Jump to content

Talk:Styles of pop music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing genres

[edit]

@GogoLion. Hi, here's the lists of missing pop genres, if you are still interested in making list complete. These ones are proper pop subgenres, which should be placed in the correct sections of the list:

'Popular music' articles. Some of them refer to pop-music only, some are about overall popular meta (incl. rock, r&b, soul, etc). So it worth to check the about the subject they describe - and if it's just pop, then place them to regional section (and it also worth to nominate them to renaming to plain pop if needed).

The genres which are subclasses of pop music on Wikidata. They might be real pop music genres and should be placed in proper section, or, if not, then should be placed in 'related genres' section.

Solidest (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+ many from the Category:Pop music genres are also missing from the list. Solidest (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only genres that i missed are only bitpop and cringe pop. Adult Contemporary is a radio format. Bedroom pop is still debatable, as the page says "By the 2010s, journalists would indiscriminately apply "bedroom pop" for any music that sounded "fuzzy". Dark pop is not a genre, it's like "ballad pop", just a style. Neon pop-punk is explained in pop-punk section. New pop is a movement, not a genre. Pop rap is already done (see hip pop). Pop-punk also already done. Post-Britpop is rock music. There's no article about Ragga pop. Wonky pop is already done. And the rest are regional scenes, should be added in new section. -GogoLion (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disco pop addition

[edit]

I've tagged a few items in the disco-pop section as it's a bit of a mess. there is no mention of disco-pop, what the style is defined by (outside what appears to be a questionable fan sources), and the history is vague. There is no mention of disco pop in the lead NYT sources specifically. it doesn't even states if it's a style of pop so it's inclusion here is dubious. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) c[reply]

  1. I couldn't find any direct quotes about the date of appearance. But the term is used in NYT quite a few times in articles in 1977-1979 [1], I don't know why you didn't notice the term in the listed one. Esquire says 1976's Dancing Queen is disco-pop, here the same about the 1978 album [2], here about 1979's "I Was Made for Lovin' You" [3]. Billboard magazine also has many mentions of the term from 1979 onwards. And the disco article itself says about the transition to pop during this period. I doubt that direct quotations are really required here, when the list article is in a format of short summarising, and is not a standalone full article. But perhaps indeed it could be rephrased to something like "the term has been in use since the late 70s".
  2. Regarding with the genre characteristics - I've summed up them from the listed sources that write them in the context of mentioning the term (saying disco-pop album/song has groovy disco bone with pop's melodic vocals and hooks). But the only source doesn't seem like a fan quality to me - old sites like this with deep content on music genres are often used as RS in the genre articles, and here I think there is enough expertise considering the weight of the articles on this site. But of course it would be better if something else could be found directly about the characteristics, because that's currently the weakest side.
  3. Regarding the decline in popularity - I could put a reference to disco backlash, as that's what I meant - it applies to both genres. Regarding the following decades, already listed [4] says that it wasn't until the 90s when disco elements started to appear again and only in the 00s strict disco-pop tracks like "Hung Up" stated to appear.
  4. Regarding the fact if it's a pop style - it seems obvious to me, and also that it should be in this list, and I doubt it needs a direct quote for that (otherwise you can make the same claims for 1/3 of genres listed here). The listed sources already talk about the genre in the context of pop music, saying it's a "pop trend", "pop scene" or equaling it to "disco-infused pop".
  5. But anyway the description can be improved. I have wikilinked somewhere around 175 articles to the redirect - and almost everywhere the term is specified with sources. The term itself is very easily traceable in sources, so I think that it will not be a problem to improve this paragraph for those who are interested in it (up to the expansion into a separate article, if they can find details on the characteristics and history). Solidest (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to find something more substantial, and the old site doesn't seem to pass WP:RS standards. Also, that's WP:OR and fails verification if you can't find specific sources. Critic's can use the term all you want but without some stronger definitions, these hybrid genres are used without intrinsic meaning and you can't just say that's when a style started. Just because a term is used continuously, doesn't mean there is any sources that you are trying to make here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solidest:, its been a few months, and despite this genre being used a lot, there is no signifigant coverage of it still to be included in its current state. Are you planning to address the issues? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the mentioned mistakes and added sources. Here in general the situation is that in 70s-80s the term was used though not rarely, but I can't find any articles describing the genre in detail at that time (probably because it was clear to everyone what it was). And you could say that concerning that time the genre does not pass WP:SIGCOV, but the situation with modern music is completely different - the term is widely used in overview articles in the context of its resurrection and is regularly mentioned in both reviews and new articles in relation to a lot of artists. Rolling Stone probably uses the term more often than anyone else: [5], including in 70s articles, but not comparably more regarding contemporary articles. And it seems a bit odd to write about the resurrection of something original of what is poorly described by sources (but maybe I'm just a bad searcher), so I've added at least occasional mentions regarding the 70s. I think that's enough for a paragraph in a list of genres. Perhaps there would even be enough information for a separate article about "disco pop revival", but I don't plan to create it. Solidest (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest:, Just because the term is widely used, does not mean it passes significant coverage. There is no unique discussion on the topic and critics and writers and fans could use the term interchangeably. They fail WP:SIGCOV because they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail." None of them even suggest this is a sub-genre of pop (why not disco?) or anything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not trivial uses, but individual articles about this trend explicitly discussing it as a formed concept, not as something unidentified that can have forty meanings. These are multiple articles describing the resurgence of this trend and they explicitly address the topic, not just trivially mention it, and so it passes WP:SIGCOV quite well. The mentions in the reviews just emphasise the prevalence of the trend. Regarding positioning as a subgenre - we have many fusion genres on wikipedia that are described as subgenre of x and possibly subgenre of y. The most obvious example is folk rock, which is treated equally as folk and non folk by different sources. However, even here the situation is different, articles about revival clearly describe this trend as pop music with a disco sound. In fact, the question here is whether it can be called a subgenre of disco or not, but this is not a list of disco genres. Solidest (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they do not. They just casually tag a song with disco-pop, no explanation of what it is, how it does (or does not) differ from disco, or just tags a song as "disco-pop" without any sort of explanation.
Some example:
  • "And he came into his own with the sterling disco pop of 1979's Off the Wall" here
  • "If the pair of singles they’ve released prove anything, it’s that they’ve been bottling up disco-pop lightning for years."
here
  • "but at heart this is timeless disco-pop just like your mother used to bake." here
  • "Sophie Ellis-Bextor has been churning out disco-pop hits for more than 20 years" here
While this source does have the headline "Disco Fever Strikes Again" and mentions "Dua Lipa’s latest release Future Nostalgia is an essay in majestic disco pop and is spearheading its most recent revival;" it establishes it as part of a bigger trend of nu-disco, and is predominantly discussing straight up "disco".
This is why it fails WP:SIGCOV, its a term that is sure used a lot, but nobody has said anything of what it means, or how it differs (if it does at all) from any other genre). Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the academic journal entry mentions it, but can't definite or say how it differs from disco, or what makes it unique. Again, trivial reference after trivial reference. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the early articles - I agree that this era doesn't have detailed documentation of the genre, and I've already written the reason why I added those lines and sources in this way - because it would be strange to talk about what many articles describe as a resurgence, that is not labelled or mentioned in any way in this paragraph.
Next, I see three mentions of the term "disco pop" on theatlantic.com - maybe you ignored the spellings without the hyphen? It literally describes how a modern version of disco-pop sounds like, using three albums as an example:

In most cases of 2020 disco pop, artists prized richness and intricacy as they fit vintage signifiers into sleek modern templates. The production team for Future Nostalgia repurposed some of the corniest tropes from dance music throughout the decades—fusing Studio 54 gimmicks with macho ’80s guitars and 2000s melodic math—for a radically sincere head rush. This was also the approach of Gaga’s crew with Chromatica, though they were more focused on ’90s rave culture. The most transporting album of the bunch was Ware’s What’s Your Pleasure?, whose keyboard sizzles and drum thwacks seemed coated in a mix of glitter and cobwebs. Ware’s music immediately transforms any room into a more elegant place. But possibly the best disco-pop track to come out of this moment is “Experience,” a single from the EP Jaguar by the rising R&B singer Victoria Monét.

What is this if not an obvious description of the sound of the revival of the genre? I realise you're expecting a detailed history and thorough analysis of the genre, but WP:SIGCOV doesn't call for that. Considering that this is a 4 year old phenomenon, and there are already a couple of major articles written on the trend, as well as individual paragraphs describing it in various places where it is uniformly called 'disco pop revival' and it is unanimously described as a unambiguous thing, so I think it definitely passes WP:SIGCOV. Next we weigh the amount of information and here we can see that although it is covered in sources directly and in detail (listing artists and releases with its charts, characteristics, reviews + some analysis on this trend), it lacks depth regarding the history - that's why it's placed in lists like this rather than in a separate article. But I think you could get more people to discuss this, for example by starting a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force. If the majority would agree that the sources listed are insufficient to place the genre on this list, then I'll go along with it. Solidest (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we don't even have enought of a weight to suggest it belongs here over disco, because there is very little weight with how or where it fits outside our own assumptions. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist as it's discussed in bits and pieces, but there is little form the sources to pull and I think what is pulled falls under original research. Yes, we have that article on the SalSoul Orchestra from the 1970s, but that doesn't mean that's the first instance of the term being used and none of the sources state that. And yes, several hits have been described as belonging to the genre, but that doesn't really add up much for the topic on hand. I'd like to have some sort of solid ground on what it is and what it isn't either, but this is why SIGCOV comes into play, because currently it's over stepping the grounds from the sources on hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating what I've already given you answers to, and I encourage you to continue that conversation by engaging new people, preferably in a music genre project talk page.
> we don't even have enought of a weight to suggest it belongs here over disco
There's no lack of weight on the subject of defining pop as a parent genre here. I keep thinking you're operating ctrl+f's on random quotes instead of a deep look at sources and references. Sources on the disco pop revival trend explicitly describe it as part of pop music, they explicitly write 'disco pop' and then in the next sentence 'pop music' in the very same context. Sources describing specific releases also describe it as a pop.
> I think what is pulled falls under original research
When you have an article that describes disco pop trend, releases and artists, and you quote almost directly from it, that's not an original research.
> we have that article on the SalSoul Orchestra
I've already answered three times about sources from the 70s. They are given here for the logical and consistent aspect, they are really close to lacking the weight and are mostly just mentions. If they really bother you, you can removed them, but I would keep them just for the sake of consistency.
> several hits have been described as belonging to the genre, but that doesn't really add up much for the topic on hand.
This is how genre articles on wikipedia are written. You have a little choice of what you can put in the subgenre text.
> I'd like to have some sort of solid ground on what it is and what it isn't either
Then you should probably read theatlantic article and supplement the information from there? There is indeed a bit more to add from there. (But then it would already be an expansion to the article size.) All we need to discuss here is that this trend is "presumed to be suitable for this list because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The amount of coverage is, in my opinion, significant for a position on the list. It's called the same everywhere and described the same way, named the same releases and the same artists by multiple independent major sources. So I don't see what else there is to discuss. Solidest (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that's what i'm talking about specific coverage.
Per your points
  • "they explicitly write 'disco pop' and then in the next sentence 'pop music' in the very same context. Sources describing specific releases also describe it as a pop." Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." This is why I'm doubting the significant coverage, if they wanted to say disco-pop. They would have. They haven't, so we should not either.
  • As for the Atlantic article, I don't have access to it. Could you quote me specifically what they get into? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic article is available in the web archive. And you again continue to argue about something based on your guesses and not on direct text. Without even realising what quotes I'm talking about, you cite WP:STICKTOSOURCE, which is absurd. I'm sorry, but I have no desire to continue this discussion and waste my time like this anymore. If you are still interested in the topic - then go to the WP Music genre project to discuss and get other people's opinions. Here I don't see any problems with keeping the genre in this list. Solidest (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to go through the articles and just edit them so it matches the sources. Stick to source, says specifically not to combine information from sources and assume conclusions. While some sources say there is a disco revival, others say disco-pop and it would be wrong to assume they mean the same thing per the above rule mentioned. I'm happy to discuss if you change your mind, but I don't feel like i'm breaking any rules by sticking to what the sources say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Styles_of_pop_music&oldid=1247275721"