nadroj1985 said:
No. It might make it pop music by that person's standard, though, if they define pop as Andy does. Once again, any objective categorization for music is obvious enough to not be worth introducing.
Besides, we've got to remember the point of categorization: convenience. There is nothing more to it than that; to what other uses could it be put? This is probably a lesson many critics would do well to learn (note: I'm not referring to you here, just gettin' on the old soapbox), because many tend to evaluate a piece of music based on the label it is given. If labels really told us what a piece of music was like, then you could be sure the music was worthless.
Actually that is exactly what I am doing-- following my own labels and not the one given. I refuse to allow myself to label soemthing based on the "catchiness" of its melody. I am a very categorical person. I have to categorize things just ebcause that's the kind of person I am. I also absolutely agree with you, it is for convenience and it's all subjective.
So what I'm saying is: why should we follow this idea that pop music is what companies tell us it is? Why should we follow the categories they set out for us? I hate the terms progressive rock, yet these are constantly slapped on bands like Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead. I personally reject that category.
I also reject the category sometimes given to bands like Green Day-- "punk". In my book punk means what it originally meant: bands formed mostly at the end of the 70's like the Sex Pistols or The Clash who tried to reinvent rock to get away from disco and arena rock. To me, Green Day and other "punk" bands are just alternative, another very, very broad term in everyday speech. I also tend to categorize on a song by song basis, though I think a band can have a definite category. An easy example: the Radiohead song Life In a Glass House is quite jazzy (reminds me of New Orleans in fact), but I think the band on the whole is most assuredly rock.
But I dislike "pop" most of all because everyone seems to use it without knowing what it means. Whereas I classify based on musical evolution, progression format (like for blues), influence, style, patterns, and to a point, instruments, people who use the term "pop" across many categories use it to categorize based on some undefined variable loosely translated as "catchiness" or something to that effect, as yall ahve demonstarted in this thread. Heresy to me, and a slap in the face to the idea of convenient organization.
Oasis has never written a pop song in their career. Neither has Radiohead. Either that or all the songs I like by both bands are pop songs because all the songs I like by them fit that undefined variable resembling melody, beat, and catchiness.
I'm not familiar with most of their music (I only own What's the Story Morning Glory, which I didn't particularly like). Most of the critics I respect are pretty critical of Oasis' later albums, but I often don't agree with them.
