I was having this discussion with an acquaintance who is pretty knowledgeable about music history, so I thought I'd ask you all this question:

Does pure pop music have specific musical characteristics or patterns that distinguishes it from other genres? I'm not talking about a genre that crosses over, necessarily, and charts in pop. I'm talking about pure pop. Or is there a pure pop?

Blues, for example, has a specific music progression that distinguishes it from other genres.Fusion jazz has certain characteristics. Classical has certain characteristics. Neo-Soul has characteristics. So I was wondering what distinguishes pop music from say R&B or other genres in regard to the way it's structured musically?

Question #2

And should an artist from another genre, like say R&B for example, be concerned if his/her music does not chart on the pop charts, but does quite well on the R&B charts?

I don't see jazz or classical artists stressing if their music is not on the Billboard top 100 chart. I would think that artists would feel successful if their music at least "charted" in their own specific genres. If I were say Pat Metheney, for example, I would N'T be so upset if Hillary Duff or Ashle Simpson outcharted me on the Billboard top 100. However, I'd really be wondering what was going-on if they outcharted me on the jazz charts.

Thoughts?
[Edited 9/17/06 4:23am]

Isel said:

In the Billboard Charts there might be some independent acts with their own distinctive sound and who might have gotten exposure by a droppped single which was hyped .

Many other acts have been so-called "manufactured" . It's a business-form which lives for quite some time now in the music-industry , but became more visible in the 80's with a producers-team like Stock , Aitken & Waterman , who focussed mostly on hit-succes . So i would say that is defenitly a form of "pure" pop , creating for the masses .

Isel said:

Pop in it's purest form is created with the main goal & focus to attract a (world)wide audience , like i mentioned above .
With manufactured pop , the ingredients have to include that it has to appeal to an extended part of the consumers-market .
And different music-styles can occur to be mixed in a (potential) hit .

Besides that it's ( imo ) too complicated to define "pure" pop , because within the past decades , there have been changes which formed the pop-term .

Isel said:

I guess that indeed , jazz , classical , blues , country or other directions MIGHT not have their first goal focussed on commercial charts .
However , i believe that "some" artists in "some" of those genres MIGHT focus their goal on creating a qualitative album or song , and are less concerned if their album will hit # 1 or Top 10 in a specific Chart .
But on the other hand i don't exclude artits in those genres that are as eager to climb to the hilltop in their own genre .
Not maybe THAT visible in the public eye but there excist Award-shows in them genres as well .
.
.
.
[Edited 9/17/06 10:54am]

Pop doesn't mean SAW...necessarily! That must be the way Americans see Pop!

True pop exists in Europe and in Japan!

Pop means mainstream!

Prince was pop in the 80's. Madonna is pop!
[Edited 9/17/06 10:53am]
[Edited 9/17/06 10:55am]
[Edited 9/17/06 10:58am]
[Edited 9/17/06 10:58am]

MikeMatronik said:

I didn't WRITE that SAW means pop ... i wrote that it's a FORMAT within pop .
So i'll bounce that ball back 2 ya .

Mainstream is indeed a better word .

Prince is also funk with edges of jazz and blues ... Prince is too diverse to be titled as "pop" only (imo) .

100MPH said:

Okay...

Some artists transcend genre labels. I agree with you.

Personally I see Pop has mainstream.

MikeMatronik said:

Absolutely ... mainstream is the best description

.
.
.
[Edited 9/17/06 11:02am]

100MPH said:

Still some mainstream was...dreadfull:

MikeMatronik said:

Theirs was : " dun , dun , dun , dun-dun-dun-dun "
Mine was : " DUN ! , dun , dun , dun-dun-dun-dun "

100MPH said:

Interesting discussion.

Here's is the conclusion my friend came to after doing some research:

Pop music has always been defined in two ways:

1. whatever is popular in the specialized formats.
2. generic music that has strands of 1 or more of the specialized categories and that appeals to large audiences.

I just was wondering what you all would say since there are so many people here who are also interested in music history.

Thanks for responding.
[Edited 9/17/06 15:51pm]

100MPH said:

Hey, I just mentioned that earlier in the Prince forum!

http://www.prince.org/msg/7/202402

Pop music is supposed to be all non-classical music. I agree that mainstream is a better term for what you're discussing.