Music Banter - View Single Post - Nathanblake719 babbles about bands he doesn't like
View Single Post
Old 05-15-2018, 01:40 AM   #204 (permalink)
MicShazam
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
lol

I can't

maybe some people do say this but it's ****ing stupid
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
if you google "pop rock" you will find a list of
literally every rock band that has ever been popular

because it's a meaningless term
Genre terms aren't perfect. They're just supposed to help with categorization.

Most music stores I've been to that had genre sorting put Lady Gaga, Led Zeppelin, Abba and punk in the same larger category of pop/rock, then usually separate sections for blues, classical, jazz and metal. One big record store chain that doesn't exist anymore also had an indie category.

In academic terms, both Cannibal Corpse and Britney Spears are simply "popular music", with differentiation only applied between blues, jazz, classical and various kinds of traditional and avant garde music (I think they might also consider electronic music and country separate categories).
This makes sense from a certain perspective, since the only differences between death metal and dance pop, for example, are stylistic. There's a reason why it's so easy to convert a pop song into a metal song, a rock song into disco, etc.

It's a pie that you can slice in many different ways, depending on your needs and what distinctions you care to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
Ramones were dangerous in their time, they debuted out of CBGB, in a NYC that was the Detroit of its time

putting that aside however the music itself is not nearly as polished as 90's pop punk, it's objectively very lofi in its recording comparatively, Sire was a small label at the time, not a lot of money went into making that first album

we're talking about the band that's on a short list for pioneering Punk itself, a definitive punk band, to retrospectively label them "pop punk" is pretty ridiculous

I don't know if I agree, but I don't know enough about their discography to insist. I just think that it's at the very least an interesting idea to consider them a pioneering punk act and a pioneering pop punk act. Really, I think the difference between punk and pop punk is just paper thin, since it's more about how raw their sound is and their status, than it's about the makeup of the music itself.

I might be wrong.
MicShazam is offline   Reply With Quote