Talk:Sophisti-pop

Alison Moyet

Shouldn't she also be considered for this genre? __meco 06:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And RAH Band? __meco 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather classify her style as "Blue-eyed Soul". But German Hong Kong Syndicate and Swiss Double were Sophisti-pop, maybe also some titles by Danish Laid Back or Swiss Yello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.203.91 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Queen of Sophisti-pop

Who is the Queen of Sophisti-pop?

72.82.199.241 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this term is encyclopedia-worthy. If you search the books on Google Books, it's barely mentioned at all. Any major genre has dozens of matches in magazines etc. 86.161.31.85 (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This term has next to no currency, especially in Britain where all these acts come from. It was never used as a genre name in the 80s and isn't widely used or understood now. Who even came up with the term "sophisti-pop"? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the term

I agree that this term was not in use during the eighties, but I like it a lot now. The bands listed here do have something in common, which is neatly caught in the term sophisti-pop. I haven't contributed to this article at all, so I'm unbiased. I thought I'd mention that I find this grouping very useful for encyclopaedic purposes, since - as said - it reflects a personal perspective as music aficionado which I couldn't put a name on previously.

Dieter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.185.9 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this 'something' they have in common? I can't think of anything apart from nationality that links Prefab Sprout with Sade, ABC with Johnny Hates Jazz or the Style Council with Matt Bianco. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Safire, sophisi-pop...very mistaken

As a fan of freestyle music, Safire is absolutely not sophisti-pop. Her freetyle hits and power ballad, "Thinking of You" are so opposite of the sophisti-pop genre. A big club hit of Safire, "Boy, I've Been Told" is popular among us freestyle enthusiasts. She often does freestyle reunion shows and to be honest I can't believe she was among the artists mentioned in this article. She is in the freestyle music page, as she needs to be. Removed her from the list, even though AllMusic mentioned her, mistakenly. DJghr1 (talk) 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult when a "reliable source" says one thing and logic says another, but I think this is a reasonable argument. Allmusic is "reliable", but it is not always correct. I am still bewildered by the fact that they categorised Frank Sinatra as soft rock. In the unlikely event of someone contesting this we can go hunting alternative sources, but let's use common sense and leave her out for now.--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hogwash

This term didn't exist at the time, and is not necessary to adopt now. It's just pop. Some pop is better than others but it's all pop.76.97.76.83 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be removed. The term was invented recently by someone at allmusic to lump together all these artists. In the 80s this was just 'pop' 92.17.52.178 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If this article is to remain it should at least make clear that it is a comparatively neologistic marketing term and that in the period when the acts that supposedly populate the genre were active, it was not used and those very disparate acts were not considered to be a genre. The current wording incorrectly implies that it was regarded as a genre in the 80s and 90s and that the term was in use then. Is this term at all widely used now, was it used at all more than ten years ago, let alone in the period in question? Hue and Cry weren't aware of it and were somewhat amused by encountering it. All but one of the refs is from Allmusic. It all seems a bit unconvincing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A fair summary. Can we find something reliable that describes that situation?--SabreBD (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we may struggle for the very reason that it is an under-used and relatively obscure term which, from a Google search, only really seems to be used on sites that have a need to categorise music, for playlisting, suggesting "you may also like" or whatever. Nobody else is really using it, let alone discussing the circumstances of its origin. Citing Hue and Cry's baffled and amused reaction might be a bit WP:SYNTHy. Hopefully something will show up but the current wording, implying contemporary usage, is unsupported so I think it fair that it be amended. What about: "Sophisti-pop is a subgenre term retrospectively applied to pop that flourished in the UK between the mid-1980s and early 1990s, incorporating elements of soft rock, jazz, new wave, and blue-eyed soul. Music so-classified often made extensive use of electronic keyboards, synthesizers, and polished arrangements, particularly horn sections."?

This article, linked from the Stylus ref, makes reference to when the author "first heard the term “sophisti-pop”" but the link provided is dead. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the suggested wording covers it very well and this is not an unreasonable summary given the circumstances. I will take a look around, but I think you are right, given the level of obscurity, this might be hard to nail down.--SabreBD (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It was invented by Thomas Inskeep - who is likely to be DJ Literock Lesstalk [found on Twitter with the following info: @thomasinskeepPop critic and writer, contributor to @singlesjukebox, Purdue fan, Californian, yacht rocker, single, perv, 47.Santa Cruz, CA] and Alfred Soto [instructor of journalism, a media advisor at Florida International. University, and freelance editor for SPIN. He was features editor of Stylus Magazine. His work has appeared in Billboard, The Village Voice, The Miami Herald, Rolling Stone, Slate, MTV, Pitchfork, and The Pitchfork Review] in 2007 after someone used it in a passing comment on a message board. Note: 'Post-punk Monk' (who came up with 'NWOBJP (the New Wave of British Jazz Pop)' in 2010) also looks to be American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk • contribs)

Are these assertions stated, plainly, in reliable sources or just your personal deductions or hunches? Please sign your posts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Info found (researched) via google with the Thomas Inskeep bio from Twitter, Alfred Soto info from 'popconference2018' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

For people who don't know (i.e. not Matt Lunker) they were the Americans who were involved with the following articles in 2007: "The Bluffer's Guide to Sophisti-Pop" and "Pop Playground: Debonair Lullabies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, original research is not allowed. Sign your posts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To have "emerged" as a thing in the 80s it must have been regarded as existent

Per above, stating that this genre "emerged in the 80s" means that these disparate acts were regarded as connected and that this term was widely used for them (or even used at all) in the 80s. None of the sources supports either of these assertions (naturally, as it is false) so the claim should be removed. If it emerged as being regarded as a genre, this appears to be no earlier than the 2000s, long after the heyday of the acts in question. There is not apparently any earlier instance of usage of the term. Whichever way it is worded one runs the risk of either convoluted phrasing or veering into synth but that certainly applies to the current wording, which is misleading at best, if not downright wrong. One thing that is supportable though is that there is current usage (though seemingly scant, as evidenced by artists supposedly of the genre themselves being unaware of it). How about "Sophisti-pop is a currently-used term to denote a subgenre of pop music, the artists having emerged during the mid-1980s in the UK." Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The new citations do not state that there was contemporary usage of the term or that it was recognised as a genre in the 80s itself. Neither do they clarify that it is a retrospective classification. They might however be read as giving the impression that the former was the case and that translates to the article in its current state, making it misleading. Can you clarify if you are advancing the view that the term was actually in contemporary use and the genre contemporarily recognised? Do you have any references citing examples of contemporary usage? If not, do you agree that is important that the article does not give such a false impression? The term is sufficiently obscure that we are unlikely to find many sources that discuss it let alone nail the matter but we do know that the term is in current usage (if barely) and can word the lede to say this but not give any false impressions. Let me try again: "Sophisti-pop is a subgenre of pop music. The term has been applied to music that emerged during the mid-1980s in the UK which incorporated elements of jazz, soul and pop."? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Blue-eyed soul

Yes, I think you are right, it's not something I remember from the 1980s even though I grew up with all these acts in the late 1980s. It wasn't a term widely used in the UK in the 1980s (when journos would have probably written it down as Sophistipop without the hyphen in a similar way to Britpop or Europop). Most journos would have just said these pop acts were being 'blue eyed soulsters'...though there seems to be some criticism/cultural appropriation attached to the Blue-eyed soul term according to wiki, this is why I have added...

"As large number of Sophisti-pop acts would have fallen under the Blue-eyed soul (or if they were a Scottish pop act in Cut Magazine[7], Celtic Soul) genre at the time, the idea of Sophisti-pop may have been developed by journalists/bloggers due to a number of racist connotations implied by the term 'Blue-eyed soul'[8][9][10], whilst grouping all the acts under a 'Yuppie Music'[11][12] tag may have overlapped too much with those soft-rock chart artists now grouped under the 2000s-era Yacht rock term". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.202 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting speculation but original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, reliable sources must be used, Wikipedia itself is excluded a source and you can not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

so if the 'made-up-21stC. genre' of Sophisti-pop had been invented on stylusmagazine.blogspot.com or stylusmagazine.wordpress.com it wouldn't be a thing then?

All I was trying to do was put a link from Blue-eyed Soul to Sophisti-pop and vice versa (as it would be easier than people going through the pages of Simply Red or The Style Council all the time) because a lot of the British pop acts who were seen as being blue-eyed soulsters in the 80s are now grouped under this 21st Century term (with all the jazz-poppers and Prefab Sprout) which has gained traction online as people have got access to wiki and AMG and not loads of old copies of RM, No.1 and Smash Hits.

Previously on the Blue-eyed soul page...

• Sophisti-pop - a 2010s term applied retrospectively to a number of 1980s pop acts, many of whom would have fallen under the 'blue-eyed soul' tag at the time
• Yacht rock - another music genre term applied retrospectively to a certain group of acts by journalists and fans

I added a link to Sophisti-pop as Yacht rock was already there, but it was deleted as someone decided Blue-eyed Soul was only a 1960s American thing. But where does that leave all (mostly British) Blue-eyed Soul acts of the 1980s then if Sophisti-pop is a 21stC. thing? Pop? But that's too wide ranging as it must include Synthpop, Electropop and Cheese.

To be honest, I don't see how Yacht rock (a link which was already there) could be seen as a more of a Blue-eyed Soul thing than a lot of these 1980s acts who are classed/have been classed as Blue-eyed Soul pop acts...apart from the fact that Michael McDonald is seen as some kind of 'God of the Yacht' (from the Guardian comments: "The Doobies survived but traded up to the blue-eyed soul sophistication of Michael McDonald"" plus see also Record Collector). On wiki Yacht Rock is linked to

• List of yacht rock artists
• Culture of California
• Jazz rock
• Smooth soul
• Blue-eyed soul

therefore should't there be a link to Blue-eyed Soul on this page especially if Sophisti-pop is a music that incorporates "elements of jazz, soul, and pop" that seems to be made mostly by 'white guys' even if those white guys are not Michael McDonald. (P.S. if someone is going to say "Well Sade Adu is not a white guy"...then remember that some see her/her band as being a proper soul/jazzy-soul/smooth jazz act and that Halo James included the bloke who co-wrote "Smooth Operator", though by 2005 around '95% of pop fans' [not an actual fact like "nine-million bicycles in Beijing") had forgotten this bunch of blue-eyed soul poppers/Bros wannabes...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.202 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You can deduce whatever you like, however credibly, but only deductions that are specifically drawn by WP:RS are allowed in WP articles. Please follow the links I provided to familiarise yourself with the pertinent policies. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

I would say Classic Pop is a reliable source and it has been used as a source on Wiki in regards to pop music many times in the past. In their Sophisti-Pop list they have it explicitly stated that Deacon Blue embraced 'blue-eyed soul and Celtic music' on 'When The World Knows Your Name', one of the Best Albums of this 'genre' according to Oliver Hurley (though if I had been hired to write this list I would have plumped for 'Raintown')...the rest of the list having many mentions to soul-pop, jazz-pop etc...therefore there must be a link between blue-eyed soul in the 80s and Sophisti-pop....

from Top 15 Sophisti-Pop Albums Written by Oliver Hurley for Classic Pop.

"9. Deacon Blue

When The World Knows Your Name (1989)

On its release in April 1989, When The World Knows Your Name entered the charts at No.1 and cemented the Scottish band’s status as consummate purveyors of insistent melodies and captivating harmonies. In contrast to the melancholic sound of their debut, 1987’s Raintown, songs such as Fergus Sings The Blues and Real Gone Kid have an energetic immediacy while also embracing blue-eyed soul and Celtic music".

However, some might say Oliver Hurley is just a freelance journalist who had been hired to make a throw-away list of random 80s albums and maybe the blokes in the comments who said that The Blue Nile should have been in the chart may have had a point (maybe replacing the Talk Talk album selected, as some would say that the "Spirit of Eden" album is in a category all of its own)...with reference to Tv Tropes written by someone who can't make up their mind if its sophistipop or sophisti-pop..

"For genre highlights, The Beautiful South's Welcome to the Beautiful South and 0898 Beautiful South, The Blue Nile's Hats and A Walk Across the Rooftops, Prefab Sprout's Steve McQueen, Simply Red's Stars, and Sade's Diamond Life and Love Deluxe are all considered masterpieces"

P.S. Even though these are good albums I wouldn't say that that TV Tropes is a good reference source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.187 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Aside from Wikipedia not being a source for itself, the discussion does not regard the reliability of the source or sources, it regards what they say. They do not say what you say; you are synthesising different aspects to say something they do not. You must not pool sources to draw conclusions they do not. Please, as requested, read WP:SYNTH. You would also do well to familiarise yourself with WP:NOTFORUM as you are also straying in that direction.Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to Personal inventions. "If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word frindle, it is not notable enough to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And Wikipedia is certainly not for things made up one day". Please note that The Bluffer's Guide to Sophisti-Pop and the Pop Playground article Debonair Lullabies were both published on 2007-02-22 (22nd Feb 2007)...is this a thing made up one day or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk • contribs)

References

My bad ref is your good ref?

I obtained the ref that has just been labelled "unreliable as per WP:MUSIC/ABOUT.COM", and the accompanying text removed, from that very editor in their recent edit here, which they have contradictorily retained in the article. I'm also unclear where in the ABOUT.COM link there is an indication that this ref is unreliable as it appears to discuss an unrelated web site and makes no mention of the author as reliable or otherwise.

There is also the assertion that the information removed is "unnecessary in lead section". This implies it would be okay elsewhere but the article only has one section of text so there is no "lead section" to remove it from or further body of the article to relegate it to. So the information was just erased (as the editor has done repeatedly in the past). Per the discussions above, it is highly pertinent in an article about a music genre to note that it is only regarded as such retrospectively and was not so-regarded at the time. If the ref is genuinely unreliable, the information can be challenged and removed but classifying it as unnecessary seems too close to just not liking it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, wait a minute - the unreliable ref comment is in regard to that for the listing of Spandau Ballet below; unrelated but also removed in the edit in question. That removal is fair enough. So the removal of the information that the term is applied retrospectively has simply been blanked by the very provider of its reliable source?! Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is copious engagement on this talk page about the significance that this supposed genre was not in any way regarded as one at the time and that the term for and concept of it was coined retrospectively and long after... except for by the user who continually blanks this fact with changing flimsy and questionable edit-summary justifications: "unnecessary" (I don't like it), "most genres are applied retrospectively" (largely rot but if occasionally true, this then is notable). At least the latter indicates acceptance of the fact.

I can only imagine the reaction on realising the own goal scored in the offensive to blank this fact by themself providing a reliable reference to its veracity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A correction and for what it's worth, it looks like the user fixed a dead link to the supporting RS rather than providing it in the first instance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I've flagged this at WikiProject Music. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is Mutt Lunker being over-protective of this genre?

Why is Mutt Lunker being over-protective of this genre? Please explain yourself without just posting links to the Wiki manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As one will discern from my posts above, I view this supposed genre as being a rarely-employed, retrospectively-applied, contrived, neologism for a spurious concept that does not meaningfully hang together; a bag of bollocks if you will. But at Wikipedia is not for us to ponder, in colossally lengthy rambling forum posts, our personal musings as to, for example, what extent should Americans make generalisations about the British music scene and come up with their own definitions?. If they demonstrably do, supported by reliable sources, that is all we need concern ourselves with. We dispassionately note this.

As well as being an imposition to foist your essay upon the talk page, it is likewise an imposition to provide a reading list with no explanation as to what point it is supposed to be illustrating to discuss changes to (this talk page's) associated article. If you have such a point, get to it. Would you like to make changes to the article, if so what are they and which reliably sources specifically say this, not your theories based on WP:SYNTHESIS of them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt, if you view sophisti-pop as "being a rarely-employed, retrospectively-applied, contrived, neologism for a spurious concept that does not meaningfully hang together; a bag of bollocks" and I view it in exactly the same way then why are we arguing about it? I don't know if you care for this style of mainstream 80s pop music or just a fan of updating Wikipedia, but in regards to Sophisti-pop I am on the same side as you...

The points I'm trying to get to get to people is as follows

A) if sophisti-pop (even with that hyphen, though - like Ghmyrtle and others have argued on the New Wave thread - maybe it should have been Sophistipop as people involved in youth culture probably wouldn't be bothered about grammar) and about 'jazz, soul, and pop' then it should include a bit about blue-eyed soul/white soul and jazz-pop as these, along with pop, would be terms would be used back in the 1980s (it already got the box for jazz, pop and soul at the bottom, but shouldn't people be directed to the right jazz, pop and soul articles)

B) if sophisti-pop is a retro thing invented by a couple of Amercians in the 2000s, then maybe it shouldn't just be linked to Quiet storm, a link to Yacht Rock would be helpful as well (especially since Thomas Inskeep is a self-styled yacht rocker)

C) if sophisti-pop is about studio sophistication then put it in the direction of acts like Talk Talk, David Sylvian, Kate Bush and The Blue Nile etc.

D) if sophisti-pop is about Thatcherism, then maybe a mention of Margaret Thatcher and yuppies might be beneficial to set the scene of the era (Note: I hope you have watched Dominic Sandbrook, it's very good)

E) if sophisti-pop is about Bryan Ferry, then maybe its about Phil Collins and Donald Fagen as well (especially with Prefab Sprout and Deacon Blue being mentioned a lot of the time on blogs in regards to this genre)

F) if sophisti-pop is all these things and more then make it reflect that, as people will notice the term online, put it into google and end up being misinformed when they end up here.

Note: I have not come across a BBC Four programme or Trailblazers episode about the genre yet (so it true that its probably not very well known with the section of the general public in the UK who would watch Sky Arts/BBC Four) though it would be good for Trailblazers as it has been one of the better examples of music programming recently...but lets hope Music Icons - with John Aizlewood, Will Hodgkinson and Sunta Templeton (a 'Clips & Quotes show' where people might as well be reading wiki for viewers watching on AXS TV) - don't get to sophisti-pop, as they will just end up regurgitating Thomas Inskeep's article without much thought.

P.S. this is not supposed to resemble an essay, I just talk a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

In regards to the 'reading list'

Matt you say "As well as being an imposition to foist your essay upon the talk page, it is likewise an imposition to provide a reading list with no explanation as to what point it is supposed to be illustrating"

but how can these links illustrate the point when you took the explanation away at a click at a button...for something you think is 'bollocks' I cannot understand why you are wasting my and your own time...the only thing that matters is the music....and I don't know if you care about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop the scattergun approach of posting multiple threads in different places, including partly duplicating them on my own talk page. If it's about the article, keep it at the article. How I, or you, or any other user, view an article's subject is neither here nor there; Wikipedia is about the views of reliable sources. Our own views are original research and are barred. Again, signing your posts will be an aid to others following them; please do it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I think Sophisti-pop is 'bollocks' (just like you) I think I have 'sat on the fence' a lot of the time, even with the 'Americans-on-British Culture' aspect, and the reason why I may have waffled on might have been you...as I can't be sure if you are actually reading any of these comments of just going look its "original research" etc etc. You may have the time in lockdown but I know I don't. I have given you ideas how to expand this article based what people have said on here and online and it would be good if you could just discuss things without making it more about reading things that are not about music. Its obvious something has to be done with this Sophisti-pop section as a lot of the time it doesn't ring true by just going off Stylus' definition...but maybe it shouldn't be up to you and me to discuss it as looks as we will just be arguing over the same viewpoint. Maybe you should stick to your Scottish things (without being protective of something you think is bollocks) and I should stick to Sky Arts. Perhaps? signed "The Not Matt Lunker" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)