Rock vs Pop

Lets have no doubt, Pop is dying.

But in its death throes it is blindy flailing for survival. We've had "Pop Idol" and "Pop Stars" in Britain, "American Idol" in the US and now we are about to be subjected to "Pop Stars 2: the Revenge". My only hope is that this constant stream of talentless wank will persuade many more people to ditch the outdated pop genre and move into the 21st Century.

The battle between Rock and Pop has been around for decades. Both genres have changed form immensly over the years. The last era of rock was about 30 years ago, since then pop music has dominated, while rock music has stayed disturbingly quite. I am happy to say that those days are over, soon pop music will face a long disapearance.

Pop music, in essence, is talentless. The vast majority of pop stars don't write or play their own music and therefore don't express themselves. Britney Spears sings about pathetic love problems not because it's what she feels, but because she is told to. As for the singing, if you have heard live pop acts sing you will know that many of them are as tone deaf as any rock group. Of course many of them make up for it by miming.

What does a miming pop act do then? Umm, turn up, look pretty. Why turn up to see a pop act when you can get the same thing by just playing their CD? The fact that pop acts have to use background dancers to make the act exciting just shows how shit pop music is.

But ten years ago what alternative was there for young kids? Dance music, Trance, Techno? Rock was out of the question as it hadn't progressed much from the 70's.

However in the mid 90's thanks to bands like Korn, the revolution began. Many people would later call this new brand of rock "nu-metal". However this is too much of a generalisation. Rock nowadays encompasses many sub genres including metal, punk and pure rock which have all independantly revived.

In my opinion the Pop industry has helped to destroy itself. By targeting younger and younger kids out of greed, they distanced themselves from older kids who started to regard pop music as for children and began to look for other genres.

The revival began in the schools about eight years ago, sure there was some good Rock music before that but it wasn't recognised at the time. But over the last five years I have witnessed more and more kids wearing rock t-shirts and hoodies. Rock stopped becoming what your dad listens to and became something totally different. Metal is the anti-pop. Where pop songs revolve around love and positive emotions, metal songs revolve around hate and negative ones. It's not as bad and depressing as it sounds and some of the most pacifist people I know listen to Disturbed or Mudvayne. It can be quite uplifting believe it or not!

Punk on the other hand is very upbeat and positive and is certainly more alive than pop music. It's lyrics are often humorous and manage to make you feel good without straying into the cliche ridden realm of pop lyrics.

For kids fed up with boring, fake boy/girl bands singing about utter tripe, rock music marked a refreshing change.

And so now in the year 2002, rock music is about to overtake pop music at last. More publicity and coverage is bound to follow to further spurt the growth. However many rock fans are uncertain about rock becoming popular, will the music industry hijack rock music like they did pop music? It seems pretty certain. Maybe in 10 years time we will be watching "Rock Idol" on TV. I pray that day never happens.

Even so, I welcome the death of pop music as in my opinion it has made the world two dimentional and boring.

	Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! (none / 0) (#1)
	by Illiterate Bum on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 07:52:27 PM PST

	As a contributing writer to a "we turn our-indier-than-thou noses at you" web 'zine, I feel I must say something to the Potato Head. YOUR TASTE IN MUSIC SUCKS. YOUR FAVORITE BANDS ALSO SUCK. YOUR ENTIRE RECORD COLLECTION SHOULD BE BURNED TO THE GROUND. YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY TURNED THE SUCK KNOB UP TO 10. And your hygiene, I might add, needs work. "Nu-metal" is not the anti-pop, and "punk" died the moment it became commercialized. Rock music, as defined by such luminaries as Chuck Berry, having gone through so many permutations, is quite dead as well. By virtue of her assets, Britanny Spears edges out all those groups you just mentioned. At the very least she never pretends that she's an "artist." Start here, grasshopper. Learn, my friend. ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

	Ha! Yours sucks, too! (none / 0) (#2)
	by gzt on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 08:44:48 PM PST

	I'm sorry, but the group you linked to as a starting point is lame. They are talentless and harmonically unsophisticated. Their melodies are cheap. They could not improvise their collective way out of a ii-V-I turnaround. Their kung fu is weak compared to, say, Miles Davis'. Drop me a line when your indie wank can swing. Cheers, GZ

	Cheap shot. (none / 0) (#3)
	by Illiterate Bum on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 11:42:39 PM PST

	Invoking Miles. That's low. An analogy: KID A: I think that Radiohead is the best band ever! KID B: Yeah, well, Radiohead is weak compared to, say, Beethoven. Jerk. Eh, fuck off. Sun Ra was better anyway. As far as more modern groups are concerned, perhaps local heroes Tortoise would be more up your alley? Considering I don't know you at all, I'm just taking random stabs here. And hey, could you be more specific, at least for my sake? Which movements did you find "lame"? Which parts did you find "harmonically unsophisticated" and why? How are their melodies "cheap"? And how do you think they fare in comparison to their contemporaries? I'm genuinely curious here. However, before all that, can I assume that we are in agreement that PotatoError's selection in music is, at best, tasteless? ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

	Eh. (none / 0) (#5)
	by tkatchev on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 12:33:12 AM PST

	Beethoven is about as "pop" as you can get. A kind of an MTV of his age. -- Peace and much love...

	dear mr tkatchev sir (none / 0) (#18)
	by nathan on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 11:20:11 AM PST

	You eat mud. That is all. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Eh yes. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
	by tkatchev on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 01:27:37 PM PST

	You say it like it's a bad thing. -- Peace and much love...

	Your not alone... (none / 0) (#40)
	by Alex K on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:12:37 AM PST

	We will face this cruel world TOGETHER! As we fight discrimination against the people who eat mud!

	Well, (none / 0) (#8)
	by derek3000 on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 05:53:22 AM PST

	I like Godspeed, and we've talked about this before. But, for the most part, they are pretty simple when you look at it in an Xs and Os fashion. However, the thing they will always have over any other group is their dynamic range. I could really give a shit about how complicated it is--how does it sound? By the way, I've never known Godspeed to claim that they could improv over a ii-V-I, but for God's sakes--why would they even want to use it? Talk about cheap and cliched...geez. Tortoise and Isotope 217 or whatever are cool. I also dig Labradford and Town and Country, call me crazy. While I could subsitute your ass up a wall and turn a ii-V-I turnaround into something completely alien and cool, I still like music that is, for the most part, simple. Sorry if I don't use every opportunity to flex my theoretical knowledge. After pre-viewing this message, I realize that it is mostly incoherent. Please forgive the horrible writing--it is early and I smoked pot last night for the first time in a month. I feel like a fucking idiot right now. Thank you, that is all. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Sun Ra! (none / 0) (#14)
	by First Incision on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:26:43 AM PST

	Bham AL! Of course, he was dead before I ever moved here. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Some great T-shirt slogans you've come up with (none / 0) (#11)
	by PotatoError on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 08:41:59 AM PST

	"Your favorite band sucks" "YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY TURNED THE SUCK KNOB UP TO 10" Rock music is way bigger than Pop music. Look at concert numbers and you'll see that pop music just aint popular no more...and you know why? cuz pop artists are lazy fucks. Yea I can't be bothered to beat around the bush so I leave it at that. Britney Spears is shite and she does think she's talented. As it happens she is simply asseted. The only people who buy her records are little girls and old perverts..are you in any of those catagories by any chance? You talk about rock being commercialised without remembering that the majority of rock bands are unsigned and that even the signed ones are part of small labels, not total power freaks like Time Warner or EMI. I don't like punk...but regardless of that, many people I know do. I don't like many of the recent "popular" rock acts like Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit and Nickleback either and this sentiment is shared by most of the rock community. These bands are simply taster bands which lure pop fans across to the dark side. Who the fuck is Chuck Berry? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	I am, by no small coincidence... (none / 0) (#25)
	by Illiterate Bum on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 12:49:34 AM PST

	a perverted little girl. Chuck Berry was actually the son of Irish immigrants that moved here from the British Isles back in the early Forties, a bit after the war. He grew up in Philadelphia, surrounded by the super-smooth sounds of Philadelphonic soul. After jammin' along on his Rickenbacker to the latest single from the Delfonics, blues-like, he realized that he stood on the verge of one of the greatest forms of music known to man - rock and roll. Using a grand total of three chords and single-handedly inventing the dorian mode, he turned the world of music upside down. His irish-tinged adaptations of what was predominantly a "black" music made him the sweetheart to radio producers nation wide, and he spawned a league of imitators scrambling to copy his style, including everybody from the Beatles, to the Rolling Stones, to the Who. His life was tragically cut short, however, when his constant daily coke addiction finally took its toll. He died a brave man, a true musical pioneer. He also liked to watch girls shit and pee, and had cameras installed in the toilets of one of the restaurants that he used to own. Quite a character, that guy. However, none of that changes the following: A: Punk is dead. B: Rock is dead. C: "Nu-metal" was stillborn. D: And your favorite bands still suck. No hard feelings, eh? Hugs and kisses, IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

	No (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 28th, 2002 at 11:48:07 PM PST

	Metal music is as much about canned processed lifestyles as Pop. Check out some nu-metal or neo punk video sometime. All you have are a bunch of tatooed prettyboys or middle class family therapy refugee fatsos wearing the same fucking outfits, sporting the same piercings, and with the same "extreme" hairdos. If these people really wanted to be individuals, they would paint half their skin green and run around with one hand glued to their heads yelling "bleeg bleeg!" But they don't. And behind their generic "rebel" poses of the metal militias are the same maerketing experts, and PR professionals that sell soap, cola, and politicians. At least with Pop you get hot chicks look at. Give me Shakira or Britney any day.

	Real metal DOES exist... (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 04:34:09 PM PST

	...you just have to look for it. Not the "metal" we get spoonfed by Kerrang! and MTV but real metal. With proper tunes, lyrics and songs. Bands who obviously care about their music, music which isn't about rebelling for the sake of being middle-class. Rather, music which has meaning to the artists who write it. Try: Rhapsody, Blind Guardian, Lacuna Coil, Thy Majesty, Steve Vai, Xandria etc. etc. THEN tell me that pop is better!

	LFMAO! (none / 0) (#26)
	by derek3000 on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 05:43:41 AM PST

	Rhapsody????? Steve Vai????? Go back to Harmony Central, you cock-smoking guitar-faggot. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Britney Spears is a man, GayBoy (none / 0) (#10)
	by PotatoError on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 08:24:28 AM PST

	This site had a story that proved it. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Umm, Shakira? (none / 0) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 02:36:48 AM PST

	Don't EVER put Shakira in the same group as Ms Spears. Shakira's Engilsh album is her most "pop" album ever. By the way, she writes her own songs; and can play the guitar. Shakira is far from the normal pop craze. She is a breath of fresh air, and I can't wait for the next album. Mostly because it will be more rock oriented. Which is what she says is her favororite. She also has said that one of her favorite bands was Nirvana (that would be rock right ;) ). Anyways, just had to correct one of the many millions of errors on this website. german_hero@gmx.net

	Beethoven? (none / 0) (#6)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 03:31:28 AM PST

	Amateur. If you want some real music, check Bach or Wagner.

	ever heard (none / 0) (#17)
	by nathan on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 11:17:18 AM PST

	Glenn Gouldn's recording of the Beethoven Eroica variations? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Dear PotatoError (none / 0) (#7)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 05:52:20 AM PST

	We at the adequacy editorial board have often considered broadening our media impact. One thing we considered is a discussion board for younger internet uses, which we would like to call TeenAdequacy. If we get this off the ground, please consider submitting the above diary to that site, it's would be more in keeping with it's theme. Regards, A. Rightmann

	Dear Adam Rightmann (5.00 / 2) (#13)
	by PotatoError on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:05:52 AM PST

	At first I thought you were taking the piss..well maybe you are..maybe you're not. But still it is an interesting idea isn't it? TeenAdequacy - how better than to get kids interested in contraversy at an early age! It could be exactly the same as this site but it could say "TeenAdequacy...news for Teens". There could be a chat board (cuz kids are into that stuff) and a music discussion board where I would be happy to put my post. It would also help kids internet and social skills and keep them knowledgable. I know that my social skills and knowledge have improved quite a bit since joining this site. What's more, TeenAdequacy would create hundreds of future Adequacy.org members. Maybe this site could be renamed AdultAdequacy to reflect this...maybe still, we could create GreyHairAdequacy for much older members (I admit that name needs working on!). The possibilities are endless. I don't know whether you would need a new email account or server to add another site but im sure the advertising for a kids site is very lucrative. So how far has this discussion gone with the rest of the Adequacy Editors? I mean, has it been discussed and thought about at length or was it just a passing thought? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Great idea! (none / 0) (#19)
	by jvance on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 11:26:52 AM PST

	Except the site should be called AdequacyTeens, or A-Teens for short. Hey! We're back on topic! -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Wow, I like it... (none / 0) (#41)
	by Alex K on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:22:55 AM PST

	I do like this idea but there is one thing, if it were to be known as "TeenAdequacy" or "A-Teens" then the more intelligent teens would not bother trying to deal with their inferior average teen peers. As a result they would not visit the site. Very much like my children who have absolutely no interest in "yahooligans.com" and similar material although they are in that age group.

	There are few things in life... (none / 0) (#9)
	by derek3000 on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 05:59:39 AM PST

	that are as difficult as this. One of them will be telling my children that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But for now, PotatoError, I have you to deal with. It pains me to say this, because I know you will not fully understand it until you are much, much older, but... Rock is pop. Please say it out loud, with everyone else: "Rock is pop." Y'allright, sport? Who's my big guy, huh? Want some cocoa? ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Rock IS "popular", Rock ISNT "Pop&q (none / 0) (#12)
	by PotatoError on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 08:56:01 AM PST

	You have the wrong definition of "Pop" Contary to what some people believe, Pop doesn't mean 'Popular'. Pop has become a separate genre describing synthesized, manufactured, talentless girl/boy bands as well as their solo counterparts. Recent rock hits in the chart still get filed in the rock section at music stores, they don't get moved to the Pop section. The Pop genre Pop music can be unpopular just as rock music can be popular. You obviously meant to use the word "popular" rather than the word "pop". In which case I agree, "Rock IS popular". <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by derek3000 on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 10:34:28 AM PST

	Try again. In fact, I would think that Illiterate and his mates would admit, even though reluctantly, that the music we love could be considered pop, because you have to draw the line somewhere. Surely some bands are more accesible than others, but when Godspeed sells however many records they sell, you have to admit that they have a somewhat "popular" following. Just deal with it. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Try again yourself. (none / 0) (#33)
	by because it isnt on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 03:31:26 AM PST

	By your definititions, music-hall standards are "Pop", as is Jazz, Rock 'N' Roll, Psychadelia, Rock, etc., because these styles were all shit-hot with the public at one time. Specifically, I define Pop as a business phenomena rather than a musical style. It is where the Record Company is the overarching creator of the music. There was no Pop before the Record Companies arrived. Since then, there have been countless catchy tunes written by a freelance composer, with lyrics written by a freelance songwriter, played in the studio by session musicians, and fronted by (an) actor(s)/actress(es) who replied to an advert they read in Stage magazine. This is "Pop", and is very popular, as are other kinds of music which are created by bands whose members knew each other before the record company signed them. "Pop" follows the musical style du jour. See Elvis Presley, The Monkees, Kylie Minogue, Billie Piper, Brittany Speares, Atomic Kitten, etc. While there are many honest musicians who only make an impact when they are overhyped by their Record Company, I would not call these "Pop". adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	music-hall songs (none / 0) (#36)
	by nathan on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 09:48:23 AM PST

	We didn't have those in North America. Please explain. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Sure you did. (none / 0) (#37)
	by because it isnt on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:17:17 PM PST

	Music halls were the source of popular variety entertainment for Victorian Britain and beyond: songs, sketch comedy, etc. It's basically theatre for plebs. Here's a site about some of the more famous performers. America had Broadway doing musicals, which was essentially the same thing on a grander scale. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	3 types (none / 0) (#38)
	by First Incision on Sat Aug 31st, 2002 at 02:57:28 PM PST

	Separate from genres, I have always thought there are three musical systems: pop, folk, and classical. Those are proabaly bad words for these systems, since they are so connected to certain genres. I invite someone to come up with better terms Pop, as you said, is music as a business. Folk is normal people playing music for the sheer hell of it. Classical is the composition of music for posterity, with an almost total separation of composer and performer. The Dixie Chicks playing a country tune with laser lights in front of thousands while being simulcast on national TV and selling albums worldwide would be pop. A family playing country tunes at a local campout music fest would be folk. Also in the folk system, I would include garage bands playing for their own amusement, high-schoolers in marching bands, and myself playing praise-and-worship with 5 instrumentalists and 50 singers before bible study. I think the pop system (business music mabye?) has already been discussed. Classical music is not that complex either. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Hmmm... (none / 0) (#43)
	by Alex K on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 03:46:57 AM PST

	You have just changed my outlook on music. Thank you!

	I've said it before. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
	by First Incision on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 09:34:27 AM PST

	I'll say it again. The only truly rewarding music is the music you play yourself. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Huzzah! (none / 0) (#24)
	by Illiterate Bum on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 12:30:27 AM PST

	That's probably the most insightful comment I've read in a couple of weeks, on Adequacy or otherwise. You are my hero. However, could I ask what groups you enjoy, and what type of instrument that you play? Just curious. Cheers, IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

	Certainly (none / 0) (#29)
	by First Incision on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 12:05:31 PM PST

	My favorite artists are Jump Little Children (Your typical Southern-fried Indy Metal/Rap/Celtic/Accordion+Cello+Overdriven Guitar band) Mahler J.S. Bach Danny Elfman (you know, Batman/Simpsons/Beetlejuice, etc) Cake They Might Be Giants Yeah, geeky and/or pretentious. I know. I spent 2 years of high school and 4 years of college playing percussion. Marching band, wind ensemble, percussion ensemble, steel drum band, etc. I'm most accomplished on harmonica (blues and folk). I still occasionally play djembe with a praise-and-worship group. Even though I've never been particularly good at any instrument, playing beats listening any day. But listening is still fun. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Korn on the cob (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by Naive Fool on Thu Aug 29th, 2002 at 08:48:28 PM PST

	Oh, yeah, you're a real musical revolutionary. "Korn is angry, therefore I'm cool" (he said, in the malnourished voice of a sad, lonely teenager who likes to think he's different). While I am far from a fan of "pop", it is a huge mistake to think that just because it is louder, more profane or more dissonant, a group is less commercial. Just because that punk from Kid Rock knows who Dream Theatre is doesn't make him fit to speak their name, nor does the fact that their songs contain swear words make Korn the equal of a Stockhausen, a Bob Dylon, or even a Johnny Rotten. How much a group or and artist has "sold out" has nothing to do with their popularity, a point you have made in some of your later postings, but is related to the artistic content of their works. You seem to be making the same mistake that every MTV-poisoned psuedo rebel makes in assuming that anything loud and obnoxious is anti-pop. I much prefer angry to fluffy, I'll admitt, but just because you hate something stupid doesn't mean you have anything reslembling taste. MTV produces things that make fun of pop too, and makes a pile off of them.