>>100556
>Pop isn't inherently bad. It's just that the public's falling standards have allowed pop musicians to keep feeding their bowel movements to the world without any objection.
I never said pop was inherently bad, just that its goals are different then traditional rock or hell even contemporary dance music. Pop is something to fill the silence and monotony of a car ride or a store or a workplace with some catchy earworms and a variety of sounds to keep the listener from getting listening fatigue. Modern pop is basically Musak but with more variety and some actual artists with names. Rock on the other hand is meant to give you energy, it can be a call to dance or a call to activism or hell even something to just scream at you about how shit (or great) your life is or can be. That's the difference, the energy. That doesn't make pop bad necessarily, its just comparing ales and oranges, they're different. At least they were before a bunch of alternative faggots tried taking rock and going after the pop audience.
Too be honest I blame the rise of modern background music companies for this happening, in the early 2000s new background music companies started partnering with actual record labels and I suspect a lot of failed then-underground rock artists realized it was an easy way of getting money toning their sound down a little bit and making it more catchy and introducing more pop-like sound and those same artists ended up becoming mainstream