One of the greatest complements (although I freely acknowledge that it was intended an insult) that anyone ever paid me was when I was called a "Pop Tart". The comment was caused by my declaration that two of the year's (2005) best albums were "Chemistry" by Girls Aloud and "Taller in Many Ways" by Sugababes. I had plunged into an office conversation on this subject and titles such as "Demon Days" Gorillaz, "Silent Alarm" Bloc Party, "Get Behind Me Satan" White Stripes and "XandY " Coldplay had been mentioned. It is fair to say, then, that my suggestions were greeted with something close to derision. Most people thought I was either taking the piss (I wasn't) or had taken leave of my senses (Possibly but not where this subject is concerned).
The fact was, though, and remains that I was being deadly serious. My Top 5 that year were 1. "Exit Music" Steven Lindsay 2. Girls Aloud 3. "Oceans Apart" Go Betweens 4. Sugababes 5 "In The Clear" Ivy. I maintain that these are 5 excellent records. However for many people the presence of two "Pop" bands would invalidate the whole list. Because you see, there is a consensus amongst lovers of popular (in the broadest sense of the term) music and that is that "Rock" (in the broadest sense of the term) is inherently better than pop. The rationale behind this argument is that "Rock" music is made by serious musicians who love their craft and is built to last whilst pop music is made by charlatans (not the Charlatans) who are out to ride the latest fad and make a quick buck by ripping off a guillible market place (largely made up of girls aged between 7 and 14). The resultant "music" is shallow and inherently disposable and will be forgotten once the next trend arrives. For evidence of this you only have to look at these "Best 100 Albums Ever" lists. Actually you don't have to look at the list because you can guess what's in them because they usually all contain the same albums "OK Computer", "Nevermind" "Sergeant Pepper" "London Calling" "Whatever People Say I'm Not" and so on and so forth. All these albums have one thing in common, they are all "Rock" records. You will struggle to find any Pop records, "Dare" by the Human League and "The Lexicon of Love" by ABC possibly but that'll be about your lot.
"Rock" music is, so this argument goes, built to last whilst "Pop" is inherently disposable and, therefore, inferior. Now I fully appreciate that a volume of people don't like "Pop" but it's still a huge, and frankly, indefensible, step to state that no one is allowed to attribute the whole genre any lasting merit. I can't stand Jazz but if someone presented me their list of great albums and it contained a volume of Jazz records, I wouldn't dismiss it as nonsense. Now, there's a number of reasons why people look down their noses at pop. Naysayers cite the usual "rockist" criticisms: makers of pop records don't write their own songs, they don't play their own instruments, it's all manufactured in the studio etc etc etc.
Personally I suspect that it has more to do with the following. Firstly it relates to pop music's initial target audience, which (and please excuse the broad generalisation) is the afore mentioned girls aged between 7 and 14 (although that upper limit is lowering as time passes). There is an implied and actually quite insulting criticism that if that is your target market then your product (please pardon the business speak) must be trite drivel because girls between the age of 7 and 14 have no taste. Incidentally I say "initial" target audience because, as the years pass, there are signs that as a pop audience ages, it still retains a fondness for the pop bands of their youth. A prime example of this is Take That. When they were in their heyday, their target audience was.......girls between the ages of 7 and 14. 20 years on and the "That" are very much a going concern and the bulk of their audience is made up of ladies between the ages of 37 and 44!!
Secondly I think what we have here is good old fashioned envy of success!! This is particular noticeable these days. Have a quick shufty at the singles charts and they are awash with pop bands and the album chart, once the dominion of "Rock" acts, is about the same. As I write, out of the current Top 10 albums, 2 are by definite "Rock" acts (Springsteen and London Grammar) and there are 7 Pop acts. This leaves Bastille and I am not sure how to classify them (except as shite-ho ho). Pops acts are selling records by the shedload and not just initially either. The current number one album, Ellie Goulding's Halycon, has been in the charts for 67 weeks! By contrast virtually any rock album that goes in the Top 10 has normally made it's excuses and buggered off before the month's out. Rock albums, of course, tend to be far more critically lauded. Take David Bowie, for example. His surprise 2013 album "The Next Day" was lauded to the sky by the critics as a work on a par with his 70s output, it received extensive coverage in the mainstream press (largely because of the nature of its release) and it featured in most Music Magazines Top 5s. However, although it sold veryreasonably, it was only the 26th best selling album of 2013 (and was one of only 3 "Rock" albums in that Top 30 alongside Stereophonics and Arctic Monkeys) and was comprehensively outsold by the likes of One Direction, Michael Buble, Olly Murs and Bruno Mars.
Faced by what they surely perceive as a flagrant injustice, "Rock" fans cry "Foul!" and state that Murs, Mars, Styles and the lads, Buble et al don't play their own instruments, don't write their own songs, it's all manufactured pap etc etc etc. And they then climb onto an even higher echelon of their soapbox and state that in years to come, they will all be forgotten whilst "The Next Day" will be still lauded and presumably be being poured forth from the speakers in Restaurants, Shopping Precincts and at Weddings.
Sadly for these people, as the years pass and popular music, in the widest sense of the term, grows ever older, there are ever growing signs that they are frankly TALKING BOLLOCKS. For Pop Music is, contrary to their expectations, lasting, putting down roots, being passed on from one generation to another...just like "Rock" music in fact. OK it may not dominate the afore mentioned "Greatest Albums" ever lists but to be honest, who gives a toss what's in those lists anyway.
And for evidence of this I call "Hunting High and Low" by A-ha to the stand.
1985 was a strange year for music. From mid 1982 through to the release of "Do They know it's Christmas" the pop scene in the UK was largely dominated by the Big Pop Bands (and Michael Jackson but that's another subject), Duran Duran, Wham, Spandau Ballet, Culture Club and for all of 1984, Frankie Goes to Hollywood. However most of those had peaked, even if it wasn't fully obvious at the time. There are those who would argue that artistically Duran Duran peaked with the Rio album. Certainly the follow up "Seven and The Ragged Tiger" never had the same cultural impact (The video for Rio itself was one of the defining clips from the 80s) and whilst they remained a potent commercial force (The Reflex was their biggest selling single), there were signs that the only way was down. The signs of decline were even more marked for Spandau Ballet and Culture Club. After spending 3 years arsing around with keyboards, blankets and then sub Pigbag funk, Spandau (as they were known) broke big with the "True" album (which was effectively a collection of ersatz white boy soul) and, in particular, the title track, from which even now there is no escape. However the follow up "Parade" was effectively a pale copy of "True" and unlike its predecessor, lacked any Big Pop Hits, which was a major error when you were a Big Pop Band.
If the yawning maw of the dumper was opening for The Kemp Brothers, it was threatening to swallow Culture Club whole. I think people forget just how massive Culture Club were in 1983. "Karma Chameleon" was the years biggest selling single and "Colour by Numbers" was the third best selling album. Moreover "Colour by Numbers" was lauded to the skies by the critics (It is oddly, if unsurprisingly, given my previous argument about Rock vs Pop, overlooked by the same critics now). Boy George meanwhile was, seemingly, loved by everyone, even your mum. Then, sadly, two things happen which have happened to many popular music acts. First and foremost DRUGS. Clearly a considerable number of popular music combos had encounters with chemical substances but not, I would hasten to suggest, to the extent that Boy George did. And secondly, and clearly linked to this, they released an absolute DOG of a follow up album "Waking up with the House on Fire". This was preceded by one of the most trite singles of all time "The War Song", which, with a refrain that could (and probably was) have been written by a five year old, stated very clearly "WE HAVE LOST THE PLOT"
The only one off the Big Pop Bands who looked like sustaining their popularity into 1985 and beyond were Wham. They finished 1984 with the Christmas No 2 "Last Christmas". However, it was only thwarted from the Top Spot by Band Aid. After Christmas, they flipped it over and the B side (ah, those were the days) reached No 1. It is currently the 18th best selling single of all time. Despite releasing no album in 1985, they remained both visible and popular and in December, scored their 4th No 1 with "I'm Your Man!". However, even for Wham, there were clouds on the horizon for the lad George Michael was showing distinct signs of tiring of this pop lark. He wanted to be a SERIOUS artist, one that released drone fests like "Careless Whisper" and chorus free offerings like "A Different Corner".
Now one would have expected other pop bands to rise up and take their place. But no! What we got was something very different indeed. In actual fact I am struggling to think of what to call them, I was going to say "Adult Acts" but that conjures up the wrong image as does "Acts for the Adult Market". Shall we just say that the whilst the Big Pop Bands aimed at.....er Girls between the ages of 7 to 14, what happened next appealed to their mums and dads or at the very least their older brother! Because if you look at the Top 20 albums of 1985 you will see the names of Dire Straits (Ah, "Brothers in Arms"), Bruce Springsteen, Phil Collins. Tears for Fears (People often mistake TFF for a pop band but they were in reality Freud obsessed weirdos who appealed to students), Alison Moyet, Kate Bush and Paul Young. In addition, although they didn't release studio albums in 1985, U2 and Queen were VERY popular
All of a sudden, Pop had become "Mature". A number of reasons have been bandied around for this. Many have blamed Live Aid but whilst it did launch U2 into the Rock Aristocracy and resuscitate Queen, many of the above acts either weren't at Live Aid or were massive beforehand. Others have ascribed the growth to the CD market but CD's were only a nascent format at this stage and didn't really take off until a couple of years later. Personally I think 1985 was the year when it became obvious that Popular Music's audience had grown up and realised that it still actually liked Popular Music. However rather than get all obsessive about it, they had become the kind of audience that just bought a couple of albums a year and wanted those albums to sound like the sort of thing that sophisticated young adults listen to. Of course, the question as to why then felt the answer to this was "No Jacket Required" is another matter entirely but there you go.
So where did this leave "Pop" music and it's attendant throng of girls between the ages of 7 to 14? Well for most of the year, at a bit of a loss, to be honest. I fully appreciate that there was Madonna and 1985 was the year that she really broke big with "Material Girl", "Into The Groove" and the accompanying album "Like a Virgin" but therein lies the rub because the arbiters of the nations taste weren't completely convinced that Madge banging on about being "Like a virgin, touched for the very first time" was suitable for that age group. In any case, there was a bigger problem, Madge was.....a GIRL. In these pre-Spice Girls days, Big Pop Bands were made up of Handsome Young Men. But look as one might they appeared to be in short supply.
And then in September 1985, a Norwegian Act called A-ha released a single called "Take on Me".
Actually strictly speaking that's not true because "Take on Me" had been released on a number of occasions before and each time it had stiffed! Initially it was called "The Juicy Fruit Song" (and it stiffed, well there's a surprise!), then "Lesson One" and finally "Take on Me". I am not sure if the reason behind all this shilly shallying was that they thought if they kept changing the title, it would fool people into thinking it was a different record. Having decided on a title, they then foisted the song on the general public THREE times and on each occasion, the General Public said "No Thanks, we prefer "Move Closer" by Phylis Nelson". As a last throw of the die, A-ha did two things. Firstly, they recruited Alan Tarney to re record the thing. This may seem an odd choice as Mr Tarney was best known for his work with Sir Cliff Richard. However these were in the days when Sir Cliff was best known for a series of pop hits in the early 80s rather than Mistletoe and Wine and being a sanctimonious old bastard. Secondly A-ha made a video.............
The mid 80s were the high water mark of the pop promo. Increasingly from the mid 70s onwards acts made a video to accompany to their singles. Some acts were quick to realise that an excellent video was a great way of selling more records, Madness leap to mind at this juncture. But it was the launch of MTV in 1981 that made a video a necessity, particularly in the States, and so the pop video became an artform in its own right. As more and more videos were released, they had to become more eye catching as a result and the bar kept being raised. The premiere of Michael Jackson's Thriller was more of an event than the release of the single and was almost a mini movie!
However, even given all the competition, The video for Take on Me grabbed the imagination. Now in these days of advanced CGI, it is possibly a bit hard to explain why this was the case. Indeed the blend of live action and animation had been seen earlier in the year in Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" (or maybe that should be "live inaction" as we are talking about ver Straits). I think this is far more memorable for two reasons 1. The video for "Take on Me" had a story and therefore made much more imaginative use of the animation. "Money for Nothing" was effectively Knopfler and the lads playing the song, accompanied by some animated noodling. 2. Let's be blunt, A-ha were a damn site more photogenic than the chaps from Dire Straits. As a result it genuinely felt that this was something brand new! And it is one of the few pop videos that people still remember even after 30 years.
The video quickly achieved widespread play on MTV which helped propel the re re re re re released "Take on Me" up the Billboard Hot 100 in the States reaching No 1 (Just after "Money For Nothing" oddly enough). Now these were the days that if a record made it big in the States, the chances are it would get airplay in the UK as well and so it proved here (Incidentally that came to an end at the start of the 90s when Country went massive in the States with Garth Brooks. With the exception of Billy Ray Cyrus "Achy Breaky Heart", the UK charts have proved resistant to the charms of Country. This marked the start of an increasing divergence between the UK and US charts, culminating in the mid 90s where a band like Hootie and the Blowfish could sell 15 million copies of their debut album but couldn't get arrested in the UK)
"Take on Me" rapidly rose to No 2 and it was only kept off the top by "The Power of Love" by Jennifer Rush, one of the most rancid No 1s of the 80s. And this was frankly an injustice. Not just because of the foulness of Rush's slushfest but because the quality of the video and the endless re releases should not detract from the fact that "Take on Me" is a BRILLIANT Pop Song. It's got a great introduction, it's insistent, there's a great synth line, it's incredibly catchy. And of course it has stood the test of time incredibly well (So there goes the "Disposable" argument) and it is one of the best loved tracks of the 80s.
Suddenly the Teen Magazines thought they found the successors to Duran Duran et al- a band that would appeal to THAT market, Girls between the ages of 7-14. And the reason for this was not just because they had had a big hit but because here were three very good looking young men. Well, without wanting to be unfair to the chief songwriter, Pal Waaktaar, he was possibly the weak link in the chain, looks wise but this was more than compensated for by the lead singer, Morten Harket. In all honesty I am generally no judge of what makes an attractive man. However, Morten Harket was undoubtedly one (He still is, the bastard. I know of many women of a certain age who go weak at the knees at the very mention of his name) and lo and behold, A-ha found themselves on the front cover of Smash Hits. A Pop Sensation was born.
Or was it? The question was: were we in the presence of the new Duran Duran or the new King? Were they going to be one hit wonders? Bearing in mind that they had just had such a big hit, you may think this was an odd question but there was a reason for it. Bluntly put, they weren't from round here or from America, they were from Norway, they were EUROPEAN. And this was a problem because European Pop had a terrible track record in the UK charts, largely because it was, frankly, BOLLOCKS. With the exception of Abba, one would struggle to think of any credible European band in the previous 5 years. All you had was a succession of ghastly novelty hits that cretins decided to buy when they returned from a trip to the Costa Del Sol ("D.I.S.C.O, The Birdie Song, Seven Tears and so on). Furthermore, the ghost of the German band Nena hung over proceedings. "99 Red Balloons" is a Pop Classic but sadly that was all they had in the armoury and their UK career died on its arse! Was history about to repeat itself (although whether Morten Harket had armpits as hairy as Nena's is another matter)? A strong follow up, therefore, was absolutely critical.
On 16th December 1985, A-ha released "The Sun always Shines on TV".
In my humble opinion, there are two types of people in this world. People that love "The Sun Always Shines on TV" and FOOLS! "The Sun Always Shines on TV" is a MAGNIFICENT record. Right from the off, it is very different from "Take on Me". Whilst "Take on Me" is bright and poppy, "Sun" is a much darker beast. It is dramatic, it's bold, it could almost be a Bond Theme (Of course A-ha did a Bond Theme 18 months later). And it made us realise fully that Morten Harket could SING. I mean really SING. In case you haven't guessed I love a lot of 80s pop but there weren't many great singers. Morten Harket was and is a GREAT singer. It soared to the Number 1 spot outdoing "Take on Me". In my mind, it is one of the best No 1s and it hasn't aged a bit!
"The Sun Always Shines on TV" established A-ha as a pop force to be reckoned with and the debut album "Hunting High and Low" sold 11 million copies worldwide and was the fifth best selling album in the UK in 1986 (if you ignore Now 7 and 8- Lord it really was a long time ago). Whilst there is no doubt that the first two singles are the strongest songs on the album, that's no insult because if the rest of the album had been as good, it would have been one of the greatest albums of all time. As it was "Hunting High and Low" is a fine fine album and one of the best Pop albums of the 80s. Personally my favorite A-ha album is "Scoundrel Days" but that is so serious it's questionable as to whether it is a "Pop" record.
What is clear from the album from the off is two things. Firstly Pal Waaktaar is a songwriter of some considerable ability. He writes all of the songs on the album with the exception of "Take on Me" which is a band effort and "Love is Reason" and "I dream myself alive" which are co writes with Mags. Secondly, and this was clearly obvious from the moment "The Sun always shines on TV" was released, there was more to A-ha than a catchy love song. Pal was clearly a man prone to melancholy (a streak that came out in spades in "Scoundrel Days"). Part of this was due to the fact that he was separated from his girlfriend when writing the bulk of the album. Part of it though, I think stems from the fact that he comes from Scandinavia, a place where it's dark more than light. The last twenty years has seen a volume of Scandinavian bands for whom melancholy is a calling card, the Cardigans, Dylan Mondegreen, NoNoNo, Lykke Li leap to mind and I think they can all count A-ha as an influence.
To my mind Morten Harket's voice really comes into it's own on the more melancholy tracks "The Sun always shines on TV", "Living a Boy's Adventure Tale" and, particularly the title track and 4th single "Hunting High and Low". There is a lazy tendency to lump a lot of 80s pop in together, which is frankly stupid and for an illustration of that listen to "Hunting High and Low" the song. In many ways, I think it's like an 80s Walker Brothers, just less over the top.
As for the rest of the album, if one is being critical , the more upbeat songs ("Take on Me" excepted) probably aren't as strong as their slower brethren. However there really isn't a duff song on the album and it is an album I can just put on, play and then play again and at 37 minutes it doesn't outstay its welcome. "Love is Reason" is by some distance the poppiest thing on here and it is actually to A-ha's credit that they did not release it as a single. "Train of Thought" is a great, if slightly odd, third single. However the real strange one is "Here I stand and Face the Rain". the last track, There is a distinct air of paranoia here and in many ways it is the forerunner of "Scoundrel days"
Coming back to where we started, I was at University at the time that "Hunting High and Low" came out and (just as I did 20 years later when I mentioned Girls Aloud and Sugababes) I received Dog's abuse when most of my friends heard that I had bought the album. They were all into "Meat is Murder", ""The Head on the Door" and "Hounds of Love". Frankly, as in 2005 and as now I didn't care. I knew I owned a great Pop album by a great Pop band. Time, of course, has been good to A-ha as frankly time should have been. There are many bands who cite them as an influence, Coldplay being the most notable and they often cover "Hunting High and Low". Many of their singles receive regular airplay and, if any one gives a monkey's arse about such things, when people who think that Pop matters (as it does) compile THEIR list of great albums then "Hunting High and Low" is inevitably on it.
Is it as good as "Nevermind" and all that cobblers? Personally I think it's light years better but I'm a Pop Tart, Of course I'd say that. To my mind what is truly great about this record is that my 8 year old daughter (That 7-14 year old girl bracket again) thinks it's great!! It means it's pop that spans the generations, that will last, whatever the so called taste makers say. Pop Tarts of the generations unite!!!!
