ITT: What is the umbrella term for all these more 'high-brow' styles of pop. Such as: Chamber Pop, Psychedelic Pop...

ITT: What is the umbrella term for all these more 'high-brow' styles of pop. Such as: Chamber Pop, Psychedelic Pop, Lounge Pop, Experimental Pop, Art Pop, Jazz Pop etc.

what do you mean by "high-brow" lol

shit

Pop

Hipster-Pop

nu post pop

As opposed to styles of pop that would encompass artists such as: Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber.

'High-brow' in art culture generally means those styles or works that tend to be appreciated primarily by critics and avid fans of that art form, rather than the general populus who are less invested and less 'cultured' in the field.

Art Pop

The term 'pop' has generally a divisive meaning. In one sense, it simply is short for 'popular' and means the most popular music in any given time.

In another sense, there is an actual genre 'Pop' with it's own musical similarities and signatures.

It's pretty unclear how people use the term 'Pop' and what meaning it pertains, so the question is necessarily hard to answer I feel.

>Lounge pop
>High brow

Surely you have a full grasp of pop music

Using speech marks around the term 'high-brow' was supposed to communicate hesitation in my use of the word. Generally, the speech marks was to indicate 'for lack of a better word'.

false dichotomy

Expand.

The reason for a 'lack of a better word', is because you are imposing a highly misguided dichotomy on pop music.

All of those genres have no more or less artistic credibility than mainstream pop music, inherently.

Just because it's slightly different from what is currently the pop zeitgeist, doesn't make it wholly different in its integrity.

Pretty much all the styles you mentioned outside of "experimental pop" and "art pop", were or still are incredibly mainstream; the remainders are as ineffable as "experimental rock" or "art punk".

The simple fact of the matter is this:

The umbrella term for all those styles, is called "pop".

contract

There isn't a single serious member of any art culture that uses the word "high brow" with any actual merit.

You are waging a dichotomy of elitism where there exists none.

>All of those genres have no more or less artistic credibility than mainstream pop music

I didn't claim that artistic credibility was what separated the Nicki Minaj and Justin Bieber from the AnCo, or whatever. I wasn't trying to assert that 'high-brow' meant superior in any sense. By high'brow I merely meant those styles that were generally only listened to by avid fans of music and critics rather than the general populous at a given time. Not that they were in any way better, or more credible.

>Just because it's slightly different from what is currently the pop zeitgeist, doesn't make it wholly different in its integrity.

Again, I wasn't asserting anything about the integrity of the music.

>The umbrella term for all those styles, is called "pop".

Maybe I should just accept this. It just seems to me there is a distinction between Nicki Minaj/Justin Bieber and AnCo. There is a gap where a word should be to which we separate the two dominants ways in which the term 'Pop' is used and i'm merely looking for it.

>You are waging a dichotomy of elitism where there exists none.

I realise now the term 'high-brow' was probably poor. I didn't want people to focus so much on this, hence the speech marks. Let me be clear, I am not implying any sort of elitism whatsoever. 'high-brow' never meant better.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Animal Collective is listened to by thousands of people who don't really have an interest in music. I'm not claiming they have the mainstream popularity of other pop groups, but they are not immune from being wholly pop music.

Here is a critical flaw in your assumption - undefined variables. "Avid music fans" - how are you defining this? This is completely impossible to prove, both on an individual basis and as a category of people, with any definable metric.

And if that is your way to separate the two "groups" you think exist, you can't separate them.

>There is a gap where a word should be to which we separate the two

There is no gap except the one in your skull where your brain should be.

dude. its just pop. theres no umbrella term

>I didn't want people to focus so much on this, hence the speech marks

Using speech marks specifically draws attention to a phrase. In general conversation, you would most likely either hold up your hands to show them, or say the phrase in a different tone - which is clearly drawing attention to it.

I am literally autistic and even I can grasp that he was hesitant in using the term

Bad b8 m8 I r8 0/8, 2 l8

>Sorry to burst your bubble

No bubble is being burst. I haven't made this thread to mindlessly argue some belief I already had. I raised the point out of interest, not pride.

>I'm not claiming they have the mainstream popularity of other groups

Okay, I will use this to expand what I mean. Take the large difference in listening consumption between Justin Bieber/Nicki Minaj and AnCo. Those thousands/millions of people who listen to Bieber and Minaj and not AnCo, who you have just conceded exist, ascend Bieber and Minaj to a new kind of 'Pop'. Through this huge audience, they become 'Pop' in the sense that they are massively popular. This kind of 'Pop' i'm not considering to be a musical form, but rather a status of popularity.

>
Here is a critical flaw in your assumption - undefined variables. "Avid music fans" - how are you defining this? This is completely impossible to prove, both on an individual basis and as a category of people, with any definable metric.

Impossible to prove? It's not impossible to prove at all. Avid music fans are those that listen to a higher quantity of music, both in depth of discographies and breadth of musical styles and artists. These people can be identifiable by things like: size of Record/CD/Digital music collections, active engagement on music forums and discussion boards etc. They just express a greater interest in music than an average casual music listener. I don't understand why you think this group of people don't exist?

>And if that is your way to separate the two "groups" you think exist, you can't separate them.

That isn't my only way. If you want to reject that, see what I said earlier, regarding pop music as a genre and as a status of a level of popularity.

>There is no gap except the one in your skull where your brain should be.

Idk why you're insulting me. I haven't been antagonising or forceful in any of my arguments or ideas. I'm merely interested in the topic.This is Sup Forums though so, to be expected.

Yes but to hedge certainty of the phrase. You use air speech marks in real conversation to show that you aren't using the phrase from your own conviction, do you not?

There isn't really a term, and I don't think it would be a good idea to label them has one vague entity anyway. Those genres you listed are way too different in appeal on their own to be put under the same umbrella. It would kind of create a false dichotomy.

That not what he meant by "draw attention" you fucking retard. Scare quotes are used when using a phrase or word loosely.

I concede perhaps my OP was leading to a false dichotomy. I'd like to move the discussion onto the comparisons of "Pop" as a genre and "Pop" as a mark of popularity. What makes the genre "Pop" and not just an expression of the music being popular.

vocal driven, emphasis on catchy hooks, varied instrumentation

So an umbrella term for pop music that isn't on the radio?
Alternative Pop

pretentious pop

lack of distinctive features

Retarded
Grimes or the Beach Boys are no more intellectual or artistic than mainstream pop. They're just more pretentious

How the fuck are the Beach Boys pretentious?

'art pop' is the umbrella term

all of your replies are so contrived

can you fucking kill yourself you ugly disgusting scrawny cunt

>Avid music fans are those that listen to a higher quantity of music, both in depth of discographies and breadth of musical styles and artists. These people can be identifiable by things like: size of Record/CD/Digital music collections, active engagement on music forums and discussion boards etc.

You don't understand the flaw in this?

Exactly how many artists does a person have to listen to, to be an "avid music fan"? How many physical copies do they need to own? How many different styles do they have to listen to?

There is no concrete number, because it is a subjective concept with no objective metric.

I'm not even that guy, but you don't seem to grasp the concept. If you had data on that you could analyze it easily, and possibly even come to a good approximation regarding what an "avid" listener is.

Also, there's really no need to decide between "avid listener" and "others", as you imply, it's a broad spectrum! Finding correlations and drawing conclusions would be easy.

I love these threads. Everyone trying to impress one another and prove who is most intellectual.
You guys know this site is anonymous right? No wonder you're all NEETs, you're wasting too much time on this shit.

hear this teenage symphony to god
it's just like bach, hear the harmony
guess the key for god only knows, oh muh ambiguity

>there are no tall people kek
>tall is relative subjective mumbo jumbo not concrete numba