From Jamming!, number 13, June 1982. The introduction is by Tony Fletcher (AF).
Weller On Pop
This piece was originally written as an introduction to an article in the NME that never saw print. Britain’s largest selling music weekly had asked Paul for an interview before Christmas, but instead Paul suggested he interviewed the writers and do the piece himself. Unfortunately, despite writing this introduction, Paul didn’t have time to finish the article. Therefore, what we’ve got here does lack a conclusion, but it still throws up many interesting ideas on pop, it’s press and the idea of ‘stardom’. This is not meant to be a defenitive statement, so don’t go accepting it just ‘coz it’s by Paul Weller – that’s the attitude the article is largely against. We would really appreciate all comments on this as trying to get further than just listening to music, and actually understanding the reasons for it’s existence, is a very difficult and untouched-upon subject.
NB – Please remember when reading that this was meant to be in the NME, co certain comments apply to them, not us – AF.
“London, Paris, New York, Munich, everybody talk about – pop music.” That’s Pop Music spelt S-H-I-T! South Africa, India, South America, Middle East, everybody talk about….
Pop Music – The modern working classes art. Van Gogh, Cazano, Picasso, Warhol, the whole of the Tate (hlaf of which is shit), Dickens, Wells, Shaw, Lawrence, Burroughs, Kerouac, William Blake, Shelley, Miller and thousande more I can’t pronounce, spell or have never heard of…. these artists aren’t for you! No, I don’t mean you reading this in the ‘dorm’ (tee-hee), or you the pathetic neurotic struggling student with middle class delusions who regularly write to the NME to “tell them what I think” and believe that there’s no such thing as the ‘Class system’.
No, I’m talking to you, Joe Bloggs; you the hoddy, you the unemployed 16-year old who buys his piece of middle class (with proletariat sympathies) rubbish every week. No, the afore mentioned artists are for the intellectual public, the educated mass of literate thinkers. Pop music, along with radio, TV, and cinema is your art! All created especially for you. Great eh?
Pop(ular) music is viewed by the select classes as –
a) Cheap and vulgar
b) Mindless entertainment for the mindless working classes, but
c) Very profitable.
Most pop music is cheap and vulgar; a lot of it is fucking mindless; and certainly it is very profitable. Most of the time it stays this way because unlike ‘Higher Art’, the class that pop music rightfully belongs to and is directed at has no control over it. We have no control over it’s media – TV, radio and the music papers – and obviously it’s profits. I have actually earned a lot of money out of pop music but it’s still nowhere near what record companies, publishers and promoters can earn. Even though since punk we have seen the rise of these people in the independent field (and good luck to you), it’s still not enough. There should be a greater liason and structure nationwide for groups to work together. But then again, we are in a very competitive line of art – most groups hate each others guts. The ‘Rough Trade’ groups hate people like The Jam because they think we are crass because we are signed to a big label (which is a fucking joke!). I hate them because they’re so drab and colourless, but I admire their independence. I especially respect groups like Crass who actually live the life and ideals they sing/shout about. I also love groups like Madness, big label or not (and with little control over their output), because they bring real joy into my heart. I dislike the so-called ‘Underground’ groups who are happy to belong to an elite section until they realised they weren’t getting anywhere, and so opted for crass, vulgar and mindless pop-kids market (hi Adam, Teardrops, Human League, O.M.D., and a whole lot more):- the music is nice and pleasant, but the about turn in attitudes makes me cringe.
When the obligatory question “Do you think success has changed your ideals or watered them down?” arises, I can quite honestly say no it hasn’t. In fact I’ve grown more idealistic in the last three years than when we started. When I was 18, all I could think about was becoming famous and a star. Now the though of stardom makes me feel sick. Pop stars are generally one of the most self-centred, unhealthy, big-headed bunch of wankers around, so why would I wish to be associated with people like that? Look at all the best pop groups – Madness, The Beat, TV21, Department S. etc etc – and you’ll find that most of these people love the idea behind pop music, but loathe pop stardom. And quite right too. You can create good pop music, cultural and intelligent; you can get people’s minds, feet and imagination going, without resorting to base gimmickry and mindless lyrics.
The pop papers supposedly exist to reflect what is going on in music, to introduce new groups/styles and to expose the musical charlatons. And hear hear I say. But whatever they say they they are practically always innacurate, always just that bit too late (look how long to pick up on punk and the Pistols), or otherwise just plain self-indulgent. All the papers are run by old men, certainly compared to their readership. Their criteria is limited and also unobjective.
Some of the writers are very nice people – quite real and honest – but I would say the majority are wankers. A lot worse than the pop stars they write about, and that’s saying something! (By the way, it will be interesting to see who slates me/us after this as well!). Some I have met really believe they are something special, that you dear reader rely on them totally to give you the info and views that you desperately need – this is true! They honestly believe they are up there with the Big Cogs of the Wheels of Music. Fucking hilarious, innit?
Paul Weller
standupandspit 