>There's 10 million subgenres for electronica, rock, metal and rap so you can get exactly the kind of sound you like
>But Britney Spears and Adele are both just "pop"
>inb4 plebbit
I listen to harsh noise too I just wanna know why there aren't subgenres for pop. Best there is is regional shit like K-Pop and J-Pop, and the goth offshoot Baroque Pop.
The answer is very boring and wrapped up in a lot of seriously tedious academic music segregation with concepts like the axiomatic triangle.
The easy short version is that there is no genre "pop", it's more of a blanket term related more to popular culture than to the music itself. All examples of top 40 for instance do actually have their musical roots in other genres and subgenres of music, but they aren't subgenres of "pop" because "pop" isn't actually a genre it's an entirely separate cultural indicator.
Why is it allowed? Because it'd be fucking boring to care.
psychedelic pop?
dance pop?
chamber pop?
baroque pop?
art pop?
you sound like someone who has no clue what you're talking about but still tried to sound smart
noise pop
pop rock
pop punk
It's not all that tedious, you can just read one essay by Adorno to pick up on the concept of "same but different" that the music industry pushes. It's essentially rooted in marketing.
Basically accurate but I'm still right so
He's right though and you didn't refute him
you can't be right if you has no point
all you said was "I know but I won't say"
calling something boring to masquerade the fact that you can't explain a point is the oldest trick in the book
see above
are you two so unused to actual explanation of things that simply pretending is enough?
He's not wrong. Pop music, as everyone knows, is just a term for popular music. Drake is a pop artist, but his styles are hip hop, dancehall, r&b for example.
Pop just refers to acts that get played on the radio a lot and sell tons of copies since they're geared towards that accessible crowd.
R&B commonly runs in pop circles yet it's distinctly marked outside of the "pop" moniker.
>But Britney Spears and Adele are both just "pop"
both are shit pushed down your throat by the recordjew, why bother comming up with new subgernes for the same shit
Pop fans are friendly and accommodating. Various rock, punk, soul, reggae, electronic, hip hop, etc songs are freely called pop and allowed entry into that broad catagorisation. Whereas metalheads, for instance, love to make barriers and their own little musical fiefdoms of minuscule genres with little differentiation, the same with many other genre warriors.
I guess that's because R&B/Soul were black people's pop music back in the day, while he whites had The Beatles, Beach Boys, Elvis, etc.
Not OP.
says who? I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm saying that you're all shallow teenagers who don't know enough to defend your points
all you said was "I know but I won't say"
did he really though, or did he say
>there is no genre "pop", it's more of a blanket term related more to popular culture than to the music itself. All examples of top 40 for instance do actually have their musical roots in other genres and subgenres of music, but they aren't subgenres of "pop" because "pop" isn't actually a genre it's an entirely separate cultural indicator.
>you're all
What do I have to do with this? You have no idea how old I am.
You just went on a tangent about how the guy was trying to sound smart for explaining the question OP had
These are two different styles of music
youtube.com
youtube.com
pop =/= popular music
The Tagg's Triangle uses popular music as an umbrella, not pop music (which is a genre).
That's cause pop fans don't give a shit while generic metalheads are immature and ignorant as shit.
>not pop music (which is a genre).
Sure, you can argue that, but you can also argue that it's a laughably loose genre that relies on almost all the same definitions to categorise the music in it that the "popular music" umbrella does making it redundant.
If you try to define "pop music" as a genre you'll struggle.
you seem like a dick
>t, but you can also argue that it's a laughably loose genre that relies on almost all the same definitions to categorise the music in it that the "popular music" umbrella does making it redundant.
Not at all. Would you call Yoo Doo Right by Can the same genre as Yummy Yummy Yummy by Ohio Express? No of course not.
>If you try to define "pop music" as a genre you'll struggle.
No, it's fairly easy. Just because you struggle with it doesn't mean others do.
>No, it's fairly easy. Just because you struggle with it doesn't mean others do.
Go ahead then dude, please define "pop music" as a genre in a way that is significantly detached from the definitions used to categorise it under the "popular music" umbrella.
Pop music is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form in the Western world as a softer alternative to rock and roll. The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular and includes many styles. "Pop" and "rock" were synonymous terms until the late 1960s, when they were increasingly used in opposition from each other.
Although pop music is seen as just the singles charts, it is not the sum of all chart music. Pop music is eclectic, and often borrows elements from other styles such as urban, dance, rock, Latin, and country; nonetheless, there are core elements that define pop music. Identifying factors include generally short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), as well as the common use of repeated choruses, melodic tunes, and hooks.
pop DOES have subgenres but everything gets swept under "pop" for convenience sake
everything you and most of Sup Forums listens to would similarly probably get swept under Alternative for the same reasons
Ok, I fell for the bait. Good one.
Not an argument
Ironic, isn't it?
Adele is Pop Soul
Britney is Dance-Pop
done
I'd have given you an argument if you hadn't literally copy pasted paragraphs from wikipedia which define "pop music" the genre as any music with "generally short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), as well as the common use of repeated choruses, melodic tunes, and hooks".
Not only is that not at all distinct from the same criteria used to categorise music under the popular music umbrella, it's exceptionally vague as a genre categorisation.
There's not so many though. Maybe it's because the average consumer of pop, doesn't get so anal about subgenres like metal heads and electronic fans.
Same reason I can't come up with all that many subgenres of hiphop
Just take whatever genre they're co-opting and prefix it with "pop"
>I'd have given you an argument if you hadn't literally copy pasted paragraphs from wikipedia which define "pop music" the genre as any music with "generally short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), as well as the common use of repeated choruses, melodic tunes, and hooks".
Why not? You asked for the definition, I gave it to you.
>Not only is that not at all distinct from the same criteria used to categorise music under the popular music umbrella,
It completely is. I already gave you an example of two songs that are both popular music but not pop music, even from the same era.
But because you honestly don't seem to understand this, I'll give you a more specific criteria for pop music:
>hook or chorus focused song structures
>dance oriented
>commercial, marketed towards youth
>reflects current trends
I understand, I just don't agree that it is a specific enough categorisation to merit its own genre. Many would agree with me. But if you'd like to think that what you're saying is somehow notably distinct from the music that falls under the popular music umbrella go ahead. I said at the beginning that it wasn't, you haven't changed my mind, as all the criteria you're listing are not distinct from that categorisation, and as half of them aren't even related to music but rather to social factors like marketing, commercialisation, and the reflection of current trends, it seems obvious to me that what you've got there isn't a genre categorisation. But sure, whatever.
There's not enough benefit to categorizing pop music the way people categorize rock or other genres, you could do it but pop music fans don't care enough to know the difference between the types of pop they're listening to.
>I just don't agree that it is a specific enough categorisation to merit its own genre
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Trained musicologists think otherwise. Do you know more than them?
>Many would agree with me
Non educated people, sure
>But if you'd like to think that what you're saying is somehow notably distinct from the music that falls under the popular music umbrella go ahead
OK do you thin Katy Perry and Johnny Cash sound like they are in the same genre? Give me an answer.
>social factors like marketing, commercialisation, and the reflection of current trends
These are things that impact the music though.
Right, so I am looking for a sub-genre of kinda quiet but suspenseful electronic music with whispered words in it.
Something that could be the soundtrack to a modern political conspiracy movie. I heard it once, but didn't ask for the name.
Keep the self-important chest-puffing to a minimum, it's really obnoxious.
No, I don't think Katy Perry and Johnny Cash sound like they are in the same genre. I realise there are similarities in the music they make in terms of the criteria you have already listed and both fall under the popular music umbrella, but the music they make is distinct enough in my opinion to merit their own genres.
Let me really dumb this down.
What I'm saying is that there is a huge umbrella category called popular music in which many different genres are contained, defined by similar criteria to that that you're listing.
What you're saying, is that there is an actual genre called "pop music", and that all music with a verse chorus structure, of short to medium length, with a melody and or hook, that people can dance to, and is sold, or marketed towards youth, and potentially reflects current trends, is all the same genre.
I don't agree.
>Trained musicologists think otherwise
er i dont think there is a widely held consensus on whether or not pop music is a genre or not dude lmfao
>No, I don't think Katy Perry and Johnny Cash sound like they are in the same genre. I realise there are similarities in the music they make in terms of the criteria you have already listed and both fall under the popular music umbrella, but the music they make is distinct enough in my opinion to merit their own genres.
Hence popular music (one of Tagg's signifiers) and popular music (the genre) are different. I'm glad we agree
>I don't agree.
You haven't convinced me otherwise, not gave me any proof otherwise
>er
>lmfao
Not an argument
>er
Except that by your definition both would be pop music, as they both make music of short to medium length, utilise verse chorus structures with melodies and or hooks that people can dance to, were both heavily commercialised and reflected current trends of their respective times;.
So they're both pop music, by your own definition, even though they blatantly make very different kinds of music.
It's a redundant genre categorisation.
>Except that by your definition both would be pop music, as they both make music of short to medium length, utilise verse chorus structures with melodies and or hooks that people can dance to, were both heavily commercialised and reflected current trends of their respective times;.
Not correct. Cash often veered into western music tradition (structures, instrumentation, etc), was not dance oriented, and often worked in an aesthetic not catered for a least common denominator
Nice try though
Johnny Cash is one of the most highly selling artists of all time, and you're telling me he didn't cater to a huge group of people? You know for a fact he made tons of music with a verse chorus structure, and you know he made tons of music that people could and did dance to.
This is just one example. There are so many others that could be listed which have all the same criteria, commercially successful music that people danced to, of short to medium length, that utilises verse chorus structures and melodies and hooks, and they'd all be very different musically.
Because it's far too vague to work as a genre categorisation. Because it's a redundant genre categorisation.
There are subgenres for pop you prick.
Animal collective and The Flaming Lips can both be considered psychedelic pop.
B Spears is cancer pop and Adele is melodic/commercial pop.
>Not an argument
how about this: your a fucking idiot eat a dick
>Johnny Cash is one of the most highly selling artists of all time, and you're telling me he didn't cater to a huge group of people?
en.wikipedia.org
Not really.
>You know for a fact he made tons of music with a verse chorus structure
Not hook-oriented. Simple ABAB structure is not what we are referencing here
>and you know he made tons of music that people could and did dance to.
List them. Give examples of people dancing to them.
>There are so many others that could be listed which have all the same criteria, commercially successful music that people danced to, of short to medium length, that utilises verse chorus structures and melodies and hooks, and they'd all be very different musically.
List them all.
Not an argument
dreampop
pop
When you're denying that Johnny Cash, in the top 100 best selling artists of all time, who sold more than 90 million records in his career didn't cater to a huge group of people, I don't see the need to argue any further with you.
All the best dude, I'm off to bed.
>I don't see the need to argue any further with you.
He worked in Country, folk, rock and roll and Gospel.
Lots of people like those genres as well.
Is there a reason you are cherry picking one criteria?
>Not an argument
Oh ok, how about this one: you are a pathetic tool
rekt
both are terrible
pop is terrible
both are pop
check mate
Johnny Cash is not a pop artist. You are musically ignorant if you think otherwise.
everyone can tell from the way you write you have never had sex
Where do you think you are?
Literally got laid this morning.
How about you?
you guys are forgetting the kind of pop with the most fabulous panache
SOPHISTIPOP
on Sup Forums
fucking your sock puppet doesn't count captain tism
Time close the thread on up. The poptimist lost.
Nice projecting
it was a quicky in exchange for cleaning the kitchen. But at least it's better than your nothing.
even your imagined fictional sex is of a poor quality lmfao fucking hell just end it all asap
>dat projection
>dat damage control
dope armchair psychology dude pity you're a pathetic virgin right lmfao
>dope armchair psychology
>you're a pathetic virgin right lmfao
do you even read what you write before you post?
(You)
do you even have sex? (rhetorical question)
Invalid, Adele is often classified as singer/songwriter
if I sing and write songs I too can be a singer/songwriter
Yes. Why wouldn't you?
Then every artist on the fucking planet who sings their own songs is a singer/songwriter and using that to classify an artist is like classifying a new shade of red under the name "darkish color"
>Then every artist on the fucking planet who sings their own songs is a singer/songwriter
Correct.
What's the problem here?
Listen to this.
youtube.com
Anyone can recommend something like Carly Rae Jepsen - Emotion?
...did you not read the other half?
>pop =/= popular music
It literally does.
It wasn't relevant.
[citation needed]
>What's the problem here?
>The other half of the post says what the problem is
keep the bait in Sup Forums, please
>[citation needed]
Look at the fucking words, my dude. You're like one of those nerds who try to argue that science fiction, sci-fi and SF are totally things.
>Look at the fucking words
One is a genre, one is a part of Tagg's Trinagle.
>i listen to harsh noise too
>baroque pop
>chamber pop
>noise pop
>ambient pop
>dream pop
>progressive pop
>psychedleic pop
And thats just off the top of my head.
>The other half of the post says what the problem is
No, the other part of the post did not mention the problem of user not specifying his genre in his scenario initially
Please learn to read
not enough reason to distinguish them
>haha ur illiterate
I say in the post that classifying Adele as a singer/songwriter is silly because that's an extremely broad term that applies to many varying artists, and compared it to calling a shade of red a "darkish color", an extremely broad name that applies to many varying colors. What the fuck are you talking about?
Also
>his scenario
>scenario
That isn't how you use the word scenario, why are you trying to sound this smart on a Sup Forums board
>I say in the post that classifying Adele
Where did you mention Adele in that post?
>That isn't how you use the word scenario
How so? user made a scenario.
sce·nar·i·o
səˈnerēˌō/
noun
a postulated sequence or development of events.
This is the post we were talking about, Adele was implied.
I see what you mean about the "scenario" though, my mistake there
People that get upset at genre tags have legit autism. Genres exist mostly for radio formats and organizing the display at a music shop. Not much else
le joo please pay attention to me
>i listen to harsh noise too
It's pretty useful if you want to find more music that sounds like other music. If someone wants to find more pop that sounds like chvrches for example they'll have an easier time if they looked for synthpop artists rather than just pop artists
electro pop
dream pop