Conclusion: Popular Music, Aesthetic Value, and Materiality
CONCLUSION: POPULAR MUSIC, AESTHETIC VALUE, AND MATERIALITY Popular music has been accused of being formulaic, homogeneous, man- ufactured, trite, vulgar, trivial, ephemeral, and so on. These condemna- tions have roots in aspects of the Western aesthetic tradition, especially its modernist and expressivist branches, according to which great art innovates, breaks and re-makes the rules, expresses the artist’s personal vision or unique emotions, or all these. Popular music has its defenders. But they have tended to appeal to the same inherited aesthetic criteria, defending some branches of popular music at the expense of others― valorising its artistic, expressive, innovative, or authentic branches against mere ‘pop’. These evaluations are problematic, because they presuppose all along a set of criteria that are slanted against the popular fi eld. We therefore need new frameworks for the evaluation of popular music. These frameworks need to enable us to evaluate pieces of popular music by the standards proper to this particular cultural form―to judge how well these pieces work as popular music, not how successfully they rise above the popular condition. To devise such frameworks we need an account of popular music’s standard features and of the further organising qualities and typical val- ues to which these features give rise. Popular music normally has four layers of sound―melody, chords, bass, and percussion―and each layer is normally made up of repetitions of short elements, these repeti- tions being aligned temporally with one another, with whole sections of repeated material then being repeated in turn to constitute song sections. © The Author(s) 2016 249 A.
[Show full text]