Discussions about genre definitions are usually pointless, but "pop" is worse than most in this regard. If you are going to reject the definition that says "pop" is simply short for "popular", then you need to provide an alternative definition - and most definitions I have seen of "pop" basically say what it is not, rather than what it is. Examples of the genre are supplied in plenty; Madonna is pop, Michael Jackson is pop, etc, but they do nothing to describe the music. What about someone who sounds like Madonna, but whose records do not sell? Is that "pop"? If so, there is something ridiculous going on here.
I have this thing about labels. I do think labels can serve a useful purpose, but only if the label is actually telling you something, not if it's so nebulous that it merely serves to confuse. I'd rather the label "pop" was put back in its box, or allowed to reclaim its original meaning of "popular", which is pretty unambiguous.
|