Thread: "Pop Music"
View Single Post
Old 02.03.2015, 08:53 AM   #28
!@#$%!
invito al cielo
 
!@#$%!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mars
Posts: 34,172
!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses!@#$%! kicks all y'all's asses
because beyonce does pop but is more r&b, no? same as "the king of pop" michael jackson. for my taste the real king of pop is david bowie ha ha ha ha.

i didn't mean that pixies is a "pop band" really in a strict sense. i just meant to challenge the notion that pop is any kind of narrowly circumscribed top-40 genre-- instead it's a big big current in music.

re: tom waits, blues singer, yes genres blend because they're just concepts to box in a messy reality. no?

i think if you look at top-40 popular music today and try o define a historical pop genre backwards from it it's going to be problematic because a lof of influences like hip hop r&b or country or latin or whatever are going to send you in all kinds directions. it's easier if you start in the 50s or whatever and see how it branches out and spins out subgenres.

so pulling back and saying pop/non-pop while being maybe too broad actually makes sense to me.

but anyway the real problem is trying to create neat divisions in what is actually a very fluid reality no?
!@#$%! is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|