I hate pop music

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

[re: Pop] For goodness sake, the genre is traced back to the 50s in the same article you quote from.

Perhaps the roots of Pop can be traced back then, but Pop as a genre only came to be in the 80's onward (developed out of disco). Pop is a sound, a sound that was simply not technically possible in the 50s...

I defy anyone to give a solid example of a Pop tune from 1950 - 60? ??

ok, there's a whole bunch of pedantic posturing going on now...
(there's that word again)

I think we can all agree that the OP used "pop" in the sense of "not art music", rather than "pertaining to the Pop school of music".

In the same way that one would say that "Debussy and Ravel are classical composers", while "Mozart and Haydn are Classical composers".

OK, so we know, there are two uses for each of those terms.


At LEAST, argue over the merits of the OP's heinous comments, not over the minutiae of definition of style not included in the original post!

Anywho, I happen to like some pop/Pop (mostly the latter) music. I am starting to learn to judge all music according to its own merit. I can't abide trite songs like, say, Crank Dat Soulja Boy ::shudder:: because of its uninteresting drum beat and oversimplified single melody line -- not to mention the mumbled, vulgar lyrics. But songs like Britney Spears' Gimme More, for example, may have trite lyrics, but the polyphony is quite interesting. That's why I prefer the second piece over the first. Whatever kind of music musically satisfies me is the kind I will listen to.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

Perhaps the roots of Pop can be traced back then, but Pop as a genre only came to be in the 80's onward (developed out of disco). Pop is a sound, a sound that was simply not technically possible in the 50s...

Totally erroneous, again. Pop certainly didn't emerge out of disco, though disco influenced. The pop sounds that are popular today may have begun then, but pop singles from artists like the Beatles were all over the airwaves far before then.

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Totally erroneous, again. Pop certainly didn't emerge out of disco, though disco influenced. The pop sounds that are popular today may have begun then, but pop singles from artists like the Beatles were all over the airwaves far before then.

You still don't get it, but as QCCowboy mentioned, this is getting ridiculous. You'll figure it out eventually. Feel free to PM if you want clarification. But let's return this thread to it's rightful owners...

Originally Posted by ThePianoMan121

Totally erroneous, again. Pop certainly didn't emerge out of disco, though disco influenced.

Look, nothing happens just because of ONE SINGULAR THING!! It is a slow process, and you can't just say *POOF!* Pop came from one source- Whoever pioneered it could've been versed in Classical and techno or something, and just started experimenting. In order for music to come from one thing, ALL the pioneers must have only listened to ONE KIND OF MUSIC... Quite illogical, isn't it?

Gianluca -

If you're still here, then I have a challenge for you. If you genuinely think there's no skill, invention or wit involved in writing 'good' pop music, then I challenge you to turn your classically-honed powers of composition to this facile art, and write a piece of successful pop music. Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

I think you'll actually find that most people regard classical music as 'wallpaper', and would rather listen to pop music for its merits alone. I think that writing good pop music requires just as much skill as writing good classical music; let's not lose sight of the fact that Mozart, Schumann etc. etc. were the 'pop' artists of their day. They churned out what people wanted to hear. I seriously doubt that much of Bach's audience cared for the cunning manupulation of motives in his chorale treatments and fugues; they just liked the sound.

Originally Posted by Zetetic

Gianluca -

If you're still here, then I have a challenge for you. If you genuinely think there's no skill, invention or wit involved in writing 'good' pop music, then I challenge you to turn your classically-honed powers of composition to this facile art, and write a piece of successful pop music. Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

This is funny - I hope he thinks that Max Martin and his army of Swedish songwriters aren't absolute geniuses when it comes to manipulating media and skillful writing and production. Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears are such HUGE moneymakers because the guys who produce and compose their music really know and understand how little Suzy Everygirl is going to react... It's an art in and of itself, knowing your target market, and exploiting it...perhaps not the most admirable skill, but whatever.

So do I my friend

Originally Posted by Zetetic

Once you've published and had popular successes of your own, then I'll agree with your diatribe.

While I certainly don't agree with Gianluca, I find this a poor argument. For once, as robinjessome mentioned, there are a lot more factors to what makes a piece of music popular than its quality, especially in the short term.

Also, why should Gianluca even bother getting into composing pop and making a successful pop piece, if he doesn't think it has any worth? That's like asking someone to "prove" it's easy to walk a mile backwards, in comparison to running a marathon in record time. Of course it's a trifle compared to a marathon, but why spend your time on it, only to repeatedly walk through dog's droppings, just to prove what you were already certain of? (I'm not saying that composing pop -is- like this.)

I seriously doubt that much of Bach's audience cared for the cunning manupulation of motives in his chorale treatments and fugues; they just liked the sound.

I think Bach is quite a poor example for a "pop artist". Of course he wrote commissioned works for a specific occasion and audience, but if pleasing the audience was his main goal I'm sure his music would sound -totally- different. He was a famous organist, and "acceptable" as a composer (but not in the least as popular as many contemporaries), but the broad public didn't care much about fugues and would probably have liked the sound much more -without- the complex polyphony. Many, if not most, of his works were performed once in his lifetime and then not anymore until a long time after his death.

The same applies to Schumann. While he did write some small pieces mainly to earn a living, he certainly wouldn't have considered himself a pop musician equivalent of his time. He looked down on composers who, in his opinion, wrote shallow music only to please the public, such as Rossini. Schumann was decidedly against populistic music.

But anyways, comparing "classical" music before the 20th century to popular music, just doesn't quite cut it, as it was -never- such a mass phenomenon as it is now. It very rarely reached the underclass. Peasants didn't listen to Palestrina, and Mozart composed for the nobility.