Oomph! |
04-01-2008 05:25 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen
(Post 462460)
It is also an "obsessively neutral" statement that clearly went over your head. You did not understand the intent behind the statement.
|
Ok we'll see.
Quote:
What it means is that the term "pop" cannot be defined according to some stylistic criteria, and that is in one sense true: the main idea behind "pop" is that it's some format that receives mainstream attention. In other words, it's blind to genre: it could be r&b, hiphop, rock, electronic/dance, punk or whatever - just so long as it is commercially successful.
|
What is that said format? And bear in mind it apperently cannot be a stylistic criteria.
Also, didn't I say that pop was commercial 'garbage' or something? Yeah, pop music is when you nueter a song of it's emotions, meaning and assertiveness for the purpose of making money, so that it can be put in commercials and in the background in movies and so that people will download it as thier ring tone, so little kids will want to cover it, so that it can be played as American Idol contestants are elimanated...to sell.
Would you consider rap pop music? I'm getting allot of polarized definitions of pop, whichever one seems more convenient to the person defending it anyway. I criticize the commercial aspect of it and suddenly 'pop' music is a sound/style, I criticize it as a sound and suddenly it has no definitive sound and it's blind to genre.
Quote:
That's in one sense. In another sense, pop can be stylistically defined inasmuch as it refers to music that gravitates towards attractive melodies/hooks, and fun/catchy instrumental and vocal arrangements.
|
Ok so now it is a style. So how did it go over my head? I have no idea.
|