To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
First of all, “pop” really only means one thing. Top 40 radio saturated million selling hits, performed by artists who are interchangeable and ultimately disposable. From cute kid groups (Jacksons, Osmonds, New Kids, Kris Kross) to sultry divas (Nancy Sinatra, Pat Benatar, Madonna, Whitney Houston) to hunky heartthrobs (Elvis, Rod Stewart, George Michael, Vanilla Ice), the names change but the song remains the same: slickly produced verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus. Monster hooks and monster sales, fame and fortune, until the next big thing comes along.
As for Matthew Sweet, Paul Westerberg, and Dr. Dre, none of these guys qualify as pop. The only one whose sales might justify the tag is Dr. Dre; however, the phenomenon that he is a part of has little to do with pop. Rap has found a huge and replenishable market in the same area traditionally held by heavy metal: adolescent males. Black Sabbath and Rush sold millions of records with no “star-making machinery,” radio play, or hip rock crits dubbing them “the new pop.” In the same way, acts like Public Enemy, N.W.A., and 2 Live Crew connected with the hormone fueled teenage masses. MTV has been supplying the demand for rap (as it did early on with metal), but it certainly didn’t create it. As for Sweet, I guess you could call painstakingly emulating 60s music in typical white-bread fashion an attempt to aspire to “pop,” but despite respectable sales on his last album, I doubt he has enough widespread appeal to get there. And rock crit darling Westerberg will never pull it off because he can’t sing, isn’t good-looking, and hasn’t written a good song since the mid-80s, even by indie rock standards.
Bill Wyman replies:
