What Do You Consider "Real Music?"

I've seen several comments throughout the music threads and around the web that pop music isn't "real music." So I'm wondering what constitutes real music.

Here are some questions for discussion:
1. What is real music in your opinion?
2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?
3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?
4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

I listen to pop music because a lot of my friends listen to it and it's just fun to listen to. I don't really consider it to be real music, though, because it's mainly sound effects and stuff being used to create the beat and all that. I will tell you one thing, though. Today's pop music is mostly garbage, but the older pop stuff is awesome. That's why I love pop music. Classic rocks! :D

IMO, real music is when you're using musical instruments, not sound effects and stuff.

Hip-Hop and Rap are not real music at all. No one is singing and it's filled with the sound effects as music and all that.

People consider pop music to be real music because it's the kind of music that's popular nowadays.

I've seen several comments throughout the music threads and around the web that pop music isn't "real music." So I'm wondering what constitutes real music.


Ooh, good topic. I always feel like an intruder in the Music section, because I'm over 25, but I hope you don't mind me giving my opinion.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

For me, all music is "real" music - if it's a genre I don't happen to like, that doesn't make it "not real".

There is something honest, natural and appealing about bare, stripped down guitar-based music, played by a band formed of old schoolfriends or people who met through an ad in a local music shop, who fought their way to a record contract after years of plying their wares on the small-time live circuit, but that doesn't make it any more "real" or "better" than other types.

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

Notwithstanding my answer to Q1, like most people who were teenagers in the 80s, I do have a real prejudice against (a) people who don't write their own songs (b) "groups" who don't play their own instruments and (c) "manufactured" bands, who've been put together by a record company, manager or TV talent contest svengali, who also retains a lot of artistic control over their material, with reference to focus groups and what sells, rather than artistic, musical criteria.

Logically, I know that some of these positions are ridiculous - do classical orchestras not play "real music", then, because they play stuff by Beethoven, rather than "writing their own songs"? And why are cover versions OK, but having your songs written for you by a professional songwriter not?

And many of the old "real" bands of the 70s and 80s were every bit as "manufactured" as modern pop bands, they just went to great lengths to hide the fact. Much as I loathe the Simon Cowellisation of chart music and the way that many teenagers nowadays seem to be quite happy to be treated as "consumers" being offered a "product" by a global corporation, in some ways it's a lot less hypocritical and more honest.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

Not much to very recent stuff, because at my age I tend to know what I like and stick to artists and genres I know, but it's not because I'm anti-pop on principle.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

(a) Some of the reasons I've given under 2.

(b) There's also the real instrument v. electronic programming debate, but personally I think that's a non-issue.

Many of the artists who produce programmed music are highly accomplished "real" musicians, too (Lady Gaga being a good example - whether you like her music or not, her talent as a classically-trained pianist is beyond question).

There's considerable fluidity between "real" music and programmed music. Quite a few people from 80s indie rock guitar bands moved into DJing and programmed dance music in the early 90s, because that was where the cutting edge was at that time.

I don't think many of the artists recognise the rigid, exclusive genre boundaries that their fans set up - many rock artists experiment with programmed music or listen to it themselves.

And computer-based music is arguably fulfilling a function today that rock and punk were initially invented to fulfil - making music-making accessible to everybody, not just those who can afford a classical musical training and an expensive instrument. It makes me laugh when people argue that rock is the honest music of the common man, when so many rock bands are full of expensively educated boys from upper-middle class families.

(c) I think there is an element of snobbery and possibly an element of sexism, too, to some of the anti-pop attitudes. I've met a few musos who will stop listening to a band the minute they hit the big time, because there's a sense that if lots of people like it (and in some cases, if girls listen to it), it can't be any good.

I'm with PureBloodGirl. Sound effects and rhythm alone do not constitute "real" music.
Music is a desired intentional combination of rhythm and melody. IMO, rap and hiphop have so much emphasis on rhythm, and so very little on melody, that they don't fit the definition of music, in most cases. They are poetry set to a beat, and culturally that's valid and all that, but that's doesn't make it "music", per se - they're in their own category of media.
Everything else to me - country, metal, rock, swing, jazz, classical, etc.. all fit the classic description of music, it's just a matter of taste.

I've seen several comments throughout the music threads and around the web that pop music isn't "real music." So I'm wondering what constitutes real music.

Here are some questions for discussion:
1. What is real music in your opinion?
2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?
3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?
4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

1. Real music, in my opinion, is something magical. a group of people writing their own songs, playing their own instruments, and actually singing their songs. For example: Genesis, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd.

2. Generally rap is not real music. the lyrics (if one can call them that) are from their own mind (atleast, some) but the actual 'music' is generated, stolen or used from a fart machine (sorry, i dislike rap, and it sounds like a fart machine to me). look at an earlier artist: Run DMC. they are a n exception since they actually had words that meant something, without swearing and violence and sex. not the newer stuff (ok, 99.9% of it) where there is violence, sex, and a lot of swearing.

3. I don't do pop often, if you consider Elton John or My Chemical Romance pop, or Genesis, then i do not know what to say.

4. Look at the backstreet boys. nsyc, 98 degrees...... i guess it would depned on the person you are speaking to, and their opinions. i dont consdier pop real music for the boy band explosion, which, to me, tainted the genre completely. oh, and look at britney spears. 'nuff said.

I think pop is real music, it's just lazy music. With little thought put into the lyrics and music. Take Britney for example. She is a singer, not a musician. She doesn't write music, she just sings songs. That to me isn't a real musician, but technically I guess it's still music whether you enjoy it or not.

I think pop is real music, it's just lazy music. With little thought put into the lyrics and music.

I don't think that's true of all pop, though. ABBA's pop songs are so well musically crafted that they've been the subject of academic theses by PhD students at Oxford. The Pet Shop Boys' lyrics are, I would contend, some of the most cerebral and thoughtful in 20th century music.

And there are "lazy" rock bands, too, who put little thought into what they're writing, or just depend on cliches.

I would agree, however, that it's probably easier to get away with relying on your looks/image/hype in pop than in rock. Few of these "lazy" bands stand the test of time, though.

Take Britney for example. She is a singer, not a musician. She doesn't write music

But e.g. the bassist, drummer and keyboardist in a band where the guitarist writes most of the songs don't write music, either - does that make them "not real musicians"?

, she just sings songs.That to me isn't a real musician.

I have no real wish to defend Britney but, in general, singing takes musical talent, too.

There are plenty of genres which are pretty much entirely based on the artists singing/playing somebody else's material (e.g. folk, classical, opera). Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas didn't write music, they "just" sang songs - were they "not real musicians"?

but technically I guess it's still music whether you enjoy it or not.

I agree :tu:

Melaszka I agree, I was generalising. Of course there are many lazy rock bands too (Blink 182 spring to mind) but I think I tend to put most (not all) pop bands into one basket.

But e.g. the bassist, drummer and keyboardist in a band where the guitarist writes most of the songs don't write music, either - does that make them "not real musicians"?

IMO to be a real musician you have to be able to read and write music. Otherwise you're just an "*insert instrument here* player".

I have no real wish to defend Britney but, in general, singing takes musical talent, too.

Oh I know! I know it takes a great deal of talent but my definition of musician is someone who reads, writes and performs music. IMO singers are singers and not musicians. They do not play music, they sing.

Melaszka I agree, I was generalising.

I know - I didn't mean to jump down your throat, I just enjoy debate. To an extent I'm playing devil's advocate, as I'm definitely not a fan of the big studio-generated, manufactured pop business myself.

IMO to be a real musician you have to be able to read and write music. Otherwise you're just an "*insert instrument here* player".

Interesting. I know what you're saying - in most of my favourite bands, the one I really admire as a genius is the guy or girl that writes most of the songs. (Having said that, it sometimes seems unfair. I can think of bands where the singer, who is not an instrumentalist and has a technically worse grasp of music than any of the other band members, writes the songs..often brilliantly. I think song-writing and playing music are completely different skills, but equally important, and to me a "real" musician may have either or both. I can also think of bands where the other members would dearly like to get involved with song-writing, but the dominant member[s] won't let them!)

Not sure I agree about being able to "read" music, though - for me, the most exciting thing about rock and pop (in the loosest sense of the expression, encompassing many genres), as opposed to classical music, is the fact that (in theory, at least...I know it often doesn't work out this way in practice) they're open to anybody - you don't need to have had a classical Western musical training - and IMO there have been some very great rock and pop musicians who have written and played entirely by ear.

Oh I know! I know it takes a great deal of talent but my definition of musician is someone who reads, writes and performs music. IMO singers are singers and not musicians. They do not play music, they sing.

For me, the voice is an instrument, so I would include them. The only people I might exclude from the definition "musician"are those who make records but for whom music is merely a means to an end, who put their fame, their looks, their image, their parallel acting/modelling career, whatever, ahead of their music. But it's so difficult to tell who these people are...sometimes artists who are passionate about music are put under pressure by record companies/management to sell their looks or image...plus people change. there are people who started out as throwaway pretty boy/girl teenybop pop stars who have gone onto develop serious musical careers. So, actually, I'm not sure I'd exclude anyone who's ever released a record. Apart from Paris Hilton, of course :lol:

Well the actual definition of musician is: "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music." See I wouldn't agree with that. I think it comes down to nit-picky definitions and your own beliefs. I can totally see why you'd count the voice as an instrument, it's just not how I'd catagorise music. I think music is too personal to just blatantly say what it is...

I totally admire many singers/song writers, however I still don't consider them musicians unless they write actual music. I'd call them singer/song writers. But that's just me :)

What is real music in your opinion?

I honestly don't think there's such a thing as "real" music and "not real" music; what sounds like just loudness to one person, can be beautiful and poetic to someone else. I think it's degrading to any band or musician or any hardworking person in that industry to point to them and say, "what you're doing isn't even really music." IMO, anything that has a rhythm or beat is music, regardless of whether someone's singing along to it or just rapping or screaming/singing.

That being said, there are genres of music I don't like. But just because I don't prefer them, doesn't mean they're not considered music.. I just don't like that particular style. Which goes for them, as well. My mom always tells me what I'm listening to isn't music, because alot of the artists or bands I like have to deal with real hard and heavy instrumentals, and loud screaming. She always complains that "there's no possible way I can know what they're saying", but on the contrary, I know exactly what they're saying and that's why I like them.


If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

Erm, I can't really pose an answer to this question, as my answer to Question 1 states that I consider any song containing an ongoing beat or rhythm as music. :)

Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

I do listen to some. When I'm driving, mostly, because I don't have an iPOD jack, and I don't have any CDs I enjoy driving to, considering all my music is in MP3 format. So that results in listening to the radio. And, being a 90's child, I can't justify sitting here and flat-out saying, "pop music is terrible", because some of it isn't. Granted, most of it is, but I still love all the 90's pop, and I'm even guilty of bee-bopping to Lady Gaga. Pop music puts me in a good mood, and it's really fun to drive to and sing along with when I'm with my friends.


Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?"

The only reason I can think of is because it generally doesn't require any knowledge of the use of instruments. Alot of pop music is generated by computers and whatnot. Also because 9 times out of 10 the artist in question doesn't write his/her own material; they just sing what was given to them to the beat that's been written for them. However, I disagree with those who claim pop music isn't "real music". If you can sing along to it, hum it, or whatever, then clearly it is music.

I'd say most (c)rap isn't "real music" :lol: Like rarely does it have any sort of message or is something you can relate to. No merit essentially.

Typically just a bunch of unintelligible vulgar talking, at a rapid pace that's often hard to discern :p But strangely I kinda like TECH N9NE :lol:

Oh, and some Eminem is ok. But really I hardly listen to the genre and I can't say I have a single rap song on my iPod, not my cup of tea :shrug:

As for what I do listen to and/or what I consider "real music"...well pretty much everything else :lol: Country, Rock, Pop, etc

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

I used to, back in 90's :p I'm not really sure what would be considered "pop" nowdays. Like what artists? I don't really listen to those stations on the radio anymore. I guess you could call some of Carrie Underwood, Taylor Swift, etc "pop" music, even though they are country artists. A lot of country music has more of a pop/rock influence nowdays actually...which I really enjoy but some older folks say isn't "true" country.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?"

I don't know. Perhaps the heavy use of like synthesizers and such. And also that most "pop" artists seem to be like teeny bopper singers.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

All music is real music. Anything that sounds pleasing to anybody's ears. Just because it doesn't appeal to me, or even to a whole bunch of people, or even to most people, doesn't mean it's not music. That's why the term 'music to my ears' :p

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

See above. All music is real music.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

I'm not even sure how pop music is classified. Where do you draw the line between country, country pop and pop?
I don't listen to most of the music that's produced these days - Lady Gaga, Akon, Beyonce - I've never liked Avril Lavigne, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Hilary Duff, Miley Cyrus and the ilk, no Kelly Clarkson, Leona Lewis etc. etc. I don't know how far apart you could put Taylor Swift or Shania Twain from all of them in terms of genre, but I like some songs of theirs. I adore Abba, and I used to like the various boybands and even the Spice Girls to an extent, yet I'm pretty sure they're all classified as pop.
I even like a few odd songs by the same or similar artistes (like say The Way I Are or Am I Dreaming)
So I find it difficult to say whether I listen to pop music or not, but I will say that I prefer rock in all its sub-forms to pop. I would take a Muse over a Lady Gaga anyday :p

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be 'real music?'

Well maybe because it doesn't have the same amount of effort put into it? I don't really know. I would call it music :)

I don't think there's such thing as "real" music or "fake" music. Music is still music. You may not like something, but that doesn't stop it from being music, IMO.

Usually it's a huge generalization, anyway. A lot of people may criticize pop, but what about Michael Jackson? He's one of the greatest singers of all time, but does the fact that he sings pop make his songs not "real"?

Anyway, if one considers something not to be real, then a person could think the opposite. There's nothing that I've seen that implies certain songs or a genre are not "real." It's all up for interpretation.

For me, I make the difference between good music and bad music. If I don't like the song, it's music, but just bad music. ;)

Usually it's a huge generalization, anyway. A lot of people may criticize pop, but what about Michael Jackson? He's one of the greatest singers of all time, but does the fact that he sings pop make his songs not "real"?

I don't agree at all. I have no idea why he was so popular. He was quite a terrible singer, IMO. I don't have a single one of his songs on my iPod. Not to mention he was a gay child molester...despite the little act he put on having a couple wives and kids supposedly. And I'm sick of all the talk about him since his death. I don't understand why people idolize and glorifiy him. Never have liked him and never will. :relax:

My taste in music has fluctuated over the years though. Growing up as a kid in the 90's like most I listened to mainly pop and alternative rock. I even liked Britney Spears and some "boy bands" :lol: And my favorite rock bands back then were Smashmouth and Matchbox 20.

When I was in middle school and high school there was a bit of a "nostalgia" fad and I started liking classic rock...my dad's music. Actually not so much a fad, it's been a lasting trend I've noticed. Most the younger generations listen to their parents music. It's awesome music. :tu: Some favs are Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Tom Petty, Boston, John Mellencamp, Lynyrd Skynyrd, CCR, AC/DC, Def Leppard, etc

Late high school and start of college I started transitioning to country music. Growing up my parents used to listen to country all the time and I got so sick of it...plus it was more the "twangy" stuff back then. But almost all my friends had "converted" to country so once again I couldn't really escape it. Although this time it grew on me and it now had more of a rock/pop influence to it's sound. And now I'm a huge country music fan...it's about all I listen to on the radio anymore and I'd say close to 50% of my iPod is consists of country, with the other 50% made up of like 25% classic rock and 25% pop/alternative.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

Anything. Everything.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

Yes, I listen to all sorts of music.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

Because they think it makes them sound more high-brow and intelligent.

It, in fact, does not.

I don't agree at all. I have no idea why he was so popular. He was quite a terrible singer, IMO.

Well, to me, he is considered a great singer because of his vocal range. That's not too common and distinguishes him from most artists.

Regardless, I wasn't arguing that Michael Jackson is a great singer. I was just pointing out that in every genre there is at least one talented person so generalizing that one genre is not real is ridiculous.

1. What is real music in your opinion?
2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?
3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?
4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

1. I'd say real music is anything from the heart and created for the sake of music or for the fans or for yourself or whatever isn't done for money.

2. Well, a lot of artists out there don't write their own music, have no real idea of what they're actually singing, can't actually sing without computers that change their voices and are only hired mostly because of their looks.

3. I usually don't, but not really whether or not it's bad or whatever, but it literally gives me bad headaches due to things like the type of voices typically hired, the computerization, and especially the beat.

4. Because a lot of pop artists have no real talent, don't write their own music, or even play other instruments and strive on looks

I do wonder why rap isn't mentioned here :lol:. Well, I want to say that rap isn't real but a few days ago i actually listened to rap that actually seemed to be "from the heart" and not random swearing and perverted meaningless lyrics.

2. Well, a lot of artists out there don't write their own music, have no real idea of what they're actually singing, can't actually sing without computers that change their voices and are only hired mostly because of their looks.


Yep, Taylor Swift (though I do like her) would be a prime example. She sounds great on album and radio when they've doctored her voice in the recording studio...but she sounds awful live. She can't truly sing. I presume she was mainly hired cause she's a cute blonde. At least she writes her own songs though :tu: In reality, very few artists sound as good live as they do in studio. But there are a select few who do, which is the mark of a truly great singer, IMO. Examples of such singers would be Carrie Underwood and Martina McBride...no doctoring needed.



I do wonder why rap isn't mentioned here :lol:. Well, I want to say that rap isn't real but a few days ago i actually listened to rap that actually seemed to be "from the heart" and not random swearing and perverted meaningless lyrics.

Yeah, I'm puzzled why rap isn't mentioned in the original post either.

It has a lot less merit than pop, IMO. I agree though...occasionally there is a song or two "from the heart", but not too often :p

Well, I guess real music is when there using real instruments and the lead singer can actually sing without lip-synching. I listen to pop music cause its got a fun beat and its great to dance to. To me its alot like light listening, the lyrics aren't about anything too bad (usually anyway). But I know that its not considered "real music" though, but old pop was pretty good.

Anything that has a good band with all types of woodwind and brass instruments. And as for modern music, anything wtih a real beat and a singer who's actually good. No screamo, rap, or hip hop.

1. What is real music in your opinion?
All music is real. Sounds and melody can't be fake.


2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

see above. I suppose some people think that one has to play an instrument to be a real musician. I disagree as the voice was really the first musical instrument. Really, people who talk about "fake music" are just presenting their opinions as fact.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

Yes. I listen to anything that sounds good. I don't listen to any current pop though, although that goes for most genres.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'
Because they are closed-minded and/or musically ignorant. As a multi instrumentalist musician, it irritates me to no end when people say they hate pop or rap for some superficial reason. I think that any true music fan would not write off entire genres just because of some highly commercialized stuff they hear on mtv. Others have been too influenced by culture and upbringing to consider that other forms of music might be just as intelligent,real, musical, etc. And of course, there are people who just like to feel superior to others. Also I notice that some people have said rap is too focused on rhythm. I don't see how this makes the genre any less musical. If you go all the way back to Africa, the most original music was just rhythm and vocals. And even traditional Native American songs are just drums and voice. I would argue that rap is more real than other forms of music. And also, ALL music is based on rhythm. Listen to someone like Mozart, a lot of his music is based around the same repeating rhythms, but no one would say that he isn't real music.

I do wonder why rap isn't mentioned here :lol:. Well, I want to say that rap isn't real but a few days ago i actually listened to rap that actually seemed to be "from the heart" and not random swearing and perverted meaningless lyrics.

Well that's what happens when you open your mind.

but music it's art. There is this reggaeton thing going on here in Argentina. For what I've heard, the melody might change a little bit, but the percussion, rythm is always the same. Barely harmony. The only thing that matters is the lyrics. I really don't think that's "art". A child may put all his love and emotions on a painting he does for his or her mother, but does that make it art??

A child may put all his love and emotions on a painting he does for his or her mother, but does that make it art??

Of course it's art. Why should the emotions and expression of a child be invalidated because of his or her age or limited experience?

For what I've heard, the melody might change a little bit, but the percussion, rythm is always the same. Barely harmony. The only thing that matters is the lyrics.
I disagree. I'm not sure if you're only talking about music you listen to but if not I think it's not that simple. I could line up dozens, probably hundreds of songs that each sound entirely different even when you take out the lyrics. The melody, percussion, harmony not the same at all... this is probably the most obvious when comparing genres.

I disagree. I'm not sure if you're only talking about music you listen to but if not I think it's not that simple. I could line up dozens, probably hundreds of songs that each sound entirely different even when you take out the lyrics. The melody, percussion, harmony not the same at all... this is probably the most obvious when comparing genres.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Lorena was talking about one particular genre, reggaeton, currently popular in Argentina, which she dislikes and doesn't consider to be real music. As I understood it, her point was it can't claim to be music, as it all sounds the same and always has the same rhythm, and the only original feature of individual songs is the lyrics.

I'd still disagree with you, though, Lorena. Any genre or form tends to have a typical rhythm (from 4 to the floor house to classical sub-genres like the waltz - are waltzes "not real music" because they all have the same 3/4 beat?). Sticking to the rhythm of the form you have chosen to write in doesn't necessarily mean you are inept or unmusical.

I see a lot of rap-bashing here. Presumably from people who haven't got a clue about it. Whatever, hearing Mobb Deep for the first time was like the first time I heard the blues.
More importantly, most people who seem to point towards 'playing your own instruments' presumably have no idea about production, sampling or indeed the skills it involves.

Music is nothing more than the manipulation of aural tones to create emotive or other effects. Hence movements like 'Music Concrete' or the divergence of 20th century classical music against melody and tonality to create new sounds or sonic tones.

As for 'real' music, it's basically a term used by people to describe whatever their personal taste is. Take the Rage Against the Machine for Christmas number 1 campaign in the UK. I bought the single because I thought it would be a laugh but many of the supporters wouldn't shut up about what was 'real' or not 'real' about the performers involved. Presumably forgetting that both RATM and Joe McEldery are signed to subdivisions of Sony Records, and that 'Killing in the Name of' is about as rebellious as a teenager refusing to do his homework.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Lorena was talking about one particular genre, reggaeton, currently popular in Argentina, which she dislikes and doesn't consider to be real music. As I understood it, her point was it can't claim to be music, as it all sounds the same and always has the same rhythm, and the only original feature of individual songs is the lyrics.

Ooh I see :p I completely misread the post then.

I don't think anyone is really rap-bashing. I for one understand sampling and percussion very well but still hold musicians who write their own lyrics and musical arrangements on a far higher level than rappers who write their own words and do some sampling. There is far more involved in composing for drums, two guitars, bass, keyboard and possibly sampling on top of that. That's not me not understanding rap, that's just how it is. I really admire some techno/EBM artists who do some really amazing things with sampling and yes, it's real music, but I still think music with a full instrumental arrangement are on a higher level.

1. What is real music in your opinion?
I think any type of music is real music. The definition of music has really changed over time. If it has rhythm, it's music. But most people I guess think of real music is playing actual instruments and singing without any actual effects.

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?
Like I said, real music is anything that has a rhythm. So I don't think there's any "fake" music.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?
I do listen to pop music. I like the beat. It's usually really fun to dance to, and it makes me happy. But their so so many types of pop. It's very broad.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'
Because it's manufactured. It's very computerized, and they think that the lyrics are meaningless. But I disagree, not all pop is meaningless. Say what you want about Lady Gaga, but she writes most(if not all) of her songs and some of them a very dark and serious themes. She takes her music very seriously.

More importantly, most people who seem to point towards 'playing your own instruments' presumably have no idea about production, sampling or indeed the skills it involves.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I was a bit snooty about " 'groups' that don't play their own instruments", I meant all-singing girl bands/boy bands like Girls Aloud or Boyzone, not people who do their own programming/sampling/production.

I am well aware of the skills that involves - if you don't understand music, you can't produce it by electronic means, and many of the top producers/programmers started off as highly accomplished players of traditional instruments, anyway.

And I've already acknowledged that Girls Aloud etc are still making real music and that most of my prejudices are illogical and ridiculous when analysed objectively.

As for 'real' music, it's basically a term used by people to describe whatever their personal taste is. Take the Rage Against the Machine for Christmas number 1 campaign in the UK. I bought the single because I thought it would be a laugh but many of the supporters wouldn't shut up about what was 'real' or not 'real' about the performers involved. Presumably forgetting that both RATM and Joe McEldery are signed to subdivisions of Sony Records, and that 'Killing in the Name of' is about as rebellious as a teenager refusing to do his homework.

:agree: And, as my sister pointed out, Joe probably sold more copies of his single because of the RATM campaign, as X Factor fans entered into the competitive record-purchasing spirit.

I supported the RATM campaign because I don't like the idea of one man having as much control over the UK music industry as Cowell has.

Much as I hate the X Factor and all it represents, though, it does strike me that for many aspiring musicians from humble backgrounds, TV talent competitions can be a more accessible route into a musical career than routes that a lot of people would consider more "credible", "real" and less "manufactured". It's amazing how many of the guitar-based bands that people consider "real" broke into the music scene by exploiting their middle-class family contacts within the industry.

I'd still disagree with you, though, Lorena. Any genre or form tends to have a typical rhythm (from 4 to the floor house to classical sub-genres like the waltz - are waltzes "not real music" because they all have the same 3/4 beat?).
I not talking about time signature, I'm talking about rythm.
This reggaeton thing is basically always the exact same thing, the melody is practically always the exact same note, sometimes it might change a little bit.

For me not all music is the same. I cannot compare something like reggaton for example or cumbia, to a composition for 5 voices and brass orchestra by John Rutter, to a song by Tavener or to a full opera by Mozart. All of them may have emotions put into them, but I can certainly say that there is much more effort, time, hard work and creativity put into the last 3 examples.
I think emotions is one part of art, but not everything. Otherwise I may try painting ;)

I not talking about time signature, I'm talking about rythm.
This reggaeton thing is basically always the exact same thing, the melody is practically always the exact same note, sometimes it might change a little bit.

OK. :) I'm not familiar with reggaeton, so I can't really defend it. (And, as has probably become glaringly obvious, I don't know a huge amount - technically - about music).

For me not all music is the same. I cannot compare something like reggaton for example or cumbia, to a composition for 5 voices and brass orchestra by John Rutter, to a song by Tavener or to a full opera by Mozart. All of them may have emotions put into them, but I can certainly say that there is much more effort, time, hard work and creativity put into the last 3 examples.
I think emotions is one part of art, but not everything. Otherwise I may try painting ;)

I respect the fact that that is what real music means to you.

IMO, though, the worth of a piece of music cannot be measured, per se, by how much hard work or technical difficulty has gone into it.

For a start, there are some genres (which I happen to love), like punk and folk, where lack of technical difficulty was originally pretty much the entire point - the fact that they are democratic, non-elitist forms which anyone can engage in, regardless of talent or whether or not you have received a formal musical education (which is often out of the financial reach of many people), is a key part of the philosophical rationale underpinning them.

Secondly, I'm sure even classical music experts don't choose their favourite pieces on the basis of how complex they are or how difficult they are to play - surely the aesthetic pleasure they bring is usually the number one criterion when choosing favourite music?

Thirdly, the purpose of some music often demands simplicity (e.g. dance music usually has to be simple and repetitive - if it was complex and kept taking you by surprise, it would be impossible to dance to.) Sometimes a piece of music simply doesn't need a lot of hard work going into it.

Fourthly, just because musicians/composers can write incredibly complex, multi-part compositions doesn't mean they have to. John Rutter also wrote Little Donkey (a children's Christmas Carol of headache-inducing banality and simplicity - which, of course, it has to be, as it's designed for primary school children to be able to easily sing. ) He's the same guy, presumably the same "real" musician when he wrote that carol as he was when he wrote the more complex work you've alluded to.

Yes, emotion isn't everything, but ultimately, I'd rather listen to music that had genuine emotion behind it, but little creativity or technical skill, than something written by a world-class musician, who had put months of hard work into it, which was cold and lacking in authentic emotion. But that's just my viewpoint.

Much as I hate the X Factor and all it represents, though, it does strike me that for many aspiring musicians from humble backgrounds, TV talent competitions can be a more accessible route into a musical career than routes that a lot of people would consider more "credible", "real" and less "manufactured". It's amazing how many of the guitar-based bands that people consider "real" broke into the music scene by exploiting their middle-class family contacts within the industry.


You'd be amazed how much even a basic level of equipment to allow a bass, drum, guitar and vocalist to record a demo or play some gigs costs. I would certainly price it out of the range of an awful lot of working class kids anyway.

But flag waving revolution aside, the point about what is 'real' and isn't is pretty much moot. Most people tend to consider their personal taste 'real'. I mean obviously I think some kinds of music is much better than others. But at no point would I dismiss for example pop-punk like Green Day or Rancid or whatever as not being 'real' music, I just think that as a whole it tends to be an awful lot worse than hardcore like Black Flag etc.

I don't think any music is "not real music", just because it isn't your type of music doesn't mean it's fake.

This thread brings me back to someone said on Twitter, he said that R&B wasn't real music. To me that was a slap to the face of all the old Motown groups, Luther Vandross, Alicia Keys, etc... Of course not all of it's good but that goes with all genre's of music.

Yes, I listen to pop music. I listen to all types of music, yes I have a perferrably kind(R&B) but I also have rap(Jay Z) and some bands like Muse, Kings of Leon, and All American Rejects all on my Ipod.

Also with rap, I have seen rappers do live sets with bands and whatnot. Of course some rap songs are stupid and make no sense and are made for fun but you do have raps that are made from the heart. Mobb Deep, Mos Def, Jay Z, Tupac, and even Kanye West, etc.... have real serious songs that people can relate to their lives.

Here are some questions for discussion:
1. What is real music in your opinion?

To me, music needs at minimum to have aesthetic appeal. This, of course, is subjective (by that definition alone, books and poetry would be considered music as well), so I think there are at least a few standards that music has to meet to be considered "real" music.

The most important of these standards is that the music must have a tune. Tune is what differentiates, for instance, singing from speaking or a melody from "playing" a bunch of notes on an open string. This part is why I don't consider rap or most hip-hop to be "music" - those don't have a tune and are typically just a person speaking with a preset (and often plagiarized) background. That, instead, should have its own name. Seeing as it has its own subcultures anyway, I doubt its artists would complain.

Secondly, the artist should genuinely be trying to make music and should be treating it as the focus of their profession. I feel that most modern pop artists (among many, maybe even most, other genres) do not genuinely do this or even try to do it. For instance, I don't honestly believe "bands" like the Backstreet Boys or Lady Gaga are even trying to make music. I believe they're trying to sell an image, of which their "music" is just a part. Using music to tell a story or paint a picture is fine, even wonderful. But using it to present a "look at me, I'm cool, now buy my stuff" kind of image, IMO, instantly de-legitimizes the "artist" as a musician. When some corporate label is telling people "This is the new popular thing, buy it so you'll be cool and up to date" and when that's the main reason people buy something, I don't consider it music. I think it says a lot that many modern artists build an image that focuses more on what they look like and how they dress than on how they actually sound.

Third, after all of the above, I think music should also make the listener feel something. I don't care if it's unholy wrath from Slayer, excitement from Paul Oakenfold, tears of joy from Tchaikovsky or melancholy from Bach, but the intention should be to at least feel something.

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

Well, I think some of the things labeled as music today need to have their own name given to them instead. In particular, rap needs to simply be called rap. Pop should probably just be called pop, given that it's a conglomerate of different things rather than just music.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

I suppose this depends on the artist, but in general I consider it one of today's many bits of junk culture that exists solely because it's so heavily commercialized, requires little to no thinking to interpret, and is essentially forced on the populace by those in control. Seeing as I tend to ignore just about everything fitting that description, I ignore most pop as well. Occasionally, I will come across a song of that sort that I can enjoy or from which I can hear some sort of merit, and when that happens I keep an open mind about it.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

Some (rather than many) people think so for the same reasons I listed above. However, I should note that this question carries a highly deceptive connotation by implying that pop is victimized by that accusation by more people than those who follow it without question.

The most important of these standards is that the music must have a tune. Tune is what differentiates, for instance, singing from speaking or a melody from "playing" a bunch of notes on an open string. This part is why I don't consider rap or most hip-hop to be "music" - those don't have a tune and are typically just a person speaking with a preset (and often plagiarized) background.

Rappers do rap using melody, it's just harder to understand than in other forms of music. People say that rappers are just talking, but how many rappers actually sound exactly the same way when they talk as they do when they rap? They're still changing their voices to have a certain tone and rhythm that matches the music.


Secondly, the artist should genuinely be trying to make music and should be treating it as the focus of their profession. I feel that most modern pop artists (among many, maybe even most, other genres) do not genuinely do this or even try to do it. For instance, I don't honestly believe "bands" like the Backstreet Boys or Lady Gaga are even trying to make music. I believe they're trying to sell an image, of which their "music" is just a part. Using music to tell a story or paint a picture is fine, even wonderful. But using it to present a "look at me, I'm cool, now buy my stuff" kind of image, IMO, instantly de-legitimizes the "artist" as a musician. When some corporate label is telling people "This is the new popular thing, buy it so you'll be cool and up to date" and when that's the main reason people buy something, I don't consider it music. I think it says a lot that many modern artists build an image that focuses more on what they look like and how they dress than on how they actually sound.

I agree that many people are selling an image, but people have been doing this for a very long time. People like Elvis Presley, The Sex Pistols, Madonna, etc,. were/are all trying to sell an image. Almost every artist is trying to sell an image. That's why they dress a certain way when they perform, take the time to make stylized music videos, and use the same design on all their album covers.

Well, I think some of the things labeled as music today need to have their own name given to them instead. In particular, rap needs to simply be called rap. Pop should probably just be called pop, given that it's a conglomerate of different things rather than just music.

All music is just a conglomerate of what came before. That's how music evolves. Rap and pop (in its current form) are the same way. The first official rap song came from a disco song. Disco is a genre that came from soul and funk music, soul and funk music came from R&B, R&B came from Blues and Jazz and so on and so forth. People don't give rap and pop enough credit, but humans love to hate the present and idolize the past so it's not surprising.

"first" rap song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diiL9bqvalo

Rappers do rap using melody, it's just harder to understand than in other forms of music. People say that rappers are just talking, but how many rappers actually sound exactly the same way when they talk as they do when they rap? They're still changing their voices to have a certain tone and rhythm that matches the music.

To answer your question, from what I've heard, most of them do. But to be open-minded I tried what I call the "whistle test" for melody. I tried whistling a bunch of well-known rap tunes, starting with Rapper's Delight, then moving on to a few Jay-Z, then DMX, and finally Souljah Boy to see if, listening to the whistling, I could otherwise have identified them as that tune, or as a tune at all. I was unable with all of them to distinguish them from conversational speech set to a rhythm.


People don't give rap and pop enough credit, but humans love to hate the present and idolize the past so it's not surprising.

I often wonder where people come up with things like this. For every one person that idolizes the past and hates the present, there are 100 who violently hate everything but the present. How many people get mocked, presumed to be gay, persecuted as a gay person, and physically beaten for liking rap - and then witness it being condoned and even encouraged by the majority of their peers?


BTW, the Fat Lady makes a very amusing mother-in-law to Cornelius Fudge, don't you agree? :)

To answer your question, from what I've heard, most of them do. But to be open-minded I tried what I call the "whistle test" for melody. I tried whistling a bunch of well-known rap tunes, starting with Rapper's Delight, then moving on to a few Jay-Z, then DMX, and finally Souljah Boy to see if, listening to the whistling, I could otherwise have identified them as that tune, or as a tune at all. I was unable with all of them to distinguish them from conversational speech set to a rhythm.

Well I have to disagree, especially if you're talking about people like Jay Z and DMX because I've heard them both speak and rap often and they don't talk the same way they rap. If you can't even tell Rapper's Delight by whistling then (not trying to be rude) I don't think you're very good at hearing melody. But even if you cannot hear the melody, music is not only melody; it is also rhythm. Rap is a form of music in which rhythm has dominance over melody. As I mentioned in a much earlier post, some of the earliest forms of music were based largely on rhythm, usually drumming and rhythmic story telling. Wikipedia has a good article on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapping


I often wonder where people come up with things like this. For every one person that idolizes the past and hates the present, there are 100 who violently hate everything but the present.

I didn't come up with it. I hear people talking about how much the present sucks and how awesome the past was all the time. I mostly hear this from young people who could not know what the past was really like. I'm sure there are more people who like the present than who hate it, but I hear the latter sentiment so much that's it's very noticeable.



How many people get mocked, presumed to be gay, persecuted as a gay person, and physically beaten for liking rap - and then witness it being condoned and even encouraged by the majority of their peers?

I don't know. I think it depends on where one lives. I was sometimes mocked for liking rock and ska music during some of my years in middle school and high school in New Orleans mostly because people thought it was "white music" which made me want to slap them with a music history book. But I moved to Austin, Texas and no one mocked me because a lot more people there listened to those genres. I've been in towns where playing rap music got you stared at because no one liked that kind of music. I've never known anyone to be beaten up for liking a genre of music for liking a genre of music but I have known some boys who were presumed to be gay for liking singers such as Beyonce and Britney Spears (even though they were gay, but that's beside the point)


BTW, the Fat Lady makes a very amusing mother-in-law to Cornelius Fudge, don't you agree? :)

Yes. They're both so very good at laughing.

Anything with the intention of being music is real music. Goodness, what an awful term.

Under this heading of 'real music', more commonly known as 'music', there would be good and bad music. Most would consider something like modulating white noise to be a rather distasteful example of music, but for some incomprehensible reason there are a select few that do find meaningful messages amongst it - because that is what music is. An art form using the medium of sound. Art. That is the definition. Melody and rhythm are merely common elements, not at all ubiquitous in all music.

Every other definition of 'real music' is too narrow. That is what other nouns are for - the word 'song' is used to define music that contains lyrics, for example. But of course music can be something other than a subset of itself.

I don't actively listen to pop music. It's in the background, on the radio, but I don't listen to it. Most of the stuff today I don't find to be very good. Why do some people say that pop music is not real music? Because they don't like it. Because they are confusing 'bad music' with 'not music'.

The term 'real music' shouldn't exist. The first word is entirely redundant. Having 'real music' implies that there is 'fake music', which is completely ludicrous.

The term 'real music' shouldn't exist. The first word is entirely redundant. Having 'real music' implies that there is 'fake music', which is completely ludicrous.I think it's up to people if they believe in the term 'real music' (so wouldn't call such an opinion ludicrous), but I agree with your statement 100%.

Music, just as every art, simply gets to know more and more forms of expression over the time. One might not like the one or other style, but I agree there is nothing else like music.

Anything with the intention of being music is real music. Goodness, what an awful term.

Under this heading of 'real music', more commonly known as 'music', there would be good and bad music. Most would consider something like modulating white noise to be a rather distasteful example of music, but for some incomprehensible reason there are a select few that do find meaningful messages amongst it - because that is what music is. An art form using the medium of sound. Art. That is the definition. Melody and rhythm are merely common elements, not at all ubiquitous in all music.

Every other definition of 'real music' is too narrow. That is what other nouns are for - the word 'song' is used to define music that contains lyrics, for example. But of course music can be something other than a subset of itself.

I don't actively listen to pop music. It's in the background, on the radio, but I don't listen to it. Most of the stuff today I don't find to be very good. Why do some people say that pop music is not real music? Because they don't like it. Because they are confusing 'bad music' with 'not music'.

The term 'real music' shouldn't exist. The first word is entirely redundant. Having 'real music' implies that there is 'fake music', which is completely ludicrous.

:lol: I agree with everything you said. I actually like quite a few dissonant sounding pieces of music.

Anything with the intention of being music is real music. Goodness, what an awful term.

Under this heading of 'real music', more commonly known as 'music', there would be good and bad music. Most would consider something like modulating white noise to be a rather distasteful example of music, but for some incomprehensible reason there are a select few that do find meaningful messages amongst it - because that is what music is. An art form using the medium of sound. Art. That is the definition. Melody and rhythm are merely common elements, not at all ubiquitous in all music.

Every other definition of 'real music' is too narrow. That is what other nouns are for - the word 'song' is used to define music that contains lyrics, for example. But of course music can be something other than a subset of itself.

I don't actively listen to pop music. It's in the background, on the radio, but I don't listen to it. Most of the stuff today I don't find to be very good. Why do some people say that pop music is not real music? Because they don't like it. Because they are confusing 'bad music' with 'not music'.

The term 'real music' shouldn't exist. The first word is entirely redundant. Having 'real music' implies that there is 'fake music', which is completely ludicrous.
:tu: :) I agree with every thing that you've just said there. I haven't really listened to anything persay on the radio for quite some time, just some oldie stations and rock stations that tend to play music that I can tolerate. Most mainsteam stations... just play pop music and the like. And that stuff tends to give me a head ache :lol: :p.

I think that the term "Real Music" is really the opinoin of whoever is talking. LIke for example i don't think that Rap is real music...but i do think Classical and Country are.
Now there many people who are going to disagree with me, again that's their opinion.

In my opinion, the term "real music" can't really be applied to the different tastes and sounds of music out there: they're all real music, according to the people who like them and listen to them.

Personally, I try to keep my options open concerning music and try to listen to a variety of different styles of music often. I never say that something is not "real music", because, to someone else, it certainly will be. :)

Not sure about 'real music' but to me a band is only a 'real band' if they play musical instruments. It may be picky, but if a 'band' just sings, they can call themselves a group or whatever, but not a band.

I listen to pop music because a lot of my friends listen to it and it's just fun to listen to. I don't really consider it to be real music, though, because it's mainly sound effects and stuff being used to create the beat and all that. I will tell you one thing, though. Today's pop music is mostly garbage, but the older pop stuff is awesome. That's why I love pop music. Classic rocks! :D

IMO, real music is when you're using musical instruments, not sound effects and stuff.

Hip-Hop and Rap are not real music at all. No one is singing and it's filled with the sound effects as music and all that.

People consider pop music to be real music because it's the kind of music that's popular nowadays.

Thanks you for the post.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

Music is songs (or any grouping of notes, rhythms, etc.) that have emotion. If you want to talk "songs", the kind you'd hear on the radio, then I'd say emotion has a lot to do with it...lyrics that mean something, music that is played on instruments, and vocals that don't need editing.

So if I wanted to sepereate and expand on each of those--lyrics that mean something are words that are put together that cohesively create a general message through experiences, statements, stories, etc. OR leave you with a strong, kind of unexplainable feeling.

Ok, you need instruments to make music. There's no debate here: A guitar is a musical instrument, a computer is not. If there aren't any instruments in a song, then it's not music, it's as simple as that. An instrument is something you can hold and make pleasant noise with if used correctly. Not a computer.

Vocals that have auto tune placed upon them hint to me that the artist is trying to go beyond what they can do and/or can't do much with their voice. It doesn't sound natural and it's usually rough. Same with extreme voice enhancement.

^So, there's the 3 components that define music for me. Good/bad lyrics, Real/fake music, and Edited/unedited vocals. If a song has the 'bad' side of all three, I don't consider it music. If it has one 'good' side, it is music. If it has 3 'good's then it's definitely real, solid music.

I have a strong bias against pop. Just saying.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I also don't consider most screamo/emo/death metal to be music either--that is, if you can't seperate the notes and chords and it sounds blurred on top of screaming.

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

Noise or sound that has rhythm and a beat.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

I do not. At all. I've never liked it. I don't find it catchy, I find it annoying. I think some heavy metal is catchier to me than pop. Though I've never "followed the crowd" in terms of music, I just don't like what is really popular (artists that everyone knows and will mention when it comes to the biggest names of the day.)

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

Not ALL pop music is fake. And I must also make the distinction: Popular music IS NOT necessarily POP music.

Pop is usually upbeat, simple, repetetive, etc. Like Rihanna. Now, Pink Floyd is popular but they are in no way 'pop'. So, what I'm talking about here is the genre of Pop, not popular music, because there is a difference!

Anyway, Pop music varies. Some of it is terrible. Other songs are kind of decent.

I'm going to use my 3 component-classification again:

Some have 'ok' lyrics and some are awful. But I've never thought the lyrics to Pop music are supposed to be good. Pop is just meant to be something for you to listen to that is easy to sing along to/dance-y, the message doesn't matter as much. Some people, like me, aren't satisfied with that. I don't like lyrics that don't hold very much. I'm not saying everyone who doesn't like Pop has the same opinion as me, either. But this is how I see it.

It depends on your background, listening to mostly real instruments before computer-generated ones were common or not listening to Pop that much at all and then hearing something that doesn't sound natural is unsettling.

Finally, I'm used to vocals that sound 'light' and like the singer is standing right next to you. I don't like to be able to hear how overproduced something is. Pretty general summary for everything, if you give me an individual song I can do better with the analyzation.

Pop just isn't my thing, I don't like sitting through exact repeats or lyrics I can't relate to or music that I just feel is wasting my time. So that is my opinion on what music is, hopefully not too long.

As a singer, I'm very critical of music. For me, "real" music is music that has emotion and moves me in some way and (this is going to make me sound SO snobby, but I'm not!) takes talent. It can be sad, romantic, longing, fun, happy, whatever. For instance, real music is Renee Fleming singing "Porgi amor" or Darren Criss singing "Not Alone". Rap music, or, talking to background music as I say, is not music. But that is NOT to say that it is not entertaining because some of it I don't mind, but I'm saying that it is not music.

I consider real music to be music made with actual instruments, not sound machines. So pop and a lot of rap/hip hop is not real music to me. I am an old fashioned girl raised on rock n roll. Anything from the 50's and up. :)

Real music for me are the ones wherein the voice of the singer is NOT altered. hahahah

1. What is real music in your opinion?
Any sound can be music, as long as there are people who enjoy it. If someone enjoys listening to Justin Bieber, it is real music to them. Real music can be both electronic or 'real instruments'. Creating electronic music takes skill as well, and not all electronic music is pop music. And a good example of music that very few people find enjoyable, but is still real music: ever heard of the Residents? You will probably not enjoy their work, as it's highly experimental and generally just weird (I happen to really like it, though). They stretch what is considered 'music' to its limits, even beyond its limits. You may think their work is just a some random distorted generally annoying sounds, but it's still creative. Anyone could do it, but it's creative because no-one has ever done it before. And if I do exactly what they're doing, it will probably not be as well known (okay, in certain circles) and revolutionary as their work. What I'm trying to say, real music can be anything an individual finds enjoyable, and even when it's downright horrific on purpose, it can be real music because it's different, a different view on music. Everyone has a different view on what music is, that means that every sound can be music, even if just a single person in the universe likes it. Because it will be music to them. Who are you to judge what is and what isn't music?

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?
Simply something an individual does not enjoy, is in his 'world' not music. Therefor, what music is is a highly personal opinion.

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?
I listen to pop music because it is a different view on music. And some of you may disagree, but there are still some artists who are creative, or have very creative writers. I think music is always evolving, and by not listening to pop music you'll miss a lot of development in what's happening to music right now.

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'
Because people tend to think the things they like are the only good things. It's just basic human nature.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

I think it's anything that is pleasant to hear, and gives something to the listener. Whether it is pretty playing of actual instruments without all those electronics, beautiful voice without autotune or meaningful lyrics :) I mean, art is something deeper than just listening to the latest catchy hit of some not-so-talented celebrity.

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

Lame music? I don't know, just commercialised tunes :/

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

Of course, though I admit most pop in our days is at its worst :/ There is some pop I don't like at all, Lady Gaga, Ke$ha... (yeah I know Gaga is supposed to be dance but for some reason seems pop to me)

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

Nowadays pop is mostly about sacrifising lyrics and quality for the shake of catchy tunes. Music loses its real purpose and most pointless cheesy songs are forgotten after one or two months.

Real music is a combination of catchy, inspiring, touching sounds and meaningful lyrics, it is all about taste, quality and impressiveness.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

Meaningful lyrics, good instrumentals and nice, followable melodies. The singer should have a nice or interesting voice, but if the instrumentals are amazing that doesn't really matter as much (Sopor Aeternus for instance).

Even better is if the band has a lot of energy, action and maybe good scenery on stage. Good musicians should love what they're doing and respect their fans, or they are not actual artists in my opinion.


2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

Bad lyrics, entire albums that are only about how much money they have, how cool they are, partying, lovesongs and "lovesongs". It makes our society dumb to have that stuff going on the radio all the time. I don't mind media spreading this music, as long as they put some intelligent music in the spotlight as well and just as much. At least that is my opinion.

Oh, and I'm starting to get tired of all these discosounds and random dubstep bridges... Same there, having them in some songs? Sure. Having them in every song that ever is well promoted? No thanks.


3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

I listen some pop music. Every now and then I find a nice song from a pop star. Examples are "Hurt" by Christina Aguilera and "Because Of You" by Kelly Clarkson.

Every now and then I'm in the mood for some Lady Gaga as well. But that's about it. If a sound suits my likes, I may listen it sometimes, but the reason to that I rarely listen pop music is that I need nice lyrics or I won't get very attached to the song.


4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?'

Reasons mentioned above. Bad lyrics, it's a lot about the companies making money off of the young people who want to be famous...

Apart from that, it all sounds about the same and there are a lot of artists who are artists because they're good-looking, not really because they actually can sing.

1. What is real music in your opinion?

I think music is both the instruments playing and the lyrics. So to me, it has to be appealing to my ears (I don't mind loud-ish music as long as its good) but the lyrics have to be good too. I don't like lyrics that make no sense (unless its supposed to be funny) or non-family-friendly type lyrics.

2. If music isn't considered "real" what is it then?

I think it's only music if people consider it music. So even if I don't like the way something sounds, there would be a group of people who do think it's music and so it is "real" music. People can have different opinions about if they like it or not and they can debate if it is "real" music or not but I think that would be pointless because no matter what there would be that group of people who listen to that kind of music and consider it music. Saying it's not music doesn't make it not music for everyone, you know?

3. Do you listen to pop music? Why or why not?

If I think it is a decent, fun and appealing song!

4. Why do you think many people do not consider pop music to be "real music?''

I didn't know people didn't consider it to be real music! I think it's because they don't like it and it's not similar to the music they listen to so they don't think it should be classified as music.