Pop is real music

Thank you, IDontKnowHowToCallMyself, for your response.Now unfortunately my opponent did not seem to really take my points seriously. We see a lot of bare assertions and some circular reasoning. My thought-experiment went unacknowledged, which I believe is rather important in this debate. My opponent insists of playing a semantics game. I wanted to avoid this because I wished to have a significant discussion, but I realize now that if my opponent wishes to continue, I can claim victory based on the following argument.1. Pop music is a genre of music. –From the Wikipedia definition.2. A genre is a collection of a medium.C1. Pop music is a collection of music.P3. But a collection of music is not in itself music.C2. Therefore, pop music is not, in fact, music.To disagree with this, my opponent would have to commit the composition/division fallacy.Now to respond to my opponent’s other points.“Message people get from the song can be differ from person to person and also the message people get can be different from the message the artist wanted to give. All of this is subjective from person to person and it does not show us any objectivity.”This does not follow. We would not say that a book does not have an objective opinion on an issue just because the message is not universally acknowledged to be the same. “We can see that in fact pop music has significant creativity because its creative and I will show that now.Having or showing an ability to make new things or think of new ideas. Pop music might be similar to one another but its not all and it is still has its own lyrics and it still has different sound and if we really look at it it is different.”The evidence I provided has gone unrefuted. Like I said, some of these songs have very similar rhythm structures, the same chord structures, and the same harmonies. We know that plagiarists sometimes change words or small effects to get away with their theft, but we would not consider these changes to be creative. I would like to submit that if books were written the same way pop songs are, the original authors would claim that their work was plagiarized. “That is completely subjective, while someone can get inspired by something, others can not and reversed.”Quite right; I made an error. What I should have said is 3. Real music can inspire a society or an individual on any level. This means that we can always look at an old composition be proud of our heritage.Music is not really as subjective as laypeople might think it is. One can accurately analyze mistakes in compositions and the quality of compositions. If colleges went with my opponent’s definitions of music, the musical world would fall apart. If radio stations went with my opponent’s perception of music, no one would tune in. Even though we might have different tastes, we can analyze some qualities of music to compare it with other music. 1. Can you give an example of so called "real" music.I believe Scott Joplin’s Treemonisha is an example of real music.2. Do Beatles and Beach Boys do not have significant creativity? I mean they are pop both because of their popularity and by their genre.I do not know enough about either band to accurately assess their levels of creativity. My argument is simply about the majority of pop music, not the entirety. 3. Are you saying that so called "real" music is better than the not "real" music?Yes. I take it that on your view, fake music does not exist.4. Is there fake music if you think that we divide music into "real" and "not real"?Yes. Fake music would include anything by Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber.I’ll leave it to the voters to decide whether Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber write real music.