it's just too broad..you can offend and be pop..sell-out..be a huge failure, be political...
duran, style council, frankie, associates, sinitta, motown, stax, ztt ...all pop
it's largely consumed by people who have better things to do than argue about the contents of their i-pods...
the idea that pop pickers and producers think things don't need to change is terminally flawed..practically all innovative music of the last thirty years has been in the pop bracket...it has to keep moving..it does not exist in an museum..
rock is the conservative impulse in popular music...
and as much of it "all sounds the same" as pop (more probably)

I felt the 'Rockist Articles' were more about recounting criticisms at 'Pop' by those who demand 'proper musicians' playing 'chops' and an overt and obvious authenticity in music. The sort who might sport a 'Keep Music Live' sticker without irony, or refuse to enjoy The Monkees magnificent rendering of Carole King's 'As We Go Along' because The Monkees were manufactured, didn't write the song and didn't play on the record.

I'm a terrible music snob myself, and I certainly don't care for a lot of what constitutes 'Pop' at present. Autotune is still dreadfully overused, the beats and melodies seem incredibly generic and much as I've tried to appreciate for example Robyn, as frequently recommended by Bob (the OP of the Rockist thread) I can't extricate that from the general default-setting mediocrity I hear blaring out of the canteen radio at work. I love the Pop music of the 80s, but Pop then was Madness, Kid Creole, Duran, Adam Ant, Gary Numan, Haircut 100, Bananarama, Toyah, Wham, Boy George, Spandau Ballet. There was an extraordinary diversity of sounds and styles and hairdressing. It also helped that I was a child then, but I don't see that diversity of rhythm, sound and trousers in the Pop of today.

Nevertheless a lot of the 'Rockist Articles' are contravened by the contents of my iPod , as are the Popist Articles. I can identify with the criticisms and all of these are easily levelled at the stuff I like to listen to which is often wilfully obscure, not played on 'real instruments', not played live with a blatant 'feeling', you can't dance to it, you can't not dance to it, intellectual, stupid, apolitical, can't hear the words, nobody likes it, instantly gratifying, takes ages to get into, probably not liked by person who owns 10 CDs and

ah fuggit. Here's Jamie XX. This is in some ways both Popist and Rockist and I like it:

...something to do with rosaries, the Virgin Mary and transubstantiation?

... only "pseudo intellectual"

That's Neil Tennant fucked then. And the Human League. Xenomania might be a bit twitchy as well...

Its quite a broad church, as has been said. Anything from …

11) I want to be convinced that I can be a pop star. Regardless of any talent I may have, or whether I give a flying fecula about music.

all the way to the quite revolutionary … 

12) You are supposed to be talented singer and performer to be successful.

There is now the highly crafted Pop, purveyed by the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé. Which clearly, whether you happen to like the message of the music or not, has a musical sophistication and genuine craft that is obvious to anyone. However prejudiced you may be against Pop. You are forced to observe, that this music has finally been arrived at, through a fair amount of skill and development. And its not just musical talent either thats required! Oh no. Damn I'd like to have seen Janis Joplin trying to do those highly sychronised.. never mind, maybe not.

Then there is the "I could do that" kind of Pop. Which is now I think thankfully, slightly less fashionable that it once was. The idea and the whole psychological basis behind this type of Pop, is that the audience is supposed to think, yep you got it. "I could do that! that could be me!" So its about presenting musically redundant aspirations, as a form of escape. A great deal of the 80's pop, The Spice Girls and... Jedward could all be swept with a large broom into this category.