On Saturday, November 16, 2002, at 11:25 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Actually, I understand that's quite common in England, where the rock vs. pop distinction is well-entrenched in the popular media. And even in the HMV where I worked in Montreal, there were physically separate sections (often in completely different rooms) for "Rock/Pop," "Vocal" (everything from Al Jolson to Lionel Ritchie), "Broadway," "Soul/R&B," "Dance," and "Hip Hop."Darcy:I have never seen a record store anywhere that stored "rock" and "pop" in different sections.I would beg to quibble with the rock=pop part of your equation.
The profusion of subgenres named by Darcy is to me symptomatic of a genre rapidly reaching its end. In the late '60s the level of variety signified by these supposedly independent genres could be seen in the work of single groups.Of course, and this is true even today. But even (especially!) in the late sixties, where the rivalry between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones famously epitomized the distinction I'm talking about (despite the fact that the Beatles recorded their share of rock tunes and the Stones certainly weren't averse to pop, what with the string section backgrounds etc). And regardless of whether you feel this is a distinction worth making -- and I admit from the outset that there's a huge amount of overlap between the two and much of it has to with the attitude you take towards the material, rather than the material itself -- I'm not at all comfortable lumping black music since 1960 in the "Rock" category. The whole Motown, Stax/Volt, etc tradition, through funk and disco and house and hip hop and all the rest is something entirely to itself. That's why when actual black rock bands like Living Colour and Bad Brains do come along, they are considered unusual, exceptions to the rule, etc.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boston MA
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
