Talk:Pop music/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Pop music. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Define "Spam" Please

I'm not sure if this the right place to mention this... I'm not very wiki-savvy... I couldn't find a way to talk to a live editor, as opposed to the very curteous robot who booted me. I've kind of been blacklisted when my site has been suggested here in Wiki. Yes, I have suggested the site (PopCultureMadness.com/Music/) a few times. Many webmasters have. Most of the links to my site were NOT placed by me. I find some of the people who do list our other odd pages rather interesting. I have never asked for or pursued third parties to add any of my pages. We offer a unique insight in what the staying power of "Pop Music" is. We have been in the top 3 for google results for phrases like "pop music" "popular music" "pop culture" "popular culture" and many others for years. Not 2 years, not 3, but 6 years. CONSISTANTLY! Last I looked, Wiki is the only site that beats us in most of those those results. Traffic from wiki was negligible(spl?)for us, we are linked to many schools and are references for many homework assignments. Wiki does not help my google rankings, or even traffic. It's the thing that knocked me from # 1 most of the time to usually # 2 on google results, and I have no problem with that. PCM gets kicked off, but radio stations, online hype rags and blogs stay on?? I have a "hype" section where we actively promote new and old music. I don't submit that kind of content. I DON'T WANT THAT IN WIKI. Hype doesn't belong here. Interesting and unique content does belong. Our annual lists are not rehashes of old Billboard charts like every other music web history page offers. Our suggestions for "Happy Songs", "Summer Songs", "Sad Songs" and a hundred other categories have similar pages within WIKI. For what it's worth, I'm usually number one in those categories... If WIKI gets the stick out of its butt about PCM, maybe I'll consider linking out to WIKI. I have gotten maybe a hundred visitors a day from Wiki when I was listed on each year's "best of" music pages on WIKI. That is less than 1% of a bad day (15,000 daily is average). PCM offers unique and relevent content for thousands of people every day. It's Family-Friendly. No Pop Ups, No Pop Unders, no obnoxious ads. It's a labor of love and very little profit. It's WIKI's users who are poorer losing what PCM offers. I've kind of given up, and won't be bugging you guys about this again, but you really shouldn't have such an arbitrary way of kicking what many consider quality pages and sites off of this thing we call WIKI.

Bad Writing

Ugh. Terrible. It's just a sloppy list of artists generally considered to lie within the pop music genre with uneven treatment and even worse wording. The Beatles are listed twice, second time as "occasionally," with an entire paragraph detailing some obscure Iranian pop star's prizes in music festivals. What about the nature of pop and its disputed structure? Its penchant for "catchiness?" What about its status as a taboo in highbrow society, wherein "pop" is simply either acceptable as satire or fodder for the proles? Whoever molded the article in this direction should let someone else give this a major facelift; it sucks as it is and could very well merit a speedy deletion. Let "Popular Music" be the redirected article and abandon this mediocre venture, if it doesn't get changed soon. User:BillyGerdts 12:30, 18 May 2007

Futurepop is not pop music

Just because a music genre has the word 'pop' in it doesn't make it pop music. Pulseczar 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC) dont u think dudes that if pop music wat the future then we all gonna be screwed in the head and be drunk bumbs cuz thats not all wat life is about totally radical man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.122.111 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2007

pop- good or not?

pop is good in the respects that it can sell- pop is not about selling music- it's about selling a lifestyle, so how can you compare a lifestyle against music? when you think of pop, your mind inclines the more you listen to a certain artist, the more and more you will become like that person. another example is, a non-christian wouldn't listen to chrsitian music, right? as you grow older, you grow out of pop music but pop music is really just jingle-writing, and it is selling a lifestyle. please don't condemn pop. I'm a jazz pianist; and I'll tell you one thing- it's not something you can have; how good you are determines whether you have the gift or not and how much effort you want and have to put in. i learnt classical first then went into jazz. if you are good at jazz- it can sound really good. one thing however- jazz mucks around with technique you learn in classical; so my recommendation is not to do both!!

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 20:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, many non-Christians listen to Christian music... and also, pop music appeals to a wide range of people.. get your facts right you moron... Matt why would non-christians listen to christan music?.... fred Pop=horriblehorriblehorriblehorriblehorriblehorriblecommercialistfilth

Suggestion

Older pop music is much different then modern pop music, so you really shouldn't say all pop is crap. I suggest that the article be focused on pop though the years (maybe a category for each decade).

Not Wikified

The as it stands the introduction is way too long. It should be broken up into sections. The table of pop music through time is a good idea, but would not make an article by itself. The recent "sub-genre" called pop should have it's own page. I'm going to take a stab at adding headings, general copy-editing, and some neutralization (I'll do that part as the last edits), if anyone disagrees, revert it, then post discussion. Themissinglint 01:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Okay, It's in sections. I made the tone more neutral up until "criticism of the merit of pop," but the underlying meaning of most of it is still pretty anti-pop. Two questions now: can we take down the NPOV notice (I will if no one posts about bias in about one week), and should there be separate pages for modern pop music and for what has constituted pop music "through the years" I am posting the second as a topic at the top of this forum.

Mediocrity

Who added that bit about mediocre singers sounding better? I'm reverting to the original. Nick L. 04:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Article needs revision, copyediting, and fact check.

It basically needs to be redone from scratch by someone knowledgeable about the subject. --FuriousFreddy 15:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC) I agree. While there is a pejorative flavor to pop music that must be explored, the article does not address it intelligently. In fact, pejoration of an authentic musical style is one of the hallmarks of pop music. The article must be refocused from the limited viewpoint of "pop music in 2005" to a more general definition with historical periods. I will attempt a general definition to start the article and will work on it periodically when I have time. I should be competent for most of it, except for the transition of rap and hip-hop to pop (which would be quite interesting, I just don't know much about it due to my age). Masonbarge 14:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Genre?

I changed the wording of the first line from "Pop music is a subgenre of popular music" to "Pop music is a common part of popular music". One can't really consider popular music a genre, it's just whatever kind of music is popular at the time. I feel this wording is more accurate. Aleron235 01:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC) The word 'pop' quite obviously derives from the word 'popular'. 'Pop music' can have as narrow or as wide a definition as you'd like to argue for, but perhaps it would help to draw a thread back through time (as far back as, say, the first commercially mass-produced records, or even the first mass-produced sheet music), mentioning many of the innovative genres of music that have influenced the commercial mainstream over time. To claim that a new subgenre of popular music has lately come about called 'pop' almost beggars belief - it's always been with us, it's all the commercially-driven music that has taken styles and ideas from underground/folk/urban/ethnic genres within popular culture, then produced, packaged and airbrushed them for lowest common denominator consumption. Pop is Frank Sinatra, Elvis, The Monkeys, Abba, Kylie Minogue, Britney Spears.... Pop is our shorthand for the popular music that's so far removed (both stylistically and commercially) from the genre(s) that spawned it that it has no other name of its own. Just some thoughts, I hope they will help someone to rewrite an article which, frankly, makes me cringe at the moment. Markhadman 03:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (I originally posted this in 'Origins', above, but I felt it made sense to move it here)

It's hard to see present-day pop not as a genre. Rock is rock and rock is not pop, a popular song in rock isn't categorized as pop (the argument goes with many other genres). Mandel 00:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

why not just simply explain that "pop music" can be used to describe both a 'meta' genre (when themes are taken from other genres and dumbed down) and as an actual [although constantly evolving] genre? --MilkMiruku 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Pop now, pop then, pop yet to come

Different styles of music are going to be called "Pop" in the future, just as there have been varying styles in the past. The article needs to survive next year.--66.25.132.45 01:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Former Beatles Fan

Finding a principal definition for the concept of POP MUSIC

I suggest we try to find a basis for a definition - some keynotes to the concept of POP MUSIC Here are some suggestions -

The Historic aspect: The term pop music came into use in the late fifties / early sixties when rock´n roll in Europe (first of all Britain) developed into new forms - skiffle bands and beat bands - moving away from Blues and R&B in terms of melodic tonality, harmony, instrumentation, text content, public image a.s.o. I suggest that the music of Cliff Richard and The Shadows would be a good example of PM and that The Beatles became a developer of PM taking it to heights of quality and fame that is hard to find in other groups or persons later (Other groups, like The Rolling Stones chose to continue venturing into the blues / rock´n roll heritage - with some exceptions - their music consequently being labeled as rock - also a new term a the time. Then other forms of rock developed from there....) PM filled a void that arose with the new demographic segment - the youth - new type of generation consciousness that developed due to socio-economic conditions in post-WWII in the West
The Commercial aspect: PM arose from the fact that investors of capital discovered the musical field as a good opportunity for secure investment. This fact giving the basis for one of the key features of pop music - the invariable demand that the product be a commodity easily marketable - able to reach a mass distribution level enabling the capital to accumulate profits.
The Heteronomy aspect: This vector is more obvious in PM than in any other musical industry. As a result of the industrial predominance over art, musically artistic requirements in PM cannot be met unless it is probable that it will produce according to the basic commercial demands: Music and text might be changed or rejected, or be subjected to other features of the product like appearance, attitude a.s.o.
The Style aspect: Pop music is characterized by musical and other features that are likely to be at the taste of a majority of the market segment i.e. a major group of the population with spending power (=youth). Features that might provoke the general audience are avoided whereas features that are likely to please are emphasized.

Musical features
1. Melody - perceptive lines, often using a hook to activate the listeners desire to sing along.
2. Harmony - triads and dominant sevenths - almost never ninths... T,S, and D in major and minor. Harmonic deviation very rare.
3. Rhythm - straight forward - 4/4 predominant. Use of backbeat and syncopation - but on a moderate scale. Recent years also latin and African influences, often by artists originng from the same areas.
Lyrics features
1. Stanzas built by couplets with tail rhyme
2. Commonplace content around themes like desire, love, sensuality (explicit sexuality rare)
3. Content nonprovocative, everyday life philosophy
Formal features
1. Verse, refrain (chorus), bridge more seldom
2. Often symmetric whole.

The Industry aspect: As a result of the demand to create a nonprovocative / tasteful mass product, artists and groups often come into being through prefabrication: Almost all aspects of the artist is developed by professionals in their respestive fields, to form a whole. Boy bands and girl groups are put together through audition, head hunting a.s.o. (Image building is not exclusively reserved for PM - however it is often a key issue:)
The Multitude aspect: PM represents a broad scale of artistic style and quality - all with the common feature of being liked by many people.
The Lifestyle aspect: PM often links to life style defining trends in fashion, hair style, habits, slang language, espression of sexuality, technological products a.s.o. - thus being an important consenting force for the life style mass industry
The Marketing aspect: PM is as a rule subject to heavy and coordinated marketing through massmedia to ensure sufficient exposure to the right market at the right time
Other possible aspects

Impact on society, impact on individuals, use, identification, escapism -- Right. This all sounds fantastic. Who wrote it? Too bad you didn't sign... Ickydog 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC) This makes a great deal of sense. I find that "pop" as genre is utterly meaningless without some context. Genres could be fairly reasonable if it weren't for crap like "pop" being used consistently as a genre. --66.92.172.97 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop

Parts of this page sound like they have been written by teenage kids with little categorical ability. I've send messages on talk pages to supposed writers asking them to clarify their entries. Mandel 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I and a number of other Wikipedians have cleaned up the article for neutrality. Please state which parts of it is still POV. If not we'll remove the dispute tag. Mandel 05:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove the Warning

You can say, and it has been said many times, that pop music is crap, but there is no denying its ubiquity, its long history, its economic significance, its enormous audience, the controversies surrounding it, and its influence on society. Given all of that, isn't it worthy of a more scholarly, intelligent and thoughtful discussion than it has been given? The suggestions in "Finding a principle definition for the concept of POP MUSIC" (written by anonymous?) are a good starting point. Some specific criticisms, if I may be permitted: To say that "Pop songs' (sic) popularity can be explained by its 'hook'… A hook can be any part of the song" is to say nothing at all (and the ungrammatically of the statement is additionally distressing). Further, the reasons for a song's popularity may not be limited to its internal characteristics but may have a great deal to do with the popularity of the artist or with some vogue or momentary fascination in the broader culture. There are unsupported (and possibly misguided) proclamations in the piece, such as "underground, non-mainstream music sub-genres have the biggest influence on mainstream pop production." Really? Some would contend that, as a significant element of the "culture industry" (per Horkheimer and Adorno), consistency with prevailing mainstream commercial "style" is a prerequisite for commercial success and corporate patronage. Surely there can be a discussion about the fertilization of pop music with seeds from the underground, but to proclaim that as the "biggest influence" is naïve, hyperbolic, and misleading. "The most sought-after producers of today are quite often those at the forefront of very left-field culture." Any examples? The paragraph goes on to mention Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera; are we to assume that these two are leaders of "left-field culture?" And what the heck IS "left-field culture?" "Pop" as I have suggested above is, by consensus and design, mainstream -- so this claim is either bogus or sufficiently interesting to merit some further discussion. The statement that "Songwriting and arranging is (sic) sometimes done by professional songwriters rather than the performers themselves" is ridiculously naïve. In the first place, anyone who writes a song for which he or she is compensated is a professional songwriter, whether that person is a performer or not. Secondly, the fact that professionals write and arrange the music in no way differentiates "pop" music and contributes nothing to its understanding. One might mention that some performers write and/or arrange their own music or, interestingly, that some pretend to do so (for reasons worth investigating), but the writer of this piece has got the story backwards, seeming to imply that non-pop music is written and arranged by those who perform it -- which is totally inaccurate. In short, this article reads like an unresearched high school essay. And not a very good one. -- Bob Kalsey

Links

Do we realy need the link to Pakistani Pop UK website? I don't think this is suffiiently large sub-genre to be included on top of the links section? It almost seems like a spamming. -sdf

Page Redited

I am not the one that originally wrote the article, but I did take the time to rewrite the entire article based on all of your suggestions and comments. I hope this provides enough neutrality. -- Chris B.

Still not very informative, nor grammatically correct, nor comprehensible

Exactly what, for example, does "The relative ease of the draw generates billions and billions of dollars into the entertainment industry" mean? I would happily recast this to be grammatically correct and more understandable -- but I haven't a clue what this line is trying to say. Then there is: "In modern times (increasingly over the last half-century; most notably since the start of the 2000s), this genre's immense success as a commercial product has, ironically, led to even more commercialization within the music itself, with "artists" being drawn in by companies for their appearance, dancing ability and vocal competence; and being provided with an image, choreography, and most importantly complete songs by veterans working for the record company." Surely all of this has been going on for longer than half a century and surely the modus operandi of the popular music industry has not changed a whit since the beginning of this century, only 5 years ago. How can any of the above be supported by fact? And what the devil does "commercialization within the music itself" mean? Artists have ALWAYS been sought for their appearance and various competencies, so what is significant about that? And veteran song writers have long, long worked for record companies and provided songs for newcomers. So this convoluted sentence adds nothing, I believe, to the understanding of the term "pop music." Are we trying too hard to be profound here? What if this entire entry were reduced to something like: "Pop music" is an abbreviation of "popular music" (see elsewhere). The term is generally used pejoratively, though, to label the more commercial contemporary offerings in popular music. A pop music tune may be entertaining to listen to and may be performed and produced with technical competence; it may even enjoy a sizable if unsophisticated audience, but it is generally derivative and exhibits little or no creative artistry. The term brands a piece of music as more a product for sale than an artistic work. Is it really any more profound than that? -- Bob Kalsey

The text "In 2002 t.A.T.u. emerged from Russia to huge success which they still continue to have today as the best selling Russian act of all time." is misleading I believe. It's saying they still have the same amount of "huge success" thesedays. I have not seen or heard from the band on TV, radio or web for a few years. Perhaps they where trying to say they still hold a record as the best sellers? Not that they're still selling as strong?

CHSoarer 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indie Music - Image

I would disagree that there's no concern for image in the indie music community. Perhaps not the same concern as with pop music, and perhaps concern for a different and even unique image, but I think it's a little misleading to say that there's no concern about the perceptions of the listener. Jammoe 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Britpop

The name "britpop" is a bit of a misnomer - it does not mean "British pop music" but was instead an alternative rock movement of the mid nineties and therefore does not belong in this article as it stands. --Sachabrunel 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We need a better musical definition!

In this article there's too much conflation of sociological analysis with analysis of the music form itself. For example, "A music production method completely opposite to that of pop music is that of indie music, where record labels are small, vastly dependent on their few artists, and run by young entrepreneurs rather than corporate veterans." But music could have totally DIY production and distribution but still be pop muscially. I think most of the sociological/cultural type analysis would fit better in the popular music article, or some other article. Or at least in a separate section of this article. Pop is often discussed as a musical influence or attribute of musicians in all sorts of genres. But that doesn't have a lot of meaning unless there's a good explanation and discussion of what pop is muscially - independent of whatever cultural or sociological context it might be in. I think a lot of these articles need to be extensively edited and re-written with clear analysis to identify and differentiate. For example - the Bubblegum pop article - it needs to explain what (muscially) differentiates bubblegum pop from pop in general.

First, please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks.

While I appreciate definitions of genres which distinguish their musical characteristics these are not always what distinguish genres.

I did, however, make a shot at adding a citation to the defition in the article. What do you think? Hyacinth 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following from the "Characteristics as a subgenre" section as it is not about characteristics of the subgenre but extended description of a recent trend:

In modern times (increasingly over the last half-century; most notably since the start of the 2000s), this genre's immense success as a commercial product has, ironically, led to even more commercialization within the music itself, with "artists" being drawn in by companies for their appearance, dancing ability and vocal competence; and being provided with an image, choreography, and most importantly complete songs by veterans working for the record company. Some notable examples include Swedish songwriter Max Martin's having crafted most hit songs by pop acts such as Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys, and the pop boy band O-Town having been created as an MTV show. This technique for creating music is massively effective commercially for several apparent reasons. It is adept at targeting specific demographics among young people, since songs are written with that purpose in mind by talented professionals, and images crafted similarly. Also, by sticking to a straightforward formula and format, it is able to produce a consistent, predictable, and marketable product. That ability is only aided, naturally, by the vastly reduced output of the artists preventing companies' dependency on their eccentricities and whims. On the other hand, that reduced role for the artist, especially in the creative area, has always drawn harsh criticism from music fans who are painfully aware of its lack of substance. A music production method completely opposite to that of pop music is that of indie music, where record labels are small, vastly dependent on their few artists, and run by young entrepreneurs rather than corporate veterans. Indie artists, in turn, are perhaps less image driven or focussed on less commercial and mass-market imagery, are not widely marketed (often because of the label's financial constraints), and are almost universally of organic origins rather than having been assembled by their label. Many new artists turn to small indie labels since their reduced marketability makes them an unpopular choice with major labels.

Hyacinth 12:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics

I don't like the use of all the 'Quotes' at the start of this article. It is garbled and doesn't really make any sense. In my view this bit should be deleted. Pop music is often defined as music produced commercially, for profit, or "as a matter of enterprise not art" though it may more usefully be defined by market, ideology, production, and aesthetics. Pop "is designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste." It is "not driven by any signifigant ambition except profit and commercial reward...and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative." It is "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below...Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged." Lastly, it is "not an art but a craft." (Frith 2001, p.95-96) I have added a bit about my view of Pop music - which is music that is widely popular! Often dance / party songs such as Michael Jackson, with a few examples. While I like many genres of music, I can see a place for Pop. Pauline

How does it not make sense? Hyacinth 09:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Well I'm not sure what the quotes are trying to tell me? While much of pop music is about commercial objectives, more so in the last 2 decades, in the 60s and 70s a lot of pop was developed from the bottom-up. In fact rock and pop music kind of developed alongside each other, with rock eventually branching off in the late 60s (the Yardbirds, the Stones). While a lot of pop songs are fairly simple, they can also make good party music, and are often songs people enjoy singing. Classical music lost its way in the early 20th century and became dischordant and didn't appeal to audiences. Popular music such as on Broadway (Cole Porter) took over. Because they had to get bums on seats, the music had to have broad appeal. So sometimes commercial interests can be a good thing. I think it's a biased viewpoint to suggest that ALL pop music is driven by a profit motive, as some pop, while simple tunes, also make very memorable and often requested music. Such as McCartney's 'Yesterday' or 'Unchained Melody' – The Righteous Brothers; Candle in the Wind - Elton John; Imagine - John Lennon. Pop songs are sometimes good party tunes too, such as, Billie Jean - Michael Jackson; Holiday - Madonna; Maggie May - Rod Stewart; American Pie - Don Maclean; Dancing Queen - Abba. The Music industry is a very extensive one, and Pop Music an important part of it. The problem is in the 90s Big Business interest have taken over the pop industry and diluted the pop ballad for the present generation. It's driven by marketing forecasts and acccountants. and what will sell in the supermarkets, and all this has made the Album charts very dull in my view. Better to say - 'In the 90s Big Business interests took over the pop industry and diluted the pop ballad for the present generation.' as I have said in the History bit. Although according to Dylan there was many cheap, simple songs on the radio in the 60s too, and artists like Roy Orbison stood out. Not every singer or musician and be great of course! In my view it is not about the 'genre' that an artist works in, it's about the authenticity of their music. Johnny Cash is a good example, he's in both the Country Music Hall of Fame, and the Rock n' roll one. What people enjoy about Cash is the depth of his voice and that he has something real to say. Personally I think there is too much emphasis on genre - after all there is good and bad rock music; good and bad in any genre. cheers Pauline

Do you have a source for your opinions? Hyacinth 10:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

POV-check

I removed Template:POV-check as there is no explination given here. Hyacinth 09:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC) The sentence "It can be said that The Beatles led the British Invasion in this decade." under the 1960's heading is NPOV according to WP:AWW--Bobbit bob 08:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

I removed the Template:unsourced from this talk page as there is no indication of what needs to be sourced. Hyacinth 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pop ballad

"In the 90s, the ‘pop ballad’ got diluted by business guys hungry to make a quick buck out of such a successful formula. They lined up young attractive boys and girls with X appeal and good voices, and the age of the 'Boy and Girl band’s were born. They sang a similar brand of ballads. In the UK there was Take That, Westlife, Blue, the Spice Girls and more, and it was a highly successful formula. The first successfull creation in the U.S. was New Kids On The Block followed by the Backstreet Boys. But all this ‘diluted’ the pop ballad for the present generation of young people, as they grew up hearing these groups on Tv shows and radio."

That is an issue. [User:151.200.55.187|151.200.55.187]] 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed {{cleanup-date|March 2006}} since it is not discussed here. Hyacinth 07:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sparks

A request for a peer review of the Sparks article has been made here Wikipedia:Peer review/Sparks (band)/archive2. Please have a look and maybe help it along--KaptKos 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Article now more about music. Still needs work.

Right. Since the article was still heavily POV-oriented, I took out what amounted to a good bit of it. (Someone mentioned that it should be written from scratch anyway) ...there were still loads of sentences that didn't mean anything, or said something like "pop music is crap that makes a lot of money" (paraphrase). It needs a better intro still, explaining the difference between Pop music, the subject of this article, and Popular music, which has its own. This would help people who are confused by the scope of this article. Really would be worth it to go into detail about the controversy over what pop music "is" and has been... A note I'd like to work in somewhere is that the AMG Guide doesn't even have a genre called "Pop". You can only look at sub-genres, which includes Rock. Since they're pretty influential it might be good to incorporate this? Ickydog 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Pop Music?

QUOTE: While Pop music is sometimes described as music produced commercially, for profit, "as a matter of enterprise, not art" it may more usefully be defined as a music whose content is driven by market as well as aesthetic forces. Pop "is designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste." In musical terms, it is essentially conservative" in that it attemps to resonate with a large segment of its target demographic rather than pushing artistic boundaries. It is "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below...Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged." (Frith 2001, p.95-96) While Pop and Rock music each appeal to mass culture, often aim for (and achieve) commercial success, feature catchy tunes and melodies, and emphasize rhythm, Rock music has a much more direct connection to the blues and folk from which it originated, while Pop can be thought of as the current incarnation of Popular music, which has existed for centuries. In my view the start of this article is biased and incorrect. Rock music grew out of the POP music of the 60s and 70s. What happpened was that pop music diversified into the many sub-gneres that we know today, particularly in the 90s. The Beatles, the Yardbirds, the Stones etc. in the 60s were all classed as pop music in my day. I grew up with the Beatles in the 60s. In my view all the sub-genres we see today - like 'alternative indie rock' or whatever, are all forms of POP music. Pop music is essentially about the 3 minute song, about catching your attention with something immediate, so it has to have an unforgettable melody - say Candle in the Wind, Perfect Day, Imagine, Billie Jean, Pretty Woman,etc. etc. Since the 90s POP music appears to have became a narrower subgenre, when originally it encompassed all the forms of catchy tunes on the radio. Now we have so many genres that didn't exist in the 70s. I think ease of access to downloading music has had a huge impact and it is a good thing to see more and more variety in popular music. Just because something is classed as POP music doesn't mean it is bad music. Every genre of music has both good and bad in it, even rock and classical. I'm surprised most of my write up has been taken off. I also strongly believe all the boy and girl bands of the 90s have diluted the POP ballad. These bands were manufactured and put together through auditions, and given bland and predictable songs to sing. There is nothing wrong with that inherently because they provide entertainment to many, but there was little musical creativity involved. There are questions over say artists like 'Simon and Garfunkle' - are they POP or Folk-rock? In my day we would have said that their music was POP. But they were true artists who wrote their own music. Also compared to the very simple folk songs that only had 3 beats in a bar, that were written in the 19th century for people to sing, many of the popular songs of the past few decades are far superior. I have browsed through a lot of articles online about both ROCK and POP music, and most of them state that rock grew out of pop music of the 60s, which is certianly my impression. QUESTION?? - I class the Beatles music as POP music, at least their early hits were POP. Their later albums developed a more eclectic style. Of course perhaps my idea of the POP music I grew up with is wrong, but I also have a 16 year old who is studying Music and plays in a rock band, and thats what he thinks too. cheers Pauline THIS IS MY WRITE-UP; Pop music is a sub-genre of popular music, and began in the 1950s. The introduction of vinyl records in the 1930s, and later CDs (Compact Discs) in the 80s, resulted in recorded music becoming more widely available. Pop music is essentially about the 3 minute song, about catching your attention with something immediate, so it aims to have memorable melodies and lyrics. By using tunes that are often fairly predictable, pop music has wide appeal. Pop music is characterised by a heavy rhythmic element and the use of electronic amplification. It is commercially and radio friendly, readily accessible, memorable and easily marketable, often with a catchy chorus. It covers a wide range of musical influences from R & B, country, soul, jazz, folk and more.

What's up with the last reversion?

Hey, this article was starting to look good. Why'd it get reverted with no discussion? Hyacinth-- can you help? :) Ickydog 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Could you point me to a version that was looking good? The only recent reverts I see go back one version to remove vandalism. Hyacinth 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better now, I agree. User:Green01 3:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"1990s and 21st Century" section

This doesn't seem to be very accurate. Jesse McCartney has had one hit single as a solo artist; I'm not an expert, but I know this means he probably shouldn't be discussed in an encyclopedia article on pop music. Same with Son of Dork: if any British pop rock should be mentioned it should be Busted or McFly or something, because they're more notable. Extraordinary Machine 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) We should keep Son of Dork & Jesse McCartney I think, if you wish you could add McFly to the paragraph. User:Green01 2:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Satanism

"Style origins: A variety of influences, especially Rock and Roll, Satanism and Rhythm and Blues"

What does the religion satanism have to do with pop music? Arual 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lacking in cultural analysis

I think this could use a bit MORE sociological/cultural studies analysis. Pop music as a genre throughout the years has had a lot of cultural connotations that (I agree) should not be re-affirmed by a wikipedia entry, but should be described as commonly associated with it, and beyond that the associations should be examined explicitly for their cultural significance. It's useful and true to note that things called "pop music" often are implied to be low-quality. However, the significance of low quality is also linked with cultural assumptions about what quality music is, who makes it, and what its effects are. There are racial, class, and sexual undertones to this. Consequently it would be useful to add some discussion of how pop music often references underclasses or sexuality, while reinterpreting them in order to make them more acceptable to mainstream culture. Djripley 07:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC) It is very interesting that this Pop music article has generated such a long and varied discussion! I have three teenagers and they are more interested in rock music, although interestingly there is a bit of a resurgence in pop bands recently who are actually pretty good, play their own instruments to a high standard and write their own songs - e.g the Guillemots. Girls Aloud, a Uk girl group actually sing some pretty good tunes and perform them well. So I think it is wrong to say all pop music is cheap, simple or only aimed at the young. In fact many older people enjoy pop songs, as the main album buyers are the over 40s! I feel there is a place for every type of music. User:Lauryn74K 23:25, 16 October 2006 It says pop music's audience is "generally understood to be young" (not that they ARE necessarily young). That's what helps explain the moral panic aspect. I don't think there are many moral panics about the way music affects 40-year-olds. Djripley 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Spice Girls

I'm suprised they didn't get mentioned in the 1990s section. EDIT: Woops. My bad.

WHAT IS POPULAR ABOUT POP MUSIC?

Hi I am a student of media and have been given an assignment on POP music and what is popular about its genre. unfortunatly I have no background knowledge about POP and would be very grateful if anyone could help me out by pointing me in the right direction with regards to books and famous events that have affected POP. I would be most grateful if all details are sent to; hussain_alnashed@hotmail.co.uk. many thanks

More POV

I added a npov tag as I thought this wasn't npov (and was messily written): "Such generalizations are fallacious both in terms of the general sphere of influence of a particular star and in terms of perceived causality for teen behavior and identities.". I saw many other examples but I'm too lazy to go through correcting htem all..

Eminem is not pop!!!!!!!!

Why is eminem pitcure here when he is not pop. eminem is a rapper, his pitcure should be on the article for rap music.

Eminem IS Pop!!!!!!!!

Nirvana is Rock, Abba is dico and Eminem is hip-hop, ok. But we're talking here about "popular music" that is to say commercial music, the music business. And that means that Eminem is pop because he makes popular music, he's on MTV, come on!!! Who thinks we should put back his picture (don't worry I'm not fan, not at all, I'm just asking)? Actually ABBA is soft rock, only a few ABBA songs are 'disco tracks' (mostly from the 'Voulez-Vous' album...but other than that I agree...Eminem is part of the popular music scen...his music is popular and thus 'Popular Music' it doesn't matter what genre his music is, it is POP. - Sigurd

Grunge and Pop

Nirvana or any grunge does not belong in this article. Grunge and Alternative Rock were based off of punk rock and heavy metal mainly and if there even is a pop influence it is very minor. Pop music is different from music that sells a lot.--67.190.8.155 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining Genres

How exactly do you decide what is Pop and what is not? Surely Pop means popular and is therefore only relative and Pop music is just the artists or genres which are popular at the time. So what "element" is missing from the hip-hop artists (Eminem, Beyoncé etc.) that are mentioned in this article? This should be explained further. Thesean43 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pop Vocal Tradition

The terminology dates back to Sinatra and other early crooners, but started to lag in the rock era, when Garland and Streisand were considered pop (but were did not represent youth culture the way Sinatra had). For a time in the early 70's "Bubblegum" was used but had too many connotations (and even became a marketing ploy which further reduced it's connotations). A good study of this terminology has got to start by tracing the etymology of the word (and particularly its changing usage). Also I think it would most beneficial if care were taken to separate pop music and pop culture (which is perhaps more closely tied to pop art and its implications). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.207 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Top 40

Another thing sadly missing here is the fact that anything can become 'pop music' by sheer virtue of getting top 40 radio play. If it's given rotation in these key markets (or otherwise come to the attention of the intended demographic and is received favorably) it's Pop, that's it. Too much emphasis is placed on the attempts of Corporations to design pop. By giving them that much attention you are in effect validating them in the process when in fact they really do NOT own it, the consumer of the music owns it by virtue of having accepted it. No matter how much media companies try to contrive a culture for us, we have one of our own to answer for, that is the one that should be focused on, else we risk giving pop music a worse name than its already got (and incorrectly so in my view). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.207 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Age and Pop Music

QU0TE - " Young people have always been interested in fashions and spend their money on new artists, whereas older people tend to keep to their favourite artists. Young people also conform more to peer pressure. This conforming creates waves of commercial support for particular artists." I find this statement rather sweeping and an over-generalisation, and making assumptions rather than stating fact. I am an older music fan and I enjoy many YOUNG artists. Also older people can be just as easily marketed to, and persuaded to buy what is on the top Album racks. Wheras many young people now discover their music on networking site myspace. Interestingly pop music is enjoying a bit of a revival recently in the UK. Some pop music can actually be very cleverly written and produced. An example here might be new UK and international indie band, the Guillemotts, (check out their myspace page) or girl band Girls Aloud, who have been receiving good reviews. BUT it also is sad that Rappers earn more money performing on MTV awards shows than 'great musicians'. This is because rap music is cheap, instant and low risk for the big media companies. Also cheap music is 'easy' for people to relate to, and it requires little concentration or effort. It's an upside-down world that we live in. But then who is going to remember rap music in a hundred years? Modern classical music has become 'atonal' and dull, and pop music is what most prefer to listen to these days, in order to find a 'good melody'. Melody is what matters. If I listen to the great classical composers, it's their moods but also their melodies that I enjoy. Pauline [[User:LaurynK|LaurynK] 04:31 7th January 2007

Funk's influence

Can someone with expert knowledge address funk's influence on pop? For instance, some info on direct influences, indirect influences through disco, hip hop, and soul, and mainstream funk artists (Prince, Rick James, etc). --Muchness 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonny and Cher

"Sonny & Cher are considered the hippie icons of the 1960s." What?! *THE* hippie icons of the 60's? Not innovators such as Ken Kesey, Andy Warhol, Grace Slick, or Abbie Hoffman? Not popularizers such as Hendrix, Joplin, Garcia, or Morisson? Not even Simon and Garfunkel? I'm used to unsubstantiated assertions in wiki articles, but this one seems pretty nonsensical. Sonny and Cher are about as hippie-ish as the Smothers Brothers.

Definition in intro

The opening of the intro, even though sourced, seems to me incorrect:

Pop music is a genre of popular music distinguished from classical or art music and from folk music.

This is a definition of popular music, not pop music. Pop music is much narrower than just 'music that isn't classical or folk'. For example, jazz may be popular music but is not pop music. The remainder of the intro seems correct. I suggest modifying this initial sentence, maybe to read simply:

Pop music is a genre of popular music.

I suggest later in the intro a clear distinction is drawn between pop and popular music. Ben Finn 12:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the distinction? I know there is one: popular music can be considered anything that reaches a wide audience (read strongly : popular), while 'pop music' has a contextually based difference from other genres (read style, form, tempo, rhythmic features, beats-per-min, etc.) but it seems everyone wants to write an article about popular music. To continue the rant, Wikipedia articles for genres are severely lacking in this concrete part of genre classification. If anywhere, this article should make this distinction. I would also argue that pop music is not a genre of popular music, rather popular music is a classification of music and not a genre in itself. Thanks for reading.

Bryon fryer 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

History of pop music

Much of the early part of the History of pop music section appears to be about popular music, not pop music. Surely pop music as a musical genre didn't exist much before the 1960s. Relatedly, when did the term 'pop music' first come into use? Ben Finn 12:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

is it just western pop?

there's a bunch of stuff about iranian and turkish pop. does that need to be there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueLineSwinger (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Unspecified source for Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg

I found Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged. As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg

Image:ABBA-DefCollection.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the definition of pop music here rather confusing. As someone else points out, it is a sub-genre of popular music. It is normally based on the 3-minute song with verse/chorus and bridge/hook; and with lyrics that tell a story of some kind. This is in contrast to the old folk songs, that were often very long, and sometimes had awful lyrics with very simple tunes, and were in triple time (3 beats to a bar) In contrast jazz and classical music have more complex rhythms and beats. In recent years pop music has often been based on the bass lines, rather than the melody - although this may be changing recently. Pop music normally refers to a recorded song that has wide appeal, is catchy and is memorable. An example might be James Blunt's recent hit single 'Your Are Beautiful' - which had broad appeal to all ages. Most of the CD sales are now by the over-forties. So I don't understand the comment that pop music is only for teenagers. In the 60s yes but not in the noughties. To my recollection, as an older music fan, pop music 'started' in the 60s - when the baby boomers born after the war became teenagers. It was part of the expression of the youth culture of the 60s, in the UK, as also seen with fashion such as the mini skirts etc. In 2007 most hard copy CDs, and much of pop music in the UK is now marketed at this generation who are now over forty! Young people mostly use digital formats for their music, and appear to be interested in many sub-genres of music - from rock, punk, power-pop, hip-hop, emu, rap, club/dance/electonica and more. {User: LaurynK}} 02:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here I have to talk about the logic with entertainment industry.....

Currently people know that in most developed countries and some developing countries, there are kinds of governing bodies to regulate TV programs and commercial movies. Needless to say, the reasons are obvious and the issue has been cultural agreed globally. What I don't understand is that why this culture has not been adopted by the music industry worldwide. If people logically regulate the above entertainment programs to prevent pollutions mainly from eyes to the minimum, but why not from ears solely? Are we confident to be sure that human's ear perception is more immune to pollutions without (or, than...) the eye perception? Furthermore, music has already been into multimedia by large (not only limited to IT perspective...) for years so far and is not only to human ears anymore. Hope this question can bring more discussions to curb the "Environment Issues" --- ~__~

What is Pop music?

I was reading the main page and all of the discussion section to try and understand what pop music really is All and all pop is nothing more than a prefix/suffix to any main genre. Describing the style of that specific genre. As an example I could describe/say Pop-Rock is a rock song about love, if I go by the statement "Pop song lyrics are often emotional, relating to love." Now if we just want to simply stick with that pop music is songs about love, then fine. If we relate pop music to as stated "stylistic traits such as a danceable rhythm or beat, simple melodies and a repeating structure", that statement sums up the description of every kind of music. I do not know of any kind of music that is not a danceable rhythm/beat or repeating structure. The simple melodies well that does not describe everything. But, I for the most part say that Pop Music should be completely removed, unless everyone can come to a complete agreement on the definition of Pop music. Pop music is describing anything and everything. So for my own personal use, I will no longer refer to pop music or use Pop Rock, Punk Pop, or anthing else using the word pop in it, since it really does not describe anything. I was brought to pop music because I was looking at blink-182 and its listed genre was Pop Punk. I clik on Pop punk and it tells me its a fusion genre of punk rock and pop music. I clik on pop music, but their is no real def describing it. So how does blink-182 really fall under Pop Punk and how is Pop Punk really a fusion of punk rock and pop music. I located this def by wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn "music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and an emphasis on romantic love" Of course this is how I always felt what pop music was realy about --- To some extent, I do agree with your saying about pops definition (general meaning). To me, it is about the product SPECIFICATIONS (specified meaning). Since music CDs/DVDs are like any other goods which are commercial products, as long as people are willing to buy them, there is a market. What I would like to see is the situation of the product to be publicly released with the specification which should be regulated with a safety-use rating, but neither supressed nor overflooded.

Monkees

Removed comment referring to the Monkees as the most "infamous" example of boy bands in the 1960s, as it showed bias. Beggarsbanquet 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Beggarsbanquet

For the template at the bottom of the article, why does J-pop have to come before K-Pop? Amphitere 03:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Carola Häggkvist

What does this mean? "the Swedish superstar Carola Häggkvist continued her rule of European charts." (2000s). I thought she was just popular in Sweden and Norway. J 1982 23:38, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Removed. (82.130.46.195 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Criticism Section

This section is one big weasel phrase. Someone please either back up these claims or delete the whole section because it comes off as nothing more than a 13 year old goth kid whining about a genre he pretends not to like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sailorknightwing (talk • contribs) 03:54, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Pop as qualifier to other genres

I'm wondering if the article should make mention of how the word "pop" is sometimes used as a qualifying adjective for more specialized genres, e.g. pop punk, pop metal, pop rap, techno-pop, etc. Music that gets classified in these sub-categories is rarely simply called "pop." Rather, the implication is that it's poppy in relative comparison to the straight genre. For example, Poison has often been called pop metal, but you probably wouldn't call them pop singers. marbeh raglaim 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are "dirty pop" and "death pop"?

Those are listed as subgenres and fusion genres respectively? There isn't an article for either, but what are they? MalwareSmarts 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Probably vandalism. Unless anyone has a source for them even exsisting. Thundermaster367 08:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

90's! What happened to them???!!?

What Happened at the 90's. I remember a big article their that in which artists such as TLC mariah carey etc. were discussed. I think that the 90s section has shrinked alot. i mean its one of the most important decades in music history since it was a transitional period for all genres. a lot of music changes took place then!!! why has this article shrinked so much. somebody must make it as it was before!!!!! ps. its also very messy... do something about this also! --Mysterious Spy 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not too helpful

This article is not only unreferenced, I don't think it's even accurate. Gwen Gale 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC) I've also added a WP:OR tag. Seems to me, editors who wanted to be helpful have written this article following their personal understandings and views of the topic rather than from an accurate and supported historical, sociological or musicological perspective. Because of this, the article may be in truth misleading in spite of the editors' intent. Gwen Gale 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)