pop? art?
Maybe all the thought over the pop/art divide of the last 25 years or so hasn't resolved anything, maybe we're all just as (or more) confused as to where to draw the lines than we ever were. On most days, I think I've come to terms with it in my own work: I am a completely unbalanced and sort of turbulent mixture of both, and I'm quite happy that way, thank you. And then I read things by people like Momus in his recent livejournal entry, and it just gets me wondering all over again about that particular oppositional constuct. For him, it seems like pop is all about hooks and populism and getting people to listen. For me, it's totally different. Pop is all about music that deals with the way people live on a daily basis, simple heartbreaks, simple joys, those types of things, all of the things that art is too self-obsessed to deal with. Well, I guess it's not all that different, on second thought, it's just that I come to pop music from the perspective of a consumer, not a pop music maker.
Comments
rod,
i don't see how what momus is saying and what you are saying is mutually exclusive. in fact, if you consider that the biggest 'hook' of them all was planted long ago when Narcissus became enthralled with his own image. it's just a question of setting that to music...
r.
Posted by: r. | April 21, 2004 9:35 PM
well, i am admittedly (and purposefully) still very naive about pop music.
Posted by: roddy | April 21, 2004 10:49 PM
isn't naivete on purpose a kind of affectation? but then again rod, you do look pretty in pink! so what's wrong with a little razzle-dazzle, a bit of cloak and dagger, the ol' cap and gown, etc., etc?
Posted by: r. | April 22, 2004 1:45 PM
if it's an affectation, it's an honest one.
Posted by: roddy | April 22, 2004 4:16 PM
touche!
Posted by: r. | April 23, 2004 4:34 PM