Differentiate between 'rock' and 'pop' ?

maidenfan

Discussion between my wife and I, whilst we agree that it is purely subjective in essence, what are the salient features that may help to define a genre?

For example, my wife sees the guitar as a primary instrument in 'rock', however this rules out many guitar driven pop songs. By the same token, she also sees keyboards as more pop. However there are also those that don't quite fit that rationale: Smiths  - How soon is now, Michael Jackson - Beat it, Van Halen - Jump, Deep Purple  - Hush etc.

Any ideas from my learned friends?

Cheers

viz

Black clothes vs pastel clothes. 

Gassage

Proper drums.

Bridgehouse

Coke vs Ecstasy?

scrumhalf

Singles v LPs used to be a decent indication.

ICBM

Simple - if a fan of one artist dismisses another condescendingly, the first is rock and the second is pop.

viz

scrumhalf said:

Singles v LPs used to be a decent indication.

Gatefold vs mp3 download

TTony

There's so much cross-over between many genres that I'm not sure they can be "differentiated" - I'm not sure that there are *any* aspects that are truly unique to a genre and hence define it.

Rock will be predominantly louder, faster, more guitar-driven, etc, but there are plenty of popular rock songs, and plenty of other genres that are loud, fast and guitar-driven.  I'd expect rock to be performable live, without masses of hidden tape tracks running.  It's probably longer-lasting too - ie rock from the 60s/70s/80s is still listened to today.  Tends to be more male orientated, I think because it's more tribal.

I always think of pop as primarily being designed to sell, ie be popular, and hence more driven by fashion.  Sometimes rock becomes fashionable, and sells because it's popular.    Because fashions change, pop is more transient - ie shorter-lived in the popular memory.  (other than the real classics).    I think of pop as being more disposable, less complex, and aimed at people who can be persuaded that they like it (because it's fashionable).

But every genre probably has its spectrum from the popular to the more "specialist" ends.  At one end you've got the bands/artists who are there because they're really focused on the music/genre, and at the other end you get those who use the genre as a means of building some sort of support/recognition prior to focusing more on the mass market end (aka "selling out")!


Or it that all too serious?

pintspiller

It varies. Sometimes with the same band.

VimFuego

there are no hard and fast rules, so I break it down, very inexpertly, to bands that form together to make music (rock) and bands/acts that are formed together by a record company to make a product (pop). As ever, there are probably more exceptions to the rule than followers. 

UnclePsychosis

TTony said:

There's so much cross-over between many genres that I'm not sure they can be "differentiated" - I'm not sure that there are *any* aspects that are truly unique to a genre and hence define it.

Rock will be predominantly louder, faster, more guitar-driven, etc, but there are plenty of popular rock songs, and plenty of other genres that are loud, fast and guitar-driven.  I'd expect rock to be performable live, without masses of hidden tape tracks running.  It's probably longer-lasting too - ie rock from the 60s/70s/80s is still listened to today.  Tends to be more male orientated, I think because it's more tribal.

I always think of pop as primarily being designed to sell, ie be popular, and hence more driven by fashion.  Sometimes rock becomes fashionable, and sells because it's popular.    Because fashions change, pop is more transient - ie shorter-lived in the popular memory.  (other than the real classics).    I think of pop as being more disposable, less complex, and aimed at people who can be persuaded that they like it (because it's fashionable).

But every genre probably has its spectrum from the popular to the more "specialist" ends.  At one end you've got the bands/artists who are there because they're really focused on the music/genre, and at the other end you get those who use the genre as a means of building some sort of support/recognition prior to focusing more on the mass market end (aka "selling out")!


Or it that all too serious?

-not sure if it's too serious, but I certainly disagree with most of it! :-D

The implication that rock from the past has survived but pop hasn't is a strange one for starters. I'd argue till the cows come home that the exact opposite is true. 

vasselmeyer

Pop tells you everything's going to be OK. Rock tells you everything isn't OK, but you can change it.

Kebabkid

Rock flaps your trousers.
Pop swings your pants

guitarfishbay

ICBM said:

Simple - if a fan of one artist dismisses another condescendingly, the first is rock and the second is pop.

That definition definitely also works for metal.

guitarfishbay

Gassage said:

Proper drums.

Maybe in the 70s. Plenty of “enhanced” drums in rock for decades now 

sweepy

Pop has better more melodic solos, Nick Heyward Warning Sign, Go West, Level 42 anyone 

Veganic

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

The 2nd link doesn't work correctly.

You will probably never be able to define rock or pop.  You can, however, argue over which songs are rock, pop, neither or both.

So I would say you are asking the wrong question.

Lestratcaster

Rock is more guitar orientated for me. Pop is more piano and vocal based.

Roland

It’s like trying to define the difference between Pets and Rabbits. There’s certainly an overlap between the Pets and Rabbits, but each can exist in its own right. It’s worse because, whilst there's a definition of Pet and a definition of Rabbit, there isn’t an accepted definition of Rock music or Pop music. 

Does anyone remember the discussions about defining Metal? The people who were interested in the debate came up with a list of sub-divisions, some of which only contained one song.

darthed1981

It's a very blurry line, very blurry indeed.  This is definitely pop...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN_8CwE8ULI 

I'd say this is very definitely rock, in possibly it's purest form...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWB5JZRGl0U

But where do you put something like the below, it's got lots of guitar on it, it's actually not easy to play, it's even called "Britpop"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSuHrTfcikU 

I'll be honest, I don't think it matters, I'm very fond of the second two and have to admit a grudging admiration for the first one, it's catchy...

All music at the end of the day!

Reverend

It's an odd one. Especially these days when there is on the one hand a greater subdividing of sub genres than ever ( porno grind and gore grind being somehow different to grind) and on the other a greater homogenization of music. The same chorus and song is pop if sung by pretty white girl, rnb if sung by pretty black girl, modern country if you add a slide guitar track, modern metal if you add gruff vocal and polite distorted guitar track or indie if the band need a good meal and a better stylist. 

As for hip hop vs pop. That is often just a case of who is the main artist and who is listed as featuring.