Talk:Popular music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Popular music is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Music
Portal
Popular music is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.

Boring, uninspired, somewhat elitist article that doesnt even give a basic definition of "popular" music. Most notable is a narrow-minded and oh-so persistent "distinction" between classical and popular music. Thus, according to article, Tool, PJ Harvey or Radiohead are "profit" driven popular music. Fine. And Schenker's analysis of "depth" are yet another sad reminder of obssolete and long forgotten western "classical" narcissism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.160.148 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This article is more or less claiming that all non-classical music is commercial trash with no artistic value. The complexity section is POV and factually inaccurate to the umpteenth degree. I'm removing it. Zazaban (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Alas!

Boring, uninspired, somewhat elitist article that doesnt even give a basic definition of "popular" music. Most notable is a narrow-minded and oh-so persistent "distinction" between classical and popular music. Thus, according to article, Tool, PJ Harvey or Radiohead (as witnessed by their latest album) are "profit" driven popular music. Fine. And Schenker's analyses of "depth" are yet another sad reminder of obsolete and long forgotten western "classical" narcissism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsb (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree!!! I tried to add a little neutrality, and my comment was deleted because it wasn't cited... Like ANYTHING in this article is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.127.82 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strengths and weaknesses

It is good that this page does not quote hundreds of musicians - often a weakness of writing on popular music. nevertheless I think it is very simplistic. A large amount of profit is made out of classical music, often by the same record companies who sell popular music. Folk music was not "transmitted exclusively" orally, as recent studies have shown. The authenticity is oversimplified.

Many other forms of art have made lots of money. Would we claim that Picasso's work was no longer of much artistic value once he became rich - this would be difficult to claim. Many great artists and composers of the 16th to 18th centuries for example had to please their rich customers; often this affected adversely the quality of their work, but often it didn't. The fact that companies can make a lot of money doesn't always have the same effect.

there is however a tension between moneymaking (and therefore let's not take risks, let's try to sell what sold last year) and a need to rebel, taken up by each new generation in a different way (jazz, skiffle, folk, rock, punk, rave, rap etc)


The other difficulty is that popular music is a mass activity. for every band that makes money there are a thousand that don't, and half of them don't care.

JM

[edit] Popular or non-popular

Nice page but it is off point in drawing the dichotomy between pop and other styles as being based on being performed for enjoyment. It is plainly obvious that numerous pop artists performed for enjoyment and at times were even part of the non pop genres before being discovered. I understand the point that is being attempted but it would be more accurate to work in the following facts: *Pop music can be of virtually any genre.

  • Pop music artists often perform for enjoyment (take the last few years of the singer songwriter onslaught led by John Mayer and Jack Johnson). Singer songwriters are definitely producing music that is "like so tru to how they feel" but for enjoyment might be contraversial sense the feelings they seek to "share with the world" are as often anguishing as enjoyable. They are epitomes of self absorbtion. A better example might be Eminem or the likes.
  • Pop music artists are often not considered pop until after they get airplay (phantom planet was not pop until recently) and therefore pop music is often an a posteriori claim not an a priori one.
  • When it is an a priori claim (that is when a local band or artist is referred to as pop before they have entered the pop culture via mass media) it is usually used pejoratively and to signify that the artist/s isn't/aren't creating music that is true to the essence of the genre from whence they came (greenday was known as pop punk before ever entering the pop culture)

These are just a few suggestions and my main beef with the page is that it seems to at times present the pop artist as being a tool of the industry execs when it could actually be the other way around, such as in Rage Against the Machines decision to enter pop culture with the intention of spreading decidedly non-pop messages.


  • I would argue that your arguments are mostly semantic here. First, it should be clear that all music is created for enjoyment in some sense. What the author suggests in your disputed passage is that pop music is for the most part, a harnessing of this enjoyment for commercial purposes, as opposed to weaker commercial instincts of other forms. The fact that it is "pop" music, itself is indicatory of its commercial success. Also, if you think classical music isn't "anguishing", I've got a Stravinsky in Brooklyn to sell you, although I'm not quite sure what you meant by such a word. Your mention of Phantom Planet's not being "pop" is just an incorrect usage of the term. Though it may not be "popular" in the most popular sense of the word, they certainly fall into the realm of "popular" music. Similarly, any music written for an orchestra or traditional orchestra instruments would be considered "classical" to the undiscerning listener. Of another nebulous semantic issue, what we might consider "pop" within the world of popular music, Britney Spears for instance, is really better thought of as a genre or style. You might compare this to the sub-classification of the classical era in the world of classical music. --B. Phillips 9 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)



[edit] Genres sections

I appreciate the clarity that is created by the sections Popular_music#Genres and Popular_music#Genres_that_are_not_popular_music, but the actual situation is more complex, with some genres being considered a part of popular music by different writers at different times, and othertimes not. For example, some theories describe folk music as a large genre within popular music, some theories distinguish popular music from classical in that it is a part of folk music. Hyacinth 19:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I moved this section [Genres] to a new article, having a long list embedded in the middle of this one made the page horrible to navigate. User:Gordon Ross 09:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Genres that are not popular music

Musical genres usually considered not to be popular music include:

As noted earlier, these have a distinct character from popular music: either they are transmitted by word of mouth rather than in organized fashion (children's songs, authentic folk music) or else they are produced to fill the needs of a particular social institution (church, aristocracy, the military, or the state). Note that music pieces of each of these genres can become part of the popular music either in their pure form (like various gregorian compilation CD's) or as remixes (like Moby's Play).

I removed the directly above from the article per my discussion above. Hyacinth 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of the objections raised in this section. This article is written in a tone and manner that makes it seem like popular music vs. art music vs. traditional music is a very clear-cut distinction. It is in some cases, but in others it's not. For example, what is Hip hop music? There is popular hip-hop but there's a lot of it that arguably spills over into both of the other two categories. What about bluegrass? It could be called traditional music, but it could also be popular music...it might depend on the artist, or the way it's performed, etc. I think that this article needs to communicate these nuances--to not do so is to create a horrible bias, a very bad sort of POV. Cazort (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Should the following pages:

be changed to "List of pop performers" and "list of rock and roll performers"? For that matter, I'm not sure how we should distinguish between the two. At any rate, I think they should be moved out from subpages. Tarquin, Wednesday, June 19, 2002

I think the best solution (after moving from subpages) would be to make one big list of Popular Music Performers. For each genre (such as rock, but also disco, funk, Britpop; anything) there should be a short list of representative performers - included in the article, preferable accompanied by some text (like "Band x were the first to score a number 1 hit with a genre y song").
This will avoid including some names in many lists (it is not always easy to determine which genre a performer is playing, and it may change over time and the exact properties music genres highly debatable). The list of popular music performers will serve the purpose of listing all mentioned artists and bands in the Wikipedia. -- jheijmans
What should we call the kind of popular music I like (mostly popular from late '40s to mid '50s)? The music of the period before is commonly referred to as big band music; the music of the period afterward as Rock 'n' Roll but there seems to be no name for this kind of popular music and if we give genres, we need to use some name for this music - represented by such as Doris Day, Perry Como, etc. -- BRG

[edit] Date of origin

User 152.163.253.100 raises the important point of when popular music began. The date of the 1950's cannot be correct, since it leave out big bands (1930-40's), ragtime (ca. 1900), parlor music like "Listen to the Mockingbird" (1855), and perhaps earlier stuff I'm not aware of.

I'd suggest that each genre, in its own article, be given a date of origin; we can't really generalize at this level except to identify the earliest popular music of any kind. Opus33 15:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Opus33. Listing the emergence of each form by date will remove the some of the unrigorous flabbiness from this article, such as saying that Big band music or jazz isn't popular music because it "isn't popular any more", or some of the other weak categorizations made here. Remove all the categories and put dates on everything, then list in chronological order.Ortolan88 23:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd be happy to be rid of the "no longer popular" category--I put it in only as an effort to be tactful with another editor, a practice which (as I am learning) does not generally lead to good results...
Putting in accurate dates of origin for the genres is not at all easy. We need a serious expert, or at least someone who has a serious book. Opus33 00:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let's delete the article on popular music, since it doesn't make sense. User:4.161.5.187 Oct 15 2004
How about we start the origin at the 1930s because, the radio was then widely in use.

Well, popular music has emerged in the second half of the 19th century, so we have to write about cabaret, tin pan alley, music hall, circus, minstrel shows and all that, including sheet music sales, invention of gramophones and much more. That's definitely a complex task and requires much work and possibly reorganization of entire article. So it's better not to write anything about history at all.

It would be a complex task, that's why it's important. If it were simple, it would be much less necessary. The popularization of music is tied to the technologies and venues for music and this is a critical thing to understand if one is to draw sensible distinctions between classical, folk and popular music. It would be interesting to know when the term began being used and what it was referring to. Then, from that point, working backward in time through 'populist' developments in music that captured the way people experienced music (with a tactful disqualification of traditions that run too far afield -- the australian aborigines, for example, didn't have much of an influence on what would become 'popular' music. while interaction with native americans and africans did to a greater extent, their contributions were generally seen as of lesser importance). Popuylar music, to me, seems like a natural function of cities developing a musical entertainment community populated by those who were not acceptable for court/classical group positions. "Cabaret, tin pan alley, music hall, circus, minstrel shows" these seem like exactly the things that should be explored in their influence on populare music. I'm suspecting that the term was first used but not very deeply considered for sheet music but then with phonograph production, there was a real need for knowing what is 'popular' Epsilonnull 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockabilly

I did not find a listing for Rockabilly music. This is a style of music that is still alive and well, and has been a great influnce on many artist and writers. George from the Beatles was a big fan of Carl Perkins.

Robert

Pop music is amazing.

[edit] Pop vs Classical

This is not to say that popular music is definitively or always simpler than classical. The "default length" of phrases which classical music supposedly deviates from were set as the default by music of the common practice period. Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal, for instance, make use of rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work, and popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece. Popular music also uses certain features of rhythm and pitch inflection not analyzable by the traditional methods applied to common practice music.

Are there any sources for such a claim? I certainly don't see anything backing it up.

brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca: Maybe something about techno-pop could be written in. A paragraph mentions the waw-waw pedal. Other devices, like the talk-box are written up in wiki, probably under special and audio effects. As far as the definition of "Classic Rock" goes, according to a local station it often includes a-cappella vocals and the slide guitar. 216.234.170.108 20:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing. I think the entire section should be rewritten and/or not compare popular music to classical music. The whole thing sounds like defending popular music rather than objectively comparing or providing insight into either. Also what is "average common practice work"? Technical metal? etc. 84.58.183.29 12:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of electronic music has extreme frequency-domain complexity e.g. FSOL Lifeforms - compare that to a something like to a Liszt Transcendental Etudes which is time-domain complex (but ultimately the same harmonics with just changing fundamental of each note)

[edit] Pictures

this site rocks but it needs pics ofgood rock bands

[edit] A List of Albums Generally Considered to be a Band's Magnum Opus

This section does not add anything to the article. The list is subjective and does not even contain albums generally considered to be the best or most important in the history of popular music. I propose that this section be deleted.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not have an account when I wrote that. Any thoughts on what I said? Makeemlighter 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I agree and am removing the section. I'm not sure how it applies to popular music and "generally" is a Wikipedia:Weasel words. Hyacinth 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk

I removed:

from:

as it is a reply and would first need to show that Blink 182 etc started out trying to be "indie" and ended up mainstream. Hyacinth 10:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre - Subgenre List

  • I've noticed a few funny oddities about the Genres/subgenres. For example, is J-rock and J-pop really their own categories and not just simply a subgenre of Rock and Pop, respectively? If even that?
  • Also, is Cheese really a genre of music? Its link was broken - i found the page and fixed the link, but i do not believe this is a genre of music either. I propose deleting it from the list.

I didnt get a good look at the entire list of genres, but that is what ive noticed. Has anyone else noticed oddities like this? -Psydude 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axel F

Could someone with comprehensive knowledge about this sort of thing please look at the section about Axel F? I think this needs serious attention. Why is this track considered "classical" and "crossover" in any way? The sentence about it starting off being very popular is a bit inane. At the very least I think we need more information if these sort of claims are going to be made.

That whole bit is nonsense - I'm going to remove it (hope no-one minds?) Hopsyturvy 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ranjith"

The revisions from August 28 2006, by 203.99.195.4, added that the contemporary music business was "founded by Ranjith," and then added the title "---the great" and gave some lifetime dates of "98842-65108 or 98405-28236." I have deleted these. Mkilly 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative Descriptions of Minimalism

The article includes a few thinly-supported negative descriptions of minimalism. It is true that composers such as Steve Reich were inspired by folk and popular music, but Reich would note that Bartok and Stravinsky were as well. The immitation of repetitive rhythmic and harmonic devices found in American rock, African and Indian traditional music, etc., was a very conscious and deliberate creative decision on the part of "minimalist" composers and largely a response to the hyper-density and complexity of 1950s serialism. On a side note, it would seem to make sense that some reference be made to the written tradition of classical music as opposed to the aural transmission of folk and popular music.

I agree, and would like to point out the following weasel words: "however, much minimalist music goes against these tendencies, and thus is considered non-serious by many critics." Hmmm, "many critics"? 71.101.131.94 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical vs. Pop

This paragraph should be removed for two reasons. First, a value judgement on the relative merits of classical and pop music is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Second, it is factually incorrect. The statement "popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece" is simply incorrect. To suggest that any popular music is more harmonically complex than Wagner is frankly ridiculous. "Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work" - Mussorgsky's "promenade" from "pictures at an exhibition" features alternating bar lengths of 5 and 6. Mozart's "Don Giovanni" has a section in which the orchestra is split into three parts, each playing in a different time signature. This comment has been posted without any citations or references in its support. Does anyone object to its removal?

"This is not to say that popular music is definitively or always simpler than classical. The "default length" of phrases which classical music supposedly deviates from were set as the default by music of the common practice period. Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal, for instance, make use of rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work, and popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece. Popular music also uses certain features of rhythm and pitch inflection not analysable by the traditional methods applied to common practice music."

This should be deleted for the following reasons.

-No sources are supplied in support of any of the statements.

-It is factually inaccurate.

-A discussion of the relative merits of classical music and pop music doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

This paragraph is the kind of thing which gives wikipedia a bad name. I am deleting it.


[edit] Popular music and pop music

Both the template and the infobox don't belong here, this article doesn't overlap the pop music one.Doktor Who 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical is distinct from popular music - but what about jazz?

Is jazz different from both of these? I'd just like some opinions--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question is confusing because you refer to the distinction classical/popular while it actually seems to refer to the general musicological distinction between art music and popular music. Indeed the distinction classical/popular is actually an issue concerning the distinction between art music and popular music.There's a frequent amalgam between art music and classical music.The potential confusion lies in the fact classical music is art music, but art music isn't necessarilly classical. Art music includes classical, but it doesn't mean art music can be reduced to classical music only...
Now to reply to your question: Most part of Jazz is considered as popular music, but certain complex and erudite forms of jazz are considered as art music or something intermediary between popular and art music. But while certains forms of Jazz can be considered as art music (that is to say distinct from popular music) they are also distinct from classical tradition as well. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complexity

This section is terrible. First of all, it claims that popular music is 'simple.' Progressive rock musicians would disagree with you. In fact, this entire article seems to be claiming that all non-classical music is throwaway commercial products with no artistic value. This is an insult to the vast repertoire of non-classical musicians who try to express themselves. Zazaban (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] House music

I realize house music would fit under the category of "popular music" by the indicated meaning in the article, but is it really a good idea to mention it in the first picture in the article? House music is a very underground type of music as are most electronic genres, and I think it would be more fitting to show a genre of music that is actually, to the alternative meaning of the word, popular, such as rock or "pop" music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)