What is Rock, and what is Pop?

Progressive rock (often shortened to "prog rock" or "prog", also called "art rock"[1]) is a form of rock music that evolved in the late-1960s and early 1970s as part of a "mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility."[1]

Progressive rock bands pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries"[1] by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse-chorus based song structures. Additionally, the arrangements often incorporate elements drawn from classical, jazz, and avant-garde music. Instrumental songs are more common, and songs with lyrics are sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy. Progressive rock bands sometimes used "concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme".[1]

Progressive rock developed from late-1960s psychedelic rock[1], as part of a wide-ranging tendency in rock music of this era to draw inspiration from ever more diverse influences. The term was applied to the music of bands such as King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer, and came into most widespread use around the mid-1970s. While progressive rock reached the peak of its popularity in the 1970s and early 1980s, neo-progressive bands have continued playing for faithful audiences in the subsequent decades.[1]

Rock music is a form of popular music with a prominent vocal melody accompanied by guitar, drums, and bass. Many styles of rock music also use keyboard instruments such as organ, piano, mellotron, and synthesizers. Other instruments sometimes utilized in rock include harmonica, violin, flute, banjo, melodica, and timpani. Also, less common stringed instruments such as mandolin and sitar are used. Rock music usually has a strong back beat, and often revolves around the guitar, either solid electric, hollow electric, or acoustic.

Rock music has its roots in 1940s and 1950s rock and roll and rockabilly, which evolved from blues, country music and other influences. According to the All Music Guide, "In its purest form, Rock & Roll has three chords, a strong, insistent back beat, and a catchy melody. Early rock & roll drew from a variety of sources, primarily blues, R&B, and country, but also gospel, traditional pop, jazz, and folk. All of these influences combined in a simple, blues-based song structure that was fast, danceable, and catchy."[1]

In the late 1960s, rock music was blended with folk music to create folk rock, blues to create blues-rock and with jazz, to create jazz-rock fusion, and without a time signature to create psychedelic rock. In the 1970s, rock incorporated influences from soul, funk, and latin music. Also in the 1970s, rock developed a number of subgenres, such as soft rock, heavy metal, hard rock, progressive rock, and punk rock. Rock subgenres that emerged in the 1980s included synth-rock, hardcore punk and alternative rock. In the 1990s, rock subgenres included grunge, Britpop, indie rock, and nu metal.

A group of musicians specializing in rock music is called a rock band or rock group. Many rock groups consist of a guitarist, lead singer, bass guitarist, and drummer, forming a quartet. Some groups omit one or more of these roles and/or utilize a lead singer who plays an instrument while singing, forming a trio or duo; others include additional musicians such as one or two rhythm guitarists and/or a keyboardist. More rarely, groups also utilize stringed instruments such as violins or cellos, and/or horns like trumpets or trombones.

If it bites is rock, if it licks it's pop.

Pop music is an ample and imprecise category of modern music not defined by artistic considerations but by its potential audience or prospective market. Pop is music composed with deliberate intent to appeal to the majority of its contemporaries.[1][2][3]

In opposition to music that requires education or formation to appreciate, a defining characteristic of pop music is that anyone is able to enjoy it. Artistic concepts such as musical form and aesthetics are not a concern in the writing of pop songs, the primary objectives being audience enjoyment and commercial success.[4]

Although pop music is produced with a desire to sell records and do well in the charts, it does not necessitate wide acclaim or commercial success: there are bad or failed pop songs.[5]

Initially the term was an abbreviation of, and synonymous to, popular music, but evolved circa 1954 to describe a specific musical category.[6]

Garage is where you should park your car and with a bit of luck run over 3 or 4 guys with instruments.

Dear Howard! I like it!

Good evening, Dear Gianluigi!

Dear Bishopla,

Thanks for a root and branch explanation that clears up the differences!

I learn something from life every day! I heard Simon and Garfunkel's "Mrs Robinson" today for the first time in probably thirty years!

That once would be Pop then? I hope!

George

I think of "garage" as a primitive form of rock/pop (primitive, but not necessarily bad). It majors on agression, and does not score highly when it comes to subtlety. Instrumentation and recording quality are pretty basic - the music could have been created in a garage, indeed. I'm sure that there have always been garage bands around, but the periods most noted for this style of music are mid-late sixties, and the punk era of the 70s.

Rock vs Pop? To be honest, I no longer believe there's a meaningful distinction. Sure, one can identify the extremes, and call one end (Girls Aloud, say) pop, and the other (Black Sabbath?) rock, but there a huge grey muddle in between - are the Beatles rock or pop? What about the Stones (rock, I guess, but some of those songs are damned catchy, and clearly written with an eye to the charts).

The other question, I guess, is why does it matter what we call anything? Good music is good music no matter what box it notionally fits in, so getting hung up on categorisation can only limit our enjoyment. "I don't like pop, therefore I can't like Abba's 'Winner Takes it All'" sonds like a recipe for missing out on a great song. The only real merit I can see in these labels is that they act as a pragmatic guide to what we may or may not like, but when we fixate upon them, they become counter-productive.

So it seems to me...

Nigel

Dear Nigel,

I agree about what good music is and it varies for everyone!

I am glad that the is a grey muddle in this, as I felt quite a twit when challenged over calling a certain piece of Rock, Pop! I think it is a bit of both. Could not tell you what it was though. Mrs Robinson was the highlight till I got home and listened to Belshazzar's Feast!

ATB from George

Dear George,

Does it really matter? I gave up trying to find the difference years ago. There are artists who make records in both categories. The Fall are a Rock band (and a pretty 'nasty' one at times), but when they do 'Victoria' they're almost 'Pop'.

Kind regards,

Willem

quote:

Could not tell you what it was though. Mrs Rbinson was the highlight till I got home and listened to Belshazzar's Feast!

Well George, I would describe "Mrs Robinson" as "poppy folk-rock"!

Does that help?
Nigel

Dear Nigel,

I just S and G from that time. Homeward-bound is my favourite from them!

To me the classification actually is not all that important, not even significant, but I was ticked off about it! I suppose a fan of a Rock band might get a bit sniffy if their music were described as merely Pop!

I am glad Mrs Robinson has an element of the Pop about it!

I like destuffing things!

G

Pop music used to mean music that was popular, but I think the definition has moved on.

Frank Zappa used to be very derisory about commercial music - in my formative years I was a big fan of FZ and his Mothers - consequently I grew to associate the word commercial with meaning that without artistic merit - simply created to make money and, in effect, little more than the work of a con-man. I still have problems with the word commercial, if somebody suggests I need to look at the commercial aspects of my own work, my reaction is to feel insulted even though the suggestion is not meant to be insulting. I find it hard to think of anybody who describes their job function as commercial, marketing or sales with any great respect - I know this is my problem, but maintain that the commercial=bad was implanted in my psyche by Frank Zappa.

I think modern pop music is really the commercial music that Frank Zappa targeted. It is the music of X-Factor and, IMHO, is worthless; yes it makes money but ..... I once heard a so-called motley rock group say they had made a record for the British market - dreadful in my opinion. Music to me is more than a business. It should be about artistic integrity and making songs that the writer really believes in.

I remember Paul Simon saying he didn't like doing concerts, but the record company urged him to do so because concerts promoted his songs and record sales. Concerts were merely advertising. Perhaps this is why in the field of contemporary music, I prefer the honesty of the studio recording to live concerts. This is not a hard and fast rule. I do go to some live music events: classical, opera and folk music. I don't go to rock music concerts (HMHB are a folk group IMHO).

I like a fair number of rock groups. I don't consider them pop groups because they seem to believe in what they do: art for art's sake, but not money for God's sake. Of course rock music has it roots in rhythm and blues and so there is a characteristic feel to it. However, I do like groups that build on the basics and add in other things such as folk or classical themes.

Progressive rock seemed a good way to describe music that took chances and introduced new themes to the familiar pattern, but it wasn't (isn't) pop music. This type of music was derided by the punk rock movement because it seemed to require technical ability to play it; never understood why that is in any way a bad thing. Lots of punk rock music was pop music in the worse sense, it was created as a fashion to make money. Once gain this is not a hard and fast rule. To me, the best exponents of progressive rock are Emerson, Lake and Palmer who were superb musicians and created some really interesting music with many classical themes (I don't think they were in it for the money and certainly not in it to win critical acclaim). The finest exponents of punk rock made no money, as far as I'm aware, and were the Desperate Bicycles.

In between these extremes of rock music, we have Folk Rock (Fairport Convention), Kraut Rock (Amon Duul II), Space Rock (Hawkwind), Heavy Rock (Atomic Rooster) and .... I don't think these labels mean very much.

Then there is one of my favourite genres: psychedelia - is it rock (perhaps), is it pop (perhaps it used to be, but I certainly don't think its exponents were in it for the money). I don't think SF Sorrow (by The Pretty Things) is a pop record, I'm not sure it is a rock album either, but it is one of the finest moments in 60s music.

So my way to define pop is that it is music created primarily to make a fast £. The creators are not trying to create a meaningful art form. Some pop music will sound great nonetheless, but that's more by accident. So I detest the music factories that created a vast array of groups in the 70s and 80s as much as I do music created to satisfy the British or some other market. I dislike pop idol, X-Factor etcetera, etcetera.

Long live Rock and Roll - though I prefer the Rainbow kind than that of Chuck Berry.

Does that help? Probably not.

Can somebody classify Scott Walker, please?

ATB Rotf

BTW, apart from being an oxymoron, what is modern classical music?

Dear ROTF,

Thanks for adding to it!

As for what modern classical music is, perhaps twenty or fifty years of hindsight will tell us! Since the advent of the Second Viennese School and its dependence on new rules and the essential rejection of the normal tonal root and harmony in music [and the music's divorce from most of the cultured audience], what might roundly be classified as modern classical music is diverse as never before. I suspect quite a lot of it is utter drivel, but am certainly not going to stick my neck out today and say which!

Really I think today’s classical music scene is truly a postmodern setting. Every time there is acceptance of a set of norms [such as stood for centuries till the Second Viennese School] these are demolished again.

My guess is that hindsight may reveal this to have been a rather fractured time musically, and perhaps some stability [in the sense of recognisable forms and frameworks to fill with new inspirations] will return. Without that I suspect that new music will continue to frighten off the audience rather than encourage them into the halls as of old.

If this goes on for long enough the whole business stands in danger of becoming marginalized to a point of irrelevance, if this has not already happened ...

George

Hi ROTF

I really enjoyed your post, even though I'm much more relaxed about the rock/pop (or commercial) divide than you are (I guess that Frank Zappa didn't get me young enough). A few random thoughts...

On the X Factor and its ilk - someone bought mum a CD by a nine year old girl who'd appeared on one of those shows for Christmas. She was singing songs that were much too old for her, to a cheesy orchestral backing. Sounded absolutely terrible to me, but my mum absolutely loved it. Although I wouldn't touch this stuff with a barge pole, I hesitate to describe it as completely worthless, as it surely brings happinness to many people. I'm also convinced that a large handful of Girls Aloud tracks are destined to become pop classics of the future - some very quirky, catchy songs there, which I would much rather hear than, ooh, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand".

I remember watching TOTP when Boomtown Rats' "Rat Trap" knocking "Summer Nights" off of the number one spot. Bob Geldof started the band's performance by tearing a photo of John Travolta and Olivia Newton John in half. Amusing at the time, but years later I'd much rather hear the Grease soundtrack than anything by the Rats - if I had to make that choice at gunpoint! "Summer Nights" just feels like it has more *heart* (even authenticity) than Rat Trap - to me, anyway.

One of the reasons I don't like the rock/pop labels is that they can lead to snobbery (this is pop/commecial music, so it can't have any artistic merit) or self-righteousness (this is serious rock music, made with real instruments, so it must be better than pop). I just don't think it's that simple (NB - not accusing you of either snobbery or self-righteousness!).

On Scott Walker, we can agree. My brother forced me to listen to him at Christmas, and now I'm completely hooked. The path from those early Walker Brothers hits to "The Drift" is quite a ride!

Nigel

George,

Think of a Naim fanatic who has been bought up,spoon fed on the Naim sound from the times of the introductory system to the heady world of pre and power amps. Then one day Naim Audio is no more, his system is stolen and he is forced to obtain a system from another Hi Fi maker. Yes the soundstage is wider, the sound is warmer, maybe even more detailed and fuller. But where is the PRAT, where is that full cohesive dynamic musical experience he was so addicted to...? The above in one way describes the difference between Rock music and Pop music.

Melodic pop songs keeps you pleasantly awake while driving long distances (and make the journey seem shorter). A good rock song will have you speeding without being aware of your speed and will make your journey a lot shorter (barring any accidents!)

When I was a teenager you never listened to any band which appeared on TOTP. That was the great divide.

First rock album, which tells you everything you need to know about the genre, is Highway 61 Revisited. The last great one was supposedly Nirvana Nevermind.

Is rock defined by its lyrical content?

Its all b*****x of course. Go to Tennessee and you can't see the joins between blues, rock'n'roll, country, rock, pop, folk....

Thanks George and Nigel

Very interesting comments.

Nigel, I agree that my calling pop music worthless was over the top because if your mum enjoys hearing that young girl sing then that's fair enough.

I do prefer Rat Trap to Summer Nights myself, but it would be hard to explain why - perhaps it's that old chestnut about choreography - I kind of like it that Mr Geldof just stands and delivers - that said I'm not taken with the Saint Bob image: liked him best when he was Looking After Number One.

I suppose time is the test of artistic merit - some fine rock songs are still popular today. With classical music, its artistic merit is undeniable - its longevity makes it so. I think it is interesting that many of the great classical works survived despite not having the same degree of exposure as contemporary music. How did Johan Sebastian Bach become so famous before the advent of recorded music and TV? That he did, makes the achievement all the more commendable and that his music is still loved today clinches the case for his greatness. I know there are further arguments about the musical aspects of his work that reinforce his greatness.

I think I've written before that I doubt any of the great composers really thought about how long their music would last. They wrote it because it felt right at the time. That is the way I believe contemporary writers should compose music too.

Romi - I love your definition of rock music as opposed to pop music.

ATB Rotf

The Pop Group is a rock band (with Punk and Dub influences)

This is an interesting thread.

I think it's also significant while their boundaries are blurred at times, (ie the Stones can make a pop song, albeit in a rock form) that pop and rock have evolved from distinctive musical forms. Pop from gospel, as well as country and folk music, while rock was originally based on the blues, and skiffle, with a bit of country, and even some jazz improvisation. As pop got more commercial it spawned its own styles and idioms, just as rock did, and they got more sophisticated and specialized.
For me The Who were one of the very first to define rock, rather than the more popy rock and roll of the Beatles and the Stones, with Hendrix and Led Zeppelin taking forward the Who 'prototype'.
Just my personal way of seeing it of course

mat

I enjoyed the Rock music thanks ROTF

Dear George,

I'm afraid I am not able to express myself as I would like to, as english is not my mother tongue and this subject needs some subtelty.

People have mostly talked in formal or economical meanings, and I agree with them, but there is a lot more in the essence of rock.

Rock is an attitude. It is about rebellion, subversion, revolution sometimes, the difficulty - and pain - of living, desperation, fighting the system, being provocative, not finding one's place, being excluded, and so on. Drugs come along, inevitably.

Of course you can match the formal aspects of rock music with this spirit many times, but you can find many "rock" bands who are mostly in it for the money, and bands of any other genre with a rock attitude. For instance, rap bands like Public Enemy or NWA had this rock spirit in the late 80's when many "rock" - in the formal sense - had not.

So you can see that this "rock" epithet groups together some characteristics that you can find in many music genres. You can find it in jazz, obviously, in the 50's for instance, and I'm pretty sure you could provide us with examples in classical music.

Just my 2 centimes, but hope that helps anyway.

ATB and sorry for the franglish
Maurice


PS: Hip-hop refers mostly to the culture (rap music, turntablism, break dancing, graffitis), as rap refers to the music. You're mostly safe with this, but it's a bit more complicated I'm afraid.

PPS: Grunge is a rock sub-genre, a mix of punk and hard rock, even metal sometimes, mostly associated with the Seattle scene in the early 90's.

PPPS: Adam & the Ants started as a post-punk act, then changed to a more glam thing. Even if their "pirates" look may seem close the new romantics', they were not.

PPPPS: Read www.allmusic.com, it's a good reference to start with. You can browse genres, or search bands, albums, titles and so on.

PPPPPS: ROTF, I'm afraid the B52's are mostly pop these days...

PPPPPPS: As I'm writing all this, I am telling to myself: this genre naming thing is only useful so that people can be aware they're talking about the same thing, as it refers to culture, history, feelings, even politics. But as Wittgenstein said: There is never enough differences...