´óÏó´«Ã½

None of which is news to anyone with ears, and there's really no point in attempting to resurrect the Britpop Wars. In fact I only mention it because there's been a theory percolating at the back of my head for a few years now, and this seems like a good opportunity to put it to the test. And it's quite a big theory, so you'll have to bear with me while I work through the logic. Hey, why not take notes? Go mad!

(Here's Oasis's new song to play while you're reading this, I really like it. It sounds like 'Lyla', and rolls as much as it rocks. It's called 'Lord Don't Slow Me Down' and it's on download services right now...)

So, anyway, back to my theory. It concerns pop music and rock music, and the differences between the two. People are always arguing over what constitutes pop and rock, and often they'll go for whether the people performing the song have written the song, or whether guitars are involved, or whether it works best in the live arena. But these are pretty meaningless distinctions. There are pop bands with guitars, rock bands who bring in songwriters to help them finish their songs, and even rock bands who don't tour, and pop bands who do.

So what is it which separates the two disciplines? Well, as with a lot of things in life, it's all about standards and how you choose to apply them.

THE TIME STANDARD
Rock bands often pride themselves on making music which is either 'timeless' or which will 'stand the test of time', by which they mean music which often sounds like music which has already stood 'the test of time' and come away with top marks.

Pop music, on the other hand, attempts to capture the very NOWNESS of NOW. So a pop song in 2007 should sound nothing like a pop song from 1997 or 1987, whereas a rock song in 2007 often replicates music from the past. This approach raises problems for either camp. One being that it's impossible to always sound modern without sounding a bit rubbish from time to time, and another being that it's hard to create a name for yourself when you're essentially mimicking a sound which has been around (and endlessly re-hashed) for ages.

Oh, and sometimes it's the songs which are incredibly of their time which endure simply because that's part of why people like them so much. The songs which were made in the '80s which sounded modern then are now retro, or old school or whatever, whereas the ones which were made in the '80s but sounded like the '60s can be less of a compelling re-listen.

Having said that, some things which seemed like a good idea at the time simply weren't. And the Smiths were great, for all their retro-touches. So don't assume a win on either side.

THE FORMAT STANDARD
Put simply, pop music is about individual songs, rock music is about albums. Rock bands aim to achieve a consistent sound, and then they tailor their songwriting to fit the sound. They may go fast or slow within this sound, but they do not deviate, unless in the form of a hidden track or crazy b-side. If a rock band wishes to change its trademark sound, they must wait for a new album to do so. There's less risk, but more consistency.

Pop acts, on the other hand, aim to change their sound ALL THE TIME. They take inspiration from a much wider gene pool of musical ideas, and think nothing of whacking some squally metal guitar over a samba band, while an oboe player takes an acid house-inspired jazz solo. BUT the risks are huge. Genius pop songs are hard to find, harder to arrange, and a pop act's albums are always littered with experiments which didn't pay off.

Or, to put it simply, on a song-by-song basis, pop acts have higher standards than rock bands, but they fail to meet them more often.

THE SNOOTINESS STANDARD
This one is about how you act as a celebrity, but it's useful in terms of separating wheat from chaff. Basically pop stars have to act like someone you went to school with who managed to parlay their talent and charisma into global sex appeal, the jammy sods. Rock stars, on the other hand, have to act like a cross between a member of the mafia, European royalty and an alien visitor.

Pop stars love to meet all their fans and they smile all the time, which is something we all distrust because only halfwits are that cheery 24/7. Rock stars are often grumpy, and can even snub the people who buy their records, and we're sort of fine with that, because these are higher beings, whose talent gives them the right to act in this way.

This comes out in the music too, in that rockers have to deliver their songs as if they personally mean every word, whereas it's acceptable for pop stars to be pretending a bit.

(What we hate most of all, of course, are those people who act like they're rock stars when we all know they're pop stars. That doesn't play well AT. ALL.)

SO, IN SUMMARY
So, in summary, if you're watching a music video, and the people in it aren't smiling, and the music sounds like a cross between the Libertines, the Smiths, the Jam and the Who, and it makes you want to hear the rest of their songs, chances are what you've got is rock.

If you find yourself wanting to play the one song over and over again, or dance to it in a club RIGHT THIS SECOND, and you just KNOW listening to anything else by the same act would be a disappointment, and they're smiling at you, and you can't quite place where you've ever heard a song like this before...that's pop.

OK, lecture over. Time for the seminar...thoughts please?