I wasnt being literal. I was just saying how so much different music can be qualified as pop and to me its a rather useless term. "the thrill is gone" crossed over into the pop charts in 1969, so I guess that makes it pop.

They were more innovative, and I guess you choose to ignore the innovation of "Sunday Morning"... considering it's a dream pop song about twenty years before the genre would actually exist. I also guess you choose to ignore everything else The Velvet Underground released ranging anywhere from noise to early forms of alternative rock. You know... you could have made your point more effectively if you spoke about songs like "Femme Fatale" or 'Who Loves the Sun"... both being typical-sounding pop songs from that era.

Oh, and I have yet to see anyone claim that the Velvets were more innovative than the Beatles (until now), so I have no idea where you got this from.

Sorry for continuing the Beatles debate... I'm just not a fan of people making blatant assumptions... and getting their facts wrong. As antagonizing as that sounds, blastingas, I don't mean for it to be as such. I know it seems like everyone is ganging up on you, but it's just a discussion... I'm also a huge VU fanboy, so I had to say something. :D

Don't forget Symphony for Improvisers, which was also released during the same year. :)



By the way... Cecil Taylor is an amazing jazz pianist, and I love Unit Structures as well as Jazz Advance and The World of Cecil Taylor. (Both he and Art Tatum rank among my favorite piano players of all time).

OOOO its a dream pop song. Haha. Thats ridiculous. That is getting a little carried away with the music labeling. That song is more pop than a song that featured lyrics inspired by the Tibetan Book of The Dead, experimental recording techniques that had never been done and a Indian-inspired modal music structure.

And I have heard people say that The VU were more innovative than The Beatles.

As you're well aware, I've never claimed that the popularity of a song is what makes it pop music.

I thought you felt that "pop" was "a rather useless term"?

I do. What's your point? Clearly everyone else thinks pop is a necessary term, so if I'm going to talk about this with anyone I'm going to have to use the term.

So, basically, your comment about the Velvet Underground was meaningless?

Suzi Quatro is the greatest

"the thrill is gone" is no less pop than "tomorrow never knows". That Beatles song was actually a lot more experimental than "the thrill is gone". When someone says "the beatles were all pop and nothing but it", that means everything they did was pop. So if "tomorrow never knows" is a pop song, I guess "the thrill is gone" is pop too by yalls standards.

Now you're definitely picking on me. As long as he thinks pop isn't useless, then that comment wasn't useless. I was merely speaking his language. This comment is pretty useless though. There's no point in explaining myself to someone that is just trying to pick on me.

I'm not sure why you're suddenly talking about "The Thrill is Gone", or even which version of it you're referring to. Did someone else make a comment about that song or something?

:rolleyes: