Discussion between my wife and I, whilst we agree that it is purely subjective in essence, what are the salient features that may help to define a genre?
For example, my wife sees the guitar as a primary instrument in 'rock', however this rules out many guitar driven pop songs. By the same token, she also sees keyboards as more pop. However there are also those that don't quite fit that rationale: Smiths - How soon is now, Michael Jackson - Beat it, Van Halen - Jump, Deep Purple - Hush etc.
Any ideas from my learned friends?
Cheers
Comments
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
Rock will be predominantly louder, faster, more guitar-driven, etc, but there are plenty of popular rock songs, and plenty of other genres that are loud, fast and guitar-driven. I'd expect rock to be performable live, without masses of hidden tape tracks running. It's probably longer-lasting too - ie rock from the 60s/70s/80s is still listened to today. Tends to be more male orientated, I think because it's more tribal.
I always think of pop as primarily being designed to sell, ie be popular, and hence more driven by fashion. Sometimes rock becomes fashionable, and sells because it's popular. Because fashions change, pop is more transient - ie shorter-lived in the popular memory. (other than the real classics). I think of pop as being more disposable, less complex, and aimed at people who can be persuaded that they like it (because it's fashionable).
But every genre probably has its spectrum from the popular to the more "specialist" ends. At one end you've got the bands/artists who are there because they're really focused on the music/genre, and at the other end you get those who use the genre as a means of building some sort of support/recognition prior to focusing more on the mass market end (aka "selling out")!
Or it that all too serious?
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
The implication that rock from the past has survived but pop hasn't is a strange one for starters. I'd argue till the cows come home that the exact opposite is true.
Pop swings your pants
Maybe in the 70s. Plenty of “enhanced” drums in rock for decades now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)
The 2nd link doesn't work correctly.
You will probably never be able to define rock or pop. You can, however, argue over which songs are rock, pop, neither or both.
So I would say you are asking the wrong question.
Does anyone remember the discussions about defining Metal? The people who were interested in the debate came up with a list of sub-divisions, some of which only contained one song.
As for hip hop vs pop. That is often just a case of who is the main artist and who is listed as featuring.