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.

__________________

Oomph!

I just said it is possible to be popular without selling things. I really don't give a s*** how the arctic monkeys became sucessful before they sold thier album, it's besides the point. They probably released a single first or something.

Yes I DO have evidence, I posted 3 sources (2 if you don't care for wiki) and I could give you more if you'd like.

ALL YOU DO is make generalizations and baseless judegements, I don't think I care to hear it from you.

It isn't contradicting.

Can't you read? I just said that I am speaking of the genre IN GENERAL, which translates to MOST, not ALL.

A. Ok, so I guess you really can't read. I didn't say "You can't be popular without sales". I said "You can't sell without popularity"

B. They SOLD the album, not in a traditional way but they did. People PAYED MONEY to PURCHASE the album, and they then collected on a PROFIT.

Further proof you can't read. I never siad ALL pop musicians this nor "ALL pop that.

I said "pop musicians this" and "pop musicians that"

It's called 'advertising', and oh yes, it does make you money.

It boosts your sales, yes it does.

Never said popularity automatically garnishes sales, I said popularity is required to garnish (allot) of sales, again with the illeteracy.

Just some of the biggest purely-pop, mainstream acts of all time....

Ok fine, me too, so don't criticize me when I make **** up to sound correct and then ask for evidence or sources....

Far Beyond Driven

Holy ****, this lame argument is still going on.