Entertainment For Lively Minds
Has Pop Gone Posh?
Posted by Mr Sparks on 28 January 2011 - 3:13pm.
asks the BBC Today Programme website, heavily quoting The Word.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9373000/9373158.stm
I think there may be a point so far as the recent crop of pop stars is concerned, but does it matter?
Is pop smug and middle class and has it lost its rebellious streak?
- More from Mr Sparks.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Hasn't it always been posh?
Look at Pink Floyd or the Fairports.
Nothing much new about it being posh. There's room for everyone.
If you needed proof...
Blunts mum has sent a note!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12308068
It's been picked up by the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/28/james-blunt-mother-posh-pop
More important,
has pop gone pish?
Answer - yes.
"Middle class kids
make the best rock and roll"
Iggy said that.
Doesn't...
...middle class have a slightly different meaning in the US, though? When I hear American politicians and TV hosts using it, it seems to mean more like lower-middle-class or the ordinary working man. It's always being used with an implied "hard-pressed", whereas over here it's used with an implied "soft and privileged".
I'm sure one of the US Massive will clear that up, because I've wondered about it before.
Not from the US myself by
Not from the US myself by Mrs Bobcat is and she has mentioned the difference a few times before.
correct
In the US middle class would be your working class. So lower class people are those that have zero money. On welfare etc.. Middle Class would be people like builders, truck drivers, factory workers, etc.. Upper Class would be executives, middle to upper management people, lawyers, doctors etc..
Don't think that's correct...
In the uk we don't generally say lower class anyway but rather working class and their (my) peers in America are usually referred to as blue collar workers (such as builders, factory workers etc.), middle-class denotes (as it does here)'management, average lawyers, school teachers etc. And upper class (not term used often over there) would usually refer to the old money families of the north east. Modern day blurring of boundaries are the same as here, where old class stereotypes, if bases purely on profession = income, no longer hold if a plumber makes more than an IT drone in a call centre, even though traditionally White collar jobs were seen as being more 'middle class' than blue collar.
I think it depends on where
I think it depends on where you are from. I was born in the Midwest. So everyone was pretty poor and old money families of New England were of no concern. In fact the whole of New England was seen as almost a different country. Especially New York.
We considered anybody with a decent job to be middle class. There were blue collar middle class, like factory workers. Then white collar middle class, like teachers, lower management etc.. Upper class was anybody that made over $250,000 a year. So doctors, good lawyer stuff like that.
But I think class definition in the US is more fluid. As it tends to matter more how much income you make in relation to where you live. For example, My father in law is a lawyer in Boston. There he is upper middle class. Where back home where I was born. He'd be considered rich and upper class. Not sure if it's that way in all of the US. Just that's how it was when I was growing up.
But as you say, the lines are getting blurred. So it might be totally different now
I honestly don't give a monkey's...
...where someone's from as long as they make good music. I find the "I'm dead working class, me" posturing from most bands hilarious, but it all traces back to Lennon and beyond. Working Class Hero he wasn't. There's always been lots of middle class kids in the charts.
I suppose the issue is whether there's equality of opportunity, and actually I think there is. It's just that the sound of poor urban Britain has nothing to do with guitars any more. If Roger Daltrey was growing up today, he wouldn't be a singer in a rock band.
Not sure I entirely agree...
... on the whole 'equality of opportunity' thing, when you consider that there are so many people who get a helping hand into the industry due to their family background or the circles they move in accordingly. Lily Allen and Eliza Doolittle spring immediately to mind, or the various graduates of the Brit School. Obviously they're talented people, but there are undoubtedly benefits to such backgrounds which the average talented performer from outside such circles won't necessarily have. Of course, that's not unique to the entertainment industry - though it's arguably where it's most visible.
I completely agree, though, that it really doesn't matter what their background is as long as their music is good, and the idea that coming from a humble background or having a bad life somehow makes you a better or more 'authentic' artist is rather daft.
Where's the line...
...between learning and putting a band together on the dole, developing under a record company deal, or family wealth supporting you ? Apart from the quantity of money that is.
Otherwise I'm a dittohead on this one. It's irrelevant and sounds like an invented story for a quiet news day based on inverted snobbery.
I had no idea that Laura
I had no idea that Laura Marling was considered "posh" and, to be honest, it doesn't change my opinion that she she produced one of the finest albums of last year.
I've never bought into the myth that being working class lends your art an air of credibility.
She's a very well-spoken woman.
And that makes, as you say, no difference whatsoever to the extremely high quality of both her albums, and especially the last one.
I like her: she's unforthcoming with the press, fiercely private (they all want to ask her about shagging the Noah boy and the Mumford boy, she always gives them short shrift), absolutely unconcerned about accusations of cliqueyness and privilege, and just lets her work talk for her. She's great.
It really doesn't matter, does it?
As far as I can tell, the whole pre-occupation with class is a very British disease anyway. I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, because when I'm being reactionary, I'm as obsessed with class as anyone, but if there's anywhere where it's not important, it's the pop charts.
If I reflect very carefully I'd say most of
my favourite artists come from comfortably off and / or college educated backgrounds.
Dylan - never 'suffered' for his art, Richard Thompson - comfortable background, also never done a day's proper work in his life, Leonard Cohen - lived off a trust fund to fulfil his creative ambitions.
So what? All brilliant artists. If anything I envy them their talent & the opportunity to pursue it - but their success is all entirely deserved.
On old Fogey writes:
Actually, I think there is something in it, if one restricts oneself to considering what is now -for no reason at all - still called Indie; it largely seems to consist of ex-boarding school kids slumming it.
Urban music, or whatever Youngsters call it nowerdays, seems to be much more the domain of ambitious members of the servant classes. innit.
Interesting area
I wouldn't judge a record based on the background of the artists. But that doesn't mean that class isn't a fascinating and important factor in pop and rock history.
It used to be considered desirable to appear working class even if you weren't, in the sixties - being working class was cool in that era, although most of those who acted that way were probably really middle class, then come British prog rock in the seventies it seemed OK to be posh - in fact a number of the big players in that period were from public school and nobody minded. Next with punk things went the other way and it was even more essential to pretend to be working class and again there was much fakery. This tendency continued with indie, and with Manchester baggy it seems there was really genuine working class involvement, and of course there was the posh versus working class Blur and Oasis business. But overall I reckon have been few really working class performers in rock.
And in recent time being posh is acceptable once more - in fact I'd say the whole festival going, playing in a band thing has become dominated by the privileged. I guess the cost factor comes into it. It's clearly easier if you are posh. Similarly the well off in the past had a definite advantage over the rest of the population if they wanted to become artists - e.g. painters and writers - they could live off trust funds, had no need to work. Then again they often ended up destitute if they didn't make it, since the tolerance and indulgence of their families became strained, especially with those who ploughed their own seemingly bloody minded, uncompromising furrow. So it took guts to stick with it and maintain belief. Same with music. For most it's just a phase in youth.
I'd agree that this depends on the genre of music. Rock is once more the realm of the better off and that's were the interest comes from. It's not a reason to dismiss the music but it seems that when there was that working class involvement the scene had more going for it - more vitality, something to kick against. Nowadays it looks like the interest of the working classes is more in hip hop and it's related forms.
For me, that is exactly the point.
The problem, for me, isn't whether a band's roots are working, middle or upper class. What is important is if they pretend to be something else. I found Damon's appropriation of (southern) working class imagery, vocabulary and accent to be a bit presumptuous. I found some of the music to be excellent. Did it matter? It did, a bit.
The reason it matters is because of why working class will always be cooler than middle class. You can't achieve working classdom by working at it. Even if you drop down in terms of earning, you're still going to be viewed as middle class by those born into it. My theory is that the working classes and the upper classes have more in common with each other than with the middles classes. As I've mentioned, you have to be born into it, or those with birthright won't have it, you don't technically own your own home, you're more at home with ostentaion than I am, you've probably got more gold than I have, you've probably got a bigger telly than me and so on. The middle classes are 'triers', which I think is admirable, but I would, wouldn't I? Why is this a problem for songwriters and musicians?
I think music is something that people like to keep a little bit mysterious. Keef, Van and numerous others claim that their only input into songwriting is catching hold of them with the antenae. Those who are organised and, ironically, 'workmanlike' can be written off with the often utilised damning with faint praise, "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration". Lacking personality, lacking character, bland and possibly a bit scared (if you believe The Daily Mail). These are the stereotypes that put people off saying they're middle class.
To draw a dubious analogy, working class is (whether real or not) vintage acoustic guitars. Middle class is a keytar. The La's are working class, Menswear were middle class.
All of which is to make sweeping generalisations, most of which are media inventions. I guess lazy journalism loves a sob story - The X Factor, John Lennon. Gasp! Eh? Yes, there're similarities, except if Lennon was new in 2011, we'd hear nothing but his early (genuinely) tragic life. I think he might have milked it a bit in the 70's, but I also don't doubt he had a genuinely shit time, in some respects. He was also, lest we forget, utterly brilliant as well.
But he wasn't working class. Ringo was. George, in all likelihood, Paul, not really.
The alternative is those who inhabit characters, which Damon might well have claimed. And that's okay, except he found himself up against the real deal, on the hallowed turf (pfff) of Britpop. Playing at being working class was fine until Oasis got big. Being working class was up against pretending to be working class.
Authenticity won, but then again, Blur went down the toilet a bit, musically and lyrically at that point. Oasis weren't great, but Morning Glory was what it seemed to be. Which was more than you could say for The Great Escape.
To conclude, working classdom, like royalty can only really be inherited or married into. And even then you'll be the posh/plebby one. It's cooler to be working class because it implies you're not trying, it comes naturally. Natural is cool, artificial is not. Which translates as 'real' vs 'pretend'. Music, being looked at mystically by many who don't like to analyse it too much (another middle class preoccupation and also uncool) is more working class/upper class because they're not the ones trying so bloody, ruddy hard. They're sat in banana bushes, antenae out, doing what comes naturally. And you can't match that with all the doing your damned best.
The reality bears little similarity to my little (?!) theory, but that's how I think the media does it and I think the artists are (mainly) trying to get the better angle. "Working class kid breaks out of slums, deprivation and misery to eternal Rock and roll lifestyle is better copy than "Middle class kid chooses alternative lifestyle with the help of his indulgent parents who knew someone in the sixties". It's all bollocks of course, but I wonder what's brought on the change in attitude?
I wonder if The Daily Mail et al have blown it for the working classes by spending some of their time aiming their indignation at 'benefit scroungers'. I'm sure there's a lot more to it than I've realised. I can feel myself disagreeing with myself already. At which point...
Sorry for the ridiculously long post, I didn't intend it to be like this.
Well
I think pretending to be what you are not is just part of being a pop or rock star. Similarly part of the appeal of being a painter or writer is the attraction of the romantic idea of an artist, being a bohemian who escapes the usual fate of a 9 to 5 job and other tedious responsibilities. It's all that dressing up and it can get a bit childish and silly but it's often entertaining for us. Thing is, if you love the records you go along with it and tolerate the occasional twattish tendencies of your idols, maybe even defend them, yet those same qualities become unbearable with those whose records you dislike, then again there are those musicians who can be loved for their music even though they are rather hopeless human beings a lot of the time.
All this pretending is part of rock and pop's rich tapestry and game and what makes it entertaining. A great record can be a deeply felt and meant statement and it can also be daft, stupid and apparently meaningless and both approaches can come from the same act on different occasions.
Ridiculously long post
I didnt think it was ridiculously long, I thought it made a lot of good points.
keep it coming.
The best art comes from anger
From people having issues and therefore something to say.
I don't see or hear much anger in pop music anymore. Just people building their careers. It's no surprise that they also tend to branch out into acting, tv presenting, perfume selling etc.
I would suggest however that anger on its own...
as the basis for someone making music has probably resulted in more appalling records than anything else. See Limp Bizkit and other "Muh Daddy wusuh bastard" bands for proof.
John Lennon was, by all accounts, quite angry. But he channelled it for the most part into making music of unparalleled joyousness. That is how you do it.
I recall
an angry young man from a public school background with a diplomat daddy who ruffled quite a few feathers.
Shame there aren't a few more like him today because we sure as hell could do with it.
"The best art comes from anger"
It really doesn't, I don't reckon. Some good art comes from anger. But historically, most art - whether execrably bad or celestial genius - came from people being paid to do a job of work.
The whole idea of the tortured and/or badly behaved artist probably caught on with Mozart and Byron, and was perpetuated by poor old Van Gogh, but to imagine that you have to be cross or naughty to be a great artist is wrong, IMO: Mozart and Byron behaved like that because they had the talent (and in Byron's case the money) to be able to do pretty much what they liked. They didn't have the talent because they behaved like that.
Same with John Lennon, for example. He wasn't talented because he was angry. He was probably angry in part because he was talented. There's only one thing harder than not having any peers when you're operating at that level, and that's having a peer: not only was Lennon not understood by almost anyone, he also had McCartney to compete with, who was in many ways much more than a match for him. If I had Lennon's talent and by some total freak of circumstance ended up working closely with someone who was probably a genius of some sort, I'd probably spend ten years off my tits on LSD too. It must have been so galling.
But to return to the original point, patronage has produced a lot more sensational art than the spontaneous urgings of the emotions. It's tempting to think of art as being pure like that, but I'd be inclined to agree with Patrick and suggest that anger's probably produced as much shit art as good.
Posh gone pop?
A welcome move away from that dreadful r'n;b thing with Mr Bowers.
The Music I like The Most
just happens to be made by people whose class is I think similar to mine which is working class bordering on middle class. Class is important It can determine the music we like and identify with.I think it is important that the working class is represented in popular music but I think there is a distinction between the educated and uneducated working class and the urban and suburban working class/middle class.
For example I identify much more with XTC a working class band with an intelligent outlook than Oasis a working class band who got lucky with a couple of songs/albums who could write anthems that appealed to the masses but were not smart IMO.
So class is important but when I hear a song that is catchy I don't automatically think class. I think is it catchy ? is it intelligent ? regardless of class there are many unintelligent dirge like middle class bands too.
Everything Everything I think are middle class whereas, Field Music I think are more working class but the class boundaries are more blurred now but I love both bands anyway cause they are catchy and smart regardless of class
The Music I like The Most
twice