To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pop music is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form in the United States and United Kingdom during the mid-1950s.[4] The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular and includes many styles. "Pop" and "rock" were roughly synonymous terms until the late 1960s, when they became increasingly differentiated from each other.

Although pop music is seen as just the singles charts, it is not the sum of all chart music. Pop music is eclectic, and often borrows elements from other styles such as urban, dance, rock, Latin, and country; nonetheless, there are core elements that define pop music. Identifying factors include generally short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), as well as common use of repeated choruses, melodic tunes, and hooks.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    1 336 701
  • Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible?


Hey Thoughty2 here. On the 6th December 1966 four guys from Liverpool stepped into Abbey Road Studios and began to record an album. 333 hours and many questionable substances later, The Beatles had emerged having produced their eight album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. It would go on to sell over 32 million copies worldwide and be named the greatest album of all time by Rolling Stone Magazine and many other publications. It was highly experimental, using mould-breaking techniques and a huge array of unusual instruments. The band had produced an emotional masterpiece that epitomised the so called summer of love and was a true masterpiece of its time, yet it remains just as relevant and powerful today. Fast forward 44 years to 2010 and Justin Bieber released his hit single "Baby", this is generally considered to be a bad move. So what went wrong? How did we go from Bob Dylan to Britney Spears, from Led Zeppelin to Lady Gaga and The Kinks to Katy Perry. But who am I to criticise the musical tastes of the vast majority of today's youth? Personally, my musical tastes are stuck in middle of last century, but you may think that just makes me old fashioned, stuck in the past and I should move with the times. But here's the thing, there is far to this than simple nostalgia and when your parents keep telling you that the music died long ago, they may actually have a point, because it turns out science agrees with them. Over the past thirty-plus years researchers have been studying how trends in music have changed. And a recent study in 2012 by the Spanish National Research Council revealed that the suspicions of somewhat antiquated individuals such as myself are very true, music IS getting worse every year. The researchers took around 500,000 recordings from all genres of music from the period of 1955 to 2010 and they meticulously ran every single song through a set of complex algorithms. These algorithms measured three distinct metrics of each song, the harmonic complexity, timbral diversity and loudness. The most shocking result that the researchers found was that over the past few decades, timbre in songs has dropped drastically. Timbre is the texture, colour and quality of the sounds within the music, in other words, timbre is the song's richness and depth of sound. The researchers found that timbral variety peaked in the 1960s and has since been steadily declining. The timbral palette has been homogenised, meaning songs increasingly have less diversity with their instruments and recording techniques. This divide is clearly evident if we take what is widely considered to be The Beatle's masterpiece, A Day In The Life, which was recorded using an orchestra of forty musicians. But this is not classical music, this is pop. The five minute piece contains violins, violas, cellos, double bass, a harp, clarinets, an oboe, bassoons, flutes, french horns, trumpets, trombones, a tuba and of course the four band members playing their usual instruments over the top. In contrast Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines uses but one instrument, a drum machine. And yes this a rather extreme example, a song known for it's one-dimensional but punchy baseline. But it represents an overall trend with modern pop music that the researchers found in their data. Instead of experimenting with different musical techniques and instruments, the vast majority of pop today is built using the exact same combination of a keyboard, drum machine, sampler and computer software. This might be considered as progressive by some, but in truth it sucks the creativity and originality out of music, making everything sound somewhat similar. Do you ever flick through the radio and think to yourself "all these songs sound the same?". What the researchers found is that the melodies, rhythms and even the vocals of popular music have become more and more similar to each other since the sixties. One facet of this homogenisation of popular music was pointed out by musical blogger Patrick Metzger. Metzger noticed that hundreds of pop artists were using the exact same sequence of notes that alternate between the fifth and third notes of a major scale. This is usually accompanied by a vocal "Wa-oh-wa-oh" pattern. Metzger named this the "Millennial Whoop" and it sounds like this. The Millennial Whoop can be found in hundreds of chart-topping pop songs created over the past few years, and its usage is becoming more frequent. From Katy Perry's California Girls to Justin Bieber's baby, literally every single major pop star today has included the Millennial Whoop in at least one of their songs. But why? Well, quite simply, familiarity. Our brain likes familiarity, the more we hear the same sounds the more we enjoy them. The millennial whoop has become a powerful and predictable way to subconsciously say to the masses, "hey listen to this new song, it's really cool, but don't worry you will like it because it's really familiar, you've kind of heard it a hundred times before". And in this wildly unpredictable world, this makes us feel safe. Sticking to the same cookie-cutter formula comforts people and that's important. But what about lyrics? Well, I'm afraid it's bad news there too. Another study examined the so called "Lyric Intelligence" of hundreds of Billboard chart-topping songs over the past ten years. They used different metrics such as the Flesch–Kincaid readability index, which indicates how difficult a piece of text is to understand and the quality of the writing. This was the result, over the past ten years the average lyric intelligence has dropped by a full grade. Lyrics are also getting shorter and tend to repeat the same words more often. We've gone from the absolute poetic beauty of Bob Dylan and Morrissey too well... this... and this... What if I also told you that the vast majority of chart-topping music in the past 20 years was written by just two people. What do Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, Ellie Goulding, Robin Thicke, Jessie J, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Ariana Grande, Justin Timberlake, Maroon 5, Pink, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Christina Aguilera, Kesha, The Backstreet Boys, Westlife, NSYNC, Adam Lambert and all have in common? The answer: their songwriter. I'm not saying 100% of their songs, but a good chunk of all of these artist's songs were written by the same Swedish man, Mr. Max Martin. This one man is singlehandedly responsible for over two-dozen number one singles and thousands of songs in the top 100 charts over the past decades. He has written universally recognisable tracks such as "I kissed a girl", "Baby one more time", "Since u been gone", "California Gurls", "Shake it off" and so, so many more. And if Max Martin didn't write it American signer-songwriter Lukasz Gottwald most probably did. Known professionally as "Dr. Luke", together with Max Martin, they account for the lyrics and melodies behind the vast majority of pop music today. You've likely never heard of them and that is very intentional. These two men are the hidden pop factories behind virtually every single band that is played on the radio today and probably every music act you grew up with, if you're under thirty-years old. And you wondered why everything sounds the same. There are still popular, chart-topping musicians that write the entirety of their own music today, but you have to look really, really hard. Research has also shown that the hook, the part of the song that really grabs us and pulls us in, is occurring sooner in modern songs and they happen more often. Researchers believe this is because when it comes to music, our attention spans have drastically shortened, unless a song instantly grabs us our brains tend to shut off and ignore it, often skipping to the next song. This shortened attention span is a trend amongst people that has only occurred in the past ten years and it's believed to have been caused by the instant access to millions of songs at our fingertips. It used to be the case that if you wanted to hear a song you had to go out and buy that one single or album, take it home and play it. You would probably play it countless times because you had spent so much money on so few songs. Over time you would learn to appreciate all the subtle nuances throughout the album. And then the iPod happened granting access to thousands of songs on one device, which eventually led to streaming. Today we flick through songs on Spotify without much thought to each song's subtleties and unique talents. This has caused musicians and record companies to favour punchy bass lines that demand our attention and to stuff each song full of so called "hooks" to instantly grab our attention and keep it for as long as possible. And they've been doing something else in recent years to grab our attention, something subtle but very powerful, yet so very, very wrong. For the past twenty years music producers have been engaged in a war. The "loudness war". The aim of this war is to produce louder music than your competitors. But how do you make music louder when the listener is in control of the volume, not the producer? Well, they use compression. You may have heard of dynamic range compression, it's the process of boosting the volume of the quietest parts of a song so they match the loudest parts, thus reducing the dynamic range, the distance between the loudest part and quietest part. This makes the whole song sound much, much louder than the un-compressed version, no matter what volume the listener has set their device to. It's like me standing in the middle of the street and mumbling nonsense to myself, occasionally whispers and sometimes speaking a bit louder. A few people might notice and avoid me. But then if I were to compress my dynamic range I would suddenly be bellowing out every single word at the top of my voice, loudly and proudly. Suddenly everyone turns around to look at the crazy man shouting in the street and the police would be called. But this is exactly why producers do it, as the market has become increasingly crammed with similar sounding pop music, making your song shout louder than all the others ensures it will be heard amongst all the competition. But there's a big price to pay for loudness. Dynamic range compression, when abused, as it often is today, is an absolute travesty when it comes to the art of creating music. Where physics is concerned, the rule is that you can't make a sound louder than the volume it was recorded at, without reducing its quality. Compressing a song's dynamic range strips away its timbral variety. It muddies the sound, subtle nuances that would have before been very noticeable and could have been appreciated are now, no longer nuanced, they sound exactly the same as the rest of the track. Listen to this short recording without any compression. Now hear what happens when the dynamic range is compressed to match that of modern pop music. Hear how everything sounds less punchy and vibrant, the drum beats stand out less, everything just makes less of an impact. But there's very real reason why popular musicians and producers today don't stray away from their safe-haven of repetitive, monotonous drum machines, unimaginative, factory-produced lyrics, rhythms stolen then from the previous popular song then chopped up and changed slightly and of course, their ever popular millennial whoops. It all has to do with risk. In the fifties, sixties and seventies record labels would receive hundreds of demo tapes from budding young artists every week. They would sift through them and the most talented acts would be offered record contracts. Even if they weren't that special it didn't matter too much, the record label would just through a few thousand pounds into marketing and if the public liked their music they would gain traction organically and make it big, if not, they would fade away into the night. And this is crucial because importantly, the public were voting with their ears for the best, the most talented musicians, singers and songwriters. We, the people were the final judge and jury, the ultimate arbiter. And so musicians had to be really bloody talented to impress us enough to stick around and make more music. But this was risky, because many times record labels would pump thousands of pounds into an act that weren't destined to be and their gamble wouldn't pay off, losing their investment. But when they signed the really big acts it would balance the books. However today promoting a new band is more expensive than ever. Over time the cost of breaking in a new artist onto the global music scene has sky-rocketed. In fact the IFPI reports that today it costs anywhere between $500,000 and $3,000,000 TO sign a new act and break them into the music scene; that's a hell of a lot of money. Would you want to gamble with three million dollars? No? Neither do music producers. So the industry has reacted by removing the risk. Instead of trying to find genuine musical talent they simply take a pretty young face, usually from a TV talent show and then simply force the public to like them, by brainwashing them. Instead of allowing the public to grow to like an artist and make their own mind up about the quality of their music, the industry now simply makes you like the music, thus removing all the financial risk. Brainwash you say? How on earth do they do that? Have you ever noticed how "that" popular new song seems to follow you around, everywhere you go. It's on every radio station, it's played in your favourite stores, the supermarket, online and its even in the latest Hollywood movies and popular TV shows? This is no coincidence. What that is in fact, is the record label's $3 million making sure that that new single is quite literally everywhere, completely unescapable. Remember I was talking about the power of familiarity? It's called the Mere-exposure effect, a physiological phenomenon by which people develop a preference for things they see and hear often. Our brain releases dopamine when we hear a song we've heard a few times before and the effect only gets stronger with each listen. Can you remember the very first time you heard your favourite pop songs from the past ten years? Whether it be Gangnam Style, Happy, All About That Bass, Blurred Lines, Hotline Bling, did you truly like it the first time you heard it? Or where you kind of repulsed? Did you have this brief moment where you thought, what the hell is this? But then you heard it a few more times and you began to think, well I guess it's kinda catchy. And they your friends are all listening to it and you hear it a few times and boom, it's your favourite song and you can't stop listening to it. If this has happened to you then I'm afraid, you have been brainwashed. The mere-exposure effect has gotten to you. Surely if a song is truly a great song, then you wouldn't need to force yourself to love it, you wouldn't need to be won over through a period of repeated exposure, you would just like it the first time you heard it. We all have different musical tastes but they are sadly being overridden, diluted and emulsified by the brainwashing activities of big record labels, the repeated and constant exposure to manufactured songs that we've heard a hundred times before. Don't get me wrong, there are many fantastically talented bands out there, but in today's industry virtually none of them will ever be signed because they are simply too risky to promote, because they don't fit the usual pop formula... they are different. But being different is important. You may be thinking, "so what if I'm being brainwashed, I enjoy contemporary popular music and isn't that what's important?" Yes, of course, music is an expression of your personality and it should be enjoyed, no matter what others think. But it's also really important to not let creativity and originality disappear. Music as an art form is dying, it's being replaced by music which is a disposable product, designed to sell but not to inspire. So we shouldn't be so complacent in allowing systematic, cold, factory produced music to dominate or else the beautiful, soulful and truly real music that we've all at some point loved and has been there through our darkest times and our happiest times, could soon be a distant memory, never to be repeated. Thanks for watching.


Definitions and etymology

David Hatch and Stephen Millward define pop music as "a body of music which is distinguishable from popular, jazz, and folk musics".[5] According to Pete Seeger, pop music is "professional music which draws upon both folk music and fine arts music".[3] Although pop music is seen as just the singles charts, it is not the sum of all chart music. The music charts contain songs from a variety of sources, including classical, jazz, rock, and novelty songs. Pop music, as a genre, is seen as existing and developing separately.[6] Thus "pop music" may be used to describe a distinct genre, designed to appeal to all, often characterized as "instant singles-based music aimed at teenagers" in contrast to rock music as "album-based music for adults".[4][8]

Pop music continuously evolves along with the term's definition. According to The New Grove Dictionary Of Music and Musicians, popular music is defined as "the music since industrialization in the 1800's that is most in line with the tastes and interests of the urban middle class."[9] The term "pop song" was first recorded as being used in 1926, in the sense of a piece of music "having popular appeal".[10] Hatch and Millward indicate that many events in the history of recording in the 1920s can be seen as the birth of the modern pop music industry, including in country, blues and hillbilly music.[11]

 The Oxford Dictionary of Music states that the term "pop" refers to music performed by such artists as the Rolling Stones (pictured here in a 2006 performance)
The Oxford Dictionary of Music states that the term "pop" refers to music performed by such artists as the Rolling Stones (pictured here in a 2006 performance)

According to the website of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, called Grove Music Online, the term "pop music" "originated in Britain in the mid-1950s as a description for rock and roll and the new youth music styles that it influenced".[2] The Oxford Dictionary of Music states that while pop's "earlier meaning meant concerts appealing to a wide audience ... since the late 1950s, however, pop has had the special meaning of non-classical mus[ic], usually in the form of songs, performed by such artists as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, ABBA, etc".[12] Grove Music Online also states that "... in the early 1960s, [the term] 'pop music' competed terminologically with beat music [in England], while in the USA its coverage overlapped (as it still does) with that of 'rock and roll'".[2]

From about 1967, the term was increasingly used in opposition to the term rock music, a division that gave generic significance to both terms.[13] Whereas rock aspired to authenticity and an expansion of the possibilities of popular music,[13] pop was more commercial, ephemeral and accessible.[14] According to British musicologist Simon Frith, pop music is produced "as a matter of enterprise not art", is "designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste". It is "not driven by any significant ambition except profit and commercial reward ... and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative". It is, "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers, and concert promoters) rather than being made from below ... Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged".[4]


According to Frith, characteristics of pop music include an aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology, and an emphasis on craftsmanship rather than formal "artistic" qualities.[4] Music scholar Timothy Warner said it typically has an emphasis on recording, production, and technology, rather than live performance; a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments; and aims to encourage dancing or uses dance-oriented rhythms.[14]

The main medium of pop music is the song, often between two and a half and three and a half minutes in length, generally marked by a consistent and noticeable rhythmic element, a mainstream style and a simple traditional structure.[17] Common variants include the verse-chorus form and the thirty-two-bar form, with a focus on melodies and catchy hooks, and a chorus that contrasts melodically, rhythmically and harmonically with the verse.[18] The beat and the melodies tend to be simple, with limited harmonic accompaniment.[19] The lyrics of modern pop songs typically focus on simple themes – often love and romantic relationships – although there are notable exceptions.[4]

Harmony and chord progressions in pop music are often "that of classical European tonality, only more simple-minded."[20] Clichés include the barbershop quartet-style harmony (i.e. ii – V – I) and blues scale-influenced harmony.[21] There was a lessening of the influence of traditional views of the circle of fifths between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, including less predominance for the dominant function.[22]

Development and influence

Stylistic evolution

Throughout its development, pop music has absorbed influences from other genres of popular music. Early pop music drew on the sentimental ballad for its form, gained its use of vocal harmonies from gospel and soul music, instrumentation from jazz and rock music, orchestration from classical music, tempo from dance music, backing from electronic music, rhythmic elements from hip-hop music, and spoken passages from rap.[4][verification needed]

In the 1960s, the majority of mainstream pop music fell in two categories: guitar, drum and bass groups or singers backed by a traditional orchestra.[23] Since early in the decade, it was common for pop producers, songwriters, and engineers to freely experiment with musical form, orchestration, unnatural reverb, and other sound effects. Some of the best known examples are Phil Spector's Wall of Sound and Joe Meek's use of homemade electronic sound effects for acts like the Tornados.[24] At the same time, pop music on radio and in both American and British film moved away from refined Tin Pan Alley to more eccentric songwriting and incorporated reverb-drenched rock guitar, symphonic strings, and horns played by groups of properly arranged and rehearsed studio musicians.[25]

During the mid-1960s, pop music made repeated forays into new sounds, styles, and techniques that inspired public discourse among its listeners. The word "progressive" was frequently used, and it was thought that every song and single was to be a "progression" from the last.[26] Music critic Simon Reynolds writes that beginning with 1967, a divide would exist between "progressive" pop and "mass/chart" pop, a separation which was "also, broadly, one between boys and girls, middle-class and working-class."[27] Before the progressive pop of the late 1960s, performers were typically unable to decide on the artistic content of their music.[28] Assisted by the mid-1960s economic boom, record labels began investing in artists, giving them freedom to experiment, and offering them limited control over their content and marketing.[29] This situation fell in disuse after the late 1970s and would not reemerge until the rise of Internet stars.[29] Indie pop, which developed in the late 1970s, marked another departure from the glamour of contemporary pop music, with guitar bands formed on the then-novel premise that one could record and release their own music without having to procure a record contract from a major label.[30] In 2014, pop music worldwide was permeated by electronic dance music.[31]

A Scientific Reports study that examined over 464,000 recordings of popular music recorded between 1955 and 2010 found less variety in pitch progressions, growing average loudness levels,[32] less diverse instrumentation and recording techniques, and less timbral variety, which declined after reaching a peak in the 1960s.[33] Scientific American's John Matson reported that this "seems to support the popular anecdotal observation that pop music of yore was better, or at least more varied, than today’s top-40 stuff."[33]

Technology and media

Left, Michael Jackson; right, Madonna known respectively as the "King and Queen of Pop".[34]

In the 1940s improved microphone design allowed a more intimate singing style[35] and ten or twenty years later inexpensive and more durable 45 r.p.m. records for singles "revolutionized the manner in which pop has been disseminated" and helped to move pop music to 'a record/radio/film star system'.[35] Another technological change was the widespread availability of television in the 1950s; with televised performances, "pop stars had to have a visual presence".[35] In the 1960s, the introduction of inexpensive, portable transistor radios meant that First World teenagers could listen to music outside of the home.[35] Multi-track recording (from the 1960s); and digital sampling (from the 1980s) have also been utilized as methods for the creation and elaboration of pop music.[4] By the early 1980s, the promotion of pop music had been greatly affected by the rise of music television channels like MTV, which "favoured those artists such as Michael Jackson and Madonna who had a strong visual appeal".[35]

Legitimacy in music criticism

The latter half of the 20th-century included a large-scale trend in American culture in which the boundaries between art and pop music were increasingly blurred.[36] Between 1950 and 1970, there was a debate of pop versus art.[37] Since then, certain music publications have embraced its legitimacy. According to Popmatters' Robert Loss: "There’s a strong argument for the 'rockist' mode in music criticism—that it exists, and that it’s harmful—and poptimism has positioned itself as a corrective, an antidote. ... In general, the Old Guard of rock critics and journalists is depicted as a bunch of bricklayers for the foundations of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. True in part, which is to say, false. Like film studies, rock criticism of the late ‘60s and the ‘70s was an attempt to make popular music worthy of study; it was poptimism before its day."[37]

International spread

The story of pop music is largely the story of the intertwining pop culture of the United States and the United Kingdom in the postwar era.
 — Bob Stanley[31]

Pop music has been dominated by the American and (from the mid-1960s) British music industries, whose influence has made pop music something of an international monoculture, but most regions and countries have their own form of pop music, sometimes producing local versions of wider trends, and lending them local characteristics.[38] Some of these trends (for example Europop) have had a significant impact of the development of the genre.[39]

According to Grove Music Online, "Western-derived pop styles, whether coexisting with or marginalizing distinctively local genres, have spread throughout the world and have come to constitute stylistic common denominators in global commercial music cultures".[40] Some non-Western countries, such as Japan, have developed a thriving pop music industry, most of which is devoted to Western-style pop. has for several years produced a greater quantity of music of everywhere except the USA.[clarification needed][40] The spread of Western-style pop music has been interpreted variously as representing processes of Americanization, homogenization, modernization, creative appropriation, cultural imperialism, or a more general process of globalization.[40]

In Korea, pop music's influence has led to the birth of boy bands and girl groups which have gained overseas renown through both their music and aesthetics.[41] Korean co-ed groups (mixed gender groups) have not been as successful.[42]

See also


  1. ^ Traditional Pop, Retrieved 25 August 2016
  2. ^ a b c R. Middleton, et al., "Pop", Grove music online, retrieved 14 March 2010. (subscription required)
  3. ^ a b Gilliland, John (1969). "Show 1 - Play A Simple Melody: Pete Seeger on the origins of pop music" (audio). Pop Chronicles. University of North Texas Libraries. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g S. Frith, W. Straw, and J. Street, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), ISBN 0-521-55660-0, pp. 95–105.
  5. ^ D. Hatch and S. Millward, From Blues to Rock: an Analytical History of Pop Music (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987), ISBN 0-7190-1489-1, p. 1.
  6. ^ R. Serge Denisoff and William L. Schurk, Tarnished Gold: the Record Industry Revisited (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 3rd edn., 1986), ISBN 0-88738-618-0, pp. 2–3.
  7. ^ Moore, Allan F. (2016). Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-05265-4. 
  8. ^ Musicologist Allan Moore surmises that the term "pop music" itself may have been popularized by Pop art.[7]
  9. ^ "What Is Pop Music?". Retrieved 2016-10-06. 
  10. ^ J. Simpson and E. Weiner, Oxford English Dictionary(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). ISBN 0-19-861186-2, cf pop.
  11. ^ D. Hatch and S. Millward, From Blues to Rock: an Analytical History of Pop Music, ISBN 0-7190-1489-1, p. 49.
  12. ^ "Pop", The Oxford Dictionary of Music, retrieved 9 March 2010.(subscription required)
  13. ^ a b Kenneth Gloag in The Oxford Companion to Music (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), ISBN 0-19-866212-2, p. 983.
  14. ^ a b T. Warner, Pop Music: Technology and Creativity: Trevor Horn and the Digital Revolution (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), ISBN 0-7546-3132-X, pp. 3–4.
  15. ^ "Van's Brown Eyed Girl hits the 10 million mark in US". BBC. 5 October 2011. 
  16. ^ Steve Sullivan (October 4, 2013). Encyclopedia of Great Popular Song Recordings, Volume 2. Scarecrow Press. pp. 101–103. ISBN 978-0810882959. 
  17. ^ W. Everett, Expression in Pop-rock Music: A Collection of Critical and Analytical Essays (London: Taylor & Francis, 2000), p. 272.
  18. ^ J. Shepherd, Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World: Performance and production (Continuum, 2003), p. 508.
  19. ^ V. Kramarz, The Pop Formulas: Harmonic Tools of the Hit Makers (Mel Bay Publications, 2007), p. 61.
  20. ^ Winkler, Peter (1978). "Toward a theory of pop harmony", In Theory Only, 4, pp. 3–26.
  21. ^ Sargeant, p. 198. cited in Winkler (1978), p. 4.
  22. ^ Winkler (1978), p. 22.
  23. ^ "Making Arrangements—A Rough Guide To Song Construction & Arrangement, Part 1". Sound on Sound. October 1997. Archived from the original on 8 May 2014. Retrieved 8 May 2014. 
  24. ^ Blake 2009, p. 45.
  25. ^ Pareles, Jon (October 31, 2008). "Orchestral Pop, the Way It Was (More or Less)". The New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2013. 
  26. ^ Hewitt & Hellier 2015, p. 162.
  27. ^ Reynolds 2006, p. 398.
  28. ^ Willis 2014, p. 217.
  29. ^ a b Moore 2016, p. 202.
  30. ^ Abebe, Nitsuh (24 October 2005), "Twee as Fuck: The Story of Indie Pop", Pitchfork Media, archived from the original on 24 February 2011 
  31. ^ a b Christgau, Robert (2014). "Anti-Rockism's Hall of Fame". The Barnes & Noble Review. Retrieved August 18, 2015. 
  32. ^ Joan Serrà, Álvaro Corral, Marián Boguñá, Martín Haro & Josep Ll. Arcos, "Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music",, 26 July 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2016
  33. ^ a b John Matson, "Is Pop Music Evolving, or Is It Just Getting Louder?", Scientific American, 26 July 2012. Retrieved 30 March 2016
  34. ^ McGee, Alan (August 20, 2008). "Madonna Pop Art". The Guardian. Retrieved April 17, 2013. 
  35. ^ a b c d e D. Buckley, "Pop" "II. Implications of technology", Grove Music Online, retrieved 15 March 2010.
  36. ^ Edmondson, Jacqueline, ed. (2013). Music in American Life: An Encyclopedia of the Songs, Styles, Stars, and Stories that Shaped our Culture. ABC-CLIO. pp. 317, 1233. ISBN 978-0-313-39348-8. 
  37. ^ a b Loss, Robert (August 10, 2015). "No Apologies: A Critique of the Rockist v. Poptimist Paradigm". PopMatters. 
  38. ^ J. Kun, Audiotopia: Music, Race, and America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005), ISBN 0-520-24424-9, p. 201.
  39. ^ "Star profiles" in S. Frith, W. Stray and J. Street, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock (Cambridge University Press, 2001), ISBN 0-521-55660-0, pp. 199–200.
  40. ^ a b c P. Manuel, "Pop. Non-Western cultures 1. Global dissemination", Grove Music Online, retrieved 14 March 2010.
  41. ^ K-Pop, la música y la moda 'rarita' coreana que arrasa la red | Moda | EL MUNDO; PATRICIA RIVERA; 03/12/2015
  42. ^ Why aren’t there many mixed-gender K-pop groups? | SBS PopAsia

Further reading

  • Adorno, Theodor W., (1942) "On Popular Music", Institute of Social Research.
  • Bell, John L., (2000) The Singing Thing: A Case for Congregational Song, GIA Publications, ISBN 1-57999-100-9
  • Bindas, Kenneth J., (1992) America's Musical Pulse: Popular Music in Twentieth-Century Society, Praeger.
  • Clarke, Donald, (1995) The Rise and Fall of Popular Music, St Martin's Press.
  • Dolfsma, Wilfred, (1999) Valuing Pop Music: Institutions, Values and Economics, Eburon.
  • Dolfsma, Wilfred, (2004) Institutional Economics and the Formation of Preferences: The Advent of Pop Music, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Frith, Simon, Straw, Will, Street, John, eds, (2001), The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, Cambridge University Press,
  • Frith, Simon (2004) Popular Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies, Routledge.
  • Gillett, Charlie, (1970) The Sound of the City. The Rise of Rock and Roll, Outerbridge & Dienstfrey.
  • Hatch, David and Stephen Millward, (1987), From Blues to Rock: an Analytical History of Pop Music, Manchester University Press, ISBN 0-7190-1489-1
  • Johnson, Julian, (2002) Who Needs Classical Music?: Cultural Choice and Musical Value, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-514681-6.
  • Kent, Jeff, (1983) The Rise and Fall of Rock, Witan Books, ISBN 0-9508981-0-4.
  • Lonergan, David F., (2004) Hit Records, 1950–1975, Scarecrow Press, ISBN 0-8108-5129-6.
  • Maultsby, Portia K., (7907) Intra- and International Identities in American Popular Music, Trading Culture.
  • Middleton, Richard, (1990) Studying Popular Music, Open University Press.
  • Negus, Bob, (1999) Music Genres and Corporate Cultures, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-17399-X.
  • Pleasants, Henry (1969) Serious Music and All That Jazz, Simon & Schuster.
  • Roxon, Lillian, (1969) Rock Encyclopedia, Grosset & Dunlap.
  • Shuker, Roy, (2002) Popular Music: The Key Concepts, Routledge, (2nd edn.) ISBN 0-415-28425-2.
  • Starr, Larry & Waterman, Christopher, (2002) American Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MTV, Oxford University Press.
  • Watkins, S. Craig, (2005) Hip Hop Matters: Politics, Pop Culture, and the Struggle for the Soul of a Movement, Beacon Press, ISBN 0-8070-0982-2.

External links

This page was last edited on 17 October 2017, at 16:34.
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.