Pop music promises a morbid future for us musicphiles. This is my gut feeling. So do not ask my further opinion of any bikini-clad pop star if you are not prepared for a heated argument about the shortcomings of today's pop scene.
I just popped into a recent post on dooce.com, an entertaining, well-written site that was, perhaps, the first weblog that I took a regular interest in reading. It helped that at the time I discovered it, I was doing an internship for an online film magazine, spending many hours in front of a computer with internet acces. But whatever...the facts are there: it's a great site and there are plenty of people who would back me up on this.
The proof: Dooce's post yesterday called in 198 comments, the highest amount I have ever spotted online. Today's post is (only) in the 90's, but I found it more fascinating than yesterday's. Little Miss Dooce spoke, in part, of her contempt for the new artist Avril Lavrigne, whose music I have yet to hear. I have, however, read a Newsweek article that eluded to her as being the icon of a growing Spice-Girls-style girl-power-movement-gone-grunge. Grunge, it seems, because Avril prefers sneakers, t-shirts, and - oddly - neckties to tight skirts, breast implants, and tube tops.
Ok. I don't see what all the fuss is about. She looks like Axl Rose to me, and haven't we done that already? And wasn't that called "heavy metal" at the time?
Regardless, Dooce's argument comes partially out of her love for Britney Spears, which is admittedly (albeit not overtly) based on Britney's image more than on her questionable musical skills. And she despises Avril for cashing in on all those girls that want to rebel in response to Britney's flashy red space suit, lustrous blond hair, and beaming sexuality out of a need for a more "safe alternative" to Britney. That is to say, maybe for those girls that aren't as cozy with a little bit of skin and sex, well, Avril is a welcomed quasi-asexualized option in the sea of young pop stars. In reality, both stars are doing the same thing: selling an image and not music. At least, to some degree, Britney is honestly superficial without trying to suggest outrageous things like actually having some sort of musical talent.
As Dooce said in her post: "Those people are bragging that Avril is writing her own music and playing her own instruments, and I'm like, since when did our pop stars need to do anything of that sort? If a pop star wrote her own music or played her own instruments she wouldn't be a pop star. She'd be a musician."
Unfortunately, I agree with her.
And then I got to reminiscing. Do you remember when pop music was actually something meant to last? Pop meant simply "popular," but not necessarily "popular for the under 25 age group with lots of money to spend" aka "profitable market" aka "flash in th epan." Let's face it: to teenagers, image counts. And part of one's image is defined by his musical taste. The majority of teenagers don't get into the complexity of music, nor do they appreciate Italian opera or Celtic chants. Most of them are just looking to listen to what their friends are listening to, to establish some sort of communal music taste, and to go out en masse to buy the stuff. They are a marketer's dream.
But why does that mean that said "stuff" has to be trash? Let me cite some well-known earlier generation pop examples: the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, the Doors. This is music people still listen to today, and it was also geared towards the younger, rebellious types of their day. Yet I highly doubt that a 24-year-old Cleveland undergrad student of today is listening to the Rolling Stones because he or she thinks Mick Jagger is hot. We've all seen him age. There must be some sort of musical talent stuck between those platinum vinyl grooves.
So when did we make the switch? When did pop became a word synonomous with "massively selling crap based on music videos and sex appeal"?
I'll give you my opinion, and then I want to hear yours: I think Michael Jackson signals the fossilization of the pop-still-equals-music era, and Madonna represents the beginning of our beloved pop-is-all-based-on-bra-size modern day. Coincidentally, their careers began and have slowed at approximatly the same time, although one can argue that Madonna has saved a bit more face (in more ways than one) than MJ has while in decline. Conclusion: we started going wrong in 1983 and hit the point of no return by 1996. Ah, an unlucky thirteen years.
To begin, nobody can say that Michael Jackson is not an excellent musician and artist, a man who has managed to revolutionize both music and dance at a time when it was stuck in neutral. Let's be honest - Michael was pumping out early hits "Rock With You" and "Off the Wall" against stiff competition like Devo's "Whip It." His songwriting is varied, complex, creative, and, often fun. The highest selling artist of all time, there is a reason why is known as The King of Pop. Experiencing his explosion just before the birth of MTV, Jackson made what has been hailed as one of the top music videos of all time - "Thriller." More a film than a music video, "Thriller" is unlike any other video that has followed since. Just watch "The Making of Thriller," my own personal favorite film from childhood (not a joke - it's about an hour long) to fall even more in love with the already fabulous video. Additionally, Michael Jackson is a true performer, gifted on stage as well as in the studio. Or watch footage from when little Mikey was five; his inherent talent could not be more clear. Some people are just gifted from the get-go. The man was born with music, raised with it, and has lived in it ever since. And despite being The King of Pop, he also deserves the honor of being called a musician.
Madonna, however, is another type of artist. It would still be fair to call her the Queen of Pop, although I believe nobody has ever officially bestowed her the appellation. She is the product of extreme dedication and determination as opposed to natural talent. I have never heard her sing a cappella, I don't honestly know if she can sing. Still, I would never say I am against her music - I find it fun, sing-alongable, and catchy. But I would also never dare describe her as a musical genius. Instead, let's just say that she knows how to get your attention and hold it. Madonna's cameleon-like personality is part of what keeps us interested. Like a virgin, dominatrix, Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich, Booby-Coney Thingy, Generic Asian Chick, Generic Indian Chick, Random British Accent Girl, cowgirl - what will she think of next? It should be obvious to you by now - this is not about her music, this is about her image.
Despite this, I still give Madonna credit as somebody worth my time. Maybe it's because she was the first of a seemingly endless series of 95% (or more) imaged-based "musicians," or she at least seemed first. Or maybe just because I used to always pretend to be her when I was seven because, hey, that's what you did when you were seven. So should I worry if today's seven-year-olds are just pretending to be Britney? That instead of walking around their bedroom singing "Express Yourself" and coyly looking at imaginary cameras while dressed in an imaginary feminine suit, they are walking around half-naked seducing those little imaginary cameras while chanting "Hit Me Baby One More Time!"?
I guess not. I just hate to attach the word "music" to something that doesn't merit having one of the most beautiful words in the language - after bohemia, xylophone, and Darwinian - anywhere in its vicinity.
*** editorial note: this post originally had a truly unreal performance by Michael Jackson - his first as a solo artist ("Billie Jean") - that served as some sort of testimonial to the once high culture of pop music. I have since taken it down, because that thing is pretty damn heavy, and I am having some serious storage issues. However, I recommend to anybody and everybody to check it out, it is absolutely amazing. Send me an email for details. I still have it around, and would be happy to share.
The first time I saw Avril, I thought she was Axl too. I'm with you. (And I'd love to hear the 'billie jean' file - arcangel80@hotmail.com)
TE AMO
Avril Lavigne, in my opinion, is a spoiled little girl who doesn't know what to do with her popularity. She acts as though she is better than everybody. Brittney Spears, on the other hand, seems to be a very sweet and down to earth young lady. There is no way to compare the two, and not be rude.
how do u know what they r like.talk about looking at the way they look.u don't know avril and u may say u do but I know u don't.i would like to see all of be better pop stars and don't say anyone could cause u are not 1.u don't know what it's like.
Yeah, you're right....Avril does look like Axl Rose. Maybe they're related ...??