Re: This is pop?

[brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

cynthia@bsbbs.UUCP (Cynthia Rosas) writes:

>stev0@sti.com (Steve Berlin) writes:
>> Personally, I define Pop music to be "Usually Uptempo, usually
>> in a 4/4 beat, ideally under 4 minutes, almost always about love (or
>> lack thereof)".  Most music critics (the good ones, anyway), use
>> "Pop" in a rather derogatory way.  And with good reason - bad pop
>> has infected every generation of rock (The Archies, The Knack, Duran
>> Duran, New K*ds *n the Bl*ck for four decades of the worst of Pop).
> 
>Hmmm, that's interesting, tho I don't think pop music has to
>be about love to be pop.  You're right it is short for
>"popular" or at least it used to be.  I know for myself, I use
>"pop" sort of to describe music that isn't "rock" or "metal",
>that isn't "jazz" or "new age", isn't classical, etc.

     That's the way it was born, I think.  Nowadays, there are good old
pop cliche sounds (like the synthy chiming percussion you hear on every pop
dance song nowadays.)  It can be either the genre as you pointed out, or a
"pop cliche," typically derogatory reference, or both.
     Pop as a genre would include RuTH, for instance, because it made it in
the top 40 pop charts.  I would not, however, call the song pop, because it
doesn't fit the degradatory stereotype that pop can represent as well.  It's
both, and pop arguments always get confusing that way.
     I usually think of pop as accessible, come to think of it.  Three!
I'm lost!  Ahhh! ;-)

>  I
>realize that makes "pop" sound like a garbage dump, and
>sometimes it seems that way, but  it describes a large bosy of
>music and artists, (scuze the typos, pleeze)  who are
>"popular", and basically, don't fall into those other
>categories.  I would consider Kate  a pop singer in that she
>ain't a country, jazz, soul, rock etc., singer.  Tho I don't
>consider it a derogatory term, I don't think she's a Top 40
>snger either, which is full of pop usually, (though slow tempo

     Exactly.

>as well as uptempo, Stev0,).  She's eclectic, tho that's not a
>bona fide ctegory.  BUT in the big picture, ..... I'd say, as
>opposed to being anything else, or a category that fits her
>better than others, yeah, she's a "pop" singer.

     No!  No!  Satan! ;-)  A would agree under the accessible category.
If I can get someone past the voice and the obviously unique style, it's
easy sailing from there.

>SOme of those groups you mentioned are byond the pale even for
>"pop" IMO.  I think that might be called "bubble-gum" music ?
>Or canned pop?  White Bread pop?  Okay, I'm makin those up,
>but there's decent pop I think, and really crappy pop.  Though
>everyone may have a different idea of each.

>Different ideas?  Are those still allowed?

     No, go rot in hell.
     Seriously, twisting the blade is good if it kills, and very, very bad
if it doesn't.

>Aren't YOU the one who caused all these "heavy issues"?
>Aren't YOU the Great Satan?

     Only on the third working day of his week.  ;-)

>Well, good.  Later,
>Cynthia
>> Stay tuned for next week's question:  Is Kate a Bubblehead?
>THAT'S IT!  I want to start a new mailing list!  Now you've
>done it! :-)

     Be my guest.  Nothing bad can come of it.
     Nothing bad at all.

[...]
--
-- 
 
Mail only & info via finger:  KT@uiuc.edu  |            Ken.
This composition is 100% personal opinion, |  brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
and does NOT reflect the opinions of CCSO  |
in any way, shape, or form, period.        |         "It wasn't me."