I’m not soliciting opinions on whether rock is superior to pop, or vice versa. Nor am I suggesting a Celebrity Deathmatch between Metallica and the Backstreet Boys.
My question is: What distinguishes Rock musicians from Pop musicians?
In some cases, the difference is painfully obvious. I mean, I would never make the mistake of classifying Britney Spears or Celine Dion as being in the Rock category. But in other instances, the dividing line is not so clear.
For example, would it be fair to say that in order to be considered Rock, the performers must play their own instruments? This would justify relegating 'NSync to the Pop category (hell, I’m not even sure they sing their own vocals) and placing Pearl Jam in Rock. But what about performers like Elton John or Sarah MacLachlan or Hootie and the Blowfish? They play instruments, but does that in and of itself make their music Rock?
Or is it the sound that makes a performer Rock or Pop? Rougher sound heavy on the guitar = Rock; Smooth sound with polished vocals = Pop. If so, then what about a band like Collective Soul? They seem to do both (and do them well IMO). Rock or Pop?
Maybe it’s determined by which radio formats play their records. If they get played mostly on the Top 40 stations, then they’re Pop. Played on the Modern Rock station, then they’re Rock. Then what about Sheryl Crow? I hear her music on my local Top 40, Hot AC, AC, and Adult Alternative stations. Pop or Rock?
So, how do you decide when to place a musician in Pop and when to place one in Rock? Or is it just not that black and white.
Obviously, “pop” and “rock” are fairly nebulous terms. No perfect definition can be offered. Rather, like Potter Stewart, I’d say I know each when I hear it.
Still, one man’s “rock” is another’s wimpy pop. Do you doubt that Beavis and Butthead would deny the title “rock” to the Rolling Stones (“Ruby Tuesday”? Shyeah, that really rocks- NOT!) and the Who? To some fans, anything softer than AC/DC isn’t “real” rock.
As I said, ANY definition is suspect, but I’ll offer one for consideration. To me, a pop song is built around a melody, while a rock song is built around a riff. By this (weak) definition, “Jumping Jack Flash” is rock while “Lady Jane” is pop. Occasionally, artists like the Beatles or Beach Boys or Kinks and Billy Joel (and many others) came up with riff-driven songs that STILL had melodies. That’s when you get into the even MORE nebulous category of “pop/rock”
Not bad. Except that I would clarify it a bit by saying the early Beatles. I think it’s a stretch to call Sargent Pepper a pop album, and the White Album … no way.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I’m intrigued by your riff vs. melody theory. Could you provide me with some other examples of what you consider riff-based songs and melody-based songs? And maybe an explanation of what makes them riff-based or melody-based. (I know that that may be difficult with actually having the ability to hear the songs.)
I don’t think so. For instance, can you tell the difference between a pop drum beat and a rock one? Yep. What if there are no instruments playing at all? Can you tell rock from pop from the vocals? Yep. Then I asked myself, are there any songs that I think are clearly rock, yet focus on a melody? Again, I had to answer, “yep”. The real test came when I thought about crossover songs… songs that were once considered in the pop genre, but crossed over to the rock genre when approached by a rock artist… again, I can think of a number of these.
Sorry, not much help in defining the difference, but I think I can safely say that melody versus riff ain’t it.
Naturally these things are all subjective, but ThisYearsGirl asks an interesting question … what about alternative rock. I got to thinking about it, and I have decided that alternative rock is repetitive. No, the music isn’t necessarily repetitive, the phrase is, i.e. the “alternative” is redundant.
Naturally this comes with all the caveats … there’s no hard-and-fast distinction between the two styles … plenty of music fits into both and plenty fits into neither category … there are all sorts of exceptions. I’m not trying to say rock needs to be offensive - that is a childish misconception. Rock just needs to be far out. Alternative rock is just the rebirth of rock; Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry were anything but mainstream for their time. To do what they did nowadays could certainly be worthwhile, but it wouldn’t really be rock.
Pop always strikes me as being “nicey-nicey”, like elevator music. It follows more standard musical patterns. Like, there are jazz songs that are kind of “Pop-ey”, but they are constructed in a way that remove then from the pop category and into something else.
Alternative music never existed in reality. It only existed as a marketing device. It is not a rebirth of rock because rock never wavered - there has been rock since the 50s and it has been changing constantly. There is plenty that happened in the late 70s that led to what happened in the early 80s that led to late 80s early 90s mid-late 90s. You can always find bands ‘ahead’ of their time that were really ushering in the next era. While the 80s may be thought of by many as the Madonna era or the Def Leppard era, there were plenty of groups such as Dead Kennedy’s, Social Distortion, Metallica that were doing things that only became popular a few years ago. These are three very different bands, but you can trace their lineage - just as you can trace their descendents and point to their peers.
This reminds me of an event in my life that was funny, yet creepy. I went out to the garage one day to find my Dad working on the car. He had the radio tuned to his old-fogey station, but they were playing “Lady” by Styx. I said, “I thought you didn’t listen to Rock and Roll”. He said, “That’s not Rock and Roll - that’s my station”. I said, “I don’t care what station it is, it’s Rock and Roll and I can prove it”. He gave me one of those “OK, so prove it” looks. I said, “Hang on a second” and I went into the house. I returned with my Styx album and said, “It must be Rock and Roll because I have the album with that song”. He was convinced - I think he called the radio station to complain about them playing that “damned long-hair music”…
The creepy part was that he admitted that he really liked the song… it was a long time before I could listen to Styx again and not feel, in some way, well… old…
Rock lasts longer…no such thing as classic pop is there… well except for daddy-o david crosby
pop is temporary and makes the fame and money over s-t period.
rock lasts longer and makes the ten -million records sold after 15 years rather than less than a year alanis can you hear me now and just take the jagged pill already.
Pop is only .65 cents in most places (Norwegianers know what I mean hehe).
It has been difficult, and in some cases not even worthwhile to try to tell the difference between the two genres since the 50’s (Elvis…rock or pop???)…it is art and I favor the hard rock genre.
Pop is, for the most part, happy. Rock is, for the most part, angry. Pop is R+B based, Rock is guitar based. Rock is louder. There are always exceptions, which is why the category “pop-rock” exists.
“‘Come hither, my boy, tell me what thou seest there?’
‘A fool tangled in a religious snare.’” William Blake
