are constructed within a definite pattern of structural form, whereas the poem, or lyric, of a standard number has no structural confinements (222)

It is important to note, however, that a ‘standard’ song as the term is used in the above quote is synonymous with ‘serious’, and is the exact opposite of a ‘standardised’ popular song.

According to Adorno, standard elements of popular music include:

the rule that the chorus consists of thirty-two bars and that the range is limited to one octave and one note. The general types of hits are also standardized… …Most important of all, the harmonic cornerstones of each hit – the beginning and the end of each part – must beat out the standard scheme. (212)

Hence, ‘general types of hits’ to which Adorno refers to appear to be genres and songs with a common theme or tone, regardless of genre.

Adorno says the effect of standardisation is that, “the whole is pre-given and pre-accepted, even before the actual experience of the music starts” (212) and this means that “no stress is ever placed on the whole as a musical event, nor does the structure of the whole ever depend upon the details.” (212) He compares this to ‘serious’ music, in which “Every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece” (212). This is very important when considering the effect of popular music on the listener.

References:

Adorno, Theodor. (1941), ‘On Popular Music’, in A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader, Easthope, Anthony and McGowan, Kate (eds.), North Sydney, 1992, pp 211-223.

Anderson, Sandra et al. 2006. Dictionary of Media Studies. London: A & C Black.

Cranny-Francis, Anne. 1994. Chapter 3: ‘Pop/ular Music’, in Popular Culture, Deakin University Press, Geelong, pp 33-50.

Kassabian, Anahid. 1999. Chapter 9: ‘Popular’ in Horner, Bruce and Swiss, Thomas (eds.), Key Terms in Popular Music and Culture, Blackwell, Oxford, pp 113-123.

End of previously submitted work.

This academic theory on the terms ‘popular’ and ‘popular music’, does not seem to support the generally understood ideas about what is ‘pop’ and what is ‘alternative’. There is nothing in the above that helps us class black metal as less typical of ‘popular music’ than what we call ‘pop’ (music typically aired on daytime commercial radio). Hence, there is no academic basis for considering anything less ‘popular’ to be superior to any music that is more widely recognized and enjoyed. One of the most important things I think we need to remember in attacking popular music is that it’s popular for a reason. If that reason is that most people enjoy standardized (as Adorno uses the term), repetitive, unoriginal pop music as opposed to experimental jazz, for example, then so be it! What is wrong with that?

See my next post under “personal opinion” for a continuation of this idea, which doesn’t quite merit posting under “academic research”

Heath Johnson

Censorship – a reaction to Lilen’s piece

{ May 12, 2008 @ 10:53 pm } · { Personal Opinion }
{ Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Censorship – a reaction to Lilen’s piece

 Ladies and gentlemen
 Welcome to the disclaimer
 That’s right, the disclaimer
 This American apple pie institution
 Known as parental discretion
 Will cleanse any sense of innuendo or sarcasm
 From the lyrics that might actually make you think
 And will also insult your intelligence at the same time
 So protect your family.
 This album contains explicit depictions
 Of things which are real.
 These real things are commonly known as life.
 So, if it sounds sarcastic, don’t take it seriously.
 If it sounds dangerous,
 Do not try this at home or at all.
 And if it offends you, just don’t listen to it

Disclaimer – opening track of ‘Ixnay on the Hombre’ (1997) album by The Offspring.

Youtube link (worth a listen, as the way it’s spoken carries added sarcasm):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UvuFI462c

Also take note of the name of the album. A comment left by a Youtube user explained:

 As he explained in an interview with Dutch magazine Oor in 1997:
 Ixnay = Away
 On The
 Hombre = Man
 Away On The Man
 Away With The Man
 Away With The Man Who Represses You
 Fuck Authority

What are The Offspring getting at with this sarcastic / ironic / innuendous introduction?

I think they’re taking a big swipe at censorship in general, by arguing that it’s most often “depictions
of things which are real” that are censored. Besides things which obviously need censoring from young audiences – most obviously, coarse language – there are few guidelines as to what will be censored, but someone has to decide.

In Australia, that someone is two someones working together: ARIA and AMRA.

“Since 1996, Australia has had a system of warning labels on audio-only recorded music products. This system is called the Recorded Music Labelling Code of Practice, and is managed by ARIA and AMRA (the Australian Music Retailers Association).” (ARIA 2005)

Link to the code of practice: http://www.aria.com.au/pages/documents/ARIAAMRACode_March2003_Final.pdf

See this page for a run-down of the labelling system: http://www.aria.com.au/pages/labelling-code.htm

Note that this code only covers audio material, so music videos (which are often included on “enhanced” CDs nowadays), are subject to classification by the Office of Film and Literature classification, which works under a completely different system. For example, “Audio recordings with visual content are defined under the Classification Act as “film” and therefore are subject to the classification requirements applicable to films.” (OFLC 2008

Link to OFLC page: http://www.classification.gov.au/special.html?n=174&p=1

I think these classification guidelines are so poorly defined that artists would not be able to tell what will be censored, beyond obvious things such as bad language. This is especially the case as artists often use clever poetics to disguise their message artfully. Where interpretation is involved, who’s interpretation is used to decide what is censored? If one person (who happens to be a member of ARIA or AMRA) reads some lyrics as anti-Christian, for example, does make fair grounds for the song being banned from stores or radio?

An attempt is made in the code of practice to define terms such as ‘gratuitous’, but final decisions will always come down to the discretion of a few individuals. This is the fundamental irony with censorship – to decide if they want to see or hear something, an individual has to see / hear it first. If they individual then decides that they didn’t want to see / hear it, or that other people shouldn’t, they will blame censorship authorities for not having censored it in the first place! Due to this conundrum, I understand that censorship is a difficult issue for governments as well as audiences, but I still feel the current system could be improved.

I imagine these several systems of classification would be very cumbersome and difficult for artists to navigate. See the below example from the comical ‘Rock-umentary’ This is Spinal Tap. However, note that it is the visual (album cover) that is being censored here, not the audio.

Description of the ‘offensive’ album cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFF4Ldyh_6k
About 3:30 into the above video is the description of the cover.

The ‘compromise’ album cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlynf–lsxA

Why Spinal Tap’s cover was censored, but a similar cover was allowed in stores: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVahII-EIo
7 minutes into the above video is the ‘fine line between stupid and clever’ scene

The classifications resulting from these several systems are equally confusing for consumers, as a CD which contains video content could potentially have two (possibly conflicting) warning labels. It may be even more confusing if the CD has only one label, which would say that the audio is appropriate for all audiences but the video content is not, or vice versa. How does this help audiences and parents decide what is appropriate?

As a solution, I would suggest that there be a single classification board for all media, as this would allow for consistent censorship decisions to be made and would remove the difficulty of classifying content which exists in more than one media form. Furthermore, the guidelines should be more clearly defined through use of examples and precedents, as in the legal system. I understand that this would necessitate publishing of some potentially offensive material, in order to build a reference point, but I believe this is the best way to help both artists and audiences understand what the warning labels mean.

Heath Johnson

References:

The Offspring, ‘Ixnay on the Hombre’ (1997)

Youtube – various videos

Australian Recording Industry Association website: http://www.aria.com.au

Office of Film and Literature Classification website: http://www.classification.gov.au/

Local Musos Shine at Launch

{ May 12, 2008 @ 1:13 pm } · { Reviews and Critiques }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , } · { Comments (1) }

Newcastle’s Newest ‘Reflection’

A few years ago the name Benjalu would have surely puzzled many faces and raised no more than a few curious eyebrows. Today, however, it is a name that belongs to not only one of Newcastle’s increasingly loved new talents, but to four high school mates dedicated to their new musical profession.

On Friday 14th December, the group’s hard work was finally ‘road tested’ when Benjalu members Ben Gumbleton, Anthony Morris, Kelsley Nathan and Luke Elsley launched their first EP at The Queens Wharf Brewery in front of a 400-strong crowd. Together with many life-long friends, proud family members and a bunch of novice listeners the night quickly transformed into a folk-rock feast initiating an enthusiasm shared by band and peers alike. Despite having been given a measly one-hour slot, the group made good use of their time progressing with a few new songs including ‘Strange Feeling’, ‘Time Wasted’, ‘By Your Side’ and newest addition ‘My Shelter, My Fortress’. Complete with saxophones, clarinet, bongos and a harmonica, Benjalu put aside the basic ‘guitar-drum-bass’ convention and opted for a fresh and exciting new sound not often heard on the Newcastle life front.

Simply titled ‘Reflecting On’, the group performed most of the songs from the new EP in a way that was equally passionate as it was professional. While some songs are evidently influenced by artists such as Jack Johnson and The John Butler Trio, it is genuinely difficult to define the group’s unique musical characteristics or even limit their creative intuition into the strict boundaries of a genre. Instead each song takes on a uniquely different ‘personality’ fusing together elements of jazz, folk, blues and contemporary rock to maintain the group’s fresh sound as well as keep their listeners interested. This clever musical blend proved a huge hit with the high-spirited crowd who cheered at the end of every song, clapped their hands together with the band and sang along to their obvious favourite ‘By Your Side’.

Leading the night was the band’s charismatic lead singer and guitarist Ben Gumbleton (or ‘Gumby’ as he is affectionately known by friends) who spent the night thanking his strong band of supporters and dedicating songs to “the girlfriends of Benjalu”, “the Dudley gang”, “the long-time aficionados” and “all our new friends”. Meanwhile in the background bassist Anthony Morris together with drummer Kelsley Nathan maintained the group’s steady pulsating rhythm while Luke Elsley produced a blues-styled guitar lead coupled with a few notes on the harmonica.

While the night was finishing up Benjalu started their second last song to which they promised would be the most entertaining – they weren’t kidding. Starting off with the high-pitched sounds of the harmonica, Luke kick-starts the song followed by a slow progression of guitar and bass. A few minutes later and Gumby abandons his guitar, pulls out two drumsticks and begins a vividly enthusiastic drum duet with fellow member, Kelsley. As the song gradually builds with the inclusion of bongos and percussion, Anthony puts aside his bass and steals the limelight during an electric and highly entertaining clarinet solo that almost blew out the speakers and (according to him) his eardrums as well!

Despite the small room and slightly distorted sound it is difficult to deny that the night most certainly flourished for the Newcastle quartet. In fact the genuine lack of space can be pin-pointed to the number of people who came to watch rather than the actual venue – something the group definitely considered to be “absolutely amazing”. With a running time of just over an hour, Benjalu’s performance proved to be quite a success due not only to the large amount of EPs and T-Shirts sold, but to the passionate and loyal reception provided by the group’s growing audience. With a couple more shows set for the rest of 2007, Benjalu will, almost certainly, finish up the year knowing their reputation as one of Newcastle’s most popular new talents is gaining more fuel along the way.

Lilen Pautasso

Words: 665