One of the most common sentiments I find reading reviews of records is the strange elitism against pop records. Perhaps this may be a product of my general interest in more experimental music skewing the sort of people I encounter talking about music, but it is not hard to find people who berate records for featuring simple lyrics, song structures, composition, instrument playing, etc. Who center their criticism on the simplicity and alleged consequential triteness of these elements, which I think is misguided.

Admittedly, it is a very easy element to criticize, as subjective as art can be, music is one of those types of art that is backed by a long history of snobby elitism and is propped up by a lot of theory whose application can provide a piece of music agreeable to most people (and whose principles have been instilled by default in the mind of human beings) and for which its complexity can be quantified with relative ease. This leads to 'objective' criticism being a common avenue, naturally this has its merits; well-made, knowledgeable analysis of musical pieces is a particularly interesting form of literature, especially if one is interested in music production and composition, case in point: me. Though this has devolved with time, talking analytically about music is hard and requires actually knowing music theory, leading to much criticism of music being based on the concept of 'simple = bad', critics fancying themselves too sophisticated for such things as the C major chord and the ABABCB song structure, blind to the actual song itself, this deconstructed into emotionless elements to assess as if it were schoolwork.

Music, despite its very academic elements, is, as most art, ultimately a vessel for emotions, therefore to exclusively consider and evaluate music in its objective elements is misguided and severely limits one's perspective. I believe it is far more valuable to consider music in terms of both the emotions that it presents and the ones that it transmits to the eventual listener, not only given the fact that this will provide more unique perspectives on a given work, but also because the emotions that a record provides relate better to its 'value' than the quality or inventiveness of its objective elements..

Take for example: the pop song, rarely are pop songs particularly interesting compositionally, despite this they are immensely popular and liked by a large part of the population, otherwise they wouldn't be popular. Therefore one can assume that most of the listeners who like this music are guided by emotions, its value to these is linked and likely entirely based on the emotions that these tracks provide, a large part of the population has little to no knowledge of music theory, and therefore puts little interest on the pure compositional part of a track. A catchy melody and chorus is sufficient in these cases, as can be evidenced by most pop music.

One can, though, argue that perceived simplicity of a given work can sour the emotions provided by a record, which is correct, but is ultimately somewhat of an elitist point of view, and is a shortsighted way to look at music, the greatness of a piece of music isn't entirely relative to however unique its compositional elements are, whilst the quality of these elements is a factor to consider, this view gives an immense amount of weight to the raw compositional elements of a piece of music, it deconstructs something that should otherwise be rated and analyzed in a holistic manner. Other elements could instead sour the emotions presented by a record; this being a lack of emotions, presented, failure at presenting succinctly one's points, a sense of 'illegitimacy', feeling of commercialism, whatever. Focusing on pure simplicity deprives one of eventually knowing what truly is one's problem with a record.

Take Oasis, I like Oasis, quite a lot. Yet their music has never been particularly complex, either compositionally or lyrically, but I think their pure impact is down to the absolute mastery of these songs to transmit emotions and to encapsulate the culture of Britain, particularly under a working-class lens. The effectiveness of the guitar riffs amplifies this, they are very simple, yet equally impactful. One can point to the simple metaphorical manner which 'Live Forever' expresses a desire for chasing dreams, backed by a simple three chord progression, as proof of this evocative simplicity, or alternatively, the changing landscape of post-Thatcher Britain and the overcoming of working class nihilism that is succinctly expressed in 'Cigarettes & Alcohol'. I've read a lot of criticism about Britpop that focused on criticizing the perceived lack of musical skill of a lot of the bands which made up the movement, ignoring the fact that they didn't really need it, the sheer poignancy of the stories told and the relatability of them was sufficient, they were simply effective songs which focused on transmitting the emotions that a lot of the British populace already felt, eventually uniting them.

The dumb pop song may be dumb, but there's a reason why it is popular, and I wish more people would focus on thinking as to why it is, why people like it, why it is so effective, rather than simply equating this to be caused by the lack of culture of the unwashed masses.