Popular music in general is not that outstanding. If you really

>>69625656
>You do not see Harry Potter fans getting up in arms about Ulysses being considered a better book


Lol yes you do. Plebs in all media demand that their tastes be taken seriously.

>>69625656
Everything but classical and trad folk is popular music trash.

>>69625700
Not all musicians other than classical or folk musicians are popular though.

>>69625694
go onto lit and argue that Harry Potter is better than Ulysses

>>69625779
That's not how it works.

>>69625831
what do you consider popular music?

>>69625656
by what measure is Ulysses a better book than Harry Potter?

>>69625846
Google it.

Art music
Folk music
Popular music

That's all there is. Popular music is anything made purposefully for mass consumption. Number of scrobblers on last.fm is irrelevant.

>>69625907
Folk music and pop music are essentially the same thing although folk music has existed longer. Pop music evolved from folk music if we're talking the in the broadest terms possible.

>>69625938
Folk music isn't Bob Dylan. It's sea shanties, Christmas carols, nursery rhymes and Tibetan yak farming songs passed down orally and sung around campfires or at ritual killings.

Popular music is packaged up in pretty albums to be danced to at rock gigs and clubs, sold at $15.99 in an HMM near you.

>>69625806

/lit/ is not really a great example of readers in general so that's kinda unfair.

Any music made by a white man is not worth listening to

>>69625907
So your argument is that rock Music is made for mass consumption.

And you think that this means that it has no inherent quality outside of how many people like/buy it?

>>69626388
I said nothing about quality. I only said if it's not art or folk, it's popular music.

>>69626472
why does that have to do with what I said in the OP?