I was referring to the sound that began in the 90's with people such as the Backstreet Boys, Nsync, Brittany, Christina Aguilera etc. That is when the modern pop genre was born. Anything before that does not qualify. The music the aforementioned "artists" & their degenerate offspring have created is utterly trash in the performance department. No skill or talent required, hell most of them can't even be bothered to actually write their own lyrics & God forbid you ask them to write music. People these days are too easily entertained.
I used to believe... that we were burning on the edge of something beautiful. "Let Me Love You" apparently is actually a DJ Snake song featuring Justin Bieber, but the vocals are such a prominent part of the song that I forgive myself for making such an easy mistake.
Writing your own lyrics has nothing to do with the quality of your performance. I think all of the artists you mentioned did some quality work. Degenerate is a harsh term to apply to any of them. I like a broad base of music from Enrico Caruso to Metallica. I think I like quality music. Let's drop back to singers who sang only. Sinatra. Never wrote a song or a lyric. But an excellent performer. A dancer doesn't have to choreograph and write her own ballet to be a great dancer. Why don't you just say you like artists who are singer/songwriters over solely performers. I don't cut the lines that tightly. I don't know of a single operatic performer who has written an opera. Are you saying their jobs require no skill or talent. Singing and dancing ala the boy bands and Britney requires talent. It might not be the kind of talent you enjoy, but it's talent.
Dont you worry, have fapped numerous times to that top guy...hawwwwt! Forget his name though, as I got bored of him a couple months after posting that
Nah, Trudgin. It's not that serious. Like I said, I can see why the guy is popular. He has his demographic. Young females mostly. It's not me. Think his music is rather simplistic, and don't find him attractive either.
I can tell by your posts you have a more advanced and sophisticated taste in music. Figured you'd seen it...
Well, I started off in Saturday music school at age of 7 and was learning piano, listening to mozart, haydn, beethoven and all... When you start off with the classics, you can find elements of them in all music. And as goofy and sterotype-sendup as modern family is, there are elements of the classic, stupid/silly sitcom in it too. (stooges, marx brothers, Lucy) No, I've never seen it. But recognize its appeal. I don't look at many comedy sit coms... Was looking at some of the top picks listed and found a few I do like and watch occasionally: You're the Worst, Big Bang, Archer, Tosh, Rick and Morty, Daily Show. Lots of Late Night TV is good, Kimmel, Fallon. I like The American Experience, lots of documentaries and PBS short series shows. Love good films new and old. Love Marvel superheroes. Walking Dead and sci fi, horror genre, Sherlock. .... Am blathering...
Besides Gloria, the thing I like about the show is how ridiculous it is. They take little quirks people tend to have and exaggerate them to outrageousness, which serves as humorous and educational to the observer. Anyway, yeah, that was a quote from Manny. Then Gloria takes it for something else... The music I tend to appreciate the most is the type musicians have to spend a lifetime perfecting.
Heavens... that's a long time... Don't think I want to wait that long. Very good is good enough... Even mozart didn't take a lifetime perfecting his work. Wrote like a rabbit! Was still good.... Regards...
Wait that long? Care to elaborate? I was taking performing. Writing's another thing. Doesn't matter how elaborately it's written if no one can play it. And the really talented musicians aren't reading note by note trying to exactly copy someone else's performance. They're going by structure and improvisación.
Oh, I see what you mean. Performers improving their performances over time... Yes. That should be the case, shouldn't it. Some do. Some just keep doing same thing... change is good.
Because YOU say so! You decided that “pop” music meant specific artists in a specific year because that’s your own, made-up standard. But what you refer to “pop music” isn’t necessary what everyone else refers to as pop music. It is as subjective as your usage of the term “modern”. What is modern ultimately depends on how old you are, and when you started likening/disliking certain types of music. 1990s music would not be considered “modern” to a teenager today, and music in 2018 does not sounds like music in the 1990s. Also, pop music did not start in the 1990s, nor did the artists you mention popularize that sound. Backstreet Boys were a later version of New Kids on the Block, which was a white version of New Edition, which was an 80s version of Jackson 5. Britney Spears was just a late 90s take on Madonna, Janet Jackson, and Paula Abdul. And so on and so forth. Pop music is POPULAR MUSIC (of any genre). That’s what it stands for and that’s how the top 40 charts have always treated it. That is the only universal and objective standard for defining it. Anything else is just special pleading. This is all the same genre:
Best just to not start at all then. Actually the definition I gave is the same definition created & maintained by pop culture since the 90's. As a specific genre that is how long it has existed. There is a reason that pop stations don't play country, rap, classic rock, jazz, Elvis etc (least not around here or any of the other 10 odd states I've visited). That reason is that none of those fit into what is collectively considered to be mainstream pop music. It's fine that people such as yourself & @OrleansWordsmith have your own definition of what constitutes pop but yours is NOT what is mainstream. EDIT: As an example I'll provide Taylor Swift. Starting out she was considered country but later on in her career she fell into the "teen pop" genre.
Casey Casom's top 40, baby! That's when I became aware of the pop charts. I was pre-teen. Jackson five, Dionne Warwick, Jose Feliciano, Paul Revere and Raiders, Mamas & Papas, Stones, Doors, Steppenwolf, Cream, ... Pop song crafting seemed to hit a peak then go downhill IMO.
Here's a part of the etymology of pop music: Pop music continuously evolves along with the term's definition. According to The New Grove Dictionary Of Music and Musicians, popular music is defined as "the music since industrialization in the 1800’s that is most in line with the tastes and interests of the urban middle class."[9] The term "pop song" was first used in 1926, in the sense of a piece of music "having popular appeal".[10] Hatch and Millward indicate that many events in the history of recording in the 1920s can be seen as the birth of the modern pop music industry, including in country, blues, and hillbilly music.[11] The Oxford Dictionary of Music states that the term "pop" refers to music performed by such artists as the Rolling Stones (pictured here in a 2006 performance) According to the website of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, called Grove Music Online, the term "pop music" "originated in Britain in the mid-1950’s as a description for rock and roll and the new youth music styles that it influenced".[2] The Oxford Dictionary of Music states that while pop's "earlier meaning meant concerts appealing to a wide audience [...] since the late 1950s, however, pop has had the special meaning of non-classical mus[ic], usually in the form of songs, performed by such artists as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, ABBA, etc."[12] Grove Music Online also states that "[...] in the early 1960s, [the term] 'pop music' competed terminologically with beat music [in England], while in the USA its coverage overlapped (as it still does) with that of 'rock and roll'".[2] From about 1967, the term “pop music” was increasingly used in opposition to the term rock music, a division that gave generic significance to both terms.[13] While rock aspired to authenticity and an expansion of the possibilities of popular music,[13] pop was more commercial, ephemeral, and accessible.[14] According to British musicologist Simon Frith, pop music is produced "as a matter of enterprise not art", and is "designed to appeal to everyone" but "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste". Frith adds that it is "not driven by any significant ambition except profit and commercial reward [...] and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative". It is, "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers, and concert promoters) rather than being made from below ... Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged".[4] So neither I, nor other people here discussing pop and popular music are defining this willy nilly in our own heads. There are other touchpoints used here that align with what you say too.
This definition makes no Goddamn sense. If pop music is just whatever is popular at any given time then what the hell are genres like electro pop & dance-pop. I'm not saying that your go to definition is wrong or doesn't exist. I'm saying that there is a difference between popular music & the specific pop music. Ugh ok a more in depth explanation is in order. Pop music has a very, very, very specific sound. Justin Beiber sounds like Aaron Carter, who sounds like Brittany Spears, who sounds like Christina Aguilera, who sounds like N'Sync, who sounds like the Backstreet Boys, who sound like.......ok Goddammit that's enough. This particular sound is the genre of pop. Like how jazz has a specific sound or how classic rock has a specific sound when compared to hard rock. My point is that Beiber & his particular ilk are THIS specific genre & that THIS particular genre sucks. EDIT: Ironically enough most of the bands that fall under the pop genre are also the most popular bands overall