Well, I think the biggest problem is what pop is. Pop at one point just meant what was popular. Whether it was classical, jazz, or rock it could pretty much be anything. However, in the 80s it seems like there was sort of a super secretive group or something, I don't know, that decided that pop was a particular sound.
When you really look into it the sound means nothing more than minimalist(in both structure, and instrumental melody) studio based rock n' roll with vocals as the central focus. Tons of music is this way. Some of it necessarily popular, or not. There's both good of it in popular, and non-popular contexts. Ironically, however, from my findings the vast majority of the quality "minimalist studio based rock n' roll" is not popular.
When you look at it meaning what's popular. Led Zeppelin are good pop as are Pink Floyd, Soundgarden, Van Halen, Judas Priest, etc. Things that are poppy in their own regard but not particularly considered pop. Even though, they really are.
Pop itself considered it's own genre always bothers me because it creates a sense that a lot of really poor, untested, music is shoved down our throats because it's the style that is supposed to be popular. IE. minimalist studio based rock n' roll. Which hurts because it makes people assume that all minimalist studio based rock n' roll acts of it's styling are somehow inferior.
__________________
Quote:
|
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
|
Al Pacino = God
|