Seems like he's responding to Howard's post from 2011.

Howard's no longer around and so won't reply to your post, ChaseIzKing.

To make a hit you need marketing.

Some of the best songs I've heard are pretty simple arrangements.

I think sometimes, it's simple and sometimes it could be hard.

Let's say you have a great composer and their task is to make a hit pop song. In other words, the task is to make a song which should be popular with a lot of people, most of which know little about music or are not really serious music consumers. Obviously, the song should be in traditional time, or else these people will get confused. It needs a few hooks - some simple melody that gets stuck in your head. It needs to be familiar so as to not throw people off - probably the standard verse, bridge, chorus setup. But, a really good pop song also has a slight edge - something new, like a new sound, something that will pique people's interest and make it stand out (but again not enough to confuse them).

All of these things could come together relatively easy because the composer just happens to get a great idea. Or it could not. But even though it could be hard to make these things come together, it's pretty clear that there are some constraints you need to keep in mind when making pop music. It has to be catchy, it currently has to be in traditional time and you basically can't stretch the formula too much. So, pop music is not necessarily simple to make, but the musical toolbox that you can use to make it is certainly smaller.

I feel like pop music on the whole has become more sophisticated than it was when I was a teenager in the 90s. Pop is a big umbrella so all comparisons under it are not fair, but a lot of the sort of music you might hear at a "We Love the 90s" festival is thankfully a thing of the past. Other than that, there was such an incredible amount of boring R&B back then.

Get the chord chart and arrangement to Abba's famous song "Fernando" and tell me thats simple.

Of course that was the 70s. Today you guys get this instead, and I almost feel sorry for you...

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.

Depends on the artist and the sub-genre imo.

Pop music is not necesarily mindless. It's an idiotic generalization. It's like saying all rock music is mindless noise.

Lol you don't get to take some high ground about pop music being better in the 70s with disco. Please sit down.

riri > abba