Isn't 'Pop-Punk' an oxy moron? (dance, metal, pop, rock)

sleepy jack · 04-19-2008, 10:39 PM

You've frequently made comments in other threads about "rebelling against the corporate machine" and what not that are typical your nu-metal clique and you listen to bands typical to it. So yeah I'm going to call you a cliche because you are. You can go on about not knowing you but you've posted your taste in music and acted on opinions that are basis enough for me and other posts to judge on, other regulars of this site in fact have judged them. You can call it baseless name calling all you want and try and pretend you're so much more intelligent but you've displayed the arguing skills of someone who has horrible reading comprehension and your wannabe attempts at intelligence and being on the high horse here are ridiculous, it's pretty obvious you don't know much about music. I mean wikipedia is your main backing for your argument, a public site able to be edited by anyone. If that's your basis for your musical facts than you really need to reexamine your own knowledge it can be edited by ANYONE.

Onto the actual subject: pop is possibly the most versatile genre ever in the sense that whatevers popular is pop. Meaning in the 60s and 70s Led Zeppelin, The Kinks, The Who, Pink Floyd, The Beatles were all basically pop groups. Roger Waters even referred to Pink Floyd (including Piper) as a pop group. Pop isn't "corporate enforcing" or anything like that, you're taking a small narrow-minded point of view and looking at the only facet of pop there is. The Sex Pistols share more in common with Pink Floyd then they do garage bands, they were both abrasive, shocking, banned by the BBC, etc. You don't know what pop is, I've pointed this out several times and argued this and posted arguments on it, which you choose to ignore and you're probably going to go on some irrelevant tangent that ends in you citing wikipedia or something to this as usual which only shows your ignorance really.

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-19-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

You can go on about not knowing you but you've posted your taste in music and acted on opinions that are basis enough for me and other posts to judge on, other regulars of this site in fact have judged them.

I thought you were interested in objective debate, and here you are pathetically trying to justify being judgemental, please just quit it now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

You've frequently made comments in other threads about "rebelling against the corporate machine" and what not that are typical your nu-metal clique and you listen to bands typical to it. So yeah I'm going to call you a cliche because you are.

A. You're wrong
B. It doesn't matter it's an Ad Hominem.

Quote:

You can call it baseless name calling all you want and try and pretend you're so much more intelligent but you've displayed the arguing skills of someone who has horrible reading comprehension and your wannabe attempts at intelligence and being on the high horse here are ridiculous, it's pretty obvious you don't know much about music.

I'm still looking for the objective debate and all I'm seeing is hypocricy and nonsense. If your argument has no substance than just say it, you don't have to go through all this b.s.

Quote:

I mean wikipedia is your main backing for your argument,

A. Sourced article.
B. Wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. (if you don't believe me I'll source this claim too)

Quote:

a public site able to be edited by anyone.

It's heavily moderated and debated, they are also source nazis.

The thing about wikipedia, it can change and become more correct the moment things happen, it expands and grows, it corrects itself. UNLIKE static, decade old hardcover encyclopedias written during the Cold War.

Quote:

If that's your basis for your musical facts than you really need to reexamine your own knowledge it can be edited by ANYONE.

It's not that simple, if you change an article to some complete bullshit you made up, they will change it back immediately.

Quote:

Onto the actual subject:

About time.

Quote:

pop is possibly the most versatile genre ever in the sense that whatevers popular is pop.

The phrase 'pop' stems from the word popular, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING that is popular is pop music, nor does it mean only popular music is pop music.

Quote:

Meaning in the 60s and 70s Led Zeppelin, The Kinks, The Who, Pink Floyd, The Beatles were all basically pop groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teshadoh

I don't think punk's primary issue was ever 'pop', but commercially over-saturated 'popular' music. Of course the Bee Gees & Abba, but also Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, The Who (1970's era), & Pink Floyd. The latter grouping would not be considered 'pop' music by most people's definitions here

No, Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin were not 'pop bands', not even pop-rock, not even 'basically', they were HARD ROCK BANDS.

Say, do you have sources for YOUR definition by any chance?

Quote:

Roger Waters even referred to Pink Floyd (including Piper) as a pop group.

Well I'm sorry to inform you, he was mistaken. Perhaps 40 years ago the word 'pop' meant something different, maybe your misquoting him, maybe you have the context wrong, maybe he was just plain wrong. But if you're going to say the phrase 'pop music' is DEFINED by literal popularity, than are you preparred to say 'Lil Jon, Beethtoven, and ACDC were 'Pop musicians'?

Quote:

Pop isn't "corporate enforcing" or anything like that

Quote:

“Commercially mass produced music for a mass market, and including the variety of genres variously subsumed by terms such as rock and roll, rock, dance, hip hop and R&B.”

-Shuker, Roy (1994). Understanding Popular Music. Routledge.

Quote:

“The new pop isn't rebellious. It embraces the star system. It conflates art, business and entertainment. It cares more about sales and royalties and the strength of the dollar than anything else and to make matters worse, it isn't in the least bit guilty about it.”

-Rimmer, D. (1985). Like Punk Never Happened: Culture Club and the New Pop. Faber.

Quote:

you're taking a small narrow-minded point of view and looking at the only facet of pop there is.

Maybe your view is conveniently too broad.

Quote:

The Sex Pistols share more in common with Pink Floyd then they do garage bands, they were both abrasive, shocking, banned by the BBC, etc.

Did the Sex Pistols *intentionally* do anything to perpetuate sales? Why were they popular? Same for Pink Floyd. They were popular, they sold, but did they sell thier music and nothing but thier music or did they sell an image, a commercial, etc?

Quote:

You don't know what pop is, I've pointed this out several times and argued this and posted arguments on it, which you choose to ignore and you're probably going to go on some irrelevant tangent that ends in you citing wikipedia or something to this as usual which only shows your ignorance really.

I didn't use wikipedia this time.

sleepy jack · 04-19-2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

No, Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin were not 'pop bands', not even pop-rock, not even 'basically', they were HARD ROCK BANDS.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA Pink Floyd a hard rock band?! We're talking about the band that recorded Bike and Comfortably Numb right!? Christ why don't you listen to the music before you even try and say what it is and isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

I thought you were interested in objective debate, and here you are pathetically trying to justify being judgemental, please just quit it now.

A. You're wrong
B. It doesn't matter it's an Ad Hominem.

I'm still looking for the objective debate and all I'm seeing is hypocricy and nonsense. If your argument has no substance than just say it, you don't have to go through all this b.s.

A. Sourced article.
B. Wikipedia has been proven to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. (if you don't believe me I'll source this claim too)

It's heavily moderated and debated, they are also source nazis.

The thing about wikipedia, it can change and become more correct the moment things happen, it expands and grows, it corrects itself. UNLIKE static, decade old hardcover encyclopedias written during the Cold War.

It's not that simple, if you change an article to some complete bullshit you made up, they will change it back immediately.

About time.

The phrase 'pop' stems from the word popular, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING that is popular is pop music, nor does it mean only popular music is pop music.

No, Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin were not 'pop bands', not even pop-rock, not even 'basically', they were HARD ROCK BANDS.

Say, do you have sources for YOUR definition by any chance?

Well I'm sorry to inform you, he was mistaken. Perhaps 40 years ago the word 'pop' meant something different, maybe your misquoting him, maybe you have the context wrong, maybe he was just plain wrong. But if you're going to say the phrase 'pop music' is DEFINED by literal popularity, than are you preparred to say 'Lil Jon, Beethtoven, and ACDC were 'Pop musicians'?

Maybe your view is conveniently too broad.

Did the Sex Pistols *intentionally* do anything to perpetuate sales? Why were they popular? Same for Pink Floyd. They were popular, they sold, but did they sell thier music and nothing but thier music or did they sell an image, a commercial, etc?

I didn't use wikipedia this time.

Okay now for the very laughable thing about all your arguing.

The wikipedia definition of pop...

Quote:

Pop music is music charted by the number or sales, plays, etc., that the work receives.[1] It is not a particular genre or style of music, simply that which is the most popular for the tracked period of time. Most commercial music of any genre is composed with deliberate intent to appeal to the majority of its contemporaries.[2][3][4], but, unless extremely popular in its own genre, it must to appeal to a wider audience to appear on the Pop charts.

Is exactly what I said it is, popular music. You see when something sells alot of records or has alot of plays thats popular. I'm not even going to bother replying to your argument please explain to me you got pop is "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement" out of this.

Oh and its spelled Beethoven.

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-19-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Isn't 'Pop-Punk' an oxy moron?

Notice how I didn't use the past tense? We live in the present, it's not the 60's anymore and it doesn't what pop used to be, it's what it is NOW.

This is what it is now:

sleepy jack · 04-19-2008, 11:41 PM

Reply to my post, don't try and change the subject.

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-19-2008, 11:44 PM

What's the buzz****s highest selling album?

sleepy jack · 04-19-2008, 11:46 PM

Oh I don't know but they've broken into the top 50 more than several times. Stop trying to dodge the subject, respond to my post.

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-20-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA Pink Floyd a hard rock band?! We're talking about the band that recorded Bike and Comfortably Numb right!? Christ why don't you listen to the music before you even try and say what it is and isn't.

Yes, they were voted as the number one greatest HARD ROCK band of all time by VH1.

They're even classified as something of a proto heavy metal band too.

Quote:

Is exactly what I said it is, popular music.

It's exactly what I said it was:

Quote:

Pop music is music charted by the number or sales, plays, etc., that the work receives.[1]

Quote:

Most commercial music of any genre is composed with deliberate intent to appeal to the majority of its contemporaries.[2][3][4]

Quote:

You see when something sells alot of records or has alot of plays thats popular. I'm not even going to bother replying to your argument please explain to me you got pop is "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement" out of this.

No, the article said that the music is based on sales, the correlation between populatrity and sales is a necessary side effect, but that doesn't mean that the two concepts are one in the same. Just because popularity is required to sell doesn't mean the music is based on popularity, it is still based on sales.

Here, analogy: Let's say I'm about to grab some cookies because I'm hungry, but I don't like eating cookies without milk. The cookies I'm eating is based on my hunger, not the milk. I'm not eating the cookies because I have milk, I'm eating them because I am hungry, even though there is a direct correlation with the amount of milk I have, but the milk is not the basis of my cookie consumption.

If I had an infinite amount of milk, does that mean I'm going to eat an infinite amount of cookies? No.

Popularity is correlated to pop music but it's not the basis, it's not the cause. SELLING is the cause. Because popularity is required to sell, you're mistakenly believing it to be the cause.

sleepy jack · 04-20-2008, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

Yes, they were voted as the number one greatest HARD ROCK band of all time by VH1.

They're even classified as something of a proto heavy metal band too.

I said Pink Floyd, not Led Zeppelin. Learn to read.

Quote:

It's exactly what I said it was:

I quoted you exactly, don't try and play it off as something different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oomph!

We left off at punk is an anti-corporate, anti establishment movement and pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement, making them contradictions.

Quote:

No, the article said that the music is based on sales, the correlation between populatrity and sales is a necessary side effect, but that doesn't mean that the two concepts are one in the same. Just because popularity is required to sell doesn't mean the music is based on popularity, it is still based on sales.

Plays and sales both tie into popularity. If you have alot of plays or sell alot of records, you're popular. I don't understand how you can be popular without those two things please explain this to me.

Quote:

Popularity is correlated to pop music but it's not the basis, it's not the cause. SELLING is the cause. Because popularity is required to sell, you're mistakenly believing it to be the cause.

Article says plays as well and how can you be popular if your album doesn't sell and isn't played? You seem to be doing some serious back peddling right now. I'm still waiting to hear how "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement" you still haven't explained this and seem to be still avoiding the subject.

So to re-point this out so you don't miss is this time.

Please explain where you got from that article that pop is "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement"

Please explain how a band can be popular without plays/record sales.

~~Oomph!~~ · 04-20-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Plays and sales both tie into popularity. If you have alot of plays or sell alot of records, you're popular. I don't understand how you can be popular without those two things please explain this to me.

Article says plays as well and how can you be popular if your album doesn't sell and isn't played? You seem to be doing some serious back peddling right now.

I never said you can sell without popularity, I believe I explicity said that you do indeed require popularity to sell. I said that pop music is BASED ON selling, and selling requires popularity, but that does not mean pop music is based on popularity, popularity is a necessary correlation. It's indirect.

Quote:

I'm still waiting to hear how "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement" you still haven't explained this and seem to be still avoiding the subject.

I've explained this constantly through out this whole thread what that means, including just earlier with my 2 sources, here I'll re-post them for you:

Quote:

“Commercially mass produced music for a mass market, and including the variety of genres variously subsumed by terms such as rock and roll, rock, dance, hip hop and R&B.”

-Shuker, Roy (1994). Understanding Popular Music. Routledge.

-----------------------------

“The new pop isn't rebellious. It embraces the star system. It conflates art, business and entertainment. It cares more about sales and royalties and the strength of the dollar than anything else and to make matters worse, it isn't in the least bit guilty about it.”

-Rimmer, D. (1985). Like Punk Never Happened: Culture Club and the New Pop. Faber.

Quote:

Please explain where you got from that article that pop is "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement"

They are both cited properly, it's right there.

Quote:

Please explain how a band can be popular without plays/record sales.

I never said that was true.

How do we define popular if not by sales? I suppose the band could make thier music and give it away for free, but who is going to produce it? How are they going to be exposed?

Popularity without sales is different than sales without popularity, bare in mind.

04-19-2008, 11:44 PM	#136 (permalink)
~~Oomph!~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Watertown, NY Posts: 240	What's the buzz****s highest selling album?