Hi Ken and Dan and all the other 313 members....
I totally understand now what Dan meant with "pop".... "pop" in the ususal way
is something more negative in my opinion but in the way that Dan and Ken are
talking about it I can only agree!
I didn't mean it offensive in any way, only didn't understand what Dan was
saying about that Kenny Larkin track.
Maybe I was sounding a little bit to "angry" or something because I can't stand
the innovation topic no more. This discussion is soooo old and boring that I
felt bad in that moment because like I said in my opinion it's the message in
the first place. There are Black Sabbath tracks that still have more message
than any Limp Bizkit or HIM tracks ever can reach and those Black Sabbath
tracks are 30 years old! And still people do music with only a drumkit, two
guitars, a bass and a singer.... why has electronic music to be always the next
innovative thing? Look at Drum and Bass and what happened to it with all its
fast innovations???
So as you can see I misunderstood it a little bit and therefore I'm sorry!
Thanx for taking "Beauty in decay" as a reference.... :-)
Greetz, Arne
> Hey Arne, Dan could well be referring to a track like 'Beauty In Decay'
> here, when he mentions the word 'pop'. So in this sense, it's not
> derogatory - *defn. not a bad thing*. 'Beauty In Decay' is after all (to me)
> a bit of an early-decade marker. I mean 'pop' here, more relates to
> something where the changes and the texture are not so widely divergent from
> the 'classical' song structure that it bears no relation to it.
>
> Personally, I favor what's well done and I know innovation comes in many
> forms - including that innovation within an already existing style. I am
> just puzzled when people try to imitate past moments *verbatim as it were.
> What's the point? Apart from focusing on the bottom line - which is anathema
> imo when it comes to this music, not that it should be completely
> irrelevant, but I'm not going to be impressed by a crass pursuit of it all
> the same.
>
> This I think we all agree doesn't apply to any of the tracks which we're
> talking about.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> >Well the reason I mentioned the track initially is because I
> >played it on the show on Friday, so yes, I have heard it ;P
> >
> >As for pop, what I meant was the aspect of composition that is
> >about creating melodies and pleasing chord changes/harmonies as
> >opposed to the rhythmic/repetitive aspect. To my ear, the Larkin
> >tune is quite 'pop' in this sense (amongst other things), but then
> >I'd also say that 'Codebreaker' or 'Strings' are pop tunes.
> >
> >I agree that atmosphere is very important, this is something that
> >lasts throughout a track (hopefully) whereas pop is about an
> >instantaneous hit or series of hits. I think pop is important for
> >techno, and many of my favourite tunes are those with great pop
> >moments ('Game One' springs to mind). But I also love music
> >totally devoid of pop from Mills or Basic Channel.
> >
> >:)
> >
> >
> >You wrote:
> >> I can't understand why you are talking about pop songs? I don't
> >know if you=
> > heard this new track by Kenny but I only can say that I don't see
> >the pop =
> >appeal in this tune.....
> >Like you said, it's not the next new style he is inventing here
> >but I also =
> >don't think that this was his goal. If you mean pop song as a
> >track with a =
> >message and a certain feel than this new track from Kenny is pop,
> >okay! If =
> >you mean an airplay compatible tune then you're wrong, sorry! it's
> >a "retro=
> >" (I hate that word!) housey piano track with a smooth feel and
> >nice melodi=
> >es. Not more but also not less! I still think the most important
> >thing in m=
> >usic is if you get an impression, a feel, an athmosphere when you
> >listen to=
> > tracks. Having a mesage is much more important that having
> >invented a new =
> >style without what we call soul.
> >I don't need the newest super-duper mega software generated
> >synthesizer sou=
> >nd if it doesn't catch my ear and most important my mind and soul....
> >
> >
> >
> >Greetz, Arne
> >
> >
> >
>
--
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
www.arneweinberg.de
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
