Originally Posted by Deltadrummer
Genre in itself is an interesting topic. I think in the modern world it has more to do with marketing than music, and that is why I tend to be critical of the term.
... I would say that there is something that is pop, and Doggie in the Window, Sugar, Sugar, Diamond Ring, Tea for Two, [ to go back, do exemplify it. I would say there is a quality of the music that is somewhat superficial.
... Historically it was music that girls (and little kids) liked that was pop, and of course, rock and roll, which guys liked was serious, it was radical, it was revolution. So there is a certain disparagement of the term 'pop' that existed that had a deprecating sense toward young woman.
... In the later 70s labels began to realize that if you could get girls to listen to the guys' music, you could double your audience. So Journey got a singer, Genesis became a trio and went light rock, and then your had 'hair metal,' which was about guys getting girls, cars and parties. The was really The Beatles model. They were able to go from being a boy band to a serious band, from 'pop' to 'rock.'
... Doggie in the Window is really a waltz, Sugar Sugar is a rock tune and Last Train to Charleston, written by Neil Diamond, is rock and roll.
Ken, love your work :)
The guy/girl nexus is a big one. It happens in terms of instrumentation too. In my experience men tend to be more interested in the scientific aspect of music and women in the expressive aspects, at least expression that's not necessarily intense like blind lustfulness, fury, depressive, spiritual etc. More everyday expressiveness, I guess. Of course it's only a tendency rather than absolute, as with anything. When guys opt for this "half-@ssed" approach by being ultra-accessible and eschewing their own expression, many other guys are not impressed because it's not overtly impressive in terms of skill level Ie. science) and dynamism.
I have trouble seeing Sugar Sugar
as rock. At least by today's semantics. To me, labels are about communicating and strict definitions mean less than commonly held views. Agree entirely with your point re: marketing.
If you go to a website looking for Sugar Sugar
, you would definitely look under "pop" before looking for "rock". By the same token if you took leave of your senses and decided to buy Doggie In The Window
you'd look under "pop"; you'd find Strauss in the "classical" section.
So the genres are really defined by common understanding and "pop" as a label has its place, even if it's as sprawling and as diverse as rock.
Talking of waltzes calls to mind an interesting offtopic aside; my Dad loves old swing music - Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey and ... ugh! ... Kay Kaiser . He thinks all music with an electric guitar in it is just noise. His mother loved waltzes and thought his swing music was primitive noise.