I'll raise you one and say he's talking out of his arse. :)

I have to side with Urban here, i think the art of making a brilliant pop song is just as technical and demanding of talent as it would be with any sort of complex rock music or whatever, so it attracts those sort of fans as well.
This is coming from someone who in the last 4 years has had their musical taste evolve dramatically to cover most spectrums, at the end of the day it's still a genius, infectious pop song that will floor me over anything. And i know i'm definitely not alone there.

I have to disagree with you here, do you truly believe that pop tracks such as "This is Why I'm Hot" or anything by R. Kelly or Avril Lavigne (often played on U.S. radio) can compare technically to the likes of Radiohead? I have to respectfully label that as b.s. (for lack of a better term) pop tracks are like popping a pill, you get a high for a bit and then it's over, you may lsten to it later to get the same little high but for the most part, it's artificial. Also, many acts considered "pop" are in it for the money rather than artistic fulfillment, so while I will never label any form of music as "garbage" I have to say pop music does not compare technically to a group like Radiohead.

Yeah cause Avril Lavigne is better than Radiohead.

Well using those examples the likes of Avril Lavigne have a completely different aim with the music compared to Radiohead. In the same way that her songs may not have the same level of depth to Radiohead's songs, Radiohead haven't got any music that is that universally loved by the casual music crowd that like their music quick and cheerful.
And then there are far better artists than her who have produced incredible pop songs that give more than a 'little high'. For a song to get stuck in someone's head so much that they have to play it constantly i think there has to be a lot of technical ability in songwriting.
Yes, there is crap in the charts but not enough to say the whole thing is garbage.

I had my i-tunes library on random earlier today and I ran into a song by Kelly Rowland titled, "Like This". The lyrics were pointless and rather foolish, but I couldn't stop listening. There was this kind of synthesized riff in the song that played at intervals and I found myself waiting for it to come back. That's what I mean by a high, it was that one part that kept me listening and when the song was done there wasn't much that had me wanting to play it again. But I agree with you that pop music has an aim to appeal to people which is partly why it seems a bit "dumbed down" to many.

Either my post was completely misunderstood all you're all imbeciles.

All I was saying is that there will always be good and bad pop music because what's popular will never be universally popular.

I was not dismissing the genre at all. I was listened to Casey's Top forty here in the US while the future seed of Urban was still wearing water wings.

I am confused by the confusion.

P.S. I'm Hot cause I'm fly.

I agree
 

I have to say that pop as a genre is by and large more or less a tried experiment that has succeeded in its purpose. Even something as common as the comics feature pop more frequently than any other genre. You will never see the Archies featuring anything other than pop, for it is the most popular genre there is. It is but natural that corporates would want to get into it on account of its reach and have already done so.

Why you gotta go and make things so complicated :)

also, 32 pages? it's like a bad pop song on loop.

Pop certianly has its merits, I think all genres of music do (yea, even sludge metal and crap). I personally have never been a big fan of pop but with stuff like, say Rihanna, I CAN see why it's popular. Pop can be very catchy and fun to dance to.