In the previous paragraph, I used the term “music industry” on purpose. While I look up to the ideal of music being judged solely on its merits and being a creative process completely free from the constraints of capitalism, we cannot ignore that music as an industry affects what we get to listen to and, on a long enough timeline, affects the kind of music put out. You can’t deny that many people who went into punk bands may not have done so had someone not put the music of The Ramones or The Sex Pistols on vinyl and sold it to aspiring musicians everywhere. In my opinion, this is where most of the problems with Pop music come from. In a perfect capitalist world, the top musical talent should float to the top, but if you believe in capitalism, I have some land in Florida I’d like to sell you.

Since before the advent of Rock and Roll, music has been something that has been commoditized. And Rock and Roll has shady origins when you consider that Alan Freed, one of the most popular early promoters of Rock and Roll, was involved in a payola scandal. So, you can see most of the problems with Pop music from the beginning. For example, after Berry Gordy found success with Smokey Robinson and The Miracles, he went on to sign The Temptations and The Four Tops. This is analogous to the millions of dollars Lou Pearlman put behind the Backstreet Boys and ‘N Sync after seeing the success of The New Kids On The Block, and then LFO and O-Town, after those groups became successful.

The careful control of appearance has existed in Pop music since the beginning, as well. Berry Gordy used to exercise a great deal of control over his artist’s appearance to make sure that his African-American artists would be considered “safe” for white audiences. Then, it was suits and ties. Today, its ties and chastity rings. This becomes a problem when its the image that creates success and not the talent. Britney Spears always found more success thanks to her paradoxical image as both a virgin and a temptress, but one would be hard pressed to say that she was the most talented of the late 90’s Pop starlets. Christina Aguilera, debatably the most talented of said starlets, only got the notice she deserved when she pushed the temptress image to the extreme in her video for ‘Lady Marmalade’ and her album Stripped.

Though these are only two of the problems with Pop music, they serve as an example of how music is marketed. Marketing is the way companies convince you to buy something despite its faults. And the success of marketing makes it difficult for unmarketed or self-marketed talent to get noticed. So, has Pop music damaged music? Yes. The music industry of today wears the scars of Pop music as unmarketable talented musicians are left on the wayside for the demographic-friendly acts like The Jonas Brothers and Katy Perry. And while your opinion on these acts’ respective talents may vary, their popularity alone makes it hard for a musician who isn’t a parent-friendly teen heartthrob or a walking talking lezploitation film get noticed by those who have the power to deliver their music to audiences around the globe.

I think Pop music is able to translate its message, whatever that may be, easily to many, many people.  You’re allowed to interpret.  You’re even allowed to sing the words wrong, guessing at unintelligible syllables and creating your own sentences that go along with the catchy melody, and then interpret this patchwork song with any meaning you really chose.  Maybe you think it’s about the songwriter’s own breakup, or maybe you personally identify with it.  Maybe, as Better Than Ezra lyricizes about in one song, a Pop song identifies with a particular memory or time period of your life.

The whole idea of anything being rigid and untouchable by a typical person is off-putting to me.  I feel like in my own life that is how the classical music world has appeared.  Someone, somehow declared the “right” way to play Bach and Beethoven and the rest, and everyone since has started to break their backs trying to live up to an impossible classical music perfection.  I loved playing cello in youth orchestras throughout my, well, youth, but I was certainly never good enough at it to have the confidence to dedicate my energies to it whole-heartedly as an adult.  It is great that classical musicians are able to perfect Mozart before the tendonitis sets in, but there is something wrong when most people feel left out of the process.  Rigid ideas stifle creativity.

I think my point is that it is okay for something to be understandable and accessible to many.  Pop music is not something for some type of imaginary elite; it’s something that is personal and universal at the same time.  The musician was inspired to jot down lyrics and chords, took the time to take that idea to the studio, and then the listeners eventually get to hear and interpret the song themselves.  Of course, there is still pretty real elitism in music unfortunately, as individuals try to out-do each other by naming obscure bands.  Everyone wants to have a special connection to some band, even if it’s only because they have taken the time to listen to the music and seek out albums by that band.

Pop music brings out creativity in its own creation.  Songwriting opened avenues for me just by allowing my bits and pieces of musical knowledge to be swept up in the ideas and creativity of the present moment.  Sometimes lyrics I string together give me insight into life the next day, when I interpret them again in a different way.  Probably my only listeners will be close friends and my Mom, but I still enjoy that songwriting’s pure creativity is able to bring out something vibrant in life for me.

If I can say anything undermines music, maybe I would have to say that music, even Pop music, is undermined by artists who can’t really claim to be musicians, but are really just performers.  Maybe there are some performers out there who make tons of money in the music world, but who are not at all musicians.  But hey, if music can inspire a performer to dance and put on an entertaining show for fans, that’s okay.  I guess I would just make a distinction between musicians and performers.

Listening to music is a very personal experience, probably even more so now in the era of ipods and ear buds.  The sounds, the melody and instrumentation, feel like they materialize directly in your own brain.  I love any excuse to stay up late at night, sit back, and let a particular album or a set of songs carry away my thoughts and emotions.  Maybe I listen to the lyrics, maybe I think my own thoughts and get carried away by the emotions evoked by the music itself.

I don’t really envy the responsibility that very popular musicians face when they have thousands of fans hanging off their every word.  That has got to be intimidating, if not outright frightening.  I admire any well-known person who can stay down-to-earth while still having the power to change more about the world than the average person.

I think many people have a vague idea that music is so universal, it somehow transcends the mundane details of everyday life.  Any time an individual is allowed the creative space to be as expressive as possible, it is inspiring for anyone.  However, I think the 21^st century is at risk of being one of the most cynical eras yet.  It is easy for one person to spend just a few moments tearing down artistic, creative work that someone has put so much energy and effort into.  I am not an expert on any of the Decemberists’s albums, but I was still chilled by an article I read in Slate that tore down the lead singer as being completely pretentious.  One of the problems with a global, online community is that we have the choice of being as judgmental and critical as we like, and then putting our foolhardy judgments online for anyone to see.  Many do not want to bother to be kind because they are guessing they will never be in the same room with the person they are being critical of.  I think true artistic freedom means we are trusting others to be at least somewhat respectful.

Music is certainly able to capture something special about life that is difficult to describe.  Pop music maybe tries to appeal to as many people as possible, but that’s okay.  If I can feel something from a catchy love song, or a fast-paced heavy, angry song, I don’t mind that anyone can hear it and feel something similar.  It is difficult to think up a strict definition or reason for the purpose of any art form, music included.  If I had to guess why art forms are important, I would guess that it has to do with individuals sharing part of the human experience with each other.  An art form like music captures a feeling about how it is to be alive that is difficult to express in daily, random interactions with others.  Unfortunately I think many of us can count on both hands the number of life changing, inspiring conversations we have had with others, but music can break down barriers between people with its expressive honesty.  There is a Nanci Griffith song with the lyric, “if you can’t find a friend, still got the radio.”  A lot of human connection these days is long-distance in some way or another.

Throughout life, each of us stumbles upon music that is inspiring to us.  Maybe one person loves Josh Groban’s music, another person loves music by Tool, and someone else is obsessed with Of Montreal.  I want to respect that you can make your own personal choices.  I also want to have faith in each individual to be able to go out, get a cheap guitar, and start hesitantly strumming some chords.  Sit down at a piano, get past feeling foolish, and express what you’ve been feeling for quite a while.  There is nothing elitist about raw creativity; there is nothing wrong with trying to express what life is like for you, whatever medium you may choose.

Looking further back, the Pop line was crossed in Elvis’ days when he was swinging his hips for the ladies whilst singing Jailhouse Rock.  But, we’ll stick to the Beatles since they made a slightly bigger impact on music (Elvis purists, we can discuss who made a bigger impact later).  In their later years, when they were experimenting, the Beatles discovered such skills as harmonization, guitar feedback, classical inspiration, artificial double tracking, close miking of acoustic instruments, sampling, direct injection, synchronization, and backward tapes.  Many of these same skills would then be adopted by popular musicians today. Although the reason why artists today should be criticized for techniques like sampling is because the way they use it is more of a lazy way. They sample an entire song and just put in their own lyrics, completely ripping off the original musician.

One more thing on the history of Pop Music: about a decade after the Beatles, a man began a record label in his garage with a loan from his family members.  Berry Gordy borrowed $800 from his family and went on to produce Motown records. He had a gift for identifying musical talent and along with “stringent management” (a term I use loosely), he made Motown a major international success.  Over the next decade, he signed such artists as Stevie Wonder, Jackson 5, The Temptations, Gladys Knight and the Pips, and Diana Ross and the Supremes, just to name a few. So, how does Berry Gordy come in to play for pop music?  Well, Berry Gordy introduced us to the highly regulated song and dance show.  His “stringent management” was more of an authoritarian control over everything the artist would do, and although he received criticism over his control, Motown records would produce hit after hit after hit (side note: Motown could be to blame for why Michael Jackson is so messed up; his stringent control of MJ supposedly denied him a childhood, which caused him to live like a kid in his adult years when he went solo).  So, we can give credit to Motown and the Beatles for the birth of Michael Jackson, AKA, the King of Pop, and Pop music in general, with its highly controlled, auto-tuned, highly choreographed dance sessions in their videos.

Now, knowing this, we can finally come to our original question: has Pop music damaged the purpose of music?  Well for starters, what is the purpose of music?  Primarily the purpose of music is to entertain.  And pop artists today no matter what type are entertaining.  I may not like them but they find an audience.  Jonas Brothers entertains the tween girl crowd, as does Hannah Montana.  So does pop music damage the purpose of music?  That can be answered with a resounding “No.” For starters, just because a particular genre of music may not seem as genuine as another form does not invalidate it in any way.   A great analogy for this example is Jazz; back when Jazz was first starting out, back in ye olden times, everything that was good in music only came from England.  If you wanted to be a musician you went to England. When Jazz emerged, being primarily American, it was not accepted as a form of music and treated much the same as Pop music.  Jazz music, back then, appealed to a much younger audience with a greater buying power, the same audience that pop music attracts now.

So, does that mean we should actually be caring about “musicians” like Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers?  Hell no, but I’ll dwell on that in another article; this one is long enough. This however, does not mean that HM or the Jonas brothers are disingenuous, it may mean, however, that the record labels that sign them are disingenuous.   why should we give Pop music any merit?  Well, because Pop music does have some good artists.  First, you cannot mention Pop without mentioning the King of Pop; I already mentioned him once in this article, and he needs to be mentioned once again.  No one can say that Michael Jackson damages the purpose of music at all.  In fact, MJ has done a lot for music in general be it with his experimentation in music, or his dancing/choreography.

Another reason is that these days, Pop music has evolved into fusion styles of Pop; for example, two great Pop artists are Regina Spektor and Neko Case. Neither of them does any choreography, and both are very talented musicians, but both are a bit too poppy to fall under genres like Folk or Rock, but are also a bit too folky/indie to just fall under Pop.  This has created a massive influx of pop genres each with many differing styles.  Also just because it’s pop doesn’t mean its inherently bad.  Europpop, J-pop, and K-pop are some of the most fun types of music I have ever heard.  If you don’t like Rain, you must be dead inside.

To Sumarize: it’s easy to criticize Pop music due to the manufactured tarts we see on TV; parading around in skimpy clothing, dancing, lip syncing, and basically being placed on stage to look “sexy” for the crowd.  But, I feel that in the age of Clear Channel radio and MTV, we are going to see a lot of this in almost any genre of music.  We are going to see a lot of “manufactured artists” in Rock music.  In my opinion, bands like Puddle of Mudd, Nickelback, and Three Doors Down constitute these types of bands.  The same goes for Rap (i.e. Soulja Boy), R&B (i.e. Pussycat dolls), and any other genre you can think of.  Since we are at the age of American Idol, we are going to get a bigger influx of these same artists who all sound the same, each sounding more and more bland than the next.  The only way to avoid this is to sift through and find the gems out there. No entire genre is inherently bad, and you can find good music out of almost anything; even House music (ntz ntz ntz ntz).