What do you think?
Rate this book
Switched On Pop: How Popular Music Works, and Why it Matters
Pop music surrounds us - in our cars, over supermarket speakers, even when we are laid out at the dentist - but how often do we really hear what's playing? Switched on Pop is the book based on the eponymous podcast that has been hailed by NPR, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, and Entertainment Weekly for its witty and accessible analysis of Top 40 hits. Through close studies of sixteen modern classics, musicologist Nate Sloan and songwriter Charlie Harding shift pop from the background to the foreground, illuminating the essential musical concepts behind two decades of chart-topping songs.
In 1939, Aaron Copland published What to Listen for in Music, the bestseller that made classical music approachable for generations of listeners. Eighty years later, Nate and Charlie update Copland's idea for a new audience and repertoire: 21st century pop, from Britney to Beyonc�, Outkast to Kendrick Lamar. Despite the importance of pop music in contemporary culture, most discourse only revolves around lyrics and celebrity. Switched on Pop gives readers the tools they need to interpret our modern soundtrack. Each chapter investigates a different song and artist, revealing musical insights such as how a single melodic motif follows Taylor Swift through every genre that she samples, Andr� 3000 uses metric manipulation to get listeners to "shake it like a Polaroid picture," or Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee create harmonic ambiguity in "Despacito" that mirrors the patterns of global migration.
Replete with engaging discussions and eye-catching illustrations, Switched on Pop brings to life the musical qualities that catapult songs into the pop pantheon. Readers will find themselves listening to familiar tracks in new waysand not just those from the Top 40. The timeless concepts that Nate and Charlie define can be applied to any musical style. From fanatics to skeptics, teenagers to octogenarians, non-musicians to professional composers, every music lover will discover something ear-opening in Switched on Pop.
In 1939, Aaron Copland published What to Listen for in Music, the bestseller that made classical music approachable for generations of listeners. Eighty years later, Nate and Charlie update Copland's idea for a new audience and repertoire: 21st century pop, from Britney to Beyonc�, Outkast to Kendrick Lamar. Despite the importance of pop music in contemporary culture, most discourse only revolves around lyrics and celebrity. Switched on Pop gives readers the tools they need to interpret our modern soundtrack. Each chapter investigates a different song and artist, revealing musical insights such as how a single melodic motif follows Taylor Swift through every genre that she samples, Andr� 3000 uses metric manipulation to get listeners to "shake it like a Polaroid picture," or Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee create harmonic ambiguity in "Despacito" that mirrors the patterns of global migration.
Replete with engaging discussions and eye-catching illustrations, Switched on Pop brings to life the musical qualities that catapult songs into the pop pantheon. Readers will find themselves listening to familiar tracks in new waysand not just those from the Top 40. The timeless concepts that Nate and Charlie define can be applied to any musical style. From fanatics to skeptics, teenagers to octogenarians, non-musicians to professional composers, every music lover will discover something ear-opening in Switched on Pop.
212 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
January 19, 2020
It's difficult to rate this book, as I found myself wondering at various points if I wasn't the target audience, which I ended up believing is someone with little to no music literacy. I also wondered if the task at hand—distilling somewhat complex musical concepts through the text medium, while simultaneously addressing broader critiques of the pop-industrial complex—was simply too ambitious for 166 pages. Thinking I could go into this book knowing "How Popular Music Works" and learn the "Why It Matters" part, I bit.
I ended the book feeling my theory about the audience was true, and probably not to the detriment of those curious about music theory—after all, the musical definitions all tend to be plain-language, and the diagrams, while sometimes misleading or unnecessary, would likely lend themselves to a beginner wrapping their head around a concept like syncopation.
However, with respect to critiques that address popular music's role in co-opting (and defanging) cultural movements, its propensity to perpetuate the wealth of record execs at the expense of new artists, and even the alienation and destruction it can wreak on the lives of it's most "successful" stories, the authors seem to fall firmly onto the comforting notion that pop is an elevating force that can seemingly do no wrong.
The most common approach they use to counter those notions is to embed smaller, one-off critiques ("Sia using a patois is appropriation", "female artists tend to be scrutinized more for using the same performance techniques as men", etc.), that by themselves would make compelling essays. But it becomes clear the authors' concern is only perfunctory, as any socio-political commentary is itself clearly appropriated, and never exceeds more than a paragraph of length in any of the chapters/essays within the book. The authors, after performing their duty, happily return to their unquestioning thesis that Drake's use of identity rhyme makes him like John Keats.
The authors betray their lack of concern with addressing any deeper critique of pop by refusing to connect individual points into a broader narrative. This sort of sterile handling of "difficult" topics, allows them to quickly get back to freely expounding on how, since some popular art shares some qualities with some old dead white guy art, (and all old dead white guy art is good) then all popular art must be good, right? I'll give it to them that their chapter on sampling and M.I.A. at least acknowledges some radical notions, as a consequence of the topic at hand, but again, these ideas barely resonate throughout the rest of the book.
Without much exaggeration, every other passage of the book that doesn't concern a specific musical concept or techinque can be roughly categorized as follows:
1) Excessive praise of Max Martin
2) Patronizing comparisons of pop producers to European classical composers
The latter is really one of the more aggressive sins. At one point the authors claim Taylor Swift would have stood up to the censorship of Stalin's government simply because composer Prokofiev and she both produced works which retold (and altered the ending of) Romeo and Juliet.
Another time they claim "... the [...] chord progression in 'Despacito' [...] caused music theorists to rethink notions about tonality that have held strong for almost 300 years."
Maybe these are tongue-in-cheek statements that could have worked well in the podcast format, but in a book that's ostensibly presenting itself as academic, they feel absurd.
And truly, ironically, their condescending attributions—say, of the invention of tonal ambiguity to Luis Fonsi, a perfectly fine musician without that pretense—seems to act out the very premise of the corrupted machine of popular music they (occasionally) claim to be aware of. After all, the adulation of these popular "brand" musicians as inventors of these techniques requires complete, and intentional ignorance of any music that isn't pop. It also requires ignorance that "brand" musicians represent entire teams of highly specialized individuals working for a corporation to maximize profits, not necessarily people who are interested in music for its own sake.
Ultimately, you can look at these pop songs as "elevated art", entirely divorced from their context in society, or you can address the fact that musical labor can be manipulated, stolen and controlled just like any other resource. By attempting both (while only doing the latter halfheartedly) the authors end up only creating a series of soundbites that may perform well at your next dinner party, but unfortunately, lack the ability to reveal anything deeper about why "pop music matters".
I ended the book feeling my theory about the audience was true, and probably not to the detriment of those curious about music theory—after all, the musical definitions all tend to be plain-language, and the diagrams, while sometimes misleading or unnecessary, would likely lend themselves to a beginner wrapping their head around a concept like syncopation.
However, with respect to critiques that address popular music's role in co-opting (and defanging) cultural movements, its propensity to perpetuate the wealth of record execs at the expense of new artists, and even the alienation and destruction it can wreak on the lives of it's most "successful" stories, the authors seem to fall firmly onto the comforting notion that pop is an elevating force that can seemingly do no wrong.
The most common approach they use to counter those notions is to embed smaller, one-off critiques ("Sia using a patois is appropriation", "female artists tend to be scrutinized more for using the same performance techniques as men", etc.), that by themselves would make compelling essays. But it becomes clear the authors' concern is only perfunctory, as any socio-political commentary is itself clearly appropriated, and never exceeds more than a paragraph of length in any of the chapters/essays within the book. The authors, after performing their duty, happily return to their unquestioning thesis that Drake's use of identity rhyme makes him like John Keats.
The authors betray their lack of concern with addressing any deeper critique of pop by refusing to connect individual points into a broader narrative. This sort of sterile handling of "difficult" topics, allows them to quickly get back to freely expounding on how, since some popular art shares some qualities with some old dead white guy art, (and all old dead white guy art is good) then all popular art must be good, right? I'll give it to them that their chapter on sampling and M.I.A. at least acknowledges some radical notions, as a consequence of the topic at hand, but again, these ideas barely resonate throughout the rest of the book.
Without much exaggeration, every other passage of the book that doesn't concern a specific musical concept or techinque can be roughly categorized as follows:
1) Excessive praise of Max Martin
2) Patronizing comparisons of pop producers to European classical composers
The latter is really one of the more aggressive sins. At one point the authors claim Taylor Swift would have stood up to the censorship of Stalin's government simply because composer Prokofiev and she both produced works which retold (and altered the ending of) Romeo and Juliet.
Another time they claim "... the [...] chord progression in 'Despacito' [...] caused music theorists to rethink notions about tonality that have held strong for almost 300 years."
Maybe these are tongue-in-cheek statements that could have worked well in the podcast format, but in a book that's ostensibly presenting itself as academic, they feel absurd.
And truly, ironically, their condescending attributions—say, of the invention of tonal ambiguity to Luis Fonsi, a perfectly fine musician without that pretense—seems to act out the very premise of the corrupted machine of popular music they (occasionally) claim to be aware of. After all, the adulation of these popular "brand" musicians as inventors of these techniques requires complete, and intentional ignorance of any music that isn't pop. It also requires ignorance that "brand" musicians represent entire teams of highly specialized individuals working for a corporation to maximize profits, not necessarily people who are interested in music for its own sake.
Ultimately, you can look at these pop songs as "elevated art", entirely divorced from their context in society, or you can address the fact that musical labor can be manipulated, stolen and controlled just like any other resource. By attempting both (while only doing the latter halfheartedly) the authors end up only creating a series of soundbites that may perform well at your next dinner party, but unfortunately, lack the ability to reveal anything deeper about why "pop music matters".
August 14, 2022
3.5 stars - I always struggle to understand the difference between different musicology terms (e.g. tone vs timbre), and this came closest to helping me understand some of those nuances. I love this podcast and it was fun to encounter their work in a book form
Did Not Finish
January 6, 2020Nothing wrong with this book, but with me - I took music theory in school so I'm having trouble sitting through the explanations without fidgeting. Your mileage will most likely vary, but I'm putting this one down at 15%.
April 24, 2022
3.5 stars!
December 25, 2019
Thanks to Oxford press and the book’s authors for the free copy of Switched on Pop. I appreciate it.
Switched is dense, but accessible, Sloane and Harding have crafted a book that seems worthy of a songwriter’s attention but with enough fundamentals to help along someone who knows nothing of this world. Me.
The incredible thing is, I’m know very little about music construction- but it didn’t matter. This book hooked me into the world of beat, measure, octave, harmony, and timbre in a way that made sense; not as a bunch of arcane terms I was expected to just understand. This wasn’t done, as far as I’m concerned, condescendingly. Rather, you’re taken on a journey of musical ideas where the chosen songs seem to fit the narrative well - a narrative of ever-expanding musical knowledge. I’m not an expert after reading this either, but it helped me actually have a conversation with my singer/songwriter girlfriend and not sound stupid. That’s my kind of book.
Switched on Pop takes a sort of listicle approach by diving into one song per chapter. This, however, feels perfect because with each song, I’m introduced to new musical concepts. The beauty of this is the effect of building knowledge of musical parts, one song analyzed at a time. The chapters are short and concise enough that you feel like forward progress is there.
This book is emanatly readable, proof of concept: on my first sitting, I had read 30% of the book. It just finds ways to propel you to the next chapter, the next song. Not with a cliffhanger, but with anticipation for what you’ll learn next. Hoping the next song is a song you’ll know, and then -boom- it’s Love on Top by Beyonce (one of my favourites).
Switched is dense, but accessible, Sloane and Harding have crafted a book that seems worthy of a songwriter’s attention but with enough fundamentals to help along someone who knows nothing of this world. Me.
The incredible thing is, I’m know very little about music construction- but it didn’t matter. This book hooked me into the world of beat, measure, octave, harmony, and timbre in a way that made sense; not as a bunch of arcane terms I was expected to just understand. This wasn’t done, as far as I’m concerned, condescendingly. Rather, you’re taken on a journey of musical ideas where the chosen songs seem to fit the narrative well - a narrative of ever-expanding musical knowledge. I’m not an expert after reading this either, but it helped me actually have a conversation with my singer/songwriter girlfriend and not sound stupid. That’s my kind of book.
Switched on Pop takes a sort of listicle approach by diving into one song per chapter. This, however, feels perfect because with each song, I’m introduced to new musical concepts. The beauty of this is the effect of building knowledge of musical parts, one song analyzed at a time. The chapters are short and concise enough that you feel like forward progress is there.
This book is emanatly readable, proof of concept: on my first sitting, I had read 30% of the book. It just finds ways to propel you to the next chapter, the next song. Not with a cliffhanger, but with anticipation for what you’ll learn next. Hoping the next song is a song you’ll know, and then -boom- it’s Love on Top by Beyonce (one of my favourites).
March 31, 2023
As a huge fan of the podcast Switched on Pop (my guilty pleasure podcast: it always makes me happy, and I learn so much!) I was thrilled to discover I’d somehow missed a book the hosts wrote together. While I can now say I love listening to discussions of music more than I do reading about it (there’s something about those interjected bursts of song to really exemplify what’s being discussed that the best diagrams still don’t do), I thought it was great. Recommend to anyone without a music theory background but with substantial musical appreciation or ability.
January 19, 2022
i mean the superior experience is listening to the podcast but! it was still fun and interesting
December 21, 2019
I’ve been a huge fan of this podcast for a few years, so I was very excited to read their book. I think this book is excellent for anyone who enjoys music and wants to learn more about it. It’s very approachable and doesn’t use any jargon. Each chapter is short and includes cool illustrations to help us understand what Nate and Charlie are talking about. I also think the short chapters are nice because they won’t overwhelm readers (they tend to segue neatly into the following chapter). Readers will learn about musical terms that musicians are familiar with using different hits from the past two decades. This what the podcast and the book wants listeners and readers to do—make people feel comfortable talking about music we enjoy. You don’t have to be a musician to be able to talk about music! :)
And for those with musical experience: this book might expand our brains and look at music we might not be super familiar with!
P.S. I highly recommend checking out their podcast if you want to get more out of this book!
And for those with musical experience: this book might expand our brains and look at music we might not be super familiar with!
P.S. I highly recommend checking out their podcast if you want to get more out of this book!
March 6, 2020
Pop music gets a bad rap for being derivative, insultingly simple, and pandering to our basest instincts. In essence, it's rechewed bubblegum.
Switched on Pop is in on the joke, yet this breezy, fun-to-read book elevates pop to worthy of intellectual pursuit. Authors Nate Sloan and Charlie Harding elaborate on the elements of music by unpacking 21st-century monster hits. They do everything from tease out the rhythmical irregularities of Outkast's "Hey Ya!" to identifying the importance of timbre in Sia's "Chandelier." When they tie it all together with Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone," you'll have whole new respect for the genre, which is complex, rich, and worthy of consideration. Take that, aesthetes.
I took music theory classes in grad school, so this was easy for me to follow. Beginners might struggle more even with the lucid explanations, but the history of each song is worth a read in and of itself.
My quibble—and I've whinged about this before—is that I don't understand why the ebook didn't come with links to the songs. It made for a trying experience, reading the chapter and then going to YouTube to listen to the song. As always, publishing has squandered an opportunity for a multi-media experience.
As a bonus, check out Rick Beato's "Why This Song Is Great" YouTube channel for a similar treatment to classic rock.
Switched on Pop is in on the joke, yet this breezy, fun-to-read book elevates pop to worthy of intellectual pursuit. Authors Nate Sloan and Charlie Harding elaborate on the elements of music by unpacking 21st-century monster hits. They do everything from tease out the rhythmical irregularities of Outkast's "Hey Ya!" to identifying the importance of timbre in Sia's "Chandelier." When they tie it all together with Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone," you'll have whole new respect for the genre, which is complex, rich, and worthy of consideration. Take that, aesthetes.
I took music theory classes in grad school, so this was easy for me to follow. Beginners might struggle more even with the lucid explanations, but the history of each song is worth a read in and of itself.
My quibble—and I've whinged about this before—is that I don't understand why the ebook didn't come with links to the songs. It made for a trying experience, reading the chapter and then going to YouTube to listen to the song. As always, publishing has squandered an opportunity for a multi-media experience.
As a bonus, check out Rick Beato's "Why This Song Is Great" YouTube channel for a similar treatment to classic rock.
October 17, 2021
I had a hard time figuring out what to write about this book. For background, I'm high school music teacher that teaches classical and jazz performance as well as pop performance, history, and songwriting. I love the podcast and those deep dives and use a lot of what I hear on that show to inform my own teaching. This book, though, was a bit too simple for me, and that is likely my problem. There is a chance if I came to this book in my early 20's I'd have a different thought.
I did enjoy the book, especially the end, when it really started to dig into the social dimensions of what pop music represents and the finicky existence of genre. I also appreciated all of the discussions on why some songs broke the mold. It also does a good job of showing that there really is not huge difference between writing for any genres, including classical, as while norms and rules may be different, the core is the same (I'm thinking especially of the Britney Spears chapter on Counterpoint, a word mainly used with classical music but quite applicable to many styles).
In the beginning, where it set it's stage, it as a bit too simple for me. This is probably why it took me 6 weeks to read the first 100 pages and only two days to wrap the last 60. I don't think it could have been done better, but the first part of this book was not written for me, and that is okay. I wish more concrete language had been used that read less introductory, but again, I don't think those chapters were for me.
Overall my thoughts are that this is a good book for someone who loves pop music but possesses little to no musical training. The end is a good intro into the issues and aspects that shape the conversation around popular music (cultural identity, social discussions, issues of genre, etc.). I will, however, stick with in-depth conversations these authors continue to have on the podcast of the same name.
I did enjoy the book, especially the end, when it really started to dig into the social dimensions of what pop music represents and the finicky existence of genre. I also appreciated all of the discussions on why some songs broke the mold. It also does a good job of showing that there really is not huge difference between writing for any genres, including classical, as while norms and rules may be different, the core is the same (I'm thinking especially of the Britney Spears chapter on Counterpoint, a word mainly used with classical music but quite applicable to many styles).
In the beginning, where it set it's stage, it as a bit too simple for me. This is probably why it took me 6 weeks to read the first 100 pages and only two days to wrap the last 60. I don't think it could have been done better, but the first part of this book was not written for me, and that is okay. I wish more concrete language had been used that read less introductory, but again, I don't think those chapters were for me.
Overall my thoughts are that this is a good book for someone who loves pop music but possesses little to no musical training. The end is a good intro into the issues and aspects that shape the conversation around popular music (cultural identity, social discussions, issues of genre, etc.). I will, however, stick with in-depth conversations these authors continue to have on the podcast of the same name.
July 16, 2020
So, I enjoyed this immensely, but the reason it took me the entirety of the COVID-19 quarantine and another 2 months to finish is that I got distracted by the podcast that this book originated from during that time. I started reading the book, then started the podcast. 141 podcast episodes later, I finished the book. I have zero musical training and was dropped from school chorus in middle school, so my musical knowledge is entirely instinctive. Having Nate, Charlie, and their guests give more meaning to music that I have only recently admitted to myself that I enjoy, has been more fun and interesting than I would have expected. I think the biggest obstacle to getting to the point that Nate and Charlie reached to perform the analyses that they do is accepting that Pop music, with a capital P, is designed formulaically with the intention to attract as wide an audience as possible. So if a song sounds shallow, simple, derivative, unoriginal, or all of those things at once, and you can't get it out of your head regardless of that, then that is okay. That song probably is all of those things and might be Billboard's #1 hit that year. The key is that if you know how to listen to it, or find a source to explain it to you, like Switched on Pop, then you can find the artistry behind the glamour and money-making math of the music. I can now look at "Cry Me a River" and "Since U Been Gone" differently, while still appreciating that "Maps" by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs appeals to me just as much.
I love music, and they are seriously doing a service to all music listeners by writing this and continuing to produce the podcast. I hope that they write follow up books that go into the histories of particular genres, because I would read those immediately as well. And faster, since I would presumably be caught up to the podcast by then.
I love music, and they are seriously doing a service to all music listeners by writing this and continuing to produce the podcast. I hope that they write follow up books that go into the histories of particular genres, because I would read those immediately as well. And faster, since I would presumably be caught up to the podcast by then.
April 13, 2020
This was part of a reading challenge in March. However, I really enjoyed this book and have become an avid listener of the podcast. I was also interested in checking it out, as my girlfriend is a former DJ and an avid Pop promoter. This definitely helped me understand her passion and even gave me some talking points so I can hold my own in our conversations!
The book breaks down about a dozen pop songs and talks about why they are important and how they differ from other pop songs, basically what makes them unique and puts them in our heads...forever.
Easy to read for the layman (Written by a musician and a music professor), and each chapter builds on what you learned previously.
This was a great little book!
The book breaks down about a dozen pop songs and talks about why they are important and how they differ from other pop songs, basically what makes them unique and puts them in our heads...forever.
Easy to read for the layman (Written by a musician and a music professor), and each chapter builds on what you learned previously.
This was a great little book!
January 17, 2020
All the other reviews nailed this on the head — Switched on Pop follows a very similar format as the podcast, though it follows a tighter narrative of building on basic music theory concepts. It’s explained at a level that as already mentioned, may seem too elementary to folks with some music education, but the examples and observations about the featured songs do make you think about those songs you’ve heard nonstop in a different manner. I really enjoyed this read and wished it was longer! The illustrations are also fantastic! They bring a lot of character to the book and aided my translation of what I read to what I was hearing to what I saw pictorially.
May 27, 2020
3.5 Stars. I have not listened to the podcast but I was intrigued at this style of analyzing pop music. I will admit that I do not listen to much current pop music but, pop music being what it is, I have heard most of the songs featured in the book (which I didn't realize until I played some of the songs when I started a new chapter.) I found the analysis very interesting and it makes me want to take a closer look at the pop of previous decades in a similar manner. I will say that, not being as familiar with the musical terms, I found some of that to be a bit tedious. I also would have liked more discussion on the "why it matters" part of the equation, which is what prompted me to pick up the book in the first place.
May 31, 2022
This book is fantastic for what it is— a primer on the fundamentals of pop music analysis, for an audience with little to no musical experience. Experienced musicians will probably find some passages or explanations a bit shallow, if not patronizing, but unlike every other (text)book on pop music I’ve encountered, this one is incredibly careful not to alienate its readers without that experience. It points the way towards analysis with the more depth and bite without fully taking that plunge, and in this context I think that’s actually very helpful. Looking forward to teaching an undergrad pop music course for non-music majors with this book.
August 31, 2020
Like what I read in another review, the fun of the book was reading in anticipation of the next chapter—what song was gonna be examined and what would its corresponding musical concept be (timbre, sampling, meter, melody, etc.). The book was able to make me a Taylor Swift fan while also pushing me to appreciate “Oops...I Did It Again.” The concepts strewn throughout the book are easy to remember so that you could listen to whatever the top songs of the time are and not easily come to dismiss them.
January 28, 2020
This was so good! Super interesting and I'm not even a music person. The book breaks down several well known pop songs and dissects them, explaining why they're so popular from a musical perspective. Super cool and had me instantly interested. Highly recommend!
September 27, 2023
I love this podcast, which is quite literally the only one I listen to. And so I enjoyed this book.
It’s a bit silly but also highlights something I really value: when a lot of people like something (a pop song, a book, a pumpkin spiced latte), it’s an infinitely more interesting response to try to understand why rather than to scoff at its supposed lack of merit or complexity.
It’s a bit silly but also highlights something I really value: when a lot of people like something (a pop song, a book, a pumpkin spiced latte), it’s an infinitely more interesting response to try to understand why rather than to scoff at its supposed lack of merit or complexity.
May 29, 2020
This is packed with fun information on music theory and history. Now to catch up on the podcast episodes!
February 9, 2021
Really interesting read. It's fun to listen the songs after each chapter dissects it.
March 1, 2022
This was a super fun read, and I enjoyed playing all the songs while reading about them. Lots to learn in this one here.
July 29, 2020
If you choose to read this, make sure you listen to the Spotify playlist of all the songs mentioned as you read. I found this book informative overall, though its commentary ranged from fascinating and accessible to opaque and overly technical to self-important.
June 25, 2026
Hi Campbell! This is a very long review, so my tl;dr is that I would recommend reading it and also it's fairly short and super digestible.
If you're Campbell and still feel like reading this or you're weirdly interested in the rant that I'm about to go on, yippee!
Just so that the rest of the review makes sense, let me describe the formatting of this book. Each of the 16 chapters focuses on one pop song from 2000-2019 and uses the song as an example of a musical property that can be used as a lens to examine how and why the song is successful. They are: (1) Hey Ya! (Outkast) - meter,
(2) You Belong with Me (Taylor Swift) - melody,
(3) We Are Young (Fun ft. Janelle Monaé) - harmony,
(4) We Found Love (Rihanna x Calvin Harris) - form,
(5) Chandelier (Sia) - timbre
(6) What Goes Around...Comes Around (Justin Timberlake) - lyric
(7) Break Free (Ariana Grande ft. Zedd) - hook
(8) God's Plan (Drake) - rhyme
(9) Swimming Pools (Kendrick Lamar) - syncopation
(10) Love on Top (Beyoncé) - modulation
(11) Oops!...I Did it Again (Britney Spears) - counterpoint
(12) Paper Planes (M.I.A.) - sampling
(13) Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (Skrillex) - sound design
(14) Despacito (Luis Fonsi ft. Daddy Yankee (aka not the JB version)) - tonal ambiguity
(15) Since U Been Gone (Kelly Clarkson) - genre
(16) Made in America (both the Jay Z/Kanye West/Frank Ocean and Toby Keith versions) - musical identity
You may be wondering why I included the entire table of contents. I promise it is important as there are certain things in certain chapters that I want to talk about.
First, my overall thoughts: net positive. When I started reading, I was super happy that I found this book on the shelf in the library. It was going into the exact amount of unnecessary detail that I relished in. The authors spent almost the entire first chapter talking about André 3000 counting in at the beginning of Hey Ya! and how that appeals to our pop sensibilities so much now that we don't even really think about why that's appealing because it's just a four beat meter but in fact that only is true because of decades of metric upheaval because a three beat measure used to be standard but ragtime shifted three beat to two beat and then jazz shifted to four beat and pop borrowed that. Like that is in fact what I want to read. I've spent a lot of time thinking about music and listening to music and learning about music and I've always had trouble defining exactly what it is I want to learn about and this was pretty close.
It continued on a good note and I was super excited to read the chapter of one of my famously favorite songs ever, What Goes Around...Comes Around. You know how long I've been trying to find the words to describe why the actual sound of it is interesting and adds to the meaning and takeaway and overall listening experience??
I kinda started to lose the authors in the middle segment, namely Swimming Pools through Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites. It was just kind of doing too much while not doing enough to back it up. For example: the Britney Spears chapter explored the construction of an artist's identity through music and how antiauthenticity (basically like singing songs that are 'authentic' to an artist's persona which isn't necessarily the artist themselves) and how you can hear that in BS's Oops because the final chorus has separate melodies sung against reach other. I just kind of failed to see how the two have to do with each other, like the connection felt a little loose. It's not that I didn't believe their argument, it just didn't really feel whole. When I was taking my class on the history of rock, I wrote my final paper about Kanye West's Blood on the Leaves and it kind of read the same as these chapters. Like I totally had a point and everything I was saying was valid but also at the same time I was lowkey just saying stuff.
I think this points to a bigger 'issue' with this book; it was really short. You scrolled through that whole table of contents and that + the intro and conclusion all totals out to...166 pages. It felt like we really just moved things along where we could've dove more deeply into certain topics. Perhaps this has to do with the origin of the book (these two guys have a long running podcast), because I can see how this could go down in a podcast and receive no questions from me. However, I'm somewhat anti-podcast on principle. No one quote me on that in the future.
We really picked it back up at the end and I enjoyed the last few chapters. Perhaps, however, they were just weirdly targeted towards things I've been going on strange rants on for a few years. Except from my mouth it just sounded like crazy ramblings a la the birds work for the bourgeoisie. The chapter on tonal ambiguity was all about the association of minor chords with sad and major chords with happy and how recently there's been a rise in minor chord usage in pop songs. Except again when I said that it was all "IT'S IN A MINOR CHORD" and kind of ended at that.
I am going to briefly (not at all briefly) depart because I took one HUGE issue with this chapter. The author had three examples of "pop songs that have used minor keys for joyous, celebratory purposes", except they were My Favorite Things (Rodgers and Hammerstein), Feeling Good (Nina Simone), and perhaps the silliest of them all..............Earned It (The Weeknd). Like...THAT'S what you came up with??
My main issue with the songs of choice is that I would immediately clock them as being songs in a minor key. The argument within this chapter was that our perceptions of when a minor key is sad is really getting blurry since Despacito bounces back and forth between the two and that might make it sound more engaging, and in fact, this association may be a relatively recent development and isn't just innately true. I feel like it would've been a stronger example if they were undetectably in a minor key because they were so upbeat/happy/joyous/whatever. In contrast, the songs chosen to be "songs in a major key that deliver a 'profound pathos'" were Stay by Rihanna and Mikky Ekko and Radiohead's Creep. Now THOSE are good examples. Cuz like you could've fooled me. Those I read and was like "oh wow I didn't realize they were in a major key because of the sound."
I've always just found My Favorite Things to be verging on eerie sounding, so that doesn't really count to me. With Feeling Good, I know that the actual meaning of the song is joyous and celebratory. But I don't feel like that has to do with the actual way that it sounds. It's really got the whole little spy connotation from Michael Buble and his little James Bond esque thing. But when I think about Feeling Good, I listen to that song when I'm being motivated by spite not because I am joyous or celebrating. I'm really lacking in words here so instead I'm including other songs that I have in a playlist with the Michael Buble version of Feeling Good: Heartless (The Weeknd), Sorry (Beyoncé), Ain't Shit (Doja Cat), Obsessed (Mariah Carey). Like THAT kind of mood. ykwim? It makes perfect sense to me that Feeling Good is written in a minor key.
Speaking of The Weeknd, the most egregious choice of all. I never thought that I'd ever see this song be described as "joyous" or "celebratory". First of all, it does in fact sound like it is in a minor key because it does have a bit of a darker feel to it. But also like...have we seen the music video? Have we acknowledged exactly what movie this song is the lead single from? The director of Fifty Shades said that The Weeknd's music and the film are "a match made in heaven" and a music critic from The Guardian said that the song "sat comfortably with the Weeknd's depraved brand identity". Yeah, not really joyous or celebratory.
All of this is punctuated by the fact that I actually have a playlist of songs that I like in a minor key, some of which might've surprised me. For example, "You Make Me Feel..." by Cobra Starship and "Yeah" by Usher are both allegedly in minor keys (I have little proper knowledge of music theory so I cannot confirm or deny) and I feel like those are wayyyyy better choices.
Anyways. I just feel like the book could've been so much more. There were a lot of interesting random little tidbits, especially socio-political commentary, that was kind of just inserted and we moved on from that. In reality, entire essays or books could probably be devoted to the one sentence that they wrote. I'm not entirely dinging the authors on that, because at the end of the day, one book isn't going to tell the whole entire story. I guess I can agree with the first part of their subtitle, "How Popular Music Works", but not necessarily the latter half, "and Why it Matters."
For example, there was a really interesting comparison to the 2011 release of two songs titled "Made in America", one country and one hip-hop, two genres that are notoriously diametrically opposed. There were so many tidbits present. The heavy country association with the banjo that has its roots in Western African music. The overlap between enforcing strict genre associations that really function more on identity. There was even a really interesting intro to the idea that people who "like every genre except country" aren't necessarily dismissing the style but also intentionally separating themselves from the idea of 'people who like country' and connecting it to which parts of American history we want to highlight or identify with. But it was like a seven page chapter? I'd read a whole big ass book on that topic. And a lot of those seven pages were telling the history of the 808s lol.
My conclusion here: I'm still giving it four stars. I enjoyed it, I learned something, I'm glad that I read it. I'm not expecting one book that has less than 200 pages to entirely delve into a topic. I appreciated the level of detail used in the music theory concepts, which was helpful to reinforce things that I've learned in practice by playing the piano and dance and whatnot but never academically dedicating thought to. Some people thought that the music theory was super remedial and some people didn't understand it all because the music theory went way over their heads. You can't win em all.
I think this review about as long as the whole book.
If you're Campbell and still feel like reading this or you're weirdly interested in the rant that I'm about to go on, yippee!
Just so that the rest of the review makes sense, let me describe the formatting of this book. Each of the 16 chapters focuses on one pop song from 2000-2019 and uses the song as an example of a musical property that can be used as a lens to examine how and why the song is successful. They are: (1) Hey Ya! (Outkast) - meter,
(2) You Belong with Me (Taylor Swift) - melody,
(3) We Are Young (Fun ft. Janelle Monaé) - harmony,
(4) We Found Love (Rihanna x Calvin Harris) - form,
(5) Chandelier (Sia) - timbre
(6) What Goes Around...Comes Around (Justin Timberlake) - lyric
(7) Break Free (Ariana Grande ft. Zedd) - hook
(8) God's Plan (Drake) - rhyme
(9) Swimming Pools (Kendrick Lamar) - syncopation
(10) Love on Top (Beyoncé) - modulation
(11) Oops!...I Did it Again (Britney Spears) - counterpoint
(12) Paper Planes (M.I.A.) - sampling
(13) Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (Skrillex) - sound design
(14) Despacito (Luis Fonsi ft. Daddy Yankee (aka not the JB version)) - tonal ambiguity
(15) Since U Been Gone (Kelly Clarkson) - genre
(16) Made in America (both the Jay Z/Kanye West/Frank Ocean and Toby Keith versions) - musical identity
You may be wondering why I included the entire table of contents. I promise it is important as there are certain things in certain chapters that I want to talk about.
First, my overall thoughts: net positive. When I started reading, I was super happy that I found this book on the shelf in the library. It was going into the exact amount of unnecessary detail that I relished in. The authors spent almost the entire first chapter talking about André 3000 counting in at the beginning of Hey Ya! and how that appeals to our pop sensibilities so much now that we don't even really think about why that's appealing because it's just a four beat meter but in fact that only is true because of decades of metric upheaval because a three beat measure used to be standard but ragtime shifted three beat to two beat and then jazz shifted to four beat and pop borrowed that. Like that is in fact what I want to read. I've spent a lot of time thinking about music and listening to music and learning about music and I've always had trouble defining exactly what it is I want to learn about and this was pretty close.
It continued on a good note and I was super excited to read the chapter of one of my famously favorite songs ever, What Goes Around...Comes Around. You know how long I've been trying to find the words to describe why the actual sound of it is interesting and adds to the meaning and takeaway and overall listening experience??
I kinda started to lose the authors in the middle segment, namely Swimming Pools through Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites. It was just kind of doing too much while not doing enough to back it up. For example: the Britney Spears chapter explored the construction of an artist's identity through music and how antiauthenticity (basically like singing songs that are 'authentic' to an artist's persona which isn't necessarily the artist themselves) and how you can hear that in BS's Oops because the final chorus has separate melodies sung against reach other. I just kind of failed to see how the two have to do with each other, like the connection felt a little loose. It's not that I didn't believe their argument, it just didn't really feel whole. When I was taking my class on the history of rock, I wrote my final paper about Kanye West's Blood on the Leaves and it kind of read the same as these chapters. Like I totally had a point and everything I was saying was valid but also at the same time I was lowkey just saying stuff.
I think this points to a bigger 'issue' with this book; it was really short. You scrolled through that whole table of contents and that + the intro and conclusion all totals out to...166 pages. It felt like we really just moved things along where we could've dove more deeply into certain topics. Perhaps this has to do with the origin of the book (these two guys have a long running podcast), because I can see how this could go down in a podcast and receive no questions from me. However, I'm somewhat anti-podcast on principle. No one quote me on that in the future.
We really picked it back up at the end and I enjoyed the last few chapters. Perhaps, however, they were just weirdly targeted towards things I've been going on strange rants on for a few years. Except from my mouth it just sounded like crazy ramblings a la the birds work for the bourgeoisie. The chapter on tonal ambiguity was all about the association of minor chords with sad and major chords with happy and how recently there's been a rise in minor chord usage in pop songs. Except again when I said that it was all "IT'S IN A MINOR CHORD" and kind of ended at that.
I am going to briefly (not at all briefly) depart because I took one HUGE issue with this chapter. The author had three examples of "pop songs that have used minor keys for joyous, celebratory purposes", except they were My Favorite Things (Rodgers and Hammerstein), Feeling Good (Nina Simone), and perhaps the silliest of them all..............Earned It (The Weeknd). Like...THAT'S what you came up with??
My main issue with the songs of choice is that I would immediately clock them as being songs in a minor key. The argument within this chapter was that our perceptions of when a minor key is sad is really getting blurry since Despacito bounces back and forth between the two and that might make it sound more engaging, and in fact, this association may be a relatively recent development and isn't just innately true. I feel like it would've been a stronger example if they were undetectably in a minor key because they were so upbeat/happy/joyous/whatever. In contrast, the songs chosen to be "songs in a major key that deliver a 'profound pathos'" were Stay by Rihanna and Mikky Ekko and Radiohead's Creep. Now THOSE are good examples. Cuz like you could've fooled me. Those I read and was like "oh wow I didn't realize they were in a major key because of the sound."
I've always just found My Favorite Things to be verging on eerie sounding, so that doesn't really count to me. With Feeling Good, I know that the actual meaning of the song is joyous and celebratory. But I don't feel like that has to do with the actual way that it sounds. It's really got the whole little spy connotation from Michael Buble and his little James Bond esque thing. But when I think about Feeling Good, I listen to that song when I'm being motivated by spite not because I am joyous or celebrating. I'm really lacking in words here so instead I'm including other songs that I have in a playlist with the Michael Buble version of Feeling Good: Heartless (The Weeknd), Sorry (Beyoncé), Ain't Shit (Doja Cat), Obsessed (Mariah Carey). Like THAT kind of mood. ykwim? It makes perfect sense to me that Feeling Good is written in a minor key.
Speaking of The Weeknd, the most egregious choice of all. I never thought that I'd ever see this song be described as "joyous" or "celebratory". First of all, it does in fact sound like it is in a minor key because it does have a bit of a darker feel to it. But also like...have we seen the music video? Have we acknowledged exactly what movie this song is the lead single from? The director of Fifty Shades said that The Weeknd's music and the film are "a match made in heaven" and a music critic from The Guardian said that the song "sat comfortably with the Weeknd's depraved brand identity". Yeah, not really joyous or celebratory.
All of this is punctuated by the fact that I actually have a playlist of songs that I like in a minor key, some of which might've surprised me. For example, "You Make Me Feel..." by Cobra Starship and "Yeah" by Usher are both allegedly in minor keys (I have little proper knowledge of music theory so I cannot confirm or deny) and I feel like those are wayyyyy better choices.
Anyways. I just feel like the book could've been so much more. There were a lot of interesting random little tidbits, especially socio-political commentary, that was kind of just inserted and we moved on from that. In reality, entire essays or books could probably be devoted to the one sentence that they wrote. I'm not entirely dinging the authors on that, because at the end of the day, one book isn't going to tell the whole entire story. I guess I can agree with the first part of their subtitle, "How Popular Music Works", but not necessarily the latter half, "and Why it Matters."
For example, there was a really interesting comparison to the 2011 release of two songs titled "Made in America", one country and one hip-hop, two genres that are notoriously diametrically opposed. There were so many tidbits present. The heavy country association with the banjo that has its roots in Western African music. The overlap between enforcing strict genre associations that really function more on identity. There was even a really interesting intro to the idea that people who "like every genre except country" aren't necessarily dismissing the style but also intentionally separating themselves from the idea of 'people who like country' and connecting it to which parts of American history we want to highlight or identify with. But it was like a seven page chapter? I'd read a whole big ass book on that topic. And a lot of those seven pages were telling the history of the 808s lol.
My conclusion here: I'm still giving it four stars. I enjoyed it, I learned something, I'm glad that I read it. I'm not expecting one book that has less than 200 pages to entirely delve into a topic. I appreciated the level of detail used in the music theory concepts, which was helpful to reinforce things that I've learned in practice by playing the piano and dance and whatnot but never academically dedicating thought to. Some people thought that the music theory was super remedial and some people didn't understand it all because the music theory went way over their heads. You can't win em all.
I think this review about as long as the whole book.
January 14, 2020
Very similar to podcast so can be a bit redundant if you have already listened to it. A good intro to some music theory and how it applies to pop music.
January 18, 2020
i definitely enjoyed this book - but it's very much music theory for dummies. thankfully i am a dummy. if you have a wide breath of knowledge about music theory you may find sloan and harding explaining what a chord is a little basic but this is a great, well written and informative book for those beginning our music theory journey.
February 25, 2020
I really enjoy the podcast and so I was primed to be a fan of the book. It has some strengths that the podcast can't have (visual representations of musical components) and some weaknesses — the somewhat facile nature of the analysis. But as an introduction it's quite fun. The short chapters mean that it doesn't feel like time wasted if you already know what rhythm is, for example.
December 5, 2020
“Pop represented the final frontier, the forbidden pleasure. And when we, Nate and Charlie, broke down the walls and let pop into our lives, everything changed. . . . It turned out that the only thing preventing us from enjoying pop was our own bias against it.”
Nate and Charlie, longtime podcast hosts, aren’t your average music aficionados. Nate is a musicology professor with PhD and Charlie is a long-time music journalist and songwriter. If you were to picture the type of book they’d write, I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn’t be this one. Over the course of 20 popular songs from the last couple decades, they break down not only what exactly makes catchy pop songs so popular, but also why they’re actually high-quality pieces with real musical qualities.
Woven in throughout is a bit of the history of pop music (going back centuries), explanations of various musical terms and theories, and fun/ridiculous illustrations.
They got me hooked right away with an introduction about “Call Me, Maybe” and an early chapter about Taylor Swift, who I have an unabashed love for. Other songs include “Hey Ya,” Sia’s “Chandelier,” “Oops . . . I Did It Again,” and plenty more that you’ll recognize.
My own confession and connection to this book is that I love pop music. If music is playing in my house, it’s usually Pandora’s “Today’s Adult Hits,” which is basically pop + Mumford. Halsey, Biebs, even Post Malone are regularly stuck in my head. So while I’m someone who would obviously enjoy this book, anyone who loves music will have fun with it too.
While Nate and Charlie openly acknowledge plenty of the inanities of pop music, they note: “there are also genuine artists among the bunch, and that is who we have sought to represent in these pages.”
One complaint: the authors do get rather technical at times. I skimmed over some of the music theory portions to get to the funny bits (“Just as [Derulo] argues that booty is a universal language, so we can argue that we are all melodic polyglots.”) and the explorations of why certain things are popular or not.
A really fun, light-hearted, educational, and enjoyable book all around. Consider it a unique gift for the person who wants a smart explanation of why pop music can be so enthralling and catchy. The only reason it gets 3 stars vs 4 is because I think the audience for this one is pretty niche.
Nate and Charlie, longtime podcast hosts, aren’t your average music aficionados. Nate is a musicology professor with PhD and Charlie is a long-time music journalist and songwriter. If you were to picture the type of book they’d write, I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn’t be this one. Over the course of 20 popular songs from the last couple decades, they break down not only what exactly makes catchy pop songs so popular, but also why they’re actually high-quality pieces with real musical qualities.
Woven in throughout is a bit of the history of pop music (going back centuries), explanations of various musical terms and theories, and fun/ridiculous illustrations.
They got me hooked right away with an introduction about “Call Me, Maybe” and an early chapter about Taylor Swift, who I have an unabashed love for. Other songs include “Hey Ya,” Sia’s “Chandelier,” “Oops . . . I Did It Again,” and plenty more that you’ll recognize.
My own confession and connection to this book is that I love pop music. If music is playing in my house, it’s usually Pandora’s “Today’s Adult Hits,” which is basically pop + Mumford. Halsey, Biebs, even Post Malone are regularly stuck in my head. So while I’m someone who would obviously enjoy this book, anyone who loves music will have fun with it too.
While Nate and Charlie openly acknowledge plenty of the inanities of pop music, they note: “there are also genuine artists among the bunch, and that is who we have sought to represent in these pages.”
One complaint: the authors do get rather technical at times. I skimmed over some of the music theory portions to get to the funny bits (“Just as [Derulo] argues that booty is a universal language, so we can argue that we are all melodic polyglots.”) and the explorations of why certain things are popular or not.
A really fun, light-hearted, educational, and enjoyable book all around. Consider it a unique gift for the person who wants a smart explanation of why pop music can be so enthralling and catchy. The only reason it gets 3 stars vs 4 is because I think the audience for this one is pretty niche.
February 16, 2021
I felt like I should leave a review here after reading so many musicians tear it down as being too basic. I'm a very experienced musician (~15 years) and songwriter (~6-7 years), who has taken several formal music theory courses and devoured many books and other resources on the subject, and I still thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was highly detailed and packed a ton of information and LOTS of variety into a compact format. Yes, it's true that every chapter had definitions and explanations that were quite basic that I already knew, but I didn't find it tedious to skip over those at all. It was like a paragraph here, a few sentences there, and the terms were always in bold, very easy for my eyes to just pass over. As each chapter wore on, they usually got into more advanced concepts, analysis, comparisons, and context. My advice to any musicians is to stick with it, skip over those parts and certainly don't let yourself get offended and miss out on the real value in it - the authors are not trying to patronize you, they're merely trying to remain accessible to the uninformed reader. It doesn't mean there isn't also more advanced information that you can enjoy too.
For what it's worth/for a bit of context, I have never listened to their podcast but as a songwriter who wants my songs to be as good as possible, I read/listen to as much content about music theory and song analysis as I can get my hands on. I should also say I'm the type of person who actually learns best through reading, and I usually dislike getting information from videos or podcasts. I guess it makes sense that if you *don't* learn best through reading, maybe you wouldn't like a book like this.
Anyway I kind of took a multimedia approach to it - I definitely don't recommend reading it without listening to the parts indicated (they give handy timestamps!), you likely won't get much out of it that way unless maybe you've listened to the songs many times before. I will say that, while I know a lot about music theory and song structure, I don't listen to a lot of modern pop music, so it was a bit of an education in that for me too. About half of the songs, I had never even heard of while I was pretty familiar with a few of them. So I kept Spotify and YouTube open the entire time, and whenever a song or video was mentioned, I listened/watched it (even if I already knew the song). I feel like I learned quite a bit about what makes modern pop music so appealing, its patterns and innovations, and learned some new techniques that I can apply myself.
It doesn't bother me that they added those basic definitions, which make the book accessible to general audiences who might love music but have never taken a music theory course and don't want to. I'm glad those people are able to get something out of it too!
For what it's worth/for a bit of context, I have never listened to their podcast but as a songwriter who wants my songs to be as good as possible, I read/listen to as much content about music theory and song analysis as I can get my hands on. I should also say I'm the type of person who actually learns best through reading, and I usually dislike getting information from videos or podcasts. I guess it makes sense that if you *don't* learn best through reading, maybe you wouldn't like a book like this.
Anyway I kind of took a multimedia approach to it - I definitely don't recommend reading it without listening to the parts indicated (they give handy timestamps!), you likely won't get much out of it that way unless maybe you've listened to the songs many times before. I will say that, while I know a lot about music theory and song structure, I don't listen to a lot of modern pop music, so it was a bit of an education in that for me too. About half of the songs, I had never even heard of while I was pretty familiar with a few of them. So I kept Spotify and YouTube open the entire time, and whenever a song or video was mentioned, I listened/watched it (even if I already knew the song). I feel like I learned quite a bit about what makes modern pop music so appealing, its patterns and innovations, and learned some new techniques that I can apply myself.
It doesn't bother me that they added those basic definitions, which make the book accessible to general audiences who might love music but have never taken a music theory course and don't want to. I'm glad those people are able to get something out of it too!
August 5, 2020
Okay, so you love Kelly Clarkson (like I do).
Okay, so you think "We Found Love" by Rihanna was important to pop music (like I did).
Okay, so "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen hasn't left your head since 2011 (like me).
Despite loving what millions of others have loved, you still can't put a finger on why the music is important. Critics don't seem to get the tunes you love. You somehow feel your taste is inferior to your friends.
This is the book for you to add to your list.
The genre of pop music has been largely ignored by scholars and authors - a shame given its significance on millions of lives each and every day. And, sure, some of pop music is formulaic, derivative swill. But a lot of it - especially a lot of the biggest tunes - really have a lot more to say than first meets the ear. And, ultimately, what does make certain pop music superior than its contemporaries?
Music journalist Charlie Harding and musicologist Nate Sloan - also known as the co-hosts of the Switched On Pop podcast - have built a career out of poking at prodding at pop tunes to explore both their musical and cultural significance. Their first book, aptly named after their namesake podcast, explores basic building blocks of music (timbre, pitch, melody) through eighteen of the biggest pop songs of the 2000s. Geared toward a pop music fan, the book allows the reader to learn about what makes music music by using songs they know and love as illustrations. The writing is casual in tone but rigorous in nature. If you love pop music, you're bound to appreciate it in a whole new way after reading this book. If you aren't a pop music fan, well, maybe this book is will give you a new way to look at (and listen to) the tunes have shaped the generations around you.
Okay, so you think "We Found Love" by Rihanna was important to pop music (like I did).
Okay, so "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen hasn't left your head since 2011 (like me).
Despite loving what millions of others have loved, you still can't put a finger on why the music is important. Critics don't seem to get the tunes you love. You somehow feel your taste is inferior to your friends.
This is the book for you to add to your list.
The genre of pop music has been largely ignored by scholars and authors - a shame given its significance on millions of lives each and every day. And, sure, some of pop music is formulaic, derivative swill. But a lot of it - especially a lot of the biggest tunes - really have a lot more to say than first meets the ear. And, ultimately, what does make certain pop music superior than its contemporaries?
Music journalist Charlie Harding and musicologist Nate Sloan - also known as the co-hosts of the Switched On Pop podcast - have built a career out of poking at prodding at pop tunes to explore both their musical and cultural significance. Their first book, aptly named after their namesake podcast, explores basic building blocks of music (timbre, pitch, melody) through eighteen of the biggest pop songs of the 2000s. Geared toward a pop music fan, the book allows the reader to learn about what makes music music by using songs they know and love as illustrations. The writing is casual in tone but rigorous in nature. If you love pop music, you're bound to appreciate it in a whole new way after reading this book. If you aren't a pop music fan, well, maybe this book is will give you a new way to look at (and listen to) the tunes have shaped the generations around you.
August 22, 2021
The elitist in me hates pop; the populist in me loves it. Switched on Pop: How Popular Music Works, and Why It Matters shows all the thought that goes into mass-market music, teaching even the most snobbish of us to appreciate craft from any artist. I'd also recommend this book to music lovers who'd like an easy, narrative-based, example-full introduction to music theory. You know, the folks who (rightfully) jam to Beyonce's "Love On Top" and yearn to understand why its stack of choruses hype and hype and hype.
Also, nice job, Nate and Charlie, for staying true to the style and voice of your podcast even in writing. It's so compassionate, authoritative, and optimistic. Love it.
Also, nice job, Nate and Charlie, for staying true to the style and voice of your podcast even in writing. It's so compassionate, authoritative, and optimistic. Love it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews