Why is pop/catchy music frowned upon in hip-hop/R&B?

[mobbinfms]

ehh.

referring to Motown as pop is a bit much.

they were moreso in the business of making songs that reasonated with everyone. basically laying the blueprint for laface.





what hip-hop circles have you ever been around where missy was a hot topic?

what blocks have you been on where missy Elliot album cuts were being bumped??

and please be honest.





thats not what I'm getting at.

and everything you said, applies to Macklemore as well.

 

[mobbinfms]

Circles that exist outside of the Internet

So nowhere basically

 

[mobbinfms]

Exactly my point(s). This guy gets it

If Pop isn't a sound, then what genre are artists like Katy Perry, Britney Spears and NKOTB? Hip hop? R&B? Rock? Country?

 

[IllmaticDelta]

If Pop isn't a sound, then what genre are artists like Katy Perry, Britney Spears and NKOTB? Hip hop? R&B? Rock? Country?

Dance-Pop and watered down "blue eyed soul-modern R&B"

 

[African Peasant]

Thread is all over the place since people are using 2 different meanings of the term "pop".

OP should've been more precise.

 

[mobbinfms]

Dance-Pop and watered down "blue eyed soul-modern R&B"

Those are pretty specific genres breh. I think all three fall under the umbrella of "pop". I see the distinction with NKOTB though. Maybe I should have said Backstreet Boys or N Sync or something

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Those are pretty specific genres breh. I think all three fall under the umbrella of "pop".

thats exactly my point. All of the macro genres are "pop"

I see the distinction with NKOTB though. Maybe I should have said Backstreet Boys or N Sync or something

all those groups performed watered down blue eyed soul-modern R&B

 

[10bandz]

thats exactly my point. All of the macro genres are "pop"



all those groups performed watered down blue eyed soul-modern R&B

nikka thats pop

 

[IllmaticDelta]

nikka thats pop

for the last time, pop is not a genre..it's watered down blue eyed soul-modern r&B that get called "pop" for racial-marketing reasons














.
.
.

 

[SirBiatch]

pop is definitely a genre. I understand @IllmaticDelta's point. When pop started it was simply a collection of most popular songs. Over time, it has become its own genre because execs study what makes stuff popular and try to duplicate it. So while any genre can be heard in pop, the reality is that most pop tunes are generated with the aim of pleasing pop fans first before anyone else. Pop absorbs all genres. To pretend like it's not a full blown genre now is

 

[10bandz]

Post all the pics you want and i get ya point but Im not calling anything "watered down blue eyed soul modern R&B"

 

[IllmaticDelta]

Post all the pics you want and i get ya point but Im not calling anything "watered down blue eyed soul modern R&B"

watered down soul/blue eyed soul-modern R&B is a musical reality

 

[IllmaticDelta]

pop is definitely a genre. I understand @IllmaticDelta's point. When pop started it was simply a collection of most popular songs. Over time, it has become its own genre because execs study what makes stuff popular and try to duplicate it. So while any genre can be heard in pop, the reality is that most pop tunes are generated with the aim of pleasing pop fans first before anyone else. Pop absorbs all genres. To pretend like it's not a full blown genre now is

that's what it still is


Why Let Pop Steal Listeners, When Country Can Be Pop Too?

Top 40 pop radio has always been about taking the biggest songs from the respective genres and featuring them in one place. That’s pop radio’s job; that’s its niche in the marketplace. Now country is showing the early signs of coveting that position for itself.

Why Let Pop Steal Listeners, When Country Can Be Pop Too?


Fixing the Charts

S.F.J.: Who are Billboard’s charts for?

C.M.: Billboard’s stock answer is that the charts are for the industry. But I have long argued that the Hot 100 is not actually useful, day to day, for a record executive trying to do his job. It is an amalgam of a bunch of streams of data to produce one authoritative barometer of the biggest hits in the U.S.A. That’s enormously useful to the public—or, at least as long as that chart remains authoritative, it’s a handy benchmark. But if you’re, say, a radio programmer trying to figure out what to program, the Hot 100 will only get you so far before you have to kind of figure out, “O.K., but what works for my market? Or what works for the eighteen-to-thirty-five-year-old females that I’m targeting?” But, for the public, the Hot 100 is an excellent Dow Jones Industrial Average of pop music for America.

I would say that, to some extent, the R. & B./Hip-Hop chart is the same thing. It’s more useful as a gut check or a benchmark for the industry on the biggest, most credible black, or urban—pick your euphemism—records in the United States.

So, how do you come up with a pop-chart metric, like R. & B. and hip-hop, that’s neither arbitrary nor overly narrow?

One of the big reasons the Hot 100 has it easy is because it’s all genres; we call it the pop chart, but anything can appear on the Hot 100. If a catchy Gregorian chant came out tomorrow—in fact, about twenty years ago, a catchy Gregorian chant did appear on the Hot 100—it would chart there. Whereas the genre charts that I speak about in this article all have this definitional problem.

Why not get rid of all the genre charts, publish a Hot 500, and add genre tag to each song? The chart would lean more heavily on better data, and let the reader sort out the relevant groupings. It’s not as if charts are a challenging read, especially in an age of constant data visualization.

I mean, sure, that would do an end-run around the problem of not being able to isolate genre-specific data in the digital age—one big chart for everybody. But I think it’d be a shame. I think it’s still useful to track the music a subculture is consuming, separate from the mass audience, and that it should still be possible—even in an era of big data—to pinpoint and pry apart that subculture.

I think the way Billboard solves this problem—and they had it right for about forty years, before they changed the chart methodology in 2012—is to make these genres about the audience, not about the definition of music. And as long as there’s broad agreement over what the center of a genre is, you don’t have to agree about all of the boundaries, because that’s impossible and ever-shifting. But as long we can more or less agree about what the center of country is, what the center of R. & B. and hip-hop is, then you sort of say, “O.K., now let’s identify people who are fans of that center of the music and track what they like.” Then the boundaries to some extent take care of themselves. Because if people who congregate in black record stores or listen to Hot 97 suddenly decide that they like Lorde, it’s okay for Lorde to appear on the R. & B./Hip-Hop chart, because that group of people is actually consuming that song.

On the other hand, we’ve actually got a system now whereby, in order for something to appear on the charts, there’s a gatekeeper in the sky, which in this case is Billboard, saying that the Lorde record is R. & B., but this Bruno Mars song is not. In this system, you get into the quicksand of who qualifies, what are the edges, what are the boundaries? And that’s a mess.

If you’re going to come up with a credible chart, I feel like you don’t want to be in the business of defining what the boundaries of that genre are. Like, just to pick something off the top of my head, twenty-four years ago, the British duo DNA remixed Suzanne Vega’s “Tom’s Diner,” and it actually charted in the Top 10 of the R. & B. chart. It didn’t just make the top five of the Hot 100; it actually made the Top 10 on the R. & B. chart. Why? Did some gatekeeper in the sky say, “Suzanne Vega is now black enough for us to put her on this chart?” No, of course not. What actually happened was that black radio stations and black-owned or R. & B.-centric record stores were playing and selling that record in quantity; ergo it appeared on the R. & B. chart.

I wrote a piece for Slate back in December that seems relevant here. A couple of weeks before the end of the year, I noticed there had not been a single No. 1 record on the Hot 100 by a black person; 2013 was the first time that had happened. In the article, I alluded to the idea that we’re in a so-called “post-racial,” Obama-era America. There’s this sense that we, as Americans and as music fans, want to move beyond this and pretend that these genres don’t exist and good music is good music.

That’s bullshyt. Even if the definitions of these genres are harder to define than they were fifteen or twenty years ago, they’re still subcultures from which interesting music emerges and bubbles up, and also still subcultures where stuff from the top pushes down. I was careful in the piece not to merely talk about R. & B. music like it’s this farm team for big pop records that white people can consume. I’ve always been equally charmed by the R. & B. record that starts on the R. & B. chart and migrates to the Hot 100 and, say, a Hall and Oates record that starts pop but migrates back to the R. & B. chart. The way the R. & B. audience selectively decides, “We’re not interested in these five Hall and Oates tracks, but ‘I Can’t Go for That’? We’re very interested in that track.”

Fixing the Charts - The New Yorker

 

[SirBiatch]

that's what it still is


Why Let Pop Steal Listeners, When Country Can Be Pop Too?




Why Let Pop Steal Listeners, When Country Can Be Pop Too?


Fixing the Charts





Fixing the Charts - The New Yorker

save your juelz for someone who cares

how many times are you gonna post the same barely-on-topic random articles?

 

[Black_Panther_JS]

catchy music is usually dumbed down to please the ignorant masses
therefore making the music sucky so they can sell

and the records on the radio are usually actual trash
people can make catchy music without it being trash

Mo Money, Mo Problems a classic song and it's really catchy with quotables
so is California Love, as is CREAM, Nuthin But a G Thang, etc...

but the thing about all those songs is the rapping is good and are by some of the best rappers and are on some of the best albums

it's just the era we live in where the radio hits are by bad artist that focus on making catchy music but not having good rapping in it