I was thinking this morning about the “pro-pop” critical movement of the early 00s (because it is now the late 00s, and soon it won’t be the 00s at all).

What struck me is that there were two* quite different strands of argument at work towards the same aim: (roughly speaking - “How do we get alt.dudes to enjoy chart pop again?”).

Strand 1 was the technological argument: you should like pop because it is the cutting edge of musical production, fashion and innovation. This shifted the focus from performer to producer. A typical Strand 1 argument would big up stuff like Aaliyah’s “Try Again” or Girls Aloud’s early Xenomania productions.

Strand 2 was the emotional argument: you should like pop because its content is rich and affecting. This put the focus back on the performer. A typical Strand 2 argument would praise records like Ashlee Simpson’s Autobiography or the first Marit Larsen album.

When people say that “popism won” or something similar they’re really talking about Strand-1-Popism: it’s now generally accepted that exciting studio craft happens in the pop sphere and is worth paying attention to. Strand-2-Popism has had a much rockier ride: its proponents have been mocked, or at worst smeared as creepy, etc. One result is that the state of pop criticism in the mainstream doesn’t generally go further than “Are there kewl sounds on this record Y/N” - which is why stuff like pop-country and non-futuristic R&B (Ne-Yo, Jazmine Sullivan) gets a rough deal.

*OK, more than two, but a lot of the other arguments were counter-arguments against various anti-pop positions. And there was a big strand of argument about embracing the momentary pleasure etc etc but that was more a general mode of listening which happened to favour pop, it wasn’t ABOUT pop: if you want you can treat Radiohead or Sunn)))O as disposably as you can treat Atomic Kitten or Katy Perry.