Pop, is it corporate garbage or does it have it's merits? (metal, pop)

~~Oomph!~~ · 03-30-2008, 10:34 PM

Even the obsessivly 'nueteral' wikipedia says this as the opening statement for the pop music article:

Quote:

Pop music is an ample and imprecise category of modern music not defined by artistic considerations but by its potential audience or prospective market.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez · 03-30-2008, 10:42 PM

Some of it is, some of it isn't......

I would contend that most of it is, and that the wiki definition pretty much hit it head on,
although while most pop music is uninspired, contrived b.s., some of it happens to be creative, catchy, and fun, and can't really help the fact that it falls into the category of pop music.

sleepy jack · 03-30-2008, 10:48 PM

Something being only modern music is pretty contradicting for a genre isn't it? Because then what's pop today isn't going to be pop tomorrow (which makes it what?) Wikipedia is usually full of shit when it comes to music genres and that is the case here.

MegaHassan · 10-27-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Something being only modern music is pretty contradicting for a genre isn't it? Because then what's pop today isn't going to be pop tomorrow (which makes it what?) Wikipedia is usually full of shit when it comes to music genres and that is the case here.

Agreed completely

~~Oomph!~~ · 03-30-2008, 11:01 PM

Well, if pop is defined by it's sound, then pop is a group of talentless 25 year olds with irritading nasaly voices. Who is the most talented pop musician ever? Michael Jackson? if MJ is the best pop can offer, I'll gladly pass.

If pop is defined by it's purpose, then pop is trend exploitation, corporate ran watered down plastic bull****.

Either way, I resent it.

adidasss · 03-31-2008, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

Who is the most talented pop musician ever? Michael Jackson? if MJ is the best pop can offer, I'll gladly pass.

Good, stick to the metal subforum then...

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-31-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

Well, if pop is defined by it's sound, then pop is a group of talentless 25 year olds with irritading nasaly voices. Who is the most talented pop musician ever? Michael Jackson? if MJ is the best pop can offer, I'll gladly pass.

No Ray Davies is

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

If pop is defined by it's purpose, then pop is trend exploitation, corporate ran watered down plastic bull****.

Either way, I resent it.

I take it you've reached this conclusion by listening to loads of it?

No?

~~Oomph!~~ · 03-31-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I take it you've reached this conclusion by listening to loads of it?

I was raised on bands like the Beatles, my dad being an enormous fan of thiers. Between my 14 year old sister and 9 year old brother, and just the general influence of pop anyway, I've heard plenty.

sleepy jack · 03-30-2008, 11:04 PM

You're looking at one small facet of pop (the backstreet boys, michael jackson and all that) and dismissing off the entire genre as well as making generalizations about it despite it being a very vast genre containing several talented acts like the Cure, Patrick Wolf, The Smiths, Los Campesinos!, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Magnetic Fields (Stephin Merritt in general is a pop genius), Guillemots etc. Which is a pretty ignorant thing to do.

~~Oomph!~~ · 03-30-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

You're looking at one small facet of pop

I think you and I both know that an enourmous facet of pop is those types of bands.

Quote:

several talented acts like the Cure, Patrick Wolf, The Smiths, Los Campesinos!, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Magnetic Fields (Stephin Merritt in general is a pop genius), Guillemots etc. Which is a pretty ignorant thing to do.

The only artist here I'm familiar enough with to comment on is the Beatles. The beatles are OK, back in the 60's and 70's when it took very little to be considered 'edgy', yeah the beatles were kinda cool. But we live in a much more liberal, open society now and it takes allot more more than being psychodelic to effect people. The Beatles now days, are 'lame', in the literal sense of the word. They don't really have allot of songs that invoke allot of meaningful emotion. That's always been and always will be the problem with pop music, it's designed to be catchy, it's designed to be played in the background while your playing solitiare, it's designed to be a ringtone. I preffer music that demands my full attention.

All of thier best songs were at least rock crossover. They weren't cut and paste 'pop' and all of thier glory and greatness cannot just simply be attributed to pop. They are much more of a rock band in my opinion anyway.

03-30-2008, 10:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
Miltamec Soundsquinaez Aural melody discerner Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: in a truck down by the interstate Posts: 347	Some of it is, some of it isn't...... I would contend that most of it is, and that the wiki definition pretty much hit it head on, although while most pop music is uninspired, contrived b.s., some of it happens to be creative, catchy, and fun, and can't really help the fact that it falls into the category of pop music.

03-30-2008, 11:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
~~Oomph!~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Watertown, NY Posts: 240	Well, if pop is defined by it's sound, then pop is a group of talentless 25 year olds with irritading nasaly voices. Who is the most talented pop musician ever? Michael Jackson? if MJ is the best pop can offer, I'll gladly pass. If pop is defined by it's purpose, then pop is trend exploitation, corporate ran watered down plastic bull****. Either way, I resent it.