A Question of Pop

The more I think about it the more confounded I become about the entity of pop music. Pop music must be qualified. Pop is not just a nickname for “popular music.” Pop is a concrete rhythmic concept based upon the ergonomics of the guitar. When faced with this adversary as a pianist, at first I lost. Unknowingly a war was created that pitted my vocation against this entity. Then I fully did not understand the definition of pop music. It took almost a year of study before achieving a compromise. Pop music is music that is reliant upon the strumming of the guitar. While that sounds elementary, a derogatory definition of something that is primary in education is appropriate. While I have come to understand and in certain instances appreciate pop music, it suffers from one major weakness that both immunizes it from the music hall of fame and creates its mystique. Pop music has no rhythm. Clarified it is mono-rhythmic. It has time and there is a subdivision of the beat, but traditional clave or rhythmic patterns do not exist. This may be why it is considered pop music or music that appeals to the masses. It has been stripped of any accountability, and that is created by rhythm. Pop music in short is missing one of the three in the trinity of the definition of music, melody, harmony, and rhythm. It was not until recently when I watched a “Live, In Concert” program on VH-1 that I threw pop a bone. Fulfillment can be created with pop music, and in certain definitions that fulfillment is most important. It does allow the emotion of the musicians to communicate. Pop music is reliant upon this emotion for the simple reason that no emotion can be created by the rhythmic concept being used. Strumming the guitar up and down does not create a clave. It does create a pattern, but it is a simplistic, folk-like, repetitive pattern that does not qualify as rhythm. Better pop bands with good material such as Rush and AC/DC have achieved great success with this concept. The unfortunate reality is the purely sonic outpouring of their music is unable to create a lasting tangible effect. If anyone were to sing along with the drummer, there would be no ups or downs in his dynamic phrasing. If there was then the music could not be called pop. It would be called rock. This delicate balance, one of alleviating the listener from the responsibility of having to “feel” the music while tantalizing their psyche, has become a watershed in the music industry. When I watched my first AC/DC video I was startled to see their musical approach. Their music never appealed to me for some reason, but I didn’t know why. The reason was AC/DC is a pop band. All of the fireworks, on-stage-antics, and juvenile histrionics merely are a ploy to convey the message of the music. They are playing in a rhythmic concept that eliminates the possibility of moving the listeners with rhythm. Without the additional components of lyrics, melody, and harmony their music would be disposable. This is the grift. Millions of people love pop music. They have not reached a point in their lives where being emotionally moved by their bodies is accepted with pleasure. In fact this specific characteristic could define the two poles of music. There is music that attempts to move the soul, and there is music that glorifies narcissism. Metaphorically this could be called God versus man. The idea of God deals with greater issues than man’s primitive desires. Consequently it could define pop music as music for children. I have always asked myself the question why capable musicians play pop music. One reason is it is world’s easier than playing soul music. Music that systematically disconnects the human body, its receptors and its stimuli, is much easier to play. There is little engagement of the body to produce an alternate response other than the status quo. The intent in pop music is to create a “box” or pocket of emptiness upon which sits the artist’s emotional output. While this could be desirable, it also could be considered vain. A survey of America’s pop music history confirms this concept was understood and heavily utilized in radio music beginning in the l960’s. My assertion is it was directly influenced by South American music. The high emotional content of Latin music coupled with its reliance upon the Spanish guitar became an effective foundation for future American pop music. In certain ways it also could be considered “cool.” The music contains a seemingly intellectual Zen-like detachment from the traditional requirements of emotion. It prefers the mind over the body. Only recently I have discovered soul music is produced with the body. Without the engagement of kinesthesia, it nearly would be impossible to produce the musical result of soul music. While the mouth, fingers, and arms can produce music of substance, music that truly is soulful must engaged the entirety of the physical body. A drummer that is not playing in a pop concept could be the best example of how the entire body is engaged in the act of making music. Each limb has a specific purpose, but the torso (the heart and guts) must synthesize the discreet motions and blend them together with highly complex nuances of timing and velocity. If the brain knows the intent of the music, then “The Inner Game of Tennis” subconsciously allows the human psyche to produce it. Pop does not engage the body at this level. While, like in Rush’s case, the music can be grandiose, substantial, and emotional, if lyrical content, melody, and harmony were removed the resulting organism would not engage the listener in any way shape for form. It would be inconsequential. A choice has to be made on the roadmap of music which route will be taken. It is disappointing that quality music is missing its mark.