Jump to content

Talk:Hypnagogic pop

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

Structure

[edit]

@Gentlecollapse6: I don't believe this edit was an improvement. The layout made sense; paragraphs were split up as

  1. Keenan's definition
  2. Influences
  3. First applications
  4. Derivative styles

followed by

  1. Critical theories
  2. Reception

The split makes for awkward reading. Not only are we introduced to Keenan twice, but the "History" section is just more info about "Characteristics". Basically,

  1. Keenan's definition
  2. Characteristics
  3. Keenan's definition (again), more characteristics, "chillwave"
  4. "Chillwave" (again), and first applications
  5. Derivative styles

followed by

  1. Critical theories
  2. Reception.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that there's would seem to be a distinction between the sections that are simply defining the basic characteristics of the style, and those that have more to do with the history/etymology and critical terms that were used around it over time. The first two paragraphs of the original section were essentially "these are the characteristics of the style" and then it awkwardly transitions to "by 2010, critics were talking about it xyz" which seemed weird. Plus, there's a load of extra sources you've added that you use to simultaneously further define the style AND connect it to other terms/scenes AND refer to particular albums, which seems like too much tied together at once. If you wanna change it back that's fine, but it seems like a clump of redundant information already. Gentlecollapse6 (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovetopaint re the "Round and Round" bit........why not just pick a different song with better description?? There's certainly other Pink tracks, or something by Ferraro for sure, that's been described as hpop in terms that actually reflect what the article is talking about. Among other things, that Atlantic description is totally off, it sounds nothing like Ade OR the beach boys, more like 80s soft rock. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a better song referenced "definitively" in a source then go ahead and I'll upload a sample of it - that was the only article I could find that named anything specific. I could've used "Feel It All Around" but I thought that was more chillwave than hypnagogic. And I've never listened to King Sunny Ade but I'm pretty sure the author had "Steamboat" in mind (I don't believe the comparison is unwarranted). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, from the Oxford Handbook: "Lopatin's video for "angel" exemplifies hypnagogic pop's format for cultural appropriation..." and goes on to talk about both the track and video aesthetic—so perhaps we can even get a short clip of the audio/video, rather than just the mp3 for that one. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Any way to alter the thumbnail? That early animated image of a speaker/clock is almost too good.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, got it! gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Ilovetopaint, not really sure what you're getting at with this edit. The second part seems more specific to Pink, and the first doesn't seem to be explicitly about h-pop. If anything it might belong in the critical response section. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has to do with the origins of hpop, so it makes sense to go under the "origins" header.

In January 2011, Simon Reynolds wrote about the AZ Generation for Village Voice), asserting about them that “the godfather of all this, of course, is Ariel Pink” and referring to “the genre spawned off those three Pink albums”. For Reynolds, the entire, multicoloured AZ Generation (which he himself described as a “legion”) could be grouped together under one genre term, in this case “chillwave”, which apparently accommodated everyone (dubbed Pink’s “chill-dren”) from Emeralds to How To Dress Well to Oneohtrix Point Never to Sun Araw to James Ferraro to Toro Y Moi and even key witch house act Salem, and gave them one over-arching description relating to nostalgia and ‘pre-faded sounds’. The reductive tendency to pre-judge contemporary underground pop as ‘nostalgic’ (again with the Pink-tinted-spectacles), while not entirely or always unsubstantiated, has been all too prevalent in recent years, and it’s undermining the unique contributions made by its artists.

Now of course, it’s too easy for me to claim that the scene was and is a lot more diverse two years later. But Reynolds certainly wasn’t the only one to lump anyone and everyone that felt a bit lo-fi and a bit nostalgic into the same box with Pink, and Bevan’s recent reproduction and re-enforcement of the Pink-as-godfather theory shows that such a reductive perception of the scene is hardening into a consensus historical and aesthetic fact, one that will affect how we listen. Without retreating into obvious absurdity – such as the notion that Pink’s role in today’s underground pop is chiefly negligible – it’s time to consider the counter-arguments.

It hopefully doesn’t need emphasising that Ariel Pink didn’t invent home-recording, or lo-fi, or even retro-lo-fi. In fact, if we look at the history of home-recording and lo-fi, Pink can begin to look like the end of an era rather than the beginning of one. Since the early 1980s, the very same language applied to Pink was being applied to one of his avowed greatest influences and sometime collaborator, R Stevie Moore. ...

... Rather than being the progenitor or the AZ Generation, Pink can easily be understood as the youngest member of this mid-80s Cassette Culture Generation. His recordings, especially his most recent album ‘Mature Themes’, are much more similar to those of the CC Generation than they are to the core artists of chillwave like Washed Out or of hypnagogic pop like early Ferraro and Matrix Metals. Pink’s albums are zany, personal, largely rock-based and dressed in awkward glam, they don’t have the mirror-shades-cool synth groove of chillwave or the pop-art pastiche of hypnagogic pop, and they have very little indeed to do with Grimes. ...

I wasn't sure how to paraphrase all of this so I just copied two sentences that I thought were the most relevant. The "critical response" section is more about "artistic intent" and "feedback" than it is about how such a scene formulated.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just, once again...all of that seems to be about Ariel Pink specifically i.e. is he the pioneering lo-fi pop artist? Is he the first to do this stuff? I'm not sure the article suggests that anywhere, it just describes him as a progenitor of and influence on the h-pop scene, which doesn't seem very contentious. not sure how Pink's big inspirations like R Stevie Moore necessarily belong in this article. It all seems like a minor quibble between Reynolds and Harper over "who did lo-fi pop first," and I don't think it needs to included IMO. Either way, there's definitely no need for the lengthy Harper quotes on this when they could be summarized more succinctly. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retromania: Pop Culture's Addiction to its Own Past

[edit]

Just found this, haven't read it yet but it surely has some things worth putting in this article and others.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • that link didn't work for me, but I'm sure there is—note, however, that the Oxford handbook source runs through Reynold's Retromania argument pretty thoroughly, so it might just be redundant. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't work if you left-click, which I why I recommended to "save as" the link. If it still doesn't work then I uploaded it here too. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypnagogic pop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Haxwell (talk · contribs) 20:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I determine that this article is well written, verifiable, with no original research, addresses the main topics, yet stays focused without unnecessary detail, neutral, stable, and illustrated.

It is a Good Article.

Dude, the point of this is to be a lot more in-depth than that... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hypnagogic pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hypnagogic_pop&oldid=1210739884"