The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[blastingas10]

I just used it as an example. Im talking about BB Kings single version that was one of the first blues songs to cross over into the pop charts. It is no less "pop" than the song "Tomorrow Never Knows". If "The Thrill is Gone" is a blues song, then "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a experimental pyschedelic rock song.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I just used it as an example. Im talking about BB Kings single version that was one of the first blues songs to cross over into the pop charts. It is no less "pop" than the song "Tomorrow Never Knows". If "The Thrill is Gone" is a blues song, then "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a experimental pyschedelic rock song.

I'm confused as to why you think this is an either/or situation. Just because something is pop doesn't mean there are no other ways of describing it.

[blastingas10]

If there are other ways to describe it, then why throw on the term pop if its not absolutely necessary? Thats what I am confused about. As if there arent enough words to label and describe music, we have to go and throw the word "pop" on it when it really isnt necessary.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

If there are other ways to describe it, then why throw on the term pop if its not absolutely necessary? Thats what I am confused about.

Why not use it? It certainly makes sense to do so when you're talking about one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, pop bands of the 20s century.

[blastingas10]

Because its not necessary. How are they one of the biggest pop bands ever, because they were one of the most popular bands ever? They didnt stick to the same formula their entire career. They were always changing, unlike a lot of bands. They were always trying new things and were always trying to get better. Compare their first album to Revolver or Sgt peppers, clearly they did not stick to the same formula their entire career like the ideal pop band would.

You admitted that there were other ways to describe it, so how is it necessary? Its not. Its only point to label and generalize music to a greater extent that isnt necessary.

[Paedantic Basterd]

Haha, what's the problem with dream pop? It's a valid genre. I listen to a lot of it.

[blastingas10]

Nothing I guess. I think the labeling is just getting a little excessive. At least its a little more detailed than the broad "pop" term. I guess the labels are needed to give the listener an idea of what they are getting into. But if someone just told me that something was "pop", that really tells me nothing about the music. And that is why I think that term is pointless.

[Paedantic Basterd]

It's a sub-genre. It's not excessive, because Cocteau Twins sound absolutely nothing at all like Of Montreal, yet they both contain pop sensibilities and a heavy emphasis on melody. That's why distinctions are necessary between dream pop and psychedelic pop, so on and so forth.

[blastingas10]

I see what youre saying. My problem is with the term "pop".

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I see what youre saying. My problem is with the term "pop".

Obviously the term pop can sometimes used in a derogatory manner. It's true, we do it all the time here, but despite that fact it's also a genre and a fair and accurate adjective to show how an artist sits within the collective taste of the culture at large. This is where the term pop culture gets its lemony zest; Pop is short for popular and The Beatles certainly were, although I would definitely agree that I'd call Tomorrow Never Knows a psychedelic song before I called it anything else.