[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "Pop" Music -- !!NEW THREAD!!! maybe, if anyone's inter



Another worthy reply.  Sheesh, how can I start a thread if everyone 
replies personal-like :)

Andrew

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Date sent:      Thu, 9 May 1996 18:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
To:             RODENHISER\!/chem1.chem.dal.ca
From:           impact\!/inforamp.net (impact magazine)
Subject:        Re: "Pop" Music -- !!NEW THREAD!!! maybe, if anyone's interested

I feel I must respond to your pop thread. Pop IS a good thing; it makes the
world go round, in spite of the crimes that have been committed in its
name.

To define pop musically, as you ask, is difficult and must rely on commonly
held assumptions, but it is not impossible. Originally, pop meant the likes
of Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole, and technically it is defined as
popular music, but in the 60s it took on a life of its own, and now pop
means, to me and I suspect most people, accessible, non-heavy rock music
with strong, simple melodies and catchy choruses.

And god knows there's nothing wrong with that. If it weren't for pop there
would be no Sloan Net, and we wouldn't even be talking....