Sunday, January 8, 2012

Shouldn't 'Rock and Pop' be divided into 2 separate categories: 'Rock and Roll' AND 'Pop' ?

The title of this category is slightly offensive. I mean, rock and roll completely changed the musical world. Doesn't it deserve it's own category, a section void of questions about talentless disasters such as Jonas Brothers, Rhianna, etc??|||It certainly does these days anyway.





Originally, in the early days of rock the Beatles and the Stones were, in a sense, pop.





The difference is now, retrospectively, a lot of the Beatles singles could and should be classed as pop 'I want to hold your hand' et al, whereas the Stones retrospective were rock from the beginning, and shaped all rock to come.





Now the blurry line is with bands like Alphabeat or terrible "bands" like McFly. The former do pop-rock, in my opinion, and the latter do pop (and should be shot)|||There are some ways to look at it but:


Many say that "Pop" is actually "Popular". I have in Portugal a great man (Rui Veloso) that sings fantastic songs and is called a Pop Rock player most of the times, just because he's known all over the country.


If you go to Wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music


it says that "Pop music is a music genre that developed from the mid-1950s as a softer alternative to rock 'n' roll and later to rock music.".


What I think is that you actually meant to say (by saying Rock and Roll) Classic Rock. Like Guns n' Roses? or maybe Queen?|||Yes. When i first went to Yahoo! Answers, i was puzzled to see 'Rock and Pop' because attitude-wise, they are completely different. Rock and Roll is about following your own opinion and telling the world to **** off, whereas Pop is about following the opinion of the mainstream population.|||Yeah, I think so. It is strange to discuss good rock music and then see questions about Madonna, MJ, and Miley Cyrus.|||If you split up Rock and Pop, who would I have to pick on?|||i agree

No comments:

Post a Comment