Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Bjork isn't some standard radio pop stuff. Even in that performance of Hyperballed, there's orchestration, a couple of avant-garde instruments and her singing. Hell half the time she's using non-standard scales. There are plenty of actual ARTists who have some popular material. Kate by all means. But is anyone really going to argue she's "pop" from the generic-genre perspective?
I'm looking at pop as radio friendly stuff. If that's wrong, I'll listen to why.
Pop isn't just standard radio pop. Bjork makes art pop and so does Kate Bush.
That's not all they do or how I'd categorize either one in this exercise since pop exists as a specific genre to be voted on and therefore limits the scope. Most of the songs on most of the albums of both tend toward eclectic except super early Kate. You could make the same argument about Bjork and Folk since she indulges and borrows musical elements from obscure regions of the world. I'd put both as Avant-Garde and maybe Kate as artrock or progressive. Both are involved in writing their work, not just performing. I guess if you're going to categorize them as a pop derivative, you could make the same argument for pretty much anything that isn't super abstract. So most hiphop, classic rock, jazz in its popular eras, disco, etc.
Bjork isn't some standard radio pop stuff. Even in that performance of Hyperballed, there's orchestration, a couple of avant-garde instruments and her singing. Hell half the time she's using non-standard scales. There are plenty of actual ARTists who have some popular material. Kate by all means. But is anyone really going to argue she's "pop" from the generic-genre perspective?
I'm looking at pop as radio friendly stuff. If that's wrong, I'll listen to why.
you basically just defined pop as only being able to be bad.
No, just not the apex of music under this format. Maybe we're looking at the genres from a different perspective. See my post to Mama.
I guess what's the difference between R&B and Soul? Feels like splitting hairs and I'm trying to save my D'Angelo, Marvin Gaye, and Erykah Badu arguments.
soul is kind of a subgenre of R&B, it's basically where gospel music and R&B meet. i think a lot of R&B artists are also soul artists, R&B is just the bigger tent. so i'd vote out soul before R&B.
Pop isn't just standard radio pop. Bjork makes art pop and so does Kate Bush.
That's not all they do or how I'd categorize either one in this exercise since pop exists as a specific genre and therefore limits the scope. Most of the songs on most of the albums of both tend toward eclectic except super early Kate. You could make the same argument about Bjork and Folk since she indulges and borrows musical elements from obscure regions of the world. I'd put both as Avant-Garde and maybe Kate as artrock or progressive. Both are involved in writing their work, not just performing. I guess if you're going to categorize them as a pop derivative, you could make the same argument for pretty much anything that isn't super abstract. So most hiphop, classic rock, jazz in its popular eras, disco, etc.
Pop music is way more broad than the definition you want to give it. There's no rule that says to be a pop artists can't write their own songs. Most importantly pop music the genre doesn't mean popular music. Pop music is it's own genre that's defined by a sound just like every other legit genre. And there's plenty of weird, boundary pushing sub-genres of pop music, like art pop or glitch pop or progressive pop, just like every other genre.
Yes both Kate Bush and especially Bjork are avante-garde but they're avante-garde in the pop sphere as well as possible in other genres.
So the Sugarcubes were usually on the "alternative" stations here even though they were probably (?) broken up by then. I think voters focused on Hoobastank and shit like that where there were actually some pretty cool bands in the mix. I know they're kind of bizarre, but I used to halfway like Our Lady Peace. Alternative bra.
That's not all they do or how I'd categorize either one in this exercise since pop exists as a specific genre and therefore limits the scope. Most of the songs on most of the albums of both tend toward eclectic except super early Kate. You could make the same argument about Bjork and Folk since she indulges and borrows musical elements from obscure regions of the world. I'd put both as Avant-Garde and maybe Kate as artrock or progressive. Both are involved in writing their work, not just performing. I guess if you're going to categorize them as a pop derivative, you could make the same argument for pretty much anything that isn't super abstract. So most hiphop, classic rock, jazz in its popular eras, disco, etc.
Pop music is way more broad than the definition you want to give it. There's no rule that says to be a pop artists can't write their own songs. Most importantly pop music the genre doesn't mean popular music. Pop music is it's own genre that's defined by a sound just like every other legit genre. And there's plenty of weird, boundary pushing sub-genres of pop music, like art pop or glitch pop or progressive pop, just like every other genre.
Yes both Kate Bush and especially Bjork are avante-garde but they're avante-garde in the pop sphere as well as possible in other genres.
Of course. But again, the discussion we are having is within the context of survivor, not a wider or larger critique and discussion. That's something we can engage in all day otherwise. But for survivor....
Post by Cookin' Mama on Aug 9, 2022 10:28:43 GMT -5
Not trying to shit on Esteben here because I'm not 100% sure if he was making this argument or not but it does baffle me that some people on this site, one that's based around going to festivals and listening to a large amount of music, define pop music the genre as anything that's a radio hit and don't realize it's like every other genre that has it's own sound. Yeah that sound may be more broadly defined than like metal but it's not just anything goes. I really don't understand.
Pop music is way more broad than the definition you want to give it. There's no rule that says to be a pop artists can't write their own songs. Most importantly pop music the genre doesn't mean popular music. Pop music is it's own genre that's defined by a sound just like every other legit genre. And there's plenty of weird, boundary pushing sub-genres of pop music, like art pop or glitch pop or progressive pop, just like every other genre.
Yes both Kate Bush and especially Bjork are avante-garde but they're avante-garde in the pop sphere as well as possible in other genres.
Of course. But again, the discussion we are having is within the context of survivor, not a wider or larger critique and discussion. That's something we can engage in all day otherwise. But for survivor....
For this survivor they are and should be counted as pop music
That's not all they do or how I'd categorize either one in this exercise since pop exists as a specific genre and therefore limits the scope. Most of the songs on most of the albums of both tend toward eclectic except super early Kate. You could make the same argument about Bjork and Folk since she indulges and borrows musical elements from obscure regions of the world. I'd put both as Avant-Garde and maybe Kate as artrock or progressive. Both are involved in writing their work, not just performing. I guess if you're going to categorize them as a pop derivative, you could make the same argument for pretty much anything that isn't super abstract. So most hiphop, classic rock, jazz in its popular eras, disco, etc.
Pop music is way more broad than the definition you want to give it. There's no rule that says to be a pop artists can't write their own songs. Most importantly pop music the genre doesn't mean popular music. Pop music is it's own genre that's defined by a sound just like every other legit genre. And there's plenty of weird, boundary pushing sub-genres of pop music, like art pop or glitch pop or progressive pop, just like every other genre.
Yes both Kate Bush and especially Bjork are avante-garde but they're avante-garde in the pop sphere as well as possible in other genres.
the bolded part is true, but its hard to put into words what the contemporary definition of pop music is. i keep resorting to "i can't define pop music but i know it when i hear it".
because in these threads it seems like the definition of pop music is subjective and malleable. and maybe that is how it is in real life too. because it's hard to argue pop music is a cohesive and specific genre when it includes bjork, taylor swift, new order, nsync, and dave matthews band.
so is it possible to define pop music without it becoming impossibly broad?
QUICK EDIT: because if it's not possible to define pop music without it becoming impossibly broad, it's a silly thing to include in a genre survivor, since it basically covers 95% of the music people on inforoo listen to. it becomes the water of inforoo genre survivor, the thing everything else in the survivor is made from (except for classical).
I guess what's the difference between R&B and Soul? Feels like splitting hairs and I'm trying to save my D'Angelo, Marvin Gaye, and Erykah Badu arguments.
soul is kind of a subgenre of R&B, it's basically where gospel music and R&B meet. i think a lot of R&B artists are also soul artists, R&B is just the bigger tent. so i'd vote out soul before R&B.
and funk is where soul, R&B, and rock music meet.
No way. I'd argue that soul is the best sub-genre of R&B. Sam Cooke? Otis Redding? Aretha Franklin? For my money, it doesn't get any better than that.
I guess what's the difference between R&B and Soul? Feels like splitting hairs and I'm trying to save my D'Angelo, Marvin Gaye, and Erykah Badu arguments.
soul is kind of a subgenre of R&B, it's basically where gospel music and R&B meet. i think a lot of R&B artists are also soul artists, R&B is just the bigger tent. so i'd vote out soul before R&B.
and funk is where soul, R&B, and rock music meet.
R&B was just a polite way saying "black music that isn't jazz" - it was a big umbrella that included gospel, soul, blues, early rock and roll (little richard, chuck berry, elvis etc.) and funk. For a long time it seemed like r&b was a catchall term. it wasn't until like the 90's or so when r&b felt like it was describing a specific sort of sound - janet jackson, whitney houston, TLC, alicia keys etc. and the neo-soul sound with erykah badu, d'angelo, maxwell.
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Aug 9, 2022 10:53:19 GMT -5
I think both Pop and Indie are better defined by the way they are marketed than by a distinct style. Bjork is Pop not because she sounds anything like Janet Jackson, but because in her prime she was delivering her music through the same methods targeted at the same audience. I tend to think a lot of the alternative type of stuff @tristan calls pop isn’t really that, even though it’s derived from pop sonically. There needs to be an explicit commercial quality to pop
Of course. But again, the discussion we are having is within the context of survivor, not a wider or larger critique and discussion. That's something we can engage in all day otherwise. But for survivor....
For this survivor they are and should be counted as pop music
You could force fit them there. You could also use other genres. Because she was in regular rotation among many different circles of friends at the time, Kate's practically Classic Rock to me even if only the progressive and college rock stations played her back then. She's English and Irish folk based on some of the instrumentation her brother does on the later albums. She's certainly got world elements. Peter Gabriel solo would be another one who doesn't fit all that neatly. Sure, Sledgehammer was "pop" and in a traditional way (also good). But that's not the bulk of what he was doing on those first 4 or 5 albums. Each of those albums might have had an accessible song or two, but the albums as a whole usually had way more abstract shit on them plus progressive, world, etc.
Though there were many categories in this survivor, we didn't get all the categories to make every act fit (that isn't itself a multi-genre act) into a comfortable resting spot. Had New Wave, Artrock/Avant-Garde, Second Invasion, Progressive, Opera, Rockabilly, show tunes, "Oldies", et al been included, a lot more artists could have been neatly folded and put in a more representative, proverbial pigeonhole.
What it boils down to is that I'm not looking at Kate as pop for purposes of this survivor. Maybe people could argue she is in 2022. But she wasn't when she was at her peak, at least not here in the USA. That's where I know her from. I'm taking pop to be literally pop radio shit which is what I said I was doing several posts back. You don't have to share the same interpretation in regard to the survivor, and it's still okay.
Pop music is way more broad than the definition you want to give it. There's no rule that says to be a pop artists can't write their own songs. Most importantly pop music the genre doesn't mean popular music. Pop music is it's own genre that's defined by a sound just like every other legit genre. And there's plenty of weird, boundary pushing sub-genres of pop music, like art pop or glitch pop or progressive pop, just like every other genre.
Yes both Kate Bush and especially Bjork are avante-garde but they're avante-garde in the pop sphere as well as possible in other genres.
the bolded part is true, but its hard to put into words what the contemporary definition of pop music is. i keep resorting to "i can't define pop music but i know it when i hear it".
because in these threads it seems like the definition of pop music is subjective and malleable. and maybe that is how it is in real life too. because it's hard to argue pop music is a cohesive and specific genre when it includes bjork, taylor swift, new order, nsync, and dave matthews band.
so is it possible to define pop music without it becoming impossibly broad?
QUICK EDIT: because if it's not possible to define pop music without it becoming impossibly broad, it's a silly thing to include in a genre survivor, since it basically covers 95% of the music people on inforoo listen to. it becomes the water of inforoo genre survivor, the thing everything else in the survivor is made from (except for classical).
Yeah, I agree that it's harder to define than like metal for example. There's still constant themes in all of them. Song structures is probably the biggest I'd say. Focuses on melody, catchiness, etc. All of the artist you mentioned generally have those qualities.
But yeah pop is a very broad genre that encompasses a lot (which is a big reason why it should win imo) with lots of sub-genres that further narrow down the definition while still being pop music.
Post by jorgeandthekraken on Aug 9, 2022 11:01:52 GMT -5
I think it's also important when evaluating a lot of what we talk about when we talk about pop to look beyond the person who's singing. Yes, Michael Jackson gives a great vocal performance on Thriller, but the songwriting, production, and musicianship on that record is next-level across the board. Pop producers are often incredibly talented musicians and songwriters.
Not trying to shit on Esteben here because I'm not 100% sure if he was making this argument or not but it does baffle me that some people on this site, one that's based around going to festivals and listening to a large amount of music, define pop music the genre as anything that's a radio hit and don't realize it's like every other genre that has it's own sound. Yeah that sound may be more broadly defined than like metal but it's not just anything goes. I really don't understand.
No offense assumed or taken. In a broader perspective I'd suggest that pop isn't necessarily Top 40 stuff. But most Top 40 stuff is in fact pop.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57846439/harley.0.0.jpg)
