Is pop eating itself?

Radio 4's Today programme ran a feature this morning in which esteemed rock critic Simon Reynolds argued that pop is caught in a constant cycle of repitition. He coins the phrase "retro-fetishism" and says we're heading for a cultural catastrophe, where "the seam of pop history is exhausted" and there is nothing left to copy.

What a load of old bollocks.

Reynolds' argument is broken down by category on the BBC website, and it's almost comically easy to refute.

For example, he compares Plan B to Phil Collins, because both are white men who appropriated the sound of Motown. Which is odd, because I don't remember Phil Collins or any of the Motown artists writing a concept album about a man accused of rape. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He goes on to say that any band who takes to the stage and performs a classic album in it's entirety is a slave to the past, committing artistic suicide.  No other artform, he argues, would rely so heavily on repackaging and re-selling its "greatest hits". He must have missed all those big municipal buildings where they hang paintings on the wall; or Hollywood's constant DVD, Blu-Ray, 3D reissuing cycle. I wonder what he thinks of the Royal Shakespeare Company?

And anyway, what's wrong with celebrating the past? Does Reynolds seriously believe all artists should emerge, blinking from the womb and create a new musical idiom from scratch? Well, I suppose it's one option - but I'd prefer to listen to Innervisions again.

Stripped of all its intellectual wordplay, Reynolds' argument essentially boils down to one point: "Modern music isn't as good as it was in my day". Which, in legal parlance, is known as the Totally Past It Granddad Argument.

Anyway, infuriated by this early-morning assault on all of logic, I messaged a friend with a timely rant. He emailed back in defence of (some of) Reynolds' points. I'm going to reprint our exchange below (and, yes, I'm aware of how egocentric that is).

My acquaintance wants to remain anonymous, by the way, so for the purposes of this article we'll call him Dr Alfonso de Pyjamabottom (Mrs).

Mrdiscopop: Please, please tell me that the Today programme has someone lined up to refute every single point in that ridiculous, facile and poorly researched argument.

Dr Alfonso: Well, Annie Nightingale had a crack, but Radio 4 listeners don't like grime, nor dubstep, in the main.

Mrdiscopop: Poor Annie! Although dubstep and grime are hardly where I'd have taken the argument, when more familiar acts like Radiohead and MIA are pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable sonically and lyrically.

Anyway, pop music has always been obsessed with pop music. The Beatles & The Stones covered Chuck Berry and the Isley Brothers, but went on to become hugely innovative. The UK punk scene, often seen as a revolution, was heavily influenced by bands like Wire and Television...

Music develops on a continuum, and the mainstream always feeds off the past. Simon's argument is just a headline looking for a reason to exist.

Dr Alfonso: Well, I think you've got a point, kind of, but I suppose I would argue that in pop music, the revolutions have not been new chord progressions or lyrics or production techniques, but a new or different attitude. You saw it in the 60s with a new kind of confidence - of not giving a shit; the 70s with serious drug-addled experimenters and then punk; then 80s smoothness and 90s hedonism. I'd probably argue that Radiohead, Sigur Ros and Arcade Fire have a new kind of emotional grandness / over-serious in their attitude - but again, that was the late 90s, early 00s.

So, obviously, there's always been recycling and referencing, but there doesn't seem to be a new attitude, a new form of rebellion, coming through. That the self created ubermench of Bowie then Madonna, then Marilyn Manson, then Lady Gaga seem still to hold sway seems pretty uninteresting now.

Do you see anything of that kind in music now? I have the feeling that all the kinds of rebellion have been mapped out, because unlike production or chords or lyrics, the options are pretty limited if you want to stay alive for a while.

Mrdiscopop: That's very true. What's more, there isn't a counter-culture for artists to tap into any more... Everything has been commercialised and branded, and artists rely on sponsorship to exist, so there's little to legitimately rebel against.

Having said that, MIA's paranoiac, anti-government lyrics have a certain frisson (even when they're undermined by her pampered lifestyle). And I think Arcade Fire articulate a sense of detachment and alienation that feels like a very 21st Century phenomenon.

Someone like Kanye West is interesting, in that he has a huge bragadoccio combined with a fragile ego - and has shamelessly dissected that throughout the course of his career. It's not really a fresh attitude, though, so much as a massively entertaining soap opera. And it leads directly to Kid Cudi, who wrote an entire album about depression and night terrors.

So, yes, rebellion seems to have taken second place to egotism (and endless rotten pop songs about "da club"). Which is perhaps indicative of society, and art as a whole... What do you think?


Dr Alfonso: Exactly, commercial egotism seems like the only attitude out there, and those who kick against it - like Arcade Fire - to try and find something more deeply felt. The options seem to be either shallow or anti-shallow.

What seems like a real shame to me was that the internet offered another system for music making - that you could rebel against the big labels, build your own scene and all that - which could usher in a more local, more personal kind of music - folk in nature if not sound.

But, as Adam Curtis is talking about in his documentary series, the internet and social media have actually made everyone converge in their opions. So everything is more conformist - especially the business side of things.

I mean, musical rebellion was always massively egotistical, but it seemed to be genuine as well in some way. And as soon as someone manages to articulate a new way of sticking it to the man, the man sees it as a huge money maker.

I think you can say the same thing about everything, though. Why was there no great new political movement that gained force after the financial crisis? Why are the depression rates spiraling out of control? There is a lack of passion in our culture that no-one has the passion to do anything about...

Does any music actually make you want to start a revolution or change your life at all any more?

Some food for thought, there.

Now... what does everyone think about the new Sugababes single?

Tweet

Is the pop revival going to happen?

If we're to believe the pundits, electro-pop is going to be the big thing in 2009. Roisin Murphy must be hopping mad. Goldfrapp have thrown away their lutes. Kylie is thinking "maybe someone will buy my records again".

Personally, I remain to be convinced. A lot of the hotly-tipped artists are making anaemic, tinny synth pop with incredibly slight melodies. Imagine a weedier version of Hot Chip, and you're in the right ballpark (nb: these artists would not be seen in a ballpark as it would "play havoc with their allergies").

Here are three of the aforementioned hot tips. They're definitely cool, I'll almost certainly load them onto my iPod, but I just can't see them in the top 10. What do you reckon?


La Roux - In For The Kill

La Roux is Elly Jackson and co-writer and co-producer Ben Langmaid

Elly has a trendy haircut

On second thoughts, it's a terrible haircut

We're not in France, you know.
Official website

Cocknbull Kid - I'm Not Sorry

Cocknbull Kid is 22-year-old Anita Blay

She's "the lovechild of Morissey and Neneh Cherry" (Nenissey??)

She DJ'd at the Sugababes album launch, which was terrible
Official website

Ladytron - Tomorrow

This lot have been around for a decade

If they can't have a hit, why should any of these other bands?

But we still like Little Boots
Official website

Tweet

New band: Scarlettes

In our more realistic moments, we have to acknowledge that Girls Aloud and Sugababes are nearing the end of their "shelf life" (nb: this doesn't mean that their boobs are starting to sag, although that's inevitable, too).

What we need is a hopeful set of young replacements waiting to steal their pop crown. But, at the time of writing, there doesn't seem to be anyone willing or able to step up to the plate.

Unless you count the Saturdays, which we don't.

However, yesterday we read on the Popjustice forums stumbled across a new three-piece called Scarlettes, who may find pop ubiquity within their grasp. Here is what they look like:



Reasons why they could be big:
1) Photograph is a step-by-step illustration of how to use hair curlers.
2) Genre-smashing mix of girl band pop and dance music.
3) Have attitude of early Bananarama.

Reasons why they might flop spectacularly:
1) Photograph looks like three Primark models caught in a freak hurricane.
2) Unique dance-pop blend already perfected by Freemasons and Beyonce.
3) Have attitude of late-period Atomic Kitten.

The Scarlettes are currently "being developed", so their career could head down either one of those two routes. If you want to take an early listen, a medley of their demos is available on the Myspaces.

And here is a clip of the band singing over Eric Prydz's Pjanoo. (Warning: may result in waving of glow-in-the-dark sticks and blowing of rave whistles).

Scalettes vs Eric Prydz - Pjanoo Fever

Tweet

Dirty to the bone

The world's oldest boyband, Take That, have the number one single and album! Well done, pop purchasers of the UK (let's just brush over the stifling mediocrity of the whole enterprise for now, shall we?)

While you're back in the mood for buying fantastic records by proper pop stars, let's not forget that Jamelia has a new single out today and it is flumping brilliant.



Buy it here and do it quickly, before this dribbling shit of a song takes over the world.

Tweet

Konichiwa, bitches!

Hey! The tagline at the top of the blog has changed at last. For the past year, it's been a line from Girls Aloud's Biology (I've got one Alabama return that'll take me far away from you, fact fans). The replacement is a line from the Rakamonie EP by Sewdish pop starlet Robyn.

You might remember Robyn from her insanely catchy top 10 hit, Show Me Love, in 1998. The song was a big success in America, too, and Robyn looked to be on the brink of becoming an international pop star.

But just as she was about to embark on a tour with the Backstreet Boys she fucked off back to Sweden - having been diagnosed with "exhaustion". And there she stayed, releasing records that couldn't raise so much as an eyebrow outside the Scandanavian borders. Which is a shame, because they were really quite good indeed.

Consequently, Robyn went into a big huff and quit her record label - with plans to set up her own company. This is the point where such stories usually end... If you're George Michael or Prince, you spend so much energy wrestling control of your career from the big suits at Sony and Warner that you forget how to write good music and take the first bus out of town to the dumper. But Robyn has cuaght a completely different bus (or maybe she used a bike - I hear they have great cycle lanes in Sweden) and she's on track to reinvigorate her career.

The first three tracks on the Rakamonie EP, out last week in the UK, sound just like Missy Elliot doing Work It after drinking four litres of fizzy pop and inhaling a lungful of helium. Robyn, like Missy, has a knack for writing playful, inventive lyrics and a kooky approach to production. And, after the EP's initial triumverate of Euro-rap tracks, there's a touching torch ballad and a ragtime cover of Prince's perv classic Jack U Off.

You would not, it is fair to say, catch Kylie Minogue doing this sort of thing. Even in private.

Sadly, you will not be able to find this pop gem in the shops, because the shops are now shit. Instead, you can stream the whole thing on Robyn's website or buy it on iTunes. I recommend that you do.

Tweet