One interesting thing to consider is that when I was a little kid, "pop" music was the sophisticated stuff for grown-ups (Sinatra singing complex and elegant "great American songbook" songs) and "rock" music was idiotic, pre-Dylan, pre-Beatles stuff like "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polkadot Bikini." That's ANOTHER reason the old folks hated rock music. (And understandably!)
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
"Rock" vs. "Pop" music classification
- Thread starter dougjwray
- Start date
For me, Rock is more grittier than Pop. Because of this, what I term Rock tends to be more guitar driven but there are exceptions ( Chic is guitar driven Pop while Emerson Lake and Palmer is keyboard driven Rock).......the meanings change over time: Van Halen was considered very heavy music back in 1980 but I think would be widely considered to be Pop by today's standards
We'll have to agree to differ on how threatening The Beatles were, but I'll hope you'll accept the idea that the rise of Motown/Soul/etc. proved to have a much greater impact on society at large. That music wasn't only the soundtrack for the Civil Rights Movement, but it was also a participant in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the next generation. Meanwhile The Beatles didn't play a role in transforming American society, even though they had a huge musical influence.
This is from Wiki, so it must be correct: 
Although much of the music that appears on record charts is seen as pop music, the genre is distinguished from chart music. Identifying factors usually include repeated choruses and hooks, short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), and rhythms or tempos that can be easily danced to. Much pop music also borrows elements from other styles such as rock, urban, dance, Latin, and country.
Although much of the music that appears on record charts is seen as pop music, the genre is distinguished from chart music. Identifying factors usually include repeated choruses and hooks, short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), and rhythms or tempos that can be easily danced to. Much pop music also borrows elements from other styles such as rock, urban, dance, Latin, and country.
It's all subjective and these threads are pointless
Well, it wasn't just the Beatles, it was the entire rock and roll industry that provided the soundtrack and inspiration for our generation stopping an unjust war and toppling two presidents. So yes, I do think you can say the Beatles had a role, a major one, in transforming American society. They, and their colleagues in rock and roll, provided a huge support to anti-establishment behavior amongst the young - including the anti-establishment behavior of stopping an unjust war.
Except that The Beatles weren't part of the anti-war soundtrack — you don't hear their music and think, "Oh yeah, the Vietnam war!" Meanwhile, bands like CCR, CSNY, The Byrds, The Youngbloods..and individual artists like Joan Baez and Bob Dylan — their music had much stronger associations with the war.
Heck, the Beatles didn't even play Woodstock.
My point isn't that punk invented "anti-authority". Just that it doesn't define rock music as a whole. There is so much rock music throughout its entire lifespan that has nothing to do with that mindset. That's not to say it doesn't exist in rock, just that it can't be boiled down to being a defining characteristic of rock. On the other hand, punk is practically defined by this attitude.
I'll agree with you that the Beatles were not at the forefront of anti-war protesting in the 60s. But on the other hand, the groups you've listed certainly woudn't fall into the Soul/R&B category. I don't want to debate whether rock and roll against the war or soul/R&B against racism had greater impact on society - that wouldn't go anywhere - but they were two very important threads in that time in history. And there was a great deal more interaction across the poorly defined genre lines than simply naming some groups "rock" and some "soul" implies. Really, there were multiple threads in the societal upheaval of the time: women's rights, stopping the war, changing society to something more meaningful (that one didn't go so well, I'm afraid), protecting the environment, ending poverty (that one didn't go so well, I'm afraid), bringing African-Americans into the mainstream of American life and ending racism, etc. Popular music of the time was right in there with all of those threads.
You know, art aside, that's the best explanation I've heard yet. When I think of pop, I think of Arthur Feidler and the Boston Pops. As for rock, I sure the record companies were not willing to put up the sums of money they did if rock wasn't "POP"ular enough to make them a good return on their investment.
I noticed a few years back that we stopped saying "Indie Rock" in favor of the term "Indie" because a lot of the artists lumped together in that group aren't really crunching guitar riffs anymore. More and more it sounds like those artists are emulating the textures of 90's and 00's pop music, just with a little more tonal complexity and elevated subject matter. I figure "Indie" nowadays just means artists who are not Hip Hop, and not marketable enough for mainstream radio play, but hipsters like them and they might get a deal to have their song in a commercial or something.
In other words, the genre isn't about what it sounds like, but more about who is going to buy it. Interestingly, that is more like the classical, music school definition of "genre" where the genre is defined by the location and audience of the performance.
In other words, the genre isn't about what it sounds like, but more about who is going to buy it. Interestingly, that is more like the classical, music school definition of "genre" where the genre is defined by the location and audience of the performance.
1. The Beatles were judged as no threat- they wore cute costumes, matching jackets, sang harmonies, they were "witty" and cute. (They were an unknown threat to the music sales paradigm of the time) If they were a threat would they have gotten on network TV? No way. Johnny Lyden long after outgrowing "Rotten" said, "the written word is a lie". It makes you think. It has layers. That's a threat. The Beatles, being not idiots, were a real threat too. We in the US adopted the whole thing- do it yourself, creativity for it's own sake, and the "jungle" lure of the rock and roll beat, the unleashing of the Orgone energy as William Reich called it. Pandora's Box and all.
2. A British boy with Lots Of Money and Success is perfectly acceptable to mom. Mom will Love visiting the Country Estate. no problemo. Even speaks English sort of. We have the dentists here all ready to go.
3. You are right about Kiss.
4. I'm actually writing to complain about your description of Nick Drake's voice being "almost a whisper". It was a high pitched tenor with a sandy quality.
Last edited:
Gotta disagree here. Three Dog Night put together all those smart and extremely well-performed arrangements themselves. They weren't some producer's pets. Although individually they were experienced performers and studio players prior to forming that act, they were nonetheless an organic and self-determined band. Some time spent on YouTube listening to interviews with the members will help with understanding their evolution and road to success.
The one thing that comes to my mind after reading all of this is the Steely Dan is nice music, but, aside from maybe some of their early stuff, it isn't Rock. It's the sanitation involved in their recordings that takes them undeniably out of the genre for me. I have a feeling that, if one of them played a wrong note in the studio, not only would it not make it onto the record, they'd burn that tape, and then take the rest of the day off, to make sure that it didn't infect any of the notes they played later.
I agree with your point, but not every Beatles song had nothing to do with a certain issue in the world. Take Blackbird for example and the meaning behind that song. Not to mention even though most of The Beatles music wasn't so much about issues, they sure weren't afraid to share their views like how they refuse to play at segregated shows, which I'm sure many fans of The Beatles were inspire to agree with their points. Again I'm not saying you're wrong, you are 100% right, it's true I'm sure many people didn't feel The Beatles made a huge giant impact with their political stances compare to the greats you listed but you can't deny that the Beatles did share some and did make some positive moves for the world. I'm also not looking for a debate just wanted to share my points. Have a good day all!
Holmes, I was there for the ride. I know about the trio's previous solo attempts. I bought that first album. I even saw them on their 1970 tour; Scottish band Stone The Crows, with Maggie Bell, opened for them. It actually was at that show that it dawned on me how bogus they were. They were like a Vegas lounge act in counterculture drag. The band themselves weren't session guys, but just regular club musicians knocking around the Sunset Strip. Relying on outside material had fallen by the wayside at that time for the most part, but someone like Joe Cocker certainly still did. However, he seemed to pick songs that suited him, regardless of commercial potential, whereas they always went with calculated obvious material. They didn't have to have a svengali producer calling the shots, they'd been in the game long enough and did it themselves. They were as lightweight as the Grassroots.Gotta disagree here. Three Dog Night put together all those smart and extremely well-performed arrangements themselves. They weren't some producer's pets. Although individually they were experienced performers and studio players prior to forming that act, they were nonetheless an organic and self-determined band. Some time spent on YouTube listening to interviews with the members will help with understanding their evolution and road to success.
Talking about organic, in comparison labelmates Steppenwolf, sharing producer Gabriel Mekler, were raw, earthy, rebellious. They did drug songs, pro("Don't Step On The Grass, Sam"), anti("Snowblind Friend"…one of their few covers), and split the difference("The Pusher"), and railed against the 'Love It Or Leave It' reactionary crowd, calling out the hypocracy of the American myth on "Monster"(TDN would have never risked that). All the while still making great sounding records that fit on AM as well as FM radio.
Last edited:
