The Popularity Paradox: Why Do We Hate Pop Culture?

I've been thinking about that aspect, too. I doubt we ever foresaw a
time when liking “popular” music would actually be an act of defiance.
Of course, we also live in the age of post-ironic mockery, so perhaps
the act of simply enjoying something for its own merit *is*
revolutionary.

Bingo. This is my favorite comment in quite awhile — and not solely
due to the use of dermatophyte. Thanks for that.

I had a similar anecdote which I cut out from this post involving
Nirvana's “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” More than just hating it when it
came out, what frustrated me even more was realizing that MTV was
going to hammer us with that video until we all embraced grunge — and
that I'd eventually be too numb to argue.

And now, 20 years later, I'm actually happy when “Smells Like Teen
Spirit” comes on the radio — because, compared to all the crap that's
come after, that song doesn't sound nearly so bad, does it?

In a former life, I worked in the radio industry.

Most every station (especially the ones with corporate control), divide all songs into different categories.

For example, my old station had the following classifications:
A – HOT music NOW – TODAY'S biggest hits – This had about 7-10 songs in it and we played an average of 3 per hour. A song stayed here for about 2-3 weeks
B – Music on the way up to A or on the way down. – About 15-20 songs, with 3-4 played per hour. A song could live there for 6 weeks or more.
C – New Music – We added 4-7 new songs a week (well above average) and played 1-2 an hour. This category had about 10 songs in there, never for more than 2 weeks at a time.
R – (I forgot what it stood for!) – Really, really good songs that didn't fall into any of the other categories. We probably played 5-9 of these an hour. This is where most songs lived permanently, after their C-B-A-B progression.
X – Crazy stuff that we played just a few times per day. Classics, stuff that was fun and our audience loved, but didn't quite fit the format.

I know this doesn't really address the ENTIRE issue, but gives some insight into the radio world!

Mike: Was that a pop radio format? It actually sounds amazingly
liberal compared to the current playlists we're subjected to.

I was a college DJ and we had our own “clock” that indicated when
songs from specific classifications should be played. Problem was, no
one followed it. Bigger problem was, the station manager reported our
top 30 to CMJ (College Music Journal) somewhat arbitrarily; she'd look
at what the other colleges had reported last week, and then report
about 20 of their albums and 10 of ours, regardless of whether or not
we actually played (or even had copies of) those 20 albums.

Why?

Because if she didn't report the same “top performers” as everyone
else, those labels wouldn't keep sending us the albums we actually
*did* want. Pay to play, yo.

Ah, the secret lives of influencers…

Have you taken a listen to rap music lately? Its totally deteriorated even worse than pop rock has. It appears that record labels & radio stations want to feed today's music listeners dumb & dumber lyrics and, guess what, they're buying. Why? I wish I knew but as long as we keep buying it they'll keep pumping it out.

The pop music scene has never been as banal as it is today. The disco classics of the 70's, at one time the object of scorn & mockery, seem like slivers of genius compared to today's music. At the end of the day, if you like what's playing on the radio and feel you've being programmed somehow, so what? No need to hate yourself. We've been programmed one way or another since childhood anyway and some of us still are: If you don't go to college, you won't be successful. If you have pimples, you won't get laid. Cool people drink Coke. Chicks will overlook you if you have thin or balding hair. etc.

Want something different? Spend some time online and read any of the many excellent music blogs out there (@earfarm @gorillavsbear @altsounds @stereogum) and check out the many great bands being ignored by mainstream radio that are producing excellent music.

But if you like Lady Gaga & Lil Wayne, it's OK. You can still live a productive and rewarding life. Just don't beat up on your kids, drive drunk, cheat on your spouse or cheer for the NY Yankees. Then you'll really have a reason to be ashamed of yourself.

Nuff said.

Personally, at 15, I hated “Smells Like teen Spirit.” Not that I was
a hair metal fan, either. But Nirvana just struck me as noise and
purposeful laziness.

“Come as You Are” and “In Bloom” were, in my opinion, better. And,
later, “Heart-Shaped Box” and “All Apologies.” I realize in
retrospect that none of them would have been possible had MTV not
first embraced “Teen Spirit” and “Lithium,” but I still hated them at
the time.

Related: I almost vomited the other day when I caught myself singing
along with a Puddle of Mudd song. Evidently, my righteous indignation
toward crap has a shelf life of about a decade, after which time I'll
even accept the knock-off of a knock-off of something I used to
detest.

But still probably never Creed.

Probably.

Justin,

First, as to my personal music, I'm actually anti-Radiohead and anti-Wilco for the same reasons, in the critical clique, as you say most people are anti-pop. I actually think that the pop music of '09-'10 is an improvement from the complete cesspool that it has been since grunge died off and was replaced by the nonstop parade of bland r&b garbage.

As to why persons say they hate being programmed but programmers seem to be moving things further away from what these individuals would prefer, I think the marketers/programmers realize that it's a lack of ROI to try to satisfy that audience. There IS an audience that will listen to Ke$ha three times in an hour and are probably more willing to purchase Coors Light and the newest Madden for Xbox or whatever else is being hawked by those media outlets. As for the audience that prefers My Morning Jacket, their preferences are likely for purchases that either don't have a vast marketing budget or simply don't need one.

This comment string totally triggered thoughts of Stockholm syndrome, where a hostage falls in like/love with his or her captor. The way we learn to cope with forced situations is really intriguing, and I'd agree that there's a heavy push to love pop music to a degree that actually gets us tapping our toes, but grudgingly. Pop culture is holding us hostage, and we're learning to grin and bear it? Maybe?

Hi Justin,
Remember me? We met on #blogchat last Sunday. I don't listen to much Pop Music, but that shouldn't surprise you. I am 60! Your statement: “But they are the ones the record labels have decided to promote. And if they’re promoted enough, they become popular by sheer force of marketing will.” reminds me of the old days of Payola. Big scandal, not unlike what went on with Quiz Shows in the 50s. The bottom line was/is that these companies were controlling our minds, dictating our likes and dislikes.

Music becomes very personal, sometimes a song is playing in the background when you are experiencing a dramatic life event. The music becomes imprinted on our brain. My oldest son is getting married in October. (Picture PhishPhan) He recently asked guests to submit 10 songs that they would like the DJ to play at the wedding. I took this assignment very seriously, even told him what each song meant to me.
I have a feeling I will be lucky to hear “Moon River”…good memories of my parents and falling in love, etc. Days long ago when a great movie had a great song…and you learned every word.

Thanks for your provocative post.

You are correct about the Breakfast at Tiffany's…also there was supposedly a huge battle over who should sing the song. They did not want Audrey Hepburn to sing the song, they wanted another singer to do it and she would lip-sync. She was the one that insisted she wanted to sing it.
But no one sang it like Andy Williams. I have his autograph from when he appeared at the San Diego Fair in the mid 60s…whew!

Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer had so many great hits.

I definitely appreciate where you're coming from on this one. When I was in middle school, I was hopelessly out of the pop loop. The “cool” thing in a small town is to rebel. I didn't listen to the radio at all.

Fast forward a few years, my family moved provinces, and I found myself in a new school, desperate to make friends. It didn't take long to realize that the “cool” thing was American Eagle and pop radio, and so I found myself immersing myself in that lifestyle. I've remained a pop music fan, and I don't regret that decision at all, but it led to something unfortunate: I became at Jonas Brothers fan at the age of 17. Pop radio was still “cool” at that age, but the average age of a JoBros fan was 14. I had completely missed the boat. So, after a few years of hiding my secret shame, I began to embrace the “ironic” side of teenybopper pop.

Yes, I know that Disney's marketing team is sucking out my soul. Yes, I'm aware that Miley Cyrus isn't THAT talented. I get that deliberately and obviously NOT selling sex (through the use of three highly publicized purity rings) is just as lucrative as selling sex. I know. I'm in college, studying integrated marketing communications.

But that won't stop me from “ironically” putting the new Hannah Montana album on my iPod.

There's one glaring problem with the premises here, though. Pop Radio is specifically targeted towards Teens, and neither you nor your friends are anywhere near that age bracket at this time.

I will point out that the 80s' popularity with Pop Radio actually had very little to do with the socio-political culture — Reagan was in the White House, and while he was a nice guy, he really wasn't any better than GWB. No, the 80s saw a great surge in Pop Radio because of .. the novelty of MTV. Pop Music was who got the funding to make those videos that brought us into this weird new world of visual music…. “Video Killed the Radio Star” was very true.

Since then, the radio execs who really do control what is popular music have been trying to figure out how to recapture that golden age of force feeding the public the current trends in music. The easiest target market for this are teens, of course, so pop music radio stations are really geared towards that demographic. Once we grow out of our teenage years, we grow out of pop music as well by either realizing that we don't actually like pop music, or we cling to what we did like when it was popular (which keeps it off current radio). Those few who do like to keep up with the current trends don't necessarily like to do so via the radio, which also comes with commercials, banter, and other items which will be fundamentally targeted towards teens.

There’s one glaring problem with the premises here, though. Pop Radio is specifically targeted towards Teens, and neither you nor your friends are anywhere near that age bracket at this time.nnI will point out that the 80s’ popularity with Pop Radio actually had very little to do with the socio-political culture — Reagan was in the White House, and while he was a nice guy, he really wasn’t any better than GWB. No, the 80s saw a great surge in Pop Radio because of .. the novelty of MTV. Pop Music was who got the funding to make those videos that brought us into this weird new world of visual music…. “Video Killed the Radio Star” was very true. nnSince then, the radio execs who really do control what is popular music have been trying to figure out how to recapture that golden age of force feeding the public the current trends in music. The easiest target market for this are teens, of course, so pop music radio stations are really geared towards that demographic. Once we grow out of our teenage years, we grow out of pop music as well by either realizing that we don’t actually like pop music, or we cling to what we did like when it was popular (which keeps it off current radio). Those few who do like to keep up with the current trends don’t necessarily like to do so via the radio, which also comes with commercials, banter, and other items which will be fundamentally targeted towards teens.

Hi Justin,nnI think you are correct in your final analysis. I have never been able to resolve the paradox of my despising present pop culture while harbouring a nostalgic enjoyment of past pop culture. I also cannot stand the “indie darlings” which Pitchfork programs the indie kids to blindly adopt as “relevant and artistic.” I realized this when I worked at a hipster bar and they played indie radio all day. I hate hearing Sleigh Bells and Sufjan Stevens all day just as much as Gaga, despite the fact that I loved these artists when I first heard their albums. nnWhat is offensive is not necessarily the musical content itself, but rather the form of its presentation; the normative aspect which requires that you like THESE “artists” and THESE singles. This is why I can throw on a Third Eye Blind or Jimmy Eat World cd in my car and not want to gouge out my eardrums: when heard in a context of free choice, pop music, indie, etc. takes on a more aesthetic – and hence, enjoyable – aspect rather than one of normativity, social pressure, and manipulation – all of which are antithetical to a genuine aesthetic experience. nnThat said, to partially contradict this analysis, I do -to a certain degree- think that contemporary pop music is objectively shit. I agree in a sense with Gwen who identifies the important point of “manufactured desire.” Benjamin Barber points this out in his fantastic book, “Consumed.” The idea here is that cultural industry in contemporary capitalism is primarily driven by “tweens” who, counterintuitively enough, have the largest proportion of expendable income for “cultural commodities.” Thus, you have an entire cultural industry targetting – and being determined by – 9-14 year olds looking desperately for an identity to cling to . nnThis is precisely why pop music sucks so much: it is specifically created to encapsulate what Herbert Marcuse identified as “repressive desublimation.” That is to say, budding adolescents engage with these “artists” insofar as the identity of that commodity represents a type of desublimation. Thus, you get insecure boys buying into the whole “gangster” image of hyper-masculinity; girls buying into “ideal-desired-objects” of Katy Perry, etc. Now, don’t forget that all these “artists” are marketed primarily as “total packages,” with clothing lines, fragrances, hair products, etc. This is where the “repressive” aspect comes in. You capitalize on youth’s existential and sexual longings for identity, confidence, etc. and then allow them to “desublimate” these needs through a framework which presents the only options available as ones which are profitable. To an extent, this also describes genres of “punk” “goth” and “indie” etc., where, paradoxically, the desire to be transgressive s encapsulated in a “lifestyle” commodity which you can purchase. Want to “fight the man?” buy these clothes and this cd, and so on.nnThus, while certain elements of “pop” are undeniably catchy, they are “catchy” in the same way as the theme song for “mini-wheats” commercials is: They are meant to stick in your head, they are silly, fun, and perhaps, good to get drunk and grind on the dance floor to. However, would you ever really throw any of these tunes on a record player and just sit there – sober- and listen to for hours the way you might with Radiohead, Pink Floyd, or Brahms for that matter? Of course not; they are manufactured to have maximum immediate gratification and “stickiness” but not depth or genuine musical value. How much money did companies make when I bought OK Computer and listened to mainly only that album for an entire year vs. Buying a new shitty pop album each week on I-Tunes as well as the poster, the perfume, the lip-gloss, the clothes, etc?