One of the things that strikes me as interesting about this exchange is the split between past and present. Could it possibly be that pop music is specifically linked to a point in time (for most listeners, not all) when people connect with the music because of age?

I'm hesitant to use age as a marker, but it seems to be significant as posters refer to a point in time when the "music was better" and I'd venture to guess that it's connected to a point in their lives when they were "newer" (kind of like pop music). I'm thinking that as we age, our tastes in music become more complex and sophisticated so pop music at 20 sounds better (more relevant?) than it does at 40.

I'm in no way implying that pop music is unsophisticated or not relevant, I'm just saying that perhaps the reason that many think today's music is irrelevant is because it no longer applies to where *they* are in their lives because it's mainly written and sung by those who are generations younger.

I think if you look at children who were born in the 80s and were teens in the 90s they could listen to what was around them and probably realize that the bands such as the Rolling Stones, Beatles and Who were more interesting. Fast forward from the 90s to 2000s and I think it would be even more the case. I'm not saying there were not talented bands throughout those years just nothing that measured up to what came down the line in the 60s and 70s.

The pop now a days is shiza.
Can't stand it, all these high beat voices with unnatural sounds.

What happened to the music industry in the past 12 years?
Todays generation think's One Direction and Ciley Myrus is good!

None of them know of the bands from back then!

-Radiohead
-The Cure
-David Bowie (Not Pop but you gotta include Bowie xD)
-MGMT
-Sonic Youth
-Prince
-Vanilla Ice (Though published only one song that I can think of)
-Nirvana

Some of the stuff I listed was not pop but whatever... Trying to prove my point...
The good thing is that there are still some parents who raised their kids right...

But the music industry definitely changed...

Nirvana is most definitely not pop, unless Scentless Apprentice is a song you think my mom would enjoy.

Not sure how any of those bands relate to the pop music of 12 years ago. MGMT didn't exist yet. Nirvana no longer existed. And the others, with the possible exception of Radiohead were well past their heyday.

Nirvana is absolutely pop...

I'd say they are mainstream, but I firmly believe they are not pop.

Pop music aka "popular music"

While it Pop is short for Popular, Pop music isn't always aka "Popular Music." Pop Music is used for music (any type of genre) on the charts e.g. Billboard 100. While Popular Music is used in the schema of dividing Music into four different types: Art Music, Folk/Traditional, Popular and Tribal.

I do think that has a lot to do with it but there are some of us (I'm 25 this year) who prefer the pop of the 1960s and 70s even if we weren't alive at the time (but grew up on groovy radio tunes, ultimately expanding our knowledge based on this) ... well, in this lifetime anyway, but that's another thread entirely...

there's something so special about the past that is missing from the present.