Ever since Billy Joel got a thread in the "Folk" forum, I've felt that we need to define pop music. "Pop", of course, is short for "popular", and the term has been used for many, many years in music circles, since at least the early 50s if not before.

Everything from Frank Sinatra to Led Zepplin has been referred to as "pop" at one point or another. Essentially, one way to define "pop" or "popular music" would be to consider it anything that appeals to the masses. By that definition, any platinum or multi-platinum selling artist could be considered "pop music" regardless of the genre.

But from a more stylistic perspective, pop tends to be regarded as music that is easily accessible to a large (and largely adult) audience because of its musical/lyrical qualities. By that definition, I would immediately class a successful artist like Billy Joel to be "pop". So it really confused me when he ended up in a forum on folk music!

So I thought, maybe we should really look at this and try to define these genres a little more. Anyone care to comment?

-

Well I agree... I have always been one who likes concise genre definitions as it helps to compare music... Of course there is always some overlap as many musicians have played in several genre... But Billy Joel should not be considered folk in any way shape or form and lot of what many consider pop is really pop/rock... And many will argue on exactly "what is what" in each genre.. But the allmusic website does a pretty good job at genre definition for anyone who is interested...


-

To me pop=crap. When I hear someone refer to "pop" music I always think of Pop Rocks candy, which even within the boundaries of the food group (ahem) is junk: quick, pointless, zero sustenance. So I think the term should be reserved for those songs/'artists' who don't even pretend to touch upon anything remotely insightful, personally, socially or musically. It simply exists to sell CDs and promote a tour (which I realize is the underlying basis for most everything, at least from the perspective of the record labels). Broad example: Milli Vanilli would definitely be pop in my book, but in contrast Michael Jackson's (King of Pop?!) Thriller would straddle R&B and dance. Fine line? Probably.
(AMG has Jackson under Rock, btw.)

No offense intended for all you Milli fans out there

That's too narrow. Sinatra was pop. Judy Garland was pop. Nat King Cole was pop. Louis Armstrong was sometimes pop. The Beatles were pop. Sting is pop. Billy Joel is pop. Elton John is pop. Carole King is pop. 60s and 70s Motown is pop. None of the above is "crap", at least not as a rule.

These artists may not be rock enough for a lot of people on this web site, but that doesn't make it crap. Again, I think we need to re-define pop drastically around here. And once it's defined accurately, those who think it's crap can simply ignore this forum, while those of us who appreciate good pop (even if that's just me and one or two others) can use it.

Sadly, to many under 25 pop is associated with crap as most of the pop of the last 10 years has been weak... So while Reverend Rock has properly defined the term in his first post it will be hard to change the perception many have for the term pop music...
As he said though, there have been many great artists through the years who would at times fall under the pop category...


-

I hear what you're saying - I didn't mean in any way that the artists you mentioned (and many you didn't) are crap. It's just that so much of what has been labeled "pop" over the years is such vacuous overproduced drivel that it ceases to be an art form, but just an industry of cool (to steal a phrase from Cameron Crowe). If the term "pop" is literally short for "popular" (as someone said), then it's determined solely by sales, marketed and force-fed to the masses as artistic when it's anything but. And all too often I think that people like their music dummed down - they don't know if the music they're buying is good (creative, insightful, clever), they don't care. They only know that it's in fashion and popular. Therefore, the term "pop" has a negative connotation for me, which was exactly my point.

I'd prefer that Frank Sinatra wasn't referred to as pop, but as swing or lounge; that Louis Armstrong was referred to as be-bop or jazz, and that The Beatles were referred to as rock and roll. (Not sure about Judy Garland). But somehow the vacant and disposable term "pop" got stamped on them at one time or another, as you said. If anything the term “pop” should be assigned only to fads because they aren’t hanging around long enough to be given a proper title.
/soapbox

i'm much more broad: pop music to me is almost anything meant to appeal to a young audience. rock, folk, most jazz, funk, soul, r&b, hip-hop, punk, reggae, electronica, etc. just about any style besides... classical, ragtime and march! indeed, just about anything composed after about 1920 gets to be pop as far as im concerned.

I very much like your eclectic attitude there, camilojoe, but I've never considered most of the genres you mentioned as being "meant to appeal to a young audience", especially folk, jazz, classical, ragtime, or march! But like I said, I love the broad parameters you're setting.

Somehow, to me, pop connotes melodic catchiness a la early Bee Gees / XTC / Nick Lowe kinda stuff. *shrug*

I think of pop, not so much as popular music, more so as a musical genre in itself; a sound of it's own. But the sound is really defined as that which isn't defined. I fit into the pop genre music that doesn't fit into any other one (rock,reggae,folk, etc.) And what usually is fitted in there isn't really too appealing to me, thus my whole "pop is crap" attitude.