[Stu]

I agree with that. Both have their uses. I just think it's an absurd notion to put foward that rock music has greater limitations than pop.

Look how many subgenres rock has branched out into since it's inception and look at the relatively few subgenres pop music has had a breakthrough with in comparison. Most pop at any one period in history sounds exactly the same whilst rock has literally hundreds of subgenres full of creative songwriting enjoying various degrees of popularity the world over.

I love pop. It fills a daft niche in my life. I love enjoying stupidly happy synth melodies with their accompanying garish music videos. But at the end of the day it's not my main source of musical nutrition. It's the bag of Doritos I have at the end of the day once my penance of life giving fruit and veg has been paid. Rock has plenty of riddiculous pretensions too but the quantity of quality output more than makes up for it.

I read more rock biographies than pop ones because it's world is populated with signifigantly more crazy, creative characters whose lives I'm interested in. I learn to play and study rock songs whilst I learn to simply enjoy pop songs. I find people with a steady intake or Rock n' Roll to be better conversation pieces and generally more engaging people than those who listen to just pop. It's a crude but useful barometer in my experience.

A pop song won't be playing at my funeral.