This is a pretty complex discussion... when you just look at the word Pop as being short for Popular it can be as simple as that. A song that is popular for a period of time and, depending on how that song impacts people, may age very well still being relevant as time goes on. Does the music have merit? depends on who is listening and who identifies with the song I guess. Elvis had people writing songs for him as did Elton John, the intention was not only to make a good song but the hopes of selling records was there as well... I wouldn't consider their music to be corporate garbage, but to each their own on this subject.

"Pop" in the intended sense here does not mean "popular". In fact in its conventional sense it never means simply "popular". Popular is too broad a term. You could describe metal as being popular, or Mozart and Beethoven as being popular, inasmuch as they have a very large audience. Still, you wouldn't start calling Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or Slipknot "pop music".

Pop music in its most typical sense refers to mainstream formats - that is, formats of the day that are consumed on a mass scale across the whole of society. You could argue that it is mostly "corporate garbage", because the vast majority of that music is entirely generic and unremarkable, which is aside from the point that it is crafted not with artistic intent but merely for the purposes of mass consumption.

Pop music might also refer to music that is not necessarily corporate at all, but rather gravitates towards melodies, hooks, and catchy arrangements, like indie pop or whatever.

Billboard charts = Popular.

Catchy, light, fluffy songs = Pop Songs.

What's garbage is to be determined by the individual listener.

If you think "garbage" cannot be defined objectively, then fine. However, if it is possible to agree on a set definition of "garbage", then no.

Suffice to say, I agree that "garbage" is probably not the best term. "Generic" is probably a better one, then people can thrash it out over whether or not "generic" = "garbage".

That most stuff in the charts for the last 20+ years is generic, run-of-the-mill, insipid and innocuous is beyond question. There are the odd unquestionably inspired melodies though, here and there.

This topic can be broken down into so many layers (to the point that it's almost not worth discussing). If pop was seen as generic and generic was viewed as garbage on a grand scale then the formula would change in order to satisfy the people buying those records. Sometimes the generic stuff is necessary depending on who the audience is... not every new song needs to re-invent the wheel, I can dig a familiar format with a new brand of vocals being incorporated now and then. Also, I don't think Pop is the only genre guilty of using a cookie cutter format as a foundation... every genre has there rules and guidelines to adhere to if it's going to be taken seriously. If a person thinks Pop is crap then they probably just don't like Pop music as I just don't like Country music.

Quite right, pop is not the only genre guilty of using a cookie cutter format as a foundation. Many bands in many genres can afford to be generic because generic is A, easier, and B, what the audience are content with. So yeah...there's bland, innocuous genericism everywhere. But chart music is one of the places where it DOES exist.

Easy to listen to? It induces vomiting when I hear it...

you should probably get that checked out.

:0
okay, let me rephrase that.
it's meant to be easy to listen to.

OK much better :thumb: