Oomph!

Pink Floyd was #15 on that same list.

sleepy jack

Um, popularity is what ties sales/plays together in the definition.

Your original argument was wikipedia, just because you're now realizing it didn't say what you thought it did doesn't mean you can decide to cite two...who are these guys again?

In Rainbows by Radiohead was released for free, that did fine in fact it topped many best of 07s lists. So you can define it by plays/how much it mentions by the media. There's plenty of outlets, hence why your original pop definition said "etc." too.

Okay, good job dodging the issue once again but please respond to the following things. I bolded the key part in the last request since you seem to be doing everything but explaining that.

Explain what ties being mentioned by the media alot, amount of plays you have, and record sales (because apparently it isn't popularity) and please explain where in the wikipedia article you originally cited as the pop definition you got that pop is "pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement"

__________________

sleepy jack

Okay then, explain how Pink Floyd is hard rock and proto-heavy metal. I'm interested to hear and don't turn around and reply "vh1 said so" please explain with your own words for once.

__________________

Oomph!

Sales are more or less determined by popularity, among many things, but that doesn't mean pop music is based on popularity. Go back to my analogy, The milk ties together my cookie consuption, the milk is a factor, but It's not the cause, my hunger is the cause.

Pop musicians are in it for the money, they need popularity to get those sales/money, but the concept of popularity itself is not the root.

No, wikipedia is not my argument, I used wikipedia to back my argument, as well as two other sources.

I adressed the wikipedia thing anyway.

Radiohead did not really release it for free, they profited from that album.

But I do want to add this, the producers are always in it for the money, but the pop musicians themselves may be in it for fame, celebrity status as well as money, but the point is, they aren't in it for the sake of expression, for art. Even if some of these pop musicians wanted to put some real passion into thier music, thier giant contracts wouldn't allow them to.

Are you reffering to this?:

pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement

And your asking how that relates to:

the article said that the music is based on sales

Right? You don't see the connection between "based on sales" and "corporate enforcing, establishment building"? It should be needless to say.

Not sure what you're asking, the sentance isn't very coherent...not trying to dodge or anything, but could you reword that a little?

Here:

Plus my other two sources even further back this up, and I could surely find many more sources too.

sleepy jack

If you don't sell you're not popular. Sales and popularity are two things that go hand in hand and I don't care about your crappy cookie analogy just argue the subject.

Generalizations are usually wrong, but congrats on making one.


Yes, you're using contradicting sources. Good job!

Really? Where?


They gave you the option to get it for free.

Once again sweeping generalizations will get you nowhere.

Based on sales, PLAYS, ETC, there's more to it than sales.

Please explain whats the common thread between being talked about and being played alot and record sales, since it isn't popularity.



Can you read? There's one key word here that ruins that argument.

"Pop music is music charted by the number or sales, plays, etc., that the work receives.[1] Most commercial music of any genre is composed with deliberate intent to appeal to the majority of its contemporaries.[2][3][4], but, unless extremely popular in its own genre, it must to appeal to a wider audience to appear on the Pop charts."

And I have a question why do you need to keep citing sources? If this all so true and you know it so well you should be able to stand on your own feet instead of hiding behind sources.

__________________

can_i_say

Buzz****s

__________________

Piss Me Off

Green Day

__________________


Last FM
Rate Yr Music
Muxtape

Oomph!

Let's put it this way, sales require popularity but popularity does not require selling ( as in physically selling a product).

Generalizations are generallytrue (just 'in general'). Especially this one.

Not contradicting, they are all essentially saying the same thig, pop music is music designed to sell not to express passion or art.

They profited from the album, they knew most people would feel obligated to pay money (to assure that they were 'true fans' or what not), it wasn't really free in the way we are speaking of.

Had they released the album to be given out or downloaded without the option of paying money, just plain, flat out free, no profit accepted, THAT would have been 'free' in our context.

I'm talking about the genre of pop music IN GENERAL anyway, it's only appropriate that I speak in generalizations, I'm not talking about any specific act.

It (pop music) is based on profit/sales/money (there are several ways to describe it), profit/sales/money is in turn based on things like plays and popularity etc. Pop music doesn't exist to get plays and popularity, it exists to make money which in itself is determined by plays and popularity, ect.

It's many things, including popularity. They are all 'factors' that effect 'sales' or 'profit', which is the root concept beind pop music.

It doesn't ruin my argument, I openly admit that I'm speaking of the genre "IN GENERAL", remember this:
"pop is a corporate enforcing, establishment building movement"
I'm not talking about any specific act or category or anything like that.

That sounds like a request for sources to me.

sleepy jack

Please explain to me then how the Arctic Monkeys became one of the most successful bands in Britain without having had their album even finished (nothing to buy for them.)

No they're not, especially hasty generalizations that you don't have any evidence behind. Unless of course you can provide me with a list of every pop musician and then give evidence proving they were in it for the money.

Once again, read the definition. You're contradicting yourself.

See that word? Most, not all.

They released an album you could get free and it was one of the most popular albums of 2007. I fail to see how that doesn't disprove the whole you can't be popular without sales argument seeing as its fairly obvious they didn't give much of a damn about sales if they gave you a free option.

Yet you've been saying things like "all pop musicians this" and "all pop" that, odd. Stop backpedaling just admit you were wrong.

I like how you completely dodge being discussed in the music world despite the fact I've brought it up several times. Being played on the radio doesn't earn you money if it does than bands long since broken up would still be sent cash by the radio and it doesn't exactly work like that. Nice try though, stop trying to bullshit me.

You don't earn money because your album was reviewed positively in a magazine, you don't earn money because your song was played on the radio, you don't earn money because an influential music review site talked about you. There's tons of instances of popularity that don't earn a band money.

Speaking in general and just speaking of artists like Britney Spears and Nsync are two different things.

No I'm not going to run around google to please you. I'm going to actually argue because I actually have formed MY OWN opinion on this and I have MY OWN reasons/logic/facts to back it up. It's also pretty rich you dodged explaining who your two sources were.

__________________

mr. goth glam

Oooo...burn.

__________________