No Subject

[Account for Usenet System <news@sco.COM>]

Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Path: jondr
From: jondr@sco.COM (Karen Silkwood's car)
Subject: Re: This is pop?
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 19:35:58 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.193558.5294@sco.COM>
References: <5w5RFB5w164w@bsbbs.UUCP> <1992Feb8.082654.29509@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@sco.COM (Account for Usenet System)
Lines: 29


brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.EDU (Kenneth R Brownfield) writes:
>cynthia@bsbbs.UUCP (Cynthia Rosas) writes:
>     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.

Sure it does - verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus ad infinitum.  What's
missing?  You can even HUM the tune.  Not to mention that there's a dance
remix, even.

Embrace POP!  Love your POP!  Personally, I have an extreme weakness for
incredibly overproduced girlpop of the Fuzzbox or recent Propaganda ilk.  I
might even admit to liking a few bananarama songs if you were to pump me
full of drugs (somebody please volunteer).

Nothing wrong with pop, as a basic concept.  It's just the purveyors of
worthless, bland, cookie-cutter pop that need to die.

I shouldn't need to say this, but: this is all my totally NON humble opinion
and if you don't agree, then you are an extreme wanker who desperately needs
to have his or her butt flushed out with industrial drain unclogger.

-- 
Jon Drukman (finely honed machine)              uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.