I hate pop music

right, gianluca, im all for fre speech and what not, but my god would cut the crap, just a bit!??! 'stalinistic'!??!?!?!? feckin heck! there is mroe than classical and pop music, unless your classifying heavy metal, dance, jazz and samba all as pop... in that case, well i pity you:blush:

Pop = popular music. Dance and metal qualify as popular music. I know this is a touchy issue for some of us, but lets try to keep the ad hominem to a minimum, okay? Everyone has a right to their opinion.

what makes metal 'pop' and classical not 'pop'!? really, define that and ill accept your point

and just by the by, nowadays pop is a genre, like metal and dance, the notion that its named so becuase its popular is outdated, and no longer really has true meaning. pop music is a style of music

I agree, Ljoekelsoey. I think 'pop' qualifies as music that (a) is mainly instrumented with synths/synth drums, and (b) has catchy, rhyming lyrics. Metal, generally, has neither. Same with classical.

I agree, Ljoekelsoey. I think 'pop' qualifies as music that (a) is mainly instrumented with synths/synth drums, and (b) has catchy, rhyming lyrics.

Then pop didn't exist before synthesizers? That's one of the silliest definitions I've heard.

what makes metal 'pop' and classical not 'pop'!? really, define that and ill accept your point

and just by the by, nowadays pop is a genre, like metal and dance, the notion that its named so becuase its popular is outdated, and no longer really has true meaning. pop music is a style of music

"Popular music is music belonging to any of a number of musical styles that are accessible to the general public and are disseminated by one or more of the mass media. It stands in contrast to art music, which historically was the music of the elite and upper strata of society, and traditional music which was disseminated orally." (From Wikipedia, because I don't have time to get a better source.)

That is the sense that the term "pop music" is being used in this thread. Jazz is not pop music; it qualifies as art music. These distinctions can be somewhat arbitrary, especially on the borders of different types, but it is the terminology.

You guys are confusing Pop, with pop. It's like this:

'Pop' music (capital 'P') is a genre.

'pop' music (popular, lowercase 'p') is any/all music that is/was popular.

It's the same as Classical / classical.

Then pop didn't exist before synthesizers? That's one of the silliest definitions I've heard.

Yes, it did -- but not the genre. For example, pop in previous decades would today be considered rock, jazz, and the like today. The genre Pop today is generally defined by these characteristics. There are plenty of popular songs that don't, but they also don't fall under the genre of Pop.

From Wikipedia (a reliable source, I know :P): The standard format of pop music is the song, customarily less than five minutes in duration, and with an instrumentation that can range from an orchestra to a lone singer. Despite this wide scope, a typical lineup in a pop band includes a lead guitarist, a bassist, a drummer (or an electronic drum machine), a keyboardist and one or more singers, ordinarily not themselves instrumentalists. Pop songs are generally marked by a heavy rhythmic element, a mainstream style and traditional structure. The most common variant is strophic in form and focuses on memorable melodies, catchy hooks and the appeal of the verse-chorus-verse arrangement, with the chorus sharply contrasting the verse melodically, rhythmically and harmonically.Lyrics in pop compositions are usually simple and speak of universal experiences and feelings, shying away from obscure or controversial issues.

Yes, it did -- but not the genre. For example, pop in previous decades would today be considered rock, jazz, and the like today. The genre Pop today is generally defined by these characteristics. There are plenty of popular songs that don't, but they also don't fall under the genre of Pop.

From Wikipedia (a reliable source, I know :P): The standard format of pop music is the song, customarily less than five minutes in duration, and with an instrumentation that can range from an orchestra to a lone singer. Despite this wide scope, a typical lineup in a pop band includes a lead guitarist, a bassist, a drummer (or an electronic drum machine), a keyboardist and one or more singers, ordinarily not themselves instrumentalists. Pop songs are generally marked by a heavy rhythmic element, a mainstream style and traditional structure. The most common variant is strophic in form and focuses on memorable melodies, catchy hooks and the appeal of the verse-chorus-verse arrangement, with the chorus sharply contrasting the verse melodically, rhythmically and harmonically.Lyrics in pop compositions are usually simple and speak of universal experiences and feelings, shying away from obscure or controversial issues.

That definition mentions keyboardists and electronic drum kits, but does not list either as primary traits of the genre.

The genre of Pop certainly existed before synthesizers. I don't want to seem like I'm attacking you, but this is ridiculous. Synthesizers and drum machines have become popular in Pop music today, but they aren't defining to the genre. For goodness sake, the genre is traced back to the 50s in the same article you quote from.

[re: Pop] For goodness sake, the genre is traced back to the 50s in the same article you quote from.

Perhaps the roots of Pop can be traced back then, but Pop as a genre only came to be in the 80's onward (developed out of disco). Pop is a sound, a sound that was simply not technically possible in the 50s...

I defy anyone to give a solid example of a Pop tune from 1950 - 60? ??

ok, there's a whole bunch of pedantic posturing going on now...

(there's that word again)

I think we can all agree that the OP used "pop" in the sense of "not art music", rather than "pertaining to the Pop school of music".

In the same way that one would say that "Debussy and Ravel are classical composers", while "Mozart and Haydn are Classical composers".

OK, so we know, there are two uses for each of those terms.

At LEAST, argue over the merits of the OP's heinous comments, not over the minutiae of definition of style not included in the original post!

Anywho, I happen to like some pop/Pop (mostly the latter) music. I am starting to learn to judge all music according to its own merit. I can't abide trite songs like, say, Crank Dat Soulja Boy ::shudder:: because of its uninteresting drum beat and oversimplified single melody line -- not to mention the mumbled, vulgar lyrics. But songs like Britney Spears' Gimme More, for example, may have trite lyrics, but the polyphony is quite interesting. That's why I prefer the second piece over the first. Whatever kind of music musically satisfies me is the kind I will listen to.

Perhaps the roots of Pop can be traced back then, but Pop as a genre only came to be in the 80's onward (developed out of disco). Pop is a sound, a sound that was simply not technically possible in the 50s...

Totally erroneous, again. Pop certainly didn't emerge out of disco, though disco influenced. The pop sounds that are popular today may have begun then, but pop singles from artists like the Beatles were all over the airwaves far before then.

Totally erroneous, again. Pop certainly didn't emerge out of disco, though disco influenced. The pop sounds that are popular today may have begun then, but pop singles from artists like the Beatles were all over the airwaves far before then.

You still don't get it, but as QCCowboy mentioned, this is getting ridiculous. You'll figure it out eventually. Feel free to PM if you want clarification. But let's return this thread to it's rightful owners...

Totally erroneous, again. Pop certainly didn't emerge out of disco, though disco influenced.

Look, nothing happens just because of ONE SINGULAR THING!! It is a slow process, and you can't just say *POOF!* Pop came from one source- Whoever pioneered it could've been versed in Classical and techno or something, and just started experimenting. In order for music to come from one thing, ALL the pioneers must have only listened to ONE KIND OF MUSIC... Quite illogical, isn't it?

Gianluca -

If you're still here, then I have a challenge for you. If you genuinely think there's no skill, invention or wit involved in writing 'good' pop music, then I challenge you to turn your classically-honed powers of composition to this facile art, and write a piece of successful pop music. Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

I think you'll actually find that most people regard classical music as 'wallpaper', and would rather listen to pop music for its merits alone. I think that writing good pop music requires just as much skill as writing good classical music; let's not lose sight of the fact that Mozart, Schumann etc. etc. were the 'pop' artists of their day. They churned out what people wanted to hear. I seriously doubt that much of Bach's audience cared for the cunning manupulation of motives in his chorale treatments and fugues; they just liked the sound.

Gianluca -

If you're still here, then I have a challenge for you. If you genuinely think there's no skill, invention or wit involved in writing 'good' pop music, then I challenge you to turn your classically-honed powers of composition to this facile art, and write a piece of successful pop music. Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

:laugh: This is funny - I hope he thinks that Max Martin and his army of Swedish songwriters aren't absolute geniuses when it comes to manipulating media and skillful writing and production. Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears are such HUGE moneymakers because the guys who produce and compose their music really know and understand how little Suzy Everygirl is going to react... It's an art in and of itself, knowing your target market, and exploiting it...perhaps not the most admirable skill, but whatever.

So do I my friend

Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

While I certainly don't agree with Gianluca, I find this a poor argument. For once, as robinjessome mentioned, there are a lot more factors to what makes a piece of music popular than its quality, especially in the short term.

Also, why should Gianluca even bother getting into composing pop and making a successful pop piece, if he doesn't think it has any worth? That's like asking someone to "prove" it's easy to walk a mile backwards, in comparison to running a marathon in record time. Of course it's a trifle compared to a marathon, but why spend your time on it, only to repeatedly walk through dog's droppings, just to prove what you were already certain of? (I'm not saying that composing pop -is- like this.)

I seriously doubt that much of Bach's audience cared for the cunning manupulation of motives in his chorale treatments and fugues; they just liked the sound.

I think Bach is quite a poor example for a "pop artist". Of course he wrote commissioned works for a specific occasion and audience, but if pleasing the audience was his main goal I'm sure his music would sound -totally- different. He was a famous organist, and "acceptable" as a composer (but not in the least as popular as many contemporaries), but the broad public didn't care much about fugues and would probably have liked the sound much more -without- the complex polyphony. Many, if not most, of his works were performed once in his lifetime and then not anymore until a long time after his death.

The same applies to Schumann. While he did write some small pieces mainly to earn a living, he certainly wouldn't have considered himself a pop musician equivalent of his time. He looked down on composers who, in his opinion, wrote shallow music only to please the public, such as Rossini. Schumann was decidedly against populistic music.

But anyways, comparing "classical" music before the 20th century to popular music, just doesn't quite cut it, as it was -never- such a mass phenomenon as it is now. It very rarely reached the underclass. Peasants didn't listen to Palestrina, and Mozart composed for the nobility.

I think classical musicians are just jealous of "pop" music because they have no rhythm or soul, nor do they have a sense of progression. Of course, posturing in the mid-20th century wasn't helping either (LaMonte Young)

If you disagree, challenge me :P

A superficial jab, but still somewhat relevant nonetheless

I think classical musicians are just jealous of "pop" music because they have no rhythm or soul, nor do they have a sense of progression.

I think all music has soul, and pop is more expressed in words therefore it's more comprehensive. Please don't say classical music doesn't have soul, composers dedicated their life in their works.

I GUESS claasical people can be jealous since pop industry is more profitable.

I apologize if I accidentally might have offended you in some sort of way

I think all music has soul, and pop is more expressed in words therefore it's more comprehensive. Please don't say classical music doesn't have soul, composers dedicated their life in their works.

I GUESS claasical people can be jealous since pop industry is more profitable.

I apologize if I accidentally might have offended you in some sort of way

I meant soul in the modern sense, kid :P

I think

No, no, no. You're doing this wrong. Less thinking and more listening to Bartok, Villa-Lobos and Ginastera.

Gianluca -

If you're still here, then I have a challenge for you. If you genuinely think there's no skill, invention or wit involved in writing 'good' pop music, then I challenge you to turn your classically-honed powers of composition to this facile art, and write a piece of successful pop music. Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

You have to realize that what makes a pop song successful does not so much depend on the quality of it or the skills required to produce it, but rather on chance factors having to do with marketing, image, lifestyle, stage performance, manipulation of the mass media, etc. I could easily write a well-crafted pop song that is more artistic, more musically interesting and less predictable than 99% of the pop ditties played on MTV, VH1 and all that crap. But, as Gardener has pointed out, why should I even bother? Nowadays the pop audience will buy anything. Any song

I think classical musicians are just jealous of "pop" music because they have no rhythm or soul, nor do they have a sense of progression.

What the heck are you talking about, classical musicians have no rhythm or soul?! They may not have the same sense of rhythm as jazz or pop musicians, but saying that they have no rhythm or soul is either painfully naive or just plain dumb. If classical musicians have any reason to be jealous, it