Girls Aloud

[The Mumbler]

But Abba's credibility has never been higher, critically as well as commercially. Go back to 1978 and the one thing you would never read in the NME was how great and underrated Abba were. That's what annoyed me about that Fry documentary - as if he's the last person in Britain to tentatively say, "Actually, Abba are really good, y'know". I mean, zzz. Even when Elvis Costello poked his head above the parapet to say, "We based the Oliver's Army piano riff on Abba", that was in the early 90s.

If anything, it's Can who are now underrated.

[Ciarán]

Why can't it be radical? I'd argue that the way Factory ran - no contracts, profits split 50/50 with the band, etc - was extremely radical. You're dead right when you say it's not just about the music, it's also about morals, ethics and reflecting your whole attitude to life.

Because to me a genuinely "radical" music would get to the root of things and actually change the way we live. Factory was great; brill records, a witty approach to business, full of potty ideas. But did they really change music or society in a radical way? Factory eventually went bust, as did Stiff and Rough Trade (which I know is back now with major backing) and Creation and others had to merge with the majors to continue. So we've still got enormous record labels; EMI, Virgin, Polygram and the "indies" are their subsidiaries. And "indie" has become another genre of music. People toddle down to tesco and buy a Razorlight album and think it's indie music. (I'm assuming a general public here.) There is an indie outlet in Dublin and it releases things on small local labels. But they're not really radical because they operate in tandem with the big record stores and online shops. So there's this two track type deal going on - the majors and the mainstream are on one track and the indies and experimenters are on the other. What I'm most interested in is when those things crash into each other...

I've probably rambled a bit and not properly addressed your post, sorry.

I think pop or rock music can be radical, rock and roll was hugely important to youth culture, I think Dylan's 60s records were radical, the way black music flooded into the UK in the 70s was a radical shake-up, punk was radical for a bit.

[Ciarán]

But Abba's credibility has never been higher, critically as well as commercially. Go back to 1978 and the one thing you would never read in the NME was how great and underrated Abba were. That's what annoyed me about that Fry documentary - as if he's the last person in Britain to tentatively say, "Actually, Abba are really good, y'know". I mean, zzz. Even when Elvis Costello poked his head above the parapet to say, "We based the Oliver's Army piano riff on Abba", that was in the early 90s.

If anything, it's Can who are now underrated.

But isn't ABBA appreciation always tempered with that sceptical "is he being postmodern here?" attitude? There is always this slightly ironic detatchment going on, even in the highest praise for ABBA. When I was a child they were (alongside The Beatles) my favourite group. When I got a bit older I realised they were something of a joke, and that they had to be defended. I started to wonder why it was just accepted that The Beatles were brilliant, and ABBA were seen as just being a bit daft. Even today it's difficult to talk about ABBA at all, because as much as I am keen to argue that 'The Visitors' is one of the greatest albums ever made (TRUE!), I know I'm going to come across as sounding a bit "and you didn't expect me to say that did you??"

Another record which it's genuinely difficult to have a "genuine" discussion about is 'I Should Be So Lucky'. It's so utterly bound up in its reception at the time - it used to be a just a symbol of trashy pop at its worst. Kylie was ridiculed as the toothy soap star puppet with the voice from hell, she was parodied by Little and Large and when Clive James named her "Woman Of The Decade" the air of sarcasm was palpable. But since then the meaning of that record has changed. It's become this music journalist "Ahh, you didn't think I'd like that did you, but I do!"  type record. How do you sidestep all of that and say "I like it now, I liked it at the time, it's not the most mind-blowing record in the world but it makes me happy" without getting a sceptical reaction or a kind of ironic agreement?

[The Mumbler]

Even today it's difficult to talk about ABBA at all, because as much as I am keen to argue that 'The Visitors' is one of the greatest albums ever made (TRUE!), I know I'm going to come across as sounding a bit "and you didn't expect me to say that did you??"

Critical opinion on The Visitors is a lot higher than for most of their LPs, though. Had you cited "Abba - The Album" or "Ring Ring" as one of your favourite albums of all-time, you really would be out on a limb. While they're a terrific singles band, and I agree The Visitors to be their best LP, most Abba albums were and are uneven as hell. Even the first time round, I remember wincing and celebrating alternate tracks on Arrival and The Album. Both of which sold far, far more copies than The Visitors.

I wonder if the post-modern/ironic aspect to Abba came in because for most of the 80s (indeed, until Abba Gold in 1992), they were virtually forgotten about. Once they split up, Agnetha and Frida had barely measurable solo careers, Benny and Bjorn wrote Chess with Tim Rice, but you almost never heard Abba records on the radio, and a posthumous live album in 1987 (their first on CD, I think) died on its proverbial.

[Ciarán]

Pop blowing a raspberry at the idea of rock having 'meaning' troubles me a little. Pop should rightly blow a raspeberry at rock's pomposity and humourlessness, of course, but meaning? Why is that a bad thing? Music is an artform, after all.

It's the notion that rock has meaning and pop doesn't that's a bit of a lie. What is the "meaning " of a song? Is it contained in its lyric? Is it directly communicable? "The Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum)" is as meaningful as "Wish You Were Here" in the strictest sense. They just mean copmpletely different things. "Wish You Were Here" represents a fairly egg-headed rock group indulging in a kind of tender moment of reflection for a friend who has been lost. It's pensive and touching and gentle and grandiose and if you listen to it in the right frame of mind it can make you blub. It's a song that's struck a chord with millions, and rightly so, I think. "The Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum)"...well it means "touch my bum, this is life". In other words it means we've reached a point were you can say anything, you can be crap beyond the wildest dreams of any surrealist theorist and you can kind of capture a moment in time and a have a massive hit. When that song was out I saw the video in Dixons, on about 25 TVs simultaneously, flatscreen, wide-screen, brash colour on MTV Hits. I'd seen The Cheeky Girls audition on Pop Idol, but I was still absolutely astonished that this record existed. I just stood there agog, and I was excited and delighted that pop music still had surprises in store for me. It could be the worst record ever made, it could be the most important pop record of its day - I just can't come up with the right criteria to judge that at all. I mean, "touch my bum"?? Bloody heck... We could learn a lot about ourselves from novelty records, Lawrence from Denim is right.

In fact, isn't it generally true that almost all great artists/bands are neither rock nor pop? Or a fusion of the two. Take Queen, for example. Too poodle-haired and overblown to be purely pop, but too camp and playful to be purely rock. What would you call Talking Heads? Stuffed to the gills with 'meaning', and yet a pop sensibility infuses everything they do. Kate Bush is both too weird to attract the guitar bores and too weird to attract the handbag-dancers. Ditto Bjork. Frank Zappa is both a serious musician/commentator and a brilliant pop star. And so on.

Alright, but for that to work you still have to have an idea of "pop" and "rock". As you say, I don't think there's a distinct, tidy divide. But there are the extremes. I think you can trace it back to the late 60s really. That's when rock and roll really bifurcated into rock and pop. Led Zeppelin are definitely rock, Pickettywitch were pop. David Bowie was a bit of both, if you pardon the expression.

I'd say that any act which is purely pop or purely rock is lacking something.

I'd disagree. I like those extremities. I like the stuff in the middle too, but you know...

Biology is a great track, but it's no Oliver's Army - it doesn't fuse feelgood goosepimples with 'meaning' and create something truly magical.

It's great in the way 'Don't You Want Me' or 'Karma Chameleon' was great. It's not a serious comment like 'Oliver's Army', I grant you. But that can be Elvis Costelloe's undoing too I feel. He can be sort of... preachy.

You do seem to have an odd criteria for judging the merit of a pop record though. You seem to demand lofty cultural references or political ideas or "Cor!" moments as I think you'd phrase it. That's interesting, but it seems a kind of narrow criteria to go by. And if you were to argue that the real reason, say, Pet Shop Boys are great is because they reference Debussy and Che Guevara in a top 10 hit, I'd say well that misses the fact that that reference was couched in absolutely brilliant pop production values in the first place.

[Ciarán]

Critical opinion on The Visitors is a lot higher than for most of their LPs, though. Had you cited "Abba - The Album" or "Ring Ring" as one of your favourite albums of all-time, you really would be out on a limb. While they're a terrific singles band, and I agree The Visitors to be their best LP, most Abba albums were and are uneven as hell. Even the first time round, I remember wincing and celebrating alternate tracks on Arrival and The Album. Both of which sold far, far more copies than The Visitors.

You're right and I didn't want to lie and claim 'ABBA' to be their best album or anything. But let's say you tell someone about a great ABBA album track - there are a few I think; 'Hey Hey Helen' is good glam-rock, 'My Love My Life' from 'Arrival' is one of their best ballads, 'If It Wasn't For The Nights' is a great disco track. There is a nice suite of songs at the end of 'ABBA - The Album' too; 'Thank You For The Music', 'I Wonder', 'I'm A Marionette'. Might the other person think "hang on, of all the music out there in the world you listen to ABBA album tracks??" How many people just don't bother with 'The Visitors' because it's an ABBA album?

I wonder if the post-modern/ironic aspect to Abba came in because for most of the 80s (indeed, until Abba Gold in 1992), they were virtually forgotten about. Once they split up, Agnetha and Frida had barely measurable solo careers, Benny and Bjorn wrote Chess with Tim Rice, but you almost never heard Abba records on the radio, and a posthumous live album in 1987 (their first on CD, I think) died on its proverbial.

Yes, I think they became a camp icon. It seemed to emerge from the gay scene, which is sort of underground. But it seems there was some repressed ABBA-loving there under the surface all along. I'm interested in how that came about. It's as if at some point during the 70s, some album-loving rock fans collectively listened to their sister's ABBA albums and decided: "No. This will not do!"

[chand]

I don't think it's all the same. I do like both Paris Hilton and experimental music, though. I don't think they're the same, but I like them for different reasons. I love Can and I love ABBA. It's the snotty idea that obviously Can are better and more "important" than ABBA that annoys me. Although I imagine ELW10 would argue that things have sort of flipped about and now ABBA are the sacred cow.

As others have said, ABBA are massively rated, since y'know, they're factually well-arranged pop songs. Still can't fucking stand them, personally, but I appreciate the craft and all that.

All I was trying to get at though, is that there are fundamental differences between how an independent/rock/experimental album is made and the way a pop album is made. The majority of pop albums I've heard have fuck-all worth hearing on them outside the singles, because if you've written a brilliant song, are you going to give it to someone to use as an album track, or will you give it to someone to use as a single? It's a whole different worldview, in that Girls Aloud don't have a philosophy. They're just singers. Which is fine, of course, there are times when I don't mind hearing pop like that, but I'm just glad that you'd then have labels like Constellation or Anticon releasing music the majors wouldn't touch, made by artists who don't have faces for MTV. That's another crucial element, the philosophy of major labels and pop is informed a lot by image. That's not my conspiracy theory or anything, watch someone overweight or ugly or with a big nose or no teeth try and get past Simon Cowell on the X Factor or whatever, he will flat out tell them that they can't be a pop star.

I'm glad pop exists, but there are limitations to it because of what major labels demand, and there are things you just cannot do with pop. The records that ultimately mean the most to me simply couldn't come through the same process that brought us Girls Aloud. I was at a festival here in Zagreb watching Sonic Youth and !!!, both of whom were absolutely amazing and have songs that are wonderfully Pop, but both of whom had to come through the indie label system. Nic Offer from !!! is not a conventional pop star, he's a gawky twat, and I'd love to have seen Kim Gordon go up in front of the Pop Idol judges and sing, pretty sure I know how that conversation would go.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

You do seem to have an odd criteria for judging the merit of a pop record though. You seem to demand lofty cultural references or political ideas or "Cor!" moments as I think you'd phrase it. That's interesting, but it seems a kind of narrow criteria to go by. And if you were to argue that the real reason, say, Pet Shop Boys are great is because they reference Debussy and Che Guevara in a top 10 hit, I'd say well that misses the fact that that reference was couched in absolutely brilliant pop production values in the first place.

No, I only cite singles like Cambodia and Don Quixote because they're extreme and obvious examples. I agree with you that radicalness in pop can be very subtle. She Loves You was a breath of fresh air in 1963 simply because it employed third-person narrative.

I'd say the reason Pet Shop Boys are great is because they produce brilliantly arranged/produced pop songs, but they're not just brilliantly arranged/produced pop songs - the songs are also 'about' Thatcherism, gay legislation and Battleship Potemkin. It's the mix that makes them great. If Opportunities or Young Offender were badly arranged/produced, they'd be rotten records, we can both agree there. But I'm not convinced by the idea that the 'meaning' is somehow a welcome-but-ultimately-optional extra - ie, that if Neil Tennant was singing banal lyrics the records would be just as good. It's the fusion that makes it.

[Ciarán]

As others have said, ABBA are massively rated, since y'know, they're factually well-arranged pop songs. Still can't fucking stand them, personally, but I appreciate the craft and all that.

All I was trying to get at though, is that there are fundamental differences between how an independent/rock/experimental album is made and the way a pop album is made. The majority of pop albums I've heard have fuck-all worth hearing on them outside the singles, because if you've written a brilliant song, are you going to give it to someone to use as an album track, or will you give it to someone to use as a single? It's a whole different worldview, in that Girls Aloud don't have a philosophy. They're just singers. Which is fine...

Yes, I don't care at all that they don't have a transparent philosophy. I do the philosophy bit myself when I start to try and work out what it is I love about their records. I'm suspicious of the idea of intention in music. Did the singer/writer of the song or the artist involved intend it to be taken this or that way? Is there a concrete meaning of this song that's being communicated directly by the artist to me? In my view, those kinds of questions are barking up the wrong path. Meaning is produced between the listener and the artist. Whatever the intention of a record, it kind of gets swallowed up in the overall meaning of it.  I'm not sure I'm being clear here. Maybe Girls Aloud just know a great pop song when it's handed to them, maybe they don't. That doesn't really matter to me. I assume Xenomania do know what they're doing, and I marvel at their talent.

...of course, there are times when I don't mind hearing pop like that, but I'm just glad that you'd then have labels like Constellation or Anticon releasing music the majors wouldn't touch, made by artists who don't have faces for MTV.

Agreed. It should take all sorts to make the world go round.

That's another crucial element, the philosophy of major labels and pop is informed a lot by image. That's not my conspiracy theory or anything, watch someone overweight or ugly or with a big nose or no teeth try and get past Simon Cowell on the X Factor or whatever, he will flat out tell them that they can't be a pop star.

Image plays a part in indie music too. At least, having some sort of stance/attitude/philosophy does. It's not as obviously crass as the X Factor/pop image thing, which can border on eugenics admittedly. It's still going on though. And part of my argument has been, it doesn't challenge the record industry or make it change at all. It's just a kind of mirror image of it.

I'm glad pop exists, but there are limitations to it because of what major labels demand, and there are things you just cannot do with pop.

Whereas you can literally do anything in experimental music, but it doesn't mean you have a big audience. Pop at its best is about the balancing act between not losing the casual listeners and being experimental. That's extraordinarily difficult to do. That takes genius. You can push pop music in different directions over time. All of the subgenres eventually become part of pop's language. And I don't think they're all just negated, I think they infect the mainstream, pollute it.

The records that ultimately mean the most to me simply couldn't come through the same process that brought us Girls Aloud. I was at a festival here in Zagreb watching Sonic Youth and !!!, both of whom were absolutely amazing and have songs that are wonderfully Pop, but both of whom had to come through the indie label system. Nic Offer from !!! is not a conventional pop star, he's a gawky twat, and I'd love to have seen Kim Gordon go up in front of the Pop Idol judges and sing, pretty sure I know how that conversation would go.

But auditioning still goes on in local indie band world, right? People still get judged by their record collection/references/haircut/t-shirt and so on. Desire plays a role in it. Wanting to belong to this or that subculture plays a part. Identifying oneself as being against the system in some way might play a role. What X Factor has done, is it's made the pop version of all of the transparent and, yes, it can be ugly.

[Ciarán]

No, I only cite singles like Cambodia and Don Quixote because they're extreme and obvious examples.

What do you think of other singles by those people; Kim's 'You Keep Me Hanging On' or 'Kids In America' or Nik's 'I Won't Let the Sun Go Down On Me'?

I'd say the reason Pet Shop Boys are great is because they produce brilliantly arranged/produced pop songs, but they're not just brilliantly arranged/produced pop songs - the songs are also 'about' Thatcherism, gay legislation and Battleship Potemkin. It's the mix that makes them great. If Opportunities or Young Offender were badly arranged/produced, they'd be rotten records, we can both agree there. But I'm not convinced by the idea that the 'meaning' is somehow a welcome-but-ultimately-optional extra - ie, that if Neil Tennant was singing banal lyrics the records would be just as good. It's the fusion that makes it.

It's impossible to imagine what they'd be like because we can't undo the Pet Shop Boys, the fact is they're there and they're great. But let's compare them with Erasure. They're often considered a poor man's PSB, because they get judged by PSB's standards. I think that's unfair. They make a different kind of pop. They're not obviously intellectual. That shouldn't go against them though. 

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Another record which it's genuinely difficult to have a "genuine" discussion about is 'I Should Be So Lucky'. It's so utterly bound up in its reception at the time - it used to be a just a symbol of trashy pop at its worst. Kylie was ridiculed as the toothy soap star puppet with the voice from hell, she was parodied by Little and Large and when Clive James named her "Woman Of The Decade" the air of sarcasm was palpable. But since then the meaning of that record has changed. It's become this music journalist "Ahh, you didn't think I'd like that did you, but I do!"  type record. How do you sidestep all of that and say "I like it now, I liked it at the time, it's not the most mind-blowing record in the world but it makes me happy" without getting a sceptical reaction or a kind of ironic agreement?

I was in a shop recently and they were pumping out Kylie's greatest hits. My thoughts on I Should Be So Lucky are the same now as they were in 1988 - it sounds lazy, cheap and nasty, both in terms of songwriting and production. Back in its day, mainstream chart pop included terrific records like Theme from S'Express or Somewhere In My Heart by Aztec Camera, so its success just baffled me.

The songwriting/production improved on tracks like Wouldn't Change a Thing and Never Too Late, but there was still something quite unsatisfying about them. And that's not because I object to their poppishness - it's because I don't think they're poppish enough. Kylie records don't really embrace the stupidity and glee of pop - they dip their toes in the pop waters, but never jump in headfirst and get their hair wet. Kylie records just sound twee. As Stephen Fry said about commemorative plates, 'They're ugly because they think they're beautiful'.  

[The Mumbler]

Nik's 'I Won't Let the Sun Go Down On Me'?

That one's about nuclear war, though, isn't it?

[Ciarán]

That one's about nuclear war, though, isn't it?

Is it? That idea completely passed me by, I must admit...

[The Mumbler]

Passed me by at the time, but the second verse:

"Mother nature isn't in it
Three hundred million years
Goodbye in just a minute
Gone forever, no more tears
Pinball man, power glutton
Vacuum inside his head
Forefinger on the button
Is he blue or is he red?
Break your silence if you would
Before the sun goes down for good
i won't let the sun go down on me
i won't let the sun go down..."

[Ciarán]

I was in a shop recently and they were pumping out Kylie's greatest hits. My thoughts on I Should Be So Lucky are the same now as they were in 1988 - it sounds lazy, cheap and nasty, both in terms of songwriting and production. Back in its day, mainstream chart pop included terrific records like Theme from S'Express or Somewhere In My Heart by Aztec Camera, so its success just baffled me.

How embarrassing and pathetic is this...I was 10 in 1988 and I fancied Kylie Minogue. she probably could have released any old tripe and I would have given it a chance. As it is, I think '...Lucky' in notable for a having a better verse melody than chorus. It was also the announcement of a new pop star. None of that should be relevant in judging great pop music, it's too subjective, but that IS relevant to it. Pop is as much about posters on the wall and tie-in TV programmes as it is just about the music. I didn't really understand house in 1988, much less bedsit indie pop of the Aztec Camera variety, but liked both of the singles you mention. I loved that pop was all of these different things; it was 'The Harder I Try' by Brother Beyond and 'Beat Dis' by Bomb The Bass and 'Martha's Harbour' by All About Eve. 'I Should Be So Lucky' is pop's "switch your brain off for a bit" moment par excellence. As for the music, it's Hi-NRG which I happen to like, and it does sound cheapo, but it didn't to me at the time. It sounded like lots of S/A/W records of its day, but that in itself was a distinctive sound. A tinny one, perhaps, but it reminds me of my childhood.

The songwriting/production improved on tracks like Wouldn't Change a Thing and Never Too Late, but there was still something quite unsatisfying about them. And that's not because I object to their poppishness - it's because I don't think they're poppish enough. Kylie records don't really embrace the stupidity and glee of pop - they dip their toes in the pop waters, but never jump in headfirst and get their hair wet. Kylie records just sound twee.

Did you see the TV programme about sex in pop music decade by decade a couple of years ago? I can't remember what it was called now... That made the point that after AIDS (i.e. sort of mid 80s onwards) pop had to reverse out of the avenue it had been going down - all of those hedonistic sex records; 'Antrap', 'Relax', 'You Think You're A Man' and so on. It suggested that 'West End Girls' was the first sobre, post-AIDS gay pop single. S/A/W had been making the campest Hi-NRG records imaginable in 1984, but by 1988 and their work with Kylie and Jason they practically wound pop back to Cliff Richard 'Summer Holiday' times. The lack of sex in those late 80s records is kind of haunting now.

As Stephen Fry said about commemorative plates, 'They're ugly because they think they're beautiful'.  

Ah, I like Fry but I find a lot to disagree with him over for some reason.

[Ciarán]

Passed me by at the time, but the second verse:

"Mother nature isn't in it
Three hundred million years
Goodbye in just a minute
Gone forever, no more tears
Pinball man, power glutton
Vacuum inside his head
Forefinger on the button
Is he blue or is he red?
Break your silence if you would
Before the sun goes down for good
i won't let the sun go down on me
i won't let the sun go down..."

Oh yeah! Hadn't thought of that before. Back in 1984, we should remember, tension about nuclear war was very much in the air. That verse wouldn't make much sense if it were in a record now. So how would we define the political climate of 2007? What kinds of things would you expect to find cropping up in today's pop records?

For all its dreadfulness, I thought Sandie Thom's 'I Wish I Was A Punk Rocker With Flowers In My Hair' was borne of people not really having any "cause" to identify with other than climate change maybe. But eco-songs have been done to death. I'm aware that Neil Tennant has said as much in the past, that Sandie Thom was trying to reconcile a dialectic. She yearns for a time when you had to allign yourself with something, in a way she doesn't feel able to today. It's quite a mid-00s concern in itself, after the failure of the anti-war protests.

Sorry I've lowered the tone now by mentioning that bloody thing.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

What do you think of other singles by those people; Kim's 'You Keep Me Hanging On' or 'Kids In America' or Nik's 'I Won't Let the Sun Go Down On Me'?

Well, You Keep Me Hanging On's a cover, so that's a difficult one. If The Supremes (with all their Supremes baggage) hadn't recorded it, would I have loved the Kim rendition? As you say, it's impossible to muse on, because if the Supremes hadn't existed then Kim wouldn't exist either.

One under-rated Kim Wilde single that everyone's forgotten is 1985's Rage to Love. I'd say that's an example of pop being a bit odd, but in a non-obvious way.

Nik Kershaw's singles were always odd, though, Don Quixote references or not. They were odd both lyrically and musically. Wouldn't It Be Good has an unusual structure and makes imaginative use of the recording studio. Hard to imagine something as earnest as Human Racing being recorded by a top-of-their-game pin-up now.

I never liked Erasure much. They just never seemed as (for want of a better word) tangy as PSB.

[The Mumbler]

Much as I enjoyed them at the time, Erasure rarely strayed outside the love-song territory, apart from their environmental single, Chorus. I guess even their love songs were mildly subversive, though, in the sense that they were gay love songs. Although I don't remember them ever actually putting in 'he's and 'him's like Bronski Beat or The Communards had done.

[Ciarán]

One under-rated Kim Wilde single that everyone's forgotten is 1985's Rage to Love. I'd say that's an example of pop being a bit odd, but in a non-obvious way.

Ah, this is what I'm getting  at. What about pop when it's NOT being a bit odd, or referencing something out of the ordinary. What do you think of that?

[Ciarán]

Much as I enjoyed them at the time, Erasure rarely strayed outside the love-song territory, apart from their environmental single, Chorus. I guess even their love songs were mildly subversive, though, in the sense that they were gay love songs. Although I don't remember them ever actually putting in 'he's and 'him's like Bronski Beat or The Communards had done.

Bronski Beat and The Communards were as brave as 80s pop got, lyrically and politically. Musically...they had their moments.

But Erasure, I don't think their songs are gay love songs specifically. Politically, they could be accused of bottling it. But the "waaaaahhh" bit in the chorus of 'Sometimes' is a MOMENT, don't you think?

[Neil]

There are a number of songs called "You Keep Me Hanging On", but this is my favourite of the lot - it's AWESOME, and fits right in here really.  Could never find any info about these gals or any more of their songs. 

Bonnie & Sheila - You Keep Me Hanging On

[The Mumbler]

Bronski Beat and The Communards were as brave as 80s pop got, lyrically and politically. Musically...they had their moments.

But Erasure, I don't think their songs are gay love songs specifically. Politically, they could be accused of bottling it. But the "waaaaahhh" bit in the chorus of 'Sometimes' is a MOMENT, don't you think?

Subversive, though, in the sense that Andy Bell was out very early in the duo's career. Certainly, by Sometimes, he was.

[Ciarán]

Subversive, though, in the sense that Andy Bell was out very early in the duo's career. Certainly, by Sometimes, he was.

My elder sister really fancied Andy Bell. It's a funny old world.

The video for 'Sometimes', I seem to remember, used a gay culture motif - the wet t-shirt thing. I wonder if at that moment anyone who hadn't hitherto realised Andy Bell was gay would have thought "ah!"

That link wouldn't play for me, Neil, might be a problem with the computer at my end though.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

What about pop when it's NOT being a bit odd, or referencing something out of the ordinary. What do you think of that?

I think that all good pop/rock is odd. I don't think there's such a thing as Just a Really Great Song, one that can exist in a vacuum. Mack the Knife is only a great song because Frank Sinatra sings it in an odd way. Banal love songs are dull. Would-be banal love songs which are written/performed in a slightly odd way, however, can be magical. It's why Patience by Take That is a worthless piece of music but Frankie Goes to Hollywood's The Power of Love is sublime. One is totally context-free, the other 'means' something.  

What do you think of these comments from Frank Zappa, made during his 1991 interview with Nicky Campbell on Radio 1?:

ZAPPA: In the early days, the groups were actually interested in saying something. Today, they're very interested in creating a piece of product which will be easily connected wth another product which will then yield an endorsement.

CAMPBELL: And shift units?

ZAPPA: Shift big units.

CAMPBELL: So in the early days, the good old days, all those groups in the 60s weren't interested in selling records?

ZAPPA: No, they were, they were interested in selling records, but the record was what was important, not the commercial tie-in with the beer, the soda pop or the tennis shoes. And I think today you have a situation where a lot of people who write songs have one eye on its secondary usage and may shape the song or the album itself so that it becomes more adaptable to that commercial application.

[Ciarán]

I think that all good pop/rock is odd. I don't think there's such a thing as Just a Really Great Song, one that can exist in a vacuum. Mack the Knife is only a great song because Frank Sinatra sings it in an odd way. Banal love songs are dull. Would-be banal love songs which are written/performed in a slightly odd way, however, can be magical. It's why Patience by Take That is a worthless piece of music but Frankie Goes to Hollywood's The Power of Love is sublime. One is totally context-free, the other 'means' something.  

We might get bogged down in defining "odd" now, oh dear. Any great pop is going to be remarkable by definition, there'll be something you can say about it, or something about it that does make it stand out in some way. If that's what you mean by "odd", then fair enough. "Shine" by Take That is an odd record, by that account. Of course it's not THAT odd, it's not going to turn into Nurse With Wound at any moment, but it's just different or distinctive enough.

ZAPPA: In the early days, the groups were actually interested in saying something. Today, they're very interested in creating a piece of product which will be easily connected wth another product which will then yield an endorsement.

CAMPBELL: And shift units?

ZAPPA: Shift big units.

CAMPBELL: So in the early days, the good old days, all those groups in the 60s weren't interested in selling records?

ZAPPA: No, they were, they were interested in selling records, but the record was what was important, not the commercial tie-in with the beer, the soda pop or the tennis shoes. And I think today you have a situation where a lot of people who write songs have one eye on its secondary usage and may shape the song or the album itself so that it becomes more adaptable to that commercial application.

I think Zappa gives to much attention over to the artist's intentions. It's the "artist" (i.e. in the art sense, I'm trying to avoid ambiguity there) as the source of great music. But I think there is the formal aspect there too, that needs to be considered. Let's imagine a record company exec with a new girl group on his hands. His overriding thought will be "How can I ensure these girls make me lots of money?" That's going to be the motive behind it - it's ugly but there it is. So, he searches around for songwriters or producers to back the project. He might stumble upon Cathy Dennis or Stannard/Rowe or Xenomania or Richard X or whoever. And those people may or not care about the work they do, but I suspect they do. They can't just write a hit to order necessarily. But they're skilled craftsmen. At best, they can chuck in the occasional subversive element (Rachel Stevens singing about anal sex and blow jobs for example). But the record they make will live or die by whetehr it chimes with people. Even with all the airplay and promo in the world some records just don't seem to cut the mustard.

It's an odd problem. Are the charts exclusively about which record's had the most airplay etc or is there some semblage of justice going on - is it true that to some extent bad records just do badly and good records do well? I think kids tend to know best. If I wanted to know if I had a massive hit on my hands, I'd play it to a child.

[Steve Thompson Dance Mix]

What do you think of other singles by those people; Kim's 'You Keep Me Hanging On' or 'Kids In America' or Nik's 'I Won't Let the Sun Go Down On Me'?

It's impossible to imagine what they'd be like because we can't undo the Pet Shop Boys, the fact is they're there and they're great. But let's compare them with Erasure. They're often considered a poor man's PSB, because they get judged by PSB's standards. I think that's unfair. They make a different kind of pop. They're not obviously intellectual. That shouldn't go against them though. 

Have to agree here. In fact Erasure were for a while in the mid to late 80s  a fairly acclaimed indie act in the press, and eventually married this and their technique, craft and sound to the mainstream where they have had,
certainly in the UK a far more succesful album career (in terms of chart positions at least, until recently). I have much respect for Erasure and enjoy much of their material, albeit the darker, gothic-electro tinged stuff. My problem, and I suspect many critics and ex fans who got a bit bored, was partly down to the lack of imagination in Andy's lyrics, their samey-ness, the archaic, fairytale, sentimenalist nature. Soundwise and melody wise I still feel they can produce some decent euphoric pop but they don't do themselves any favours with the often uninpiring image and presentation, whereas, the Pet Shop Boys are quite perfectionist in these areas, and lyrically they can to some extent educate and interest their audience. Obviously they aren't beyond the odd misfire, (The night I fell in love) but generally they are fantastic and like Erasure when they produce pop moments at their strongest quality, they transform the genre and modern music in general. Andy tends to think that the festival circuit and the reasons they haven't been invited to many UK festivals and haven't been featured in the media is due to homophobia, but I've always felt that this was bollocks. Although homophobia, I'm sure exists in the industry to some extent Glastonbury booked the Pet Shop Boys in 2000. Eeh, I remember the day when Erasure played Milton Keynes Bowl in 1990, supported by Was Not Was and Adamski.

Going back to Abba, I too love The Visitors. Although I love the infectious pop music of Dancing Queen, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Mamma Mia, etc, this album from the opening 'The Visitors' to the closing 'Like an angel passing through my room' in a period that 12 months later brought the devastating 'The Day Before You Came' produce a darker is sublime.

My interpretation of the Fry remark wasn't so much as 'oh I can't believe ABBA are actually really good, most pop is crap' but him being complimentary and generous with no hidden agenda. And he was right in the sense that ABBA did often work very hard on production and arrangments, to the extent that you felt a lot of generic pop music (say S/A/W) didn't, and it shows. That isn't to say out of the hundreds of songs S/A/W have made that they haven't produced some classics. I think Donna Summer's 'This time I know it's for real' is fantastic for example.

btw I've always liked 'Never Trust a stranger' by Kim Wilde, and 'Cambodia'.

[rudi]

Rough Trade (which I know is back now with major backing)

That's not true, by the way.

Oh, and Frank's version of Mack the Knife is boring. The song is great, but not his version.

There's more, but my very drunk girlfriend's just stumbled in! See you tomorrow, folks.
x

PS: Erasure, live, were a ball. And very very gay.

[Edit} Ooh - she's straight to bed, smashing.

Sorry the above seems all negative - 'tis a fine thread n'all.

Ah - I was going to link to the thing about RT, wasn't I?

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/44396-rough-trade-bought-by-beggars-group