Pop Elements in Prog is Bad?

even the most experimental bands are nevertheless "pop". if you don't believe me, go into a record shop and try to find Henry Cow or the Art Bears or Mr. Bungle; you will find them under "pop", at least here. and in my opinion rightly so. "prog" is a subdivision of "rock", and "rock" is a subdivision of "pop". so any snobbery like "I don't listen to pop music" is inappropriate, like it or not


Edited by BaldJean - August 15 2007 at 14:15

Ghost Rider wrote: BaldJean wrote: even the most experimental bands are nevertheless "pop". if you don't believe me, go into a record shop and try to find Henry Cow or the Art Bears or Mr. Bungle; you will find them under "pop", at least here. and in my opinion rightly so. "prog" is a subdivision of "rock", and "rock" is a subdivision of "pop". so any snobbery like "I don't listen to pop music" is inappropriate, like it or not I agree 100. As a matter of fact, in Seventies Italy, what we now call RPI wasn't called 'Italian prog', but 'Italian pop'  - pop meaning 'popular music', as opposed to such highbrow forms as classical and jazz. The distinction between rock and pop (which in Italian we call 'light music') came later than the Seventies, together with a multitude of sometimes slightly ridiculous subgenre names. As to the original question, of course it is not bad per se - it depends on what kind of pop it is. If by pop we mean Britney Spears or the Spice Girls, I think we'll all agree it can't be that good. However, well-made, clever pop music does exist, and we all know at least one example of it.

In that case, does pop exist as a kind of music with structures, beat tendences and direction. like any genre of music (say prog ;)?? Because, you're meaning "pop is popular. Perhaps there are no bands as experimental as King Crimson, for example, and they're still pop"...... so, where is the musical genre called "pop"??? What is the sense to call Depeche Mode, A-ha, Duran Duran or A Flock of Seagulls pop bands, while King Crimson and Henry Cow also have that label??

Back on topic, I like those "pop" bands aforementioned..... So I have no problem with pop in prog  

Cos its only knock and knowall, but we like it.  

Edited by t d wombat - August 15 2007 at 19:27

coleio wrote: BaldJean wrote: even the most experimental bands are nevertheless "pop". if you don't believe me, go into a record shop and try to find Henry Cow or the Art Bears or Mr. Bungle; you will find them under "pop", at least here. and in my opinion rightly so. "prog" is a subdivision of "rock", and "rock" is a subdivision of "pop". so any snobbery like "I don't listen to pop music" is inappropriate, like it or not It just isn't though is it? Clearly not pop AT ALL. Where on earth do you see anything slightly prog being played on 'Smash Hits' or in the top albums charts or whatever? You don't. Your argument is false pretty much, you probably knew that and just tried to cause a reaction by creating a silly controversial statement, and I hate it so much when people do that.

I agree with you Coleio, personally I think its a stupid statemente saying that If i find in a record shop or in two or in one hundred shops a prog groups (independently if its experimental or not) hunder pop category that it makes nevertheless part of pop music, cuase it doesn't. That means the record shop owners dont know what theyre doing. Just because a guy owns a record shop and labels as such a prog group doesn't mean he knows anything about it. Maybe he's trying to sell a group that in his shop normally doesn't sell. I go to record shops here and I dont find anything progwise in pop elements unless Genesis phil collins era. Not even Yes or Gentle Giant. Not even King Crimson. The only time i founded in a record shop anything prog was in the jazz section and it was Weather Report and Al di Meola. Are they pop musicians as well? Is Area a group that made Jazz a "pop" group? Does it follow the same composicional schemes than The Rolling Stones or a Phil Collins solo album? If anyone here says yes then you're just making a contraditory statement, only to further heat this simple discussion.

If you said yes, follow this link.

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

guys, don't delude yourselves: prog is pop. go and have a look at what it takes to be in the top 100 of the classic, jazz and prog charts; it will be an eye opener

What passes as a "Pop element"? I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you mean.

In my own brain prog is popular outside of my brain prog is the gold hidden far below the earth surface wanting to make somebody rich who can be bothered digging for it   

Okay done.
Prog is not pop, look I repeated it. Prog is not pop.

If you had bothered to carefully read previous responses (Tony R and then my post congratualting Tony on pointing out there is a big difference between the the two kinds of 'pop'), you would've realised that sales and whatnot, actually have little to do with 'pop' music (of which prog is not).

You may be referring to popular ('pop' abbreviation). Yes prog does have more sales than its jazz and classical counterparts, but it isn't the other kind of pop music (the kind the thread originally referred to), which is simple, 4/4, radio-friendly, catchy, dancing and singing music.
You follow?

In that case, you are correct (except for some of the jazz bands).

Edited by Shakespeare - August 15 2007 at 21:36