Let’s be honest: Does anyone really know what the hell “pop music” means anymore? The phrase has been stretched out, continuously misconstrued and applied to such a scatter plot of splinter genres (see: bastard pop, pop-punk) that, frankly, its diagnostic abilities have gone the way of the dodo.

When you hear the word “pop,” who or what springs immediately to mind? Maybe it’s a pin-up of Britney Spears striking a commercially viable pose in a skimpy tube top. Maybe it’s Michael Jackson, the alleged “King of Pop.” Maybe it’s Auto-Tune, that remarkable software that makes every pop singer's mediocre voice sound on-pitch.

Regardless, it’s likely that the immediate connotations of “pop” huddle around the central hub of popular music (before the term “pop music” gained genre status, it was simply used to classify music with mainstream appeal). Pop music, in its most basic form, is often confined to airbrushed radio darlings including boy bands, American Idol divas and the Jonas Brothers.

Still, pop subgenres like indie pop and avant-pop fly directly in the face of pop music’s historical roots. The raison d'être driving both indie music and avant-garde music is the freedom to deviate from the sonic norm — the joy in shucking off the burden of widespread commercial appeal.

But somehow, these counterculture genres have ended up as prefixes in the sub-pop catalogue. Call me a cynical douche, but it certainly seems like our country’s capitalist machine finds a way of taking art that is “against the system” and integrating it back into the very system it opposes via oxymoronic labels. It’s like “pop” is the Time Warner of music, buying up all the niche genres and throwing them into the conglomerate meat grinder.

Case in point: Sirius Blog Radio. When an artist as underground as Ariel Pink makes it onto any form of public broadcast, you know the apocalypse is on its way.

But I digress. If the modern definition of pop music can’t be decided on an “airplay vs. non-airplay” basis, then what about attempting to draw the line based on formal qualities? Is it the verse-chorus-verse template (with the obligatory bridge) that constitutes pop music?

No, because bands like Deerhoof and Animal Collective, who have tossed conventional song structure into the blender, are still referred to as “avant-pop” outfits. Is it a strait-laced sense of acoustic cleanliness and accessibility that puts them into this category? Apparently not, because an entire subgenre (noise pop) has been sanctioned for bands like Sonic Youth and My Bloody Valentine that mangle their hooks and choruses with jarring guitar feedback and grating drones. People could play this game forever and find exceptions to every seemingly fitting criterion.

When push comes to shove (and, if you ask me, it has), it almost seems like the “pop” label has been spread so thin that it applies to essentially any type of music with discernible vocal melodies — a far cry from its original meaning. This may seem like a rash statement, but scan your iTunes library and you’ll start to see what I mean. Sure, there’s the occasional anomaly — avant-kraut-prog outfit Can (to truly bastardized these hyphenated mash-ups) may sport vocal hooks, but no one in his or her right mind would ever associate the band with the word “pop.” Regardless, virtually any band that sports semi-melodic vocals or the occasional refrain can be categorized under some obscure strain of the pop taxonomy.

Maybe it’s easier to work backwards — to define “pop” by first defining what clearly isn’t pop. Let’s see … what about instrumental music? Given the latest, outlandishly broad definition (essentially, music with vocals), it certainly seems like vocal-less music would be exempt from the “pop” stamp by default.