I hate pop music

Well, don't get me wrong, innovation is one of the main things I look for in music - every piece of music needs to have something to distinguish itself, and innovation in form, harmony, or what have you is one of the best ways to do that. I also enjoy modern-era music a lot, including some atonal writers. But I find the attitude of many atonal composers, Boulez in particular, very shallow in regards to innovation. There's still a lot of innovation to be done in tonal music; atonal music isn't the only possible progress. And serialism wasn't, in my opinion, inevitable at all.

right, gianluca, im all for fre speech and what not, but my god would cut the crap, just a bit!??! 'stalinistic'!??!?!?!? feckin heck! there is mroe than classical and pop music, unless your classifying heavy metal, dance, jazz and samba all as pop... in that case, well i pity you

Pop = popular music. Dance and metal qualify as popular music. I know this is a touchy issue for some of us, but lets try to keep the ad hominem to a minimum, okay? Everyone has a right to their opinion.

what makes metal 'pop' and classical not 'pop'!? really, define that and ill accept your point

and just by the by, nowadays pop is a genre, like metal and dance, the notion that its named so becuase its popular is outdated, and no longer really has true meaning. pop music is a style of music

I agree, Ljoekelsoey. I think 'pop' qualifies as music that (a) is mainly instrumented with synths/synth drums, and (b) has catchy, rhyming lyrics. Metal, generally, has neither. Same with classical.

Originally Posted by amadeus2726686

I agree, Ljoekelsoey. I think 'pop' qualifies as music that (a) is mainly instrumented with synths/synth drums, and (b) has catchy, rhyming lyrics.

Then pop didn't exist before synthesizers? That's one of the silliest definitions I've heard.

Originally Posted by Ljoekelsoey

what makes metal 'pop' and classical not 'pop'!? really, define that and ill accept your point

and just by the by, nowadays pop is a genre, like metal and dance, the notion that its named so becuase its popular is outdated, and no longer really has true meaning. pop music is a style of music

"Popular music is music belonging to any of a number of musical styles that are accessible to the general public and are disseminated by one or more of the mass media. It stands in contrast to art music, which historically was the music of the elite and upper strata of society, and traditional music which was disseminated orally." (From Wikipedia, because I don't have time to get a better source.)
That is the sense that the term "pop music" is being used in this thread. Jazz is not pop music; it qualifies as art music. These distinctions can be somewhat arbitrary, especially on the borders of different types, but it is the terminology.

You guys are confusing Pop, with pop. It's like this:

'Pop' music (capital 'P') is a genre.

'pop' music (popular, lowercase 'p') is any/all music that is/was popular.

It's the same as Classical / classical.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Then pop didn't exist before synthesizers? That's one of the silliest definitions I've heard.

Yes, it did -- but not the genre. For example, pop in previous decades would today be considered rock, jazz, and the like today. The genre Pop today is generally defined by these characteristics. There are plenty of popular songs that don't, but they also don't fall under the genre of Pop.
From Wikipedia (a reliable source, I know ): The standard format of pop music is the song, customarily less than five minutes in duration, and with an instrumentation that can range from an orchestra to a lone singer. Despite this wide scope, a typical lineup in a pop band includes a lead guitarist, a bassist, a drummer (or an electronic drum machine), a keyboardist and one or more singers, ordinarily not themselves instrumentalists. Pop songs are generally marked by a heavy rhythmic element, a mainstream style and traditional structure. The most common variant is strophic in form and focuses on memorable melodies, catchy hooks and the appeal of the verse-chorus-verse arrangement, with the chorus sharply contrasting the verse melodically, rhythmically and harmonically.Lyrics in pop compositions are usually simple and speak of universal experiences and feelings, shying away from obscure or controversial issues.

Originally Posted by amadeus2726686

Yes, it did -- but not the genre. For example, pop in previous decades would today be considered rock, jazz, and the like today. The genre Pop today is generally defined by these characteristics. There are plenty of popular songs that don't, but they also don't fall under the genre of Pop.
From Wikipedia (a reliable source, I know ): The standard format of pop music is the song, customarily less than five minutes in duration, and with an instrumentation that can range from an orchestra to a lone singer. Despite this wide scope, a typical lineup in a pop band includes a lead guitarist, a bassist, a drummer (or an electronic drum machine), a keyboardist and one or more singers, ordinarily not themselves instrumentalists. Pop songs are generally marked by a heavy rhythmic element, a mainstream style and traditional structure. The most common variant is strophic in form and focuses on memorable melodies, catchy hooks and the appeal of the verse-chorus-verse arrangement, with the chorus sharply contrasting the verse melodically, rhythmically and harmonically.Lyrics in pop compositions are usually simple and speak of universal experiences and feelings, shying away from obscure or controversial issues.

That definition mentions keyboardists and electronic drum kits, but does not list either as primary traits of the genre.
The genre of Pop certainly existed before synthesizers. I don't want to seem like I'm attacking you, but this is ridiculous. Synthesizers and drum machines have become popular in Pop music today, but they aren't defining to the genre. For goodness sake, the genre is traced back to the 50s in the same article you quote from.