Talk:Popular music

message: The differences between what people tend to call "popular" and "classical" music has boggled me for some time. Thus, I postulate certain simple criteria with which to easily identify if the music is either of the two.
Popular music:
- Is used to describe the music produced during the "popular music phenomenon" of early 20th C. America (Tin Pan Alley) of recording short songs to be commercially distributed on a large scale. Today's popular music, thus, descends from this commercial tradition.
Classical music:
- Refers to any body of music (not even just Western) that has a long, generally systematized (there are long-established theories/rules, etc.) tradition of music. Practitioners generally undergo some sort of systematic training that is common to most performers of classical music.
In this sense, we can justify the reason why North Indian ragas fall under the term "Indian classical music", even if it does not primarily use notation or descend from the Western tradition. This is because performers of this type of music also undergo systematic training under a long tradition with long-established conventions/theories, as opposed to the relatively newer phenomenon of popular music.
Conclusion:
We have to be very clear, thus, that the term "popular music" is thought of as that tradition of commercially-distributed, recorded music that began during the early 20th C. Music that enjoyed wide appeal prior to this - Wagner or Mozart's operas, for instance - cannot be considered "popular music" because, clearly, they do not descend from that recorded music tradition.
So, just because a music is popular, does not mean it is "popular music", in this sense.
I might be a little out of words here, but I think this is easy to understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonious (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Pop? What is Classical? 

message: It's pure rubbish to assert that the musical generation gap has widened since WWII.  It's been narrowing since about 1980, not widening.  It's not unusual for young people today to raid their parents' music collections.  The musical ideas of rock and roll's first decades still have a good deal of currency in today's rock music.  What we have today, in terms of a generation gap, is nothing compared to the 1960s and 1970s when, I can tell you, we were not seeking out our parents' Frank Sinatra, Lawrence Welk, and Patti Page records.Pithecanthropus (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What generation gap? 

message: Boring, uninspired, somewhat elitist article that doesnt even give a basic definition of "popular" music. Most notable is a narrow-minded and oh-so persistent "distinction" between classical and popular music. Thus, according to article, Tool, PJ Harvey or Radiohead are "profit" driven popular music. Fine. And Schenker's analysis of "depth" are yet another sad reminder of obssolete and long forgotten western "classical" narcissism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.160.148 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. This article is more or less claiming that all non-classical music is commercial trash with no artistic value. The complexity section is POV and factually inaccurate to the umpteenth degree. I'm removing it. Zazaban (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alas! 

message: Boring, uninspired, somewhat elitist article that doesnt even give a basic definition of "popular" music. Most notable is a narrow-minded and oh-so persistent "distinction" between classical and popular music. Thus, according to article, Tool, PJ Harvey or Radiohead (as witnessed by their latest album) are "profit" driven popular music. Fine. And Schenker's analyses of "depth" are yet another sad reminder of obsolete and long forgotten western "classical" narcissism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsb (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alas! 

message: Nice page but it is off point in drawing the dichotomy between pop and other styles as being based on being performed for enjoyment. It is plainly obvious that numerous pop artists performed for enjoyment and at times were even part of the non pop genres before being discovered.  I understand the point that is being attempted but it would be more accurate to work in the following facts:  *Pop music can be of virtually any genre.   
*Pop music artists often perform for enjoyment (take the last few years of the singer songwriter onslaught led by John Mayer and Jack Johnson).  Singer songwriters are definitely producing music that is  "like so tru to how they feel" but for enjoyment might be contraversial sense the feelings they seek to "share with the world" are as often anguishing as enjoyable.  They are epitomes of self absorbtion.  A better example might be  Eminem or the likes.
*Pop music artists are often not considered pop until after  they get airplay  (phantom planet was not pop until recently) and therefore pop music is often an a posteriori claim not an a priori one.
*When it is an a priori claim (that is when a local band or artist is referred to as pop before they have entered the pop culture via mass media) it is usually used pejoratively and to signify that the artist/s isn't/aren't creating music that is true to the essence of the genre from whence they came (greenday was known as pop punk before ever entering the pop culture)
These are just a few suggestions and my main beef with the page is that it seems to at times present the pop artist as being a tool of the industry execs when it could actually be the other way around, such as in Rage Against the Machines decision to enter pop culture with the intention of spreading decidedly non-pop messages.
*I would argue that your arguments are mostly semantic here. First, it should be clear that all music is created for enjoyment in some sense. What the author suggests in your disputed passage is that pop music is for the most part, a harnessing of this enjoyment for commercial purposes, as opposed to weaker commercial instincts of other forms. The fact that it is "pop" music, itself is indicatory of its commercial success. Also, if you think classical music isn't "anguishing", I've got a Stravinsky in Brooklyn to sell you, although I'm not quite sure what you meant by such a word. Your mention of Phantom Planet's not being "pop" is just an incorrect usage of the term. Though it may not be "popular" in the most popular sense of the word, they certainly fall into the realm of "popular" music. Similarly, any music written for an orchestra or traditional orchestra instruments would be considered "classical" to the undiscerning listener. Of another nebulous semantic issue, what we might consider "pop" within the world of popular music, Britney Spears for instance, is really better thought of as a genre or style. You might compare this to the sub-classification of the classical era in the world of classical music. --B. Phillips 9 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)
===Genres sections===
I appreciate the clarity that is created by the sections Popular_music#Genres and Popular_music#Genres_that_are_not_popular_music, but the actual situation is more complex, with some genres being considered a part of popular music by different writers at different times, and othertimes not. For example, some theories describe folk music as a large genre within popular music, some theories distinguish popular music from classical in that it is a part of folk music. Hyacinth 19:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this section [Genres] to a new article, having a long list embedded in the middle of this one made the page horrible to navigate. User:Gordon Ross 09:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the directly above from the article per my discussion above. Hyacinth 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular or non-popular

message: I appreciate the clarity that is created by the sections Popular_music#Genres and Popular_music#Genres_that_are_not_popular_music, but the actual situation is more complex, with some genres being considered a part of popular music by different writers at different times, and othertimes not. For example, some theories describe folk music as a large genre within popular music, some theories distinguish popular music from classical in that it is a part of folk music. Hyacinth 19:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this section [Genres] to a new article, having a long list embedded in the middle of this one made the page horrible to navigate. User:Gordon Ross 09:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the directly above from the article per my discussion above. Hyacinth 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres sections

message: This section does not add anything to the article. The list is subjective and does not even contain albums generally considered to be the best or most important in the history of popular music. I propose that this section be deleted.
:Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I did not have an account when I wrote that. Any thoughts on what I said? Makeemlighter 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I agree and am removing the section. I'm not sure how it applies to popular music and "generally" is a Wikipedia:Weasel words. Hyacinth 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A List of Albums Generally Considered to be a Band's Magnum Opus 

message: I removed:
*"but have themselves become mainstream (e.g. Blink 182, Green Day, Fallout Boy, Kaiser Chiefs)."
from:
*"Several movements such as punk in the 80s, and Indie in the 90s, have attempted to try to take back control, but have themselves become mainstream (e.g. Blink 182, Green Day, Fallout Boy, Kaiser Chiefs)."
as it is a reply and would first need to show that Blink 182 etc started out trying to be "indie" and ended up mainstream. Hyacinth 10:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Punk

message: *I've noticed a few funny oddities about the Genres/subgenres.  For example, is J-rock and J-pop really their own categories and not just simply a subgenre of Rock and Pop, respectively?  If even that?
*Also, is Cheese really a genre of music?  Its link was broken - i found the page and fixed the link, but i do not believe this is a genre of music either.  I propose deleting it from the list.
I didnt get a good look at the entire list of genres, but that is what ive noticed.  Has anyone else noticed oddities like this?  
-Psydude 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre - Subgenre List

message: Could someone with comprehensive knowledge about this sort of thing please look at the section about Axel F?  I think this needs serious attention.  Why is this track considered "classical" and "crossover" in any way?  The sentence about it starting off being very popular is a bit inane.  At the very least I think we need more information if these sort of claims are going to be made.
That whole bit is nonsense - I'm going to remove it (hope no-one minds?) Hopsyturvy 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Axel F

message: The revisions from August 28 2006, by 203.99.195.4, added that the contemporary music business was "founded by Ranjith," and then added the title "---the great" and gave some lifetime dates of "98842-65108 or 98405-28236." I have deleted these. Mkilly 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ranjith" 

message: The article includes a few thinly-supported negative descriptions of minimalism. It is true that composers such as Steve Reich were inspired by folk and popular music, but Reich would note that Bartok and Stravinsky were as well. The immitation of repetitive rhythmic and harmonic devices found in American rock, African and Indian traditional music, etc., was a very conscious and deliberate creative decision on the part of "minimalist" composers and largely a response to the hyper-density and complexity of 1950s serialism. On a side note, it would seem to make sense that some reference be made to the written tradition of classical music as opposed to the aural transmission of folk and popular music.
::I agree, and would like to point out the following weasel words: "however, much minimalist music goes against these tendencies, and thus is considered non-serious by many critics."  Hmmm, "many critics"?  71.101.131.94 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative Descriptions of Minimalism 

message: This paragraph should be removed for two reasons. First, a value judgement on the relative merits of classical and pop music is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Second, it is factually incorrect. The statement "popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece" is simply incorrect. To suggest that any popular music is more harmonically complex than Wagner is frankly ridiculous. "Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work" - Mussorgsky's "promenade" from "pictures at an exhibition" features alternating bar lengths of 5 and 6. Mozart's "Don Giovanni" has a section in which the orchestra is split into three parts, each playing in a different time signature. This comment has been posted without any citations or references in its support. Does anyone object to its removal?
"This is not to say that popular music is definitively or always simpler than classical. The "default length" of phrases which classical music supposedly deviates from were set as the default by music of the common practice period. Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal, for instance, make use of rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work, and popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece. Popular music also uses certain features of rhythm and pitch inflection not analysable by the traditional methods applied to common practice music."
This should be deleted for the following reasons.
-No sources are supplied in support of any of the statements.
-It is factually inaccurate.
-A discussion of the relative merits of classical music and pop music doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
This paragraph is the kind of thing which gives wikipedia a bad name. I am deleting it.
No, it ISN'T factually inaccurate - you've just yet to hear any "popular" music (a total misnomer of a term - how are genres like IDM, avant-garde, experimental, and drone produced for 'commercial purposes' - that's right, they AREN'T!) that reaches that echelon of complexity. I'd advise looking beyond the radio. Elitism won't get you anywhere. Classical, baroque, romanticism, etc. are all just genres - they are in no way superior to genres such as technical death metal, drone, krautrock, progressive rock, avant-metal, etc etc... blah blah blah. In an ideal world there would be no conceited academic terms demarcating some fictive 'line' between these two 'realms' of music, but apparently people get a real kick of claiming 'popular' music is 'simplistic'. Whatever... maybe if all you've ever heard is The Beatles and Led Zeppelin... *yawn*... do the knowledge, then you'll be qualified to comment. Blah blah blah comment comment comment remark etc 121.223.196.153 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical vs. Pop 

message: Both the template and the infobox don't belong here, this article doesn't overlap the pop music one.Doktor Who 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Popular music]] and [[pop music]]

message: This section is terrible. First of all, it claims that popular music is 'simple.' Progressive rock musicians would disagree with you. In fact, this entire article seems to be claiming that all non-classical music is throwaway commercial products with no artistic value. This is an insult to the vast repertoire of non-classical musicians who try to express themselves. Zazaban (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity 

message: I realize house music would fit under the category of "popular music" by the indicated meaning in the article, but is it really a good idea to mention it in the first picture in the article? House music is a very underground type of music as are most electronic genres, and I think it would be more fitting to show a genre of music that is actually, to the alternative meaning of the word, popular, such as rock or "pop" music.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A house band doesn't play House Music. They are a band that plays in the same house all the time. Noit (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  House music 

message: Since this article has no information about popular songs, per se, just the genre of popular music. I would like to redirect Popular Song to Song#Popular, and then expand that section to actually discuss what a popular song is. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Popular Song" should not redirect here 

message: maybe there should be a critism section although it may compromise the neutrality of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.167.213 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critism 

message: A large chunk of the article was  back in 2008. (Some more potentially useful content  in 2010.) At least the important definition section was cited (unlike the business section). Part of this lost content appears to have been rebuilt (which would have been unnecessary if anyone had paid attention back then), but editors might wish to look over the deleted content to determine if they find anything useful that could be incorporated into the current article. Simply restoring all of it appears unwise to me, given how much the article has changed in the meanwhile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive ancient overlooked vandalism 

message: Hello! I am a student at Drake University enrolled in a course that is striving toward taking out the systemic bias out of Wikipedia. My proposed edit is not extensive yet, but I am using my sources to explain the global side of popular music. It also explains how it is difficult to label something as popular music or not. I touched on the connection between world music and being labeled as an "exotic other." I chose a couple of genres of music that are popular in different countries to explain how something may be popular in one context, but not another. The edit also discusses how the digitization of music has impacted the popular music field by allowing artists to become famous through social media. I am still not totally confident with my edit because it is very short at this point and I am nervous that I am trying to discuss different genres too in depth. I am also nervous that I am trying to make an argument out of this article because I am discussing the different countries' popular music genres. Later this week or this weekend I will be linking my proposed edit to this talk page. Thank you! --HBov (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to make sure that any changes you want to make to the article are backed up by reliable sources - not your own opinions, or the outcome of your own original research.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of proposed edit

message: — Assignment last updated by CJS77 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Contemporary Black Popular Culture

message: Popular music folk music 158.62.75.75 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mapeh 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jamie.green-2 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Digital Communication

message: — Assignment last updated by Kyanitepepper (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 2

message: — Assignment last updated by Lolowalker (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Right now the definition section begins by discussing the topic of "Folk Music". But the lead section of the article specifically excludes folk music from popular music. The rest of the definition section, as a whole, is neither cohesive nor coherent. There are several possible reasons for that.
If there are separate definitions that disagree, they need to be clearly laid out separately, rather than jumping back and forth between them without warning.
Unless someone disagrees soon with a good reason, I'm going to delete the "Folk Music" paragraph in the definition for being irrelevant. Even if it IS relevant somehow, it certainly can't be anywhere near the first paragraph, since the point is to define "Popular Music" and not to define something else. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Definition" section cleanup 

message: The redirect Violent music has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Violent music]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]