fallenangel Site Admin

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 9216 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's two kinds of pop.
One is popular music/pop culture, which includes pop (the style), rock, punk, metal, rap, r&b, country, and basically anything that is performed in an entertainment concert type atmosphere. (the others being classical, blues, jazz, and tribal that don't fit) Thus when you say the top 40 pop chart, it's just the top 40 songs of pop culture, not necessarily the style of pop.
Pop the style is characterized by extremely catchy music with [generally] little substance. All of teen pop is mostly computer generated (and then the voices are modified and touched up digitally afterwards as well) and has few distinguishable instruments. The entire thing relies on a catchy melody to stick in a person's head and make them enjoy the song, regardless of what the lyrics are about or what quality the music is.
That's why a lot of 80s rock was pop rock. It was skilled and had all the instruments and talent, but the songs were crafted around fun melodies. Same with nu-punk and mainstream rap. However, it's also why nu-punk isn't punk. Punk was basically anti-pop, it's abrasive and chaotic and loud. "Punk" in the 90s and 00s, consisting of boybands dressed in eyeliner, was all about catchy melodies and getting kids to sing along. That's not punk, that's entirely pop. Metal is the same way, you don't see many true metal songs that are very easy to sing along to. True rock has elements of pop, but the melody isn't the only thing holding it together, as it is in pop.
Teen pop is the only one that's truly worthless. There's nothing inherently wrong with the style of pop except the wastes of oxygen that are the teen idols putting out repetitive garbage and making millions from idiotic preteens.
_________________ "I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall |
|