Why would someone take offense to being called "pop music"?

Creators of "popular music" should certainly understand that the unitiated will
not differentiate between a plethora of finely tuned gradations of
sub-classification.  Even so, many of them will tend to interpret a designation
of "pop" as a little bit of an insult of as an intentional "slap in the face".

The magic key to reducing the tension would be to agree to make a simple
distinction between a smaller and more specific genre of music called "pop
music" and a much, much larger, panoramic designation called "popular music".

As we consider whether we are willing to do so, it isn't just a matter of
bending over backwards to avoid stepping on Michael's toes.  In general, I have
found that contemporary music fans of the rock era who have grown up without
instruction in classical music tend to speak about "pop music" very differently
than people who spend most of their time - or who formed their musical world
view - within the realms of classical music.  The classical world tends to speak
about "pop" music with a wide panoramic viewpoint that the general populace does
not. 

Because the general contemporary music enthusiast considers "pop music" to be a
subset of popular music, they tend to perceive certain statements as dissmissive
or as insults when they are not intended to be (as well as other times when they
are intended to be...)

Since Wiki is the ultimate authority on everything... ;-)  The article you cited
said that "pop" is a special kind of "popular music".

>...special kind of popular music, featuring short, simple songs often oriented
>to the young and inclusive of at least some rock or soft rock and roll."<

This actually does hit very close to the public distinction between the specific
designation of "pop" versuse the wider description of "popular music".

In the extreme, for "pop", think of Miley Cirus, The Jonas Brothers, Justin
Bieber, The Spice Girls, Britney Spears, etc.

Ever since I can remember, most contemporary musicians have viewed themselves as
distinct from (often even a snooty step 'better' than) pre-fab cookie-cutter
flavor of the month pop stars.  In general, they feel that they *believe* in
their *music* on some deeper level than the "song and dance" stars who rely more
on image and glamour than upon music.  

Did you know that there are "fans" of the singer "Beyonce'" who almost never
listen to her music!!  How can this be?  Well, these "fans" keep up with what
dress she wore to whatever event the other night, and they just tried out the
latest "Beyonce diet" this month and did you hear what Beyonce said about the
person she was dating last year?  Oh yeah, and they 30 seconds of a music video
on a Hollywood TV show every once in a while too... ;-)

To see how deeply ingrained this distinction from "pop" has been within the
psyche of "popular music", check out a little of the history behind "The
Monkees".  Those guys were so desperate to achieve recognition as  legitimate
"rock artists".  The "pop" tag haunted them like a spectre.  (Whether you think
they were "pop" or whether they actually managed to elevate themselves to the
level of legitimate "rock artist" is a different discussion - but it was a very
*real* and deep-rooted distinction which they agonized over... way too
much perhaps... but it can provide a good "case study" for someone who doubts
whether any such distinction was  ingrained in the rock aesthetic.
Mark Stephens
ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
http://www.progpositivity.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark>"The magic key to reducing the tension would be to agree to make a simple distinction between a smaller and more specific genre of music called "pop music" and a much, much larger, panoramic designation called "popular music". "

    True...pop is a specific, rather limited style...while popular music is anything that generally strikes a chord with the public regardless of the style.

  When I think of groups considered classics in their "fields" IE The Beatles somewhat or (especially) groups like The Prodigy, The Chemical Brothers , Metallica, or Bjork...what they did really did in many to most ways did not fit into the whole pop style at all...it just happened to be fairly popular.

>"In the extreme, for "pop", think of Miley Cirus, The Jonas Brothers, Justin Bieber, The Spice Girls, Britney Spears, etc."

   Exactly I think of pop (the style)...thinks like "Barbie Girl" by Aqua and "Hit me baby one more time" by Britney Spears come up...hence the problem with "pop" being equated with "simple fad music". 

Here that "POP = SIMPLE FAD MUSIC"...that's the definition people like me and Mark's example of "The Monkees" were/are not trying to or wanting to become associated with.

>"The classical world tends to speak about "pop" music with a wide panoramic viewpoint that the general populace does not."

Very good point...as I understand what you are saying, classical musicians say "pop" to mean "popular music"...while others say "pop" only to mean a specific genre.

>"Did you know that there are "fans" of the singer "Beyonce'" who almost never listen to her music!! How can this be? Well, these "fans" keep up with what dress she wore..."

Hillarious and relevant: "pop" includes a huge social phenomenon that has nothing to do with music. Lots of people like Beyonce just because they'd like to see her, well....and now Kim Kardashian (sp.?) is singing for albums...hey, at least it looks better for her PR (not to mention her "musical fans") than having her stripping for a living. Justin Beiber also lost hundreds of thousands of Facebook friends when he decided to cut his hair to something different than his token hair cut...yet claimed "they will stick around: after all, it's about the music"...hehehe...not quite! :-D