Talk:Pop music/Archive 2

Picture for the 90s

Can I ask why is the millenium album being used for the 90`s picture? Is it the best selling album of the 90`s? I no its sold well but im unaware of how well, if it isnt the best selling album my i suggest the album that is which is most likely going to be the bodyguard soundtrack by whitney or dangerous by michael jackson. Realist2 21:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Madonna

I have taken a large amount of the material about madonna out, the information written was about her entire career when it should have been about 80`s stuff, Realist2 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Core topics contest overhaul

Hi. In accordance with the core topics contest, I'm currently undertaking a comprehensive re-examination of this article. I shall endeavour to be as swift as possible, but be advised that new changes may be affected by the revamp. For concerned editors, I will be considering prior discussions conducted on this talk page. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup needed

Whoa, this page is shocking! It is totally biased and needs a total overhaul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.135.164 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Core topics contest overhaul" above. ↔ Dennywuh 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

wtf..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.1.15 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

... how does it makes sense to state that "pop is not a genre" and simultaneously to have an article heading stating "this is an article about a genre of music", a label saying it's "part of the Music Genres project" and an infobox listing "sub-genres"?

the current intro seems to establish that the article as it stands is NOT about the pop music genre, but rather about "music that makes the pop charts", which is not the same thing. did Please Please Me cease to be a pop song when it dropped out of the charts, and if so what genre does it now represent?? there *is* a genre of music called pop, which has parameters, traditions, etc, and there should be a wikipedia article about it. i propose renaming this article as "Record-chart trends" or something like that. Sssoul (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Too American

This article only talks about America. Can't we get perspectives from other countries? Europe, at least. Aurora sword (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is written almost exclusively from an American perspective. I was trying to find information about the roots / sources of the Beatles, whom I usually consider to be the first 'real pop band', but no such luck really. There's just one or two lines mentioning 'the British invasion'. 213.84.246.79 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You could try looking into Johnny The Kidd & The Pirates, they had a few hits and came before The Beatles.Xanofar (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is still an issue that needs to be looked at. The "Evolution" section of the article in particular is written exclusively from a US viewpoint without giving any sort of a disclaimer. The article might as well be renamed "Pop music in the USA". I appreciate how difficult it would be to give a truly global account of pop music, but some of the other nuclei of pop music (namely the UK) throughout history should be better represented, I feel. Estesark (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, at least half of the hits mentioned in the "2000-present" section were hits only in the US. Riki (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete overhaul

Hi. For a while I've been wanting to do something about this terrible article, and the Core Topics Contest has given me an ideal excuse. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Methodology

After reading the posted article I realise some of my methodology may be suspect; allow me to clarify it.

1. This is a third millennium definition of Pop music, a concept that has evolved substantially over the years. What was and wasn't pop in 1967 doesn't equate much to what is and isn't in 2007.
2. I've removed all performers from the article. I contend that acts can be difficult to classify, whereas songs are unequivocal. The objective of the text is to educate readers, some of whom might not have much prior understanding of pop, and just giving them a list of artists could be confusing (U2 is under no considerations a pop band, but "Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of" is a fine example of 21^st century pop). This will (I hope) have the added bonus of reducing listcruft: it's not as easy to write a paragraph on a song as it is to slip the name of your favourite band into a list. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Final comments

I'm done with my rewrite of the article. I think it's too long, I would remove many of the songs from the Evolution sections to make it easier to read, but I've learned over the past weeks that if I don't add them fanbois will, and they don't care about grammar, format, legibility or relevance. I confess my idea of reducing listcruft by avoiding performers hasn't worked; it's just made it easier for those determined to have their pet artist fully represented to make a hash of the whole thing. Pity.
References are lacking in certain sections. I don't have time to re-read the books in the bibliography in search of the exact sentences, but they're all there if anyone wishes to help out. I also think the page would benefit from two short paragraphs in the Characteristics section, one on lyrics and one on visual themes. Other than that, and in the hope that it's an improvement on the earlier version, I take my leave and open it for improvement by other editors. Peace. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite of this article is very impressive—well done. Unfortunately, on pop culture-related articles such as these, there are always going to be fans of this or that artist adding a mention of them or one of their songs or albums, regardless of whether it is relevant or notable in the context of the article's topic and scope—for example, an earlier version of this article mentioned Ashley Tisdale, whose importance in the history of pop music is probably minimal at best. For now, it seems to be a problem we can only deal with by reverting unsourced and POV edits such as those. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercialism

I'm wondering why it lists the 80's as having a dip into commercialism, but not some of the more modern female artists'/boy bands' music. A good number of popular artists today are very commercially centered pop stars with more more focus drawn to their lifestyles, sexual preferences, and glamor shots than their actual music, at least in America.Xanofar (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller? Billy Jean? Michael Jackson? Hello?

There no mention of the highest selling and one the most influential pop singers and the biggest pop album of all time, Michael Jackson and Thriller. What is going on in Wikipedia!!!?? --66.36.133.131 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Billie jean and beat it ARE mentioned as are a number of other jackson songs. Realist2 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

External Link

I tried to add an external link to the pop music page, because there is a -so far- small web directory called TopicBook that has a page about music where you can find pretty much all the most successful artists, songs and albums as well as interesting information and links to many many pages for either downloading songs or listening to music or radio online. So basically it gives you a nice overview over general but very interesting information. I personally think that this page http://music.topicbook.co.uk/ would be a good edit on the wiki page, but it was removed as it was said not to be following the guidelines. However I was told to ask for feedback on the talk page. So that's what I'm doing now. Let me know what you think and whether you agree with me that it would be a good alteration, putting the link back in!!! CocoKloess (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL. The page you linked to has no content, only links. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The content on the linked page is only a list of links to the websites of musicians. The menues on the left are also lists of links to websites. I'm soory, but it's not adequate because it lacks encyclopaedic content --Enric Naval (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism/Unprofessional Edits

I reverted an edit that only added non-NPOV comments in the Characteristics section. 74.73.17.166 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC) New account Deathmetalzzz (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

80s

"The 1980's is generally regarded as the decade that defined 'pop' and although scholars such as Jon Corbet suggest that it stems from the 50's their work has been disregarded in recent years." I don't think so. I'm removing this until someone can provide a source. Black-Velvet 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

80s suck and didn't define pop stop kidding yourself! 50s defined pop. Music historians even agree which I doubt you are smarter or know more music then them, agree that the first pop song was in 1911! So I am going to change that pop started in the 50s since it didn't. Nobody change it back cause if you change it your sending false lies and that's why people think Wikipedia is a stupid source.

Pop started in the 1911 not the 50s!! Pop music was here longer than rock music!

Pop-Metal?

I think Pop-Metal should be added to the list of fusion genres. Or at least Glam metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior to World War II

The opening of this article contends that "pop music" is defined by the publication of charts. This is backwards. The charts are a statistical record of the popularity of music. Therefore, "popular music" i.e. "pop music" must predate the publication of charts. In this respect, it is hard to define the beginning of popular music, but in my opinion it was born ih the era of published music, which allowed songs to become popular across a nation, rather than being repeated by the oral tradition of traveling musicians. The advent of recorded music obviously had a tremendous impact on the popularity of certain songs.

There must be some way to include mention of Stephen Foster's many popular published songs, as well as at least a brief overview of Charles Harris and the Tin Pan Alley era of the 1890s. To read this article you would think Pop Music began during the Eisenhower administration, which is ridiculous and unreasonably biased.

There were plenty of Pop Music stars from Billy Murray and Al Jolson, to Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, who all had great success in recorded music and other media, but at heart they were singers, the first superstars, and shouldn't be ignored in this article.

Delibebek (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I see. The problem with this article has always been the usage of the term "pop music" from the outset. While it is generally understood that "pop music" refers to "popular music" there is a pervasive connotation that it is formulated to enhance commercial success. Although this is how the term is used, for the sake of Wikipedia this idea makes an article about "pop music" impossibly subjective.

There are numerous examples of chart hits which shouldn't have been chart hits. "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" was designed to fill a B-side. It was intended to NOT be a hit, yet it is one of the most singable songs of the 60s, and was a number one hit for a group which didn't even exist. Was it pop music or not? It certainly doesn't come across as art.

Also, the amount of care taken with polishing a recording is certainly not a criteria, as Jimmy Page was reportedly meticulous in the studio, but most of Led Zeppelin's catalog wouldn't be classified as pop, even though their album sales were among the best in the 70s.

Definitely this distinction is something that should be ironed out in the first paragraph. This topic definitely needs more articles to properly route the interested reader. I still contend that the 1890s-1940s needs attention. Certainly the era of Tin Pan Alley was the most egregious example of commercially manufactured music. It seems this article is more concerned with Pop Stars than with Pop Music. Something to think about, for sure. Delibebek (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition of pop

I have to say I'm simply terrified by the current version of this article. It's wrong on so many levels...

Pop, however loosely defined, _is_ a genre (as can be attested by various existing subgenres of it). And it's certainly not defined by chart positions (as can be attested by various existing subgenres of it, since most of them have never or rarely achieved the level commercial success that would imply their "pop"-iness by the current wording of the definition, as well as commercial successes of clearly non-pop (rap, alternative rock, to name the most recent examples) artists). That some uses of the term imply otherwise can only be attributed to "pop" being, in addition to its stylistic definition, a synonym of popular music - which is a completely distinct meaning.

I believe it's best to illustrate this with quotes the very article cites as its reference: "More than ever before, the tribal factor is evident in contemporary commercial music. Indeed, one has difficulty in finding a blanket term for this entity. Pop and rock are now specialist rather than general categories. They take their place alongside rap, acid house, funk and a dozen others, all of which have their own devotees." - the bolded sentence alone pretty much falsifies the entirety of the opening definition, as do, actually, most of the other references, except this one: "Before SoundScan [1991] pop was largely defined by aesthetic attributes—sweet melodies, stylistic conservatism, and amicable lyrics. After SoundScan pop was just as likely to be defined by economics and marketplace resonance. The focus in this instance was on weekly sales figures and dollars. under the latter definition, it became necessary to expand how the industry and the culture defined and experienced pop music. the shift meant tha genres such as rap, despite an emotional and aesthetic core that ran couter to tradition, could now be added to the pop mix." - while it does say that the current definition the article presents is true (albeit mainly for radio-programming uses, if I understand correctly), it clearly adds it's optional rather than definitive, and one that is only secondary to the older, more widespread aesthetical one.

I believe most of the (entirely valid and informative, just residing in the wrong place) content of this article should be moved somewhere else (popular music?), and the definition rewritten to carry the correct, unique meaning the word "pop" carries in the context of musical taxonomy (AMG's definition (also referenced by the article despite of contradicting its contents) can be a good base for that, maybe with the addition of how the rise of electronic music in the eighties served to widen the term's scope...). Squeal (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I share your frustration, somewhat. But. The problem with trying to turn "popular music" into a genre is that a genre is a category or style which can be distinguished by some of it common characteristics (rhythm, lyrical style, measure, instrumentation, etc.). Popular music's only common characteristic is its popularity and its desire to be commercially successful. As such it must include all music which shares that characteristic—which seems to be almost all commercially produced music. Non-commercial music (i.e. music played just for the simple enjoyment of it, or music played for its aesthetic value) may also be of any genre. It, too, is sometimes commercially available, usually with some sort of subsidized production assistance.

If you know better, you're welcome to try to identify exactly what characteristics a pop music genre have. So far attempts to define "pop" music as an undeterminable middle-of-road mainstream blah vanilla them-not-me genre—which is what many proponents of a "pop" genre seem to want—falls apart when it comes to actually defining any real musical characteristics. StayNew (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that pop music varies a lot, even to degree when it's hard to find enough similiarity in two tracks from different artists and periods. However, this does not mean pop music is not a genre. Do you find Ella Fitzgerald and Matthew Shipp similiar to each other? Still both are considered to be jazz musicians. Stratovarius and Slipknot have almost nothing in common, still both are filed under metal. So I don't see any problem with this. Netrat_msk (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The original term "popular music", which is centuries old, meant commercial music written for the public (music halls, theaters, sheet music, etc.). This was opposed to the terms "folk music" written by common people for their own entertainment, and "music" (now termed "classical music") written by trained composers for the elite. StayNew (talk)

But, look, we're talking about pop, not popular music. They're two completely different entities altogether. If they were the same, this article should just be merged with popular music and that would be it. (The popular music article (correctly) states: "pop music is more often taken as meaning the genre of pop, rather than popular music as a whole".)

I've already pointed out AMG's definition, which states, in its opening paragraph: "(pop is) music based on memorable melodies, repeated sections (usually, but not always, verses and choruses), and a tight, concise structure that keeps the listener's focus on those elements". It's not exactly the ideal one, but it's already perfectly precise, not to mention it's exactly the meaning of pop that people understand and use. (See various "fusion" genres - pop punk? Punk with emphasis on melodies; dream pop? Quote, fusing post-punk experiments with bittersweet pop melodies, unquote; dance-pop? Quote, combines dance beats with a pop song structure, unquote. [pop song structure, aka tight, concise, verse+chorus one, as opposed to usual dance music approach of lengthy compositions built around beat and rhytm by repetition of short, simple vocal or melodic phrases; this example clearly shows that even other wikipedia definitions need a correct understanding of a word "pop" to be informative]; etc.)

Also, most of the indie pop scene and, indeed, the very existence of it pretty much falsifies the claim that pop's common characteristic is "its desire to be comercially successful". Squeal (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Pop music is a genre and should be described as one. The phenomenon of chart music is described in popular music. Please post any content of this aspect of the topic to that article, it would be appropriate. Pop music is another thing. If you believe pop music is not a genre of it's own but a term to unify all chart-topping music, then how would you describe the genre of artists like Britney Spears, Tom Jones, 'N Sync, Alla Pugacheva, Paul Anka, Spice Girls etc. Netrat_msk (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this part of the article: "artistic concepts such as musical form and aesthetics are not a concern in the writing of pop songs, the primary objectives being audience enjoyment and commercial success". In my opinion, there have been artists in pop music that have created music that could still be interesting for its form and aesthetics to some extent. it is evident in the article, as it cites artists like Beatles, Beach Boys, Otis Redding and others... Giovanni, 84.220.223.102 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Careless Whisper.ogg

The image Image:Careless Whisper.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

pop?.

Kylie and enoy7 etc are boybands/mainstream/radio/hype etc what do that have to do with real pop music that sells 2k copies at best becuase theyre into progression, art and music more than money, behave. RupertJanzzon (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

The Light Years album cover should replace the Fever album, in the 2000s section because the music sample is "Spinning Around." I also included "Better the Devil You Know" in the 90s section- it was a big top 10 hit in almost every country!

Lost popularity in the late 1990s?

Infobox says "Mainstream popularity: Continuous worldwide between 1960s and 1990s. Lost popularity in the late 1990s." I guees everyone understand this is false. Probably someone's joke or strong ill-informed opinion. I'm removing it. Any objections? Netrat_msk (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples

At least for 2000's, this article lists songs with impressinve chart success instead of actual pop songs. Some of chart-toppers listed are not essential pop songs (i.e. they do not examplfy typical sound of pop songs of the period). Someone please address this. Netrat_msk (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ABBA?

Come on... on ABBA's site and various others it is claimed they have sold 360 million copies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadaqu93 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MIRAND

POP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.48.157 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

POP MUSIC

I LIKE POP MUSIC MIRANDA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.48.157 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical genres

The "1990s" and the "2000s to the present day" sections should be revised to include more mentioning to musical genres, so that the shifts and evolution within popular music becomes apparent... For instance, in Europe, music with jazz, R&B and ska influences have gained significant popularity in the last couple of years, but the article does not make any mention of this shift in popular musical preferences. There are still quite some things the article should be improved on, but for the moment, please revise the article to make it more interesting and Wikipedia-worthy... Alvin (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did somebody changed pop started 1911?

He's right pop did start in 1911. I was watching this show on tv it was talking about how pop music started in 1911 so I went to check it out. Saw this website where Alexander's Ragtime Band was considered largely my Music historians to be the first Pop song. So I'm going to change it back cause he's totally right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was revised because your contribution is completely unsourced and Wikipedia does not accept original research. UniversalBread (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's unsourced you dumbass ok give me where it says that pop music started in 1950s please or where the 50s had one of the real first pop song.

Alright here is my source http://www.popularsong.org/songwriter.html better than your bullshit.

Your source says “American Popular Song”, not pop music. Please take a look at the article American popular music. As for the definition of Pop music, you can find it here. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

O shit sorry my mistake that was considered the first American POP song! Sorry now I have to change it to when pop first came out which I have put it in the History bit. And nobody has dared to change that so it must be right. No offense but your source sucks Guess what Pop is short for POPULAR!! That is what pop first came out to be! To be a catchy POPULAR sound so they can make money off of it! Your source says that pop started in the 19th century! Than it said pop is a style that took shape in the post-rock & roll era. POP already had taking it's shape. I'm going to change it to the right one thanks for pointing that out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 16:43, August 24, 2008

Sorry, if you read the article, it is not talking about any music with popular sound, but a specific style (that originated in the 50s). --Cyfal (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes pop is a style! A style to make catchy melodies so the industry can make money. Still pop is short for POPULAR. Every dumbass with a brain knows Pop music did not start in the 50s. Your source is a website that was founded by Michael Erlewine a dumbshit that knows a lot about the internet but really lacks in music history. My source is Piero Scaruffi a music historian, He has self-published books on the history of rock music, jazz, avant garde music, and pop music. He tells shit like it is! So I'm changing it back. Thanks!

could we all please try to leave the abusive bits out of our comments here and our edit summaries, please and thank you kindly? this article is trying to be about pop as a genre of music, rather than about popular music - it's not always easy to separate the two, but there is a difference. there have been some great improvements to the article recently and the abusive remarks are really a drag - plus which they seriously undermine any validity your points might have (it's hard to remain open to the views of someone who keeps insulting other people). please read these pages: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and try to stick to wikipedia etiquette - thank you.

meanwhile, although self-published material is considered dubious as a source - see WP:NOR - if there are two worthwhile theories about the development of the genre maybe there's a way to present (and cite sources for) both?

thanks for staying constructive and civil. Sssoul (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to define exactly when pop began. I would say that the modern day pop sound began in the 1950s though, but it's evolved over the years, so who's to say modern day pop isn't evolved from the early 20th century? There's no clear answer to this.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

refocussing on the genre

it's great to see the recent changes refocussing this article on the genre rather than on record-chart history, but there are still some moments that seem to be more about charts than about pop music as a genre:

1] the list of "current genres" appears to be a list of record-chart categories - is that right? in other words, "these are the current popular music genres" - but according to whom? and doesn't that information belong more to the articles on popular music and/or record charts than in this article?

2] the section about the "speed war" and development of vinyl records and so on seems to be about the history/popularity of recorded music, not about pop music as a genre. sure, there's some relationship between the two subjects, but as it now stands this section doesn't highlight that relationship very well and adds to the confusion over what the article is about. it would be great if someone with the knowledge and citable sources could redo that part to clarify how burgeoning record sales affected the genre called pop music ... and that seems like it would usefully fit into the sections about the 50s and 60s, rather than as a separate "history" section.

also, it would very useful to have more about the characteristic features of pop music as a genre - for example some details about the "conventional song structure" typical of the genre would be great. thanks and swing on .... Sssoul (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ps: it seems like it would also be worthwhile to change the introductory paragraph to emphasize the fact that this article is *not* about "any piece of music that appears in popular record charts due to a high number of sales and/or airplay". maybe it would help to make the "for other uses" blurb at the top more specific - for example "for popular music in the broad sense, see popular music and record chart; for other uses see Pop music (disambiguation)". and then eliminating that sentence about "any piece of music" from the first paragraph, since that isn't the usage that this article is trying to be about? or maybe it's worth reiterating the "redirect" to popular music and record chart in that first paragraph, since it seems to be an ongoing source of confusion/contention.

would it also be useful, constructive, etc, to change the "history" section to "pre-1950s", and outlining the various worthy theories about the origins of the genre: 17th-century Italy in the sense of music created specifically to be easily accessible to a wide audience - 1911 in whatever sense that theory has in mind - the 1950s in the sense of the now-familiar structural/stylistic conventions? something like that ...

and: when was the term "pop music" first used? and then when did it start to mean a genre/style different from rock & roll, rock, etc?

i wish i had the expertise and the citable sources to make changes like that myself ... as it is i hope some of these ideas might be helpful/constructive for someone who *does* have the expertise & sources and the time and good will to work on the article. thanks and swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

update: okay, i've gone ahead and changed the "disambiguation" header and the first paragraph to try to specify more clearly what this article is trying to be about.

i'm also right on the verge of deleting the "current genres" section, since (as noted above) i can't see what it has to do with this topic - it appears to belong in the article on record charts, and it's confusing/misleading to have it in this article. it would be great to hear some other editors' opinions before i eliminate it, though! thanks ... Sssoul (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

continuing the update: all right, i've removed that off-topic section from the article. here it is in case someone wants to transplant it to Popular music and/or Record chart:

Current genres

Musicologists identify a tendency in society for individuals to set the music of themselves and their peers apart from that of other groups with a self-proclaimed genre of music. This tendency has resulted in an almost unlimited list of names for styles of music, and no possible method to define them all. Recording labels cater to these perceptions placing their product in outlets under a number of different categories.

However, due to market requirements, in commercial popular music there is in reality only a limited number of genres. Market statistical models require a certain amount of stability but societal changes and technical advancements do drive change. The last major change in music categories occurred in 1991. These are the current popular music genres:

United Kingdom

UK R&B, UK Dance, UK Rock, UK Independent, UK Country, UK Jazz, UK Blues, UK Classical, UK Soundtrack, UK Spoken Word

===United States===

Hot/Pop, Digital & Mobile, Historical, R&B/Hip-Hop, Country, Latin, Rock, Adult Contemporary, Heatseekers/Independent, Christian/Gospel, Dance/Electronic, International, Video, Boxscore,

===References for the deleted section===

next up: the problems with the current History section:

1] what does the "speed war" have to do with the development of the pop music genre? unless someone can make that explicit in the article, it seems like this part is actually about popular music and/or record charts rather than about the genre called pop.

2] the current references 6 through 10 are to wikipedia articles - that's not in accordance with wikipedia policy on sources, is it??

Sssoul (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors inserting personal favourites

Editors of this article appear to consider it an opportunity to plug or fawn over their favourite artists and songs, as evidenced by the gradual proliferation of songs by Madonna, Brandy, Britney Spears and other popular female acts since Dennywuh's overhaul (see above). Without references being added to support these edits, they're simply unacceptable. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pop is popular

Pop music is not a particular genre or style of music. Pop includes the variety of genres variously subsumed by terms such as rock and roll, rock, dance, hip hop and R&B. For example: Michael Jackson sings Rock, R&B and Dance and Kylie Minogue sings Eurodance and Electronic, but her music is different from the Jackson's music. Kylie never sang hard rock as Michael Jackson. Some people think that pop is a particular genre or style of music, they are wrong. But also other people know that pop is not a particular genre or style of music, they know that pop is popular.

The old edition about pop is better, because it is more objective and true.

--Alexanderfriend (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

please look at the articles entitled Popular music and Record charts, both of which trace music-chart trends - which seems to be the subject you're interested in writing about. this article is trying to be about a particular genre of music. you state that you don't believe such a genre exists, but plainly other people *do* perceive such a genre (see earlier comments on this talk page, eg in the section titled "definition of pop") - that's why this article exists.

can we please get some consensus on the intended subject of this article? if it isn't intended to focus on the particular genre known as pop music, it should be merged with Popular music. thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop covers

It should be mentioned that in recent years it has become somewhat of a trend for metal bands to do pop covers, shouldn't it?

i think that pop should remain it's own category because it is it's own category/type of music. doesn't rock have it's own category.....? oh & btw the JONAS BROTHERS ROCK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitskatie (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Still seems very US-biased

I freely confess that I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, otherwise I'd do some significant editing, but sadly the {{globalise/USA}} tag at the top of the "Evolution" section is still appropriate. Yes, the US is immensely important with regard to this subject, but there are too many places where the world seems to be divided into "America" and "everywhere else".

One other question, and again my lack of knowledge leaves me unsure: there are a lot of references to African-American influences. On the face of it this again seems US-centric, since (for example) black British musicians are obviously not anything-American! Loganberry (Talk) 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cher should not have been given special mention as she was not the most successful female act of the 1970s or the 20th century. The inclusion of Cher demonstrates the bias from whomever inserted it. I balanced it out with a justification for Diana Ross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.55 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: What is the intended subject of this article?

The intro states that the article is about a specific genre, but most of the text is actually about Popular music in general. Should the article be merged with Popular music, or should it be refocussed on the particular genre called pop music?

the section above entitled "definition of pop" outlines the ongoing problem quite well, i think: some editors who have worked on this article perceive pop music as a specific genre (and the article's inclusion in wikipedia categories & projects like "music genres" would seem to support that perception), while others have been writing extensively (and often very interestingly, eruditely, etc) about the history of popular music, record chart trends, etc; some of them have even denied the existence of a genre called pop music.

this "tug-of-war" keeps going back and forth, and the results are not very felicitous. right now the article is mainly about trends in popular music and record-chart history - but isn't that the proper subject of the article Popular music?

so in a way there are two problems: 1] deciding what this article is supposed to be about, and if it is indeed supposed to be about a specific genre, 2] figuring out how to keep it on the subject of that genre, despite a recurring tendency for editors to mistake it for the article on Popular music in general. Sssoul (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This might explain the problem to some degree: While British writers seem able to make clear distinctions between pop and rock, their American counterparts - as several important studies suggest - do not perceive such marked contrasts between the two. This tends to suggest that any definition of pop music is not only historically, but also geographically determined. - Timothy Warner, Pop Music - Technology and Creativity - Trevor Horn and the Digital Revolution (Ashgate, 2003)

I stand by my opinion expressed above in "the definition of pop" section. This is not a dispute between two differing definitions of a concept. This is a dispute whether one concept, widespread and having a long history of use, should be completely removed from wikipedia for the sake of giving way to the secondary definition of another concept that is already extensively covered in another article(s). This should not be allowed. Squeal (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for taking an interest, Squeal - i've looked back at your earlier comments and understand that your view is that this article is supposed to be about a particular genre, not about popular music in general. i too am very much in favour of a wikipedia article on the specific genre known as pop, but that's not what this article is, at present.

i'm not personally in a position to rewrite the piece (i lack citeable sources on the subject); and as long as the article stands in its current form, no wonder people keep mistaking it for an article on "trends in popular music in general" and adding more to it in that vein. so i'm not sure what could be proposed to re-focus the article on the specific genre - which is why i launched this RfC. Sssoul (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have no doubt this particular article should be about the concept of pop music as a genre (the controversy on whether it constitutes a genre or not should probably be discussed within the article). Sadly, I can't provide good sources to expand it myself, but I believe that, at least in the short term, the problem may be addressed simply by moving/merging some sections (particularly the "history", "see also" and "bibliography") with the popular music and possibly music industry articles; this should probably be done anyway, if only for the fact that they contain information that is lacking from aforementioned articles and would be a valuable addition to them. But, either way, to start a serious rewrite, we need a consensus on the scope of the article first, hence my argumentation. Squeal (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally (and maybe incorrectly), I have always perceived pop music to be a genre, (relating to boy bands - Boyzone, Take That-types, and the solo artists that young impressionable teenage girls fawn over etc), as a separate genre to "rock music", "dance music", "hip-hop" etc (all of which claim to be popular). Whether I am wrong in this assumption (namely that pop music can be described as a genre, or a sub-genre of non-classical music), I am sure others also think the same way. While I won't not like to force the opinion that it exists, I would expect that this article would try to educate me into perhaps who feels it is a genre per se (is it a US/UK thing), with maybe a section on what real genres (rock/dance/trance) can be seen and described as "pop", with discussions on popular music/trends etc at popular music.

I'm not sure how well I've explained that, but simply, I would like to see all of the information on "popular music" at popular music, with a rational discussion of "pop music", and the term "pop music", here at pop music. A "for other uses" tag at the top could cross reference each article nicely. It is clear that "pop music" means different things to different people, see above, and this page should reflect that.—MDCollins 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that this article is about a genre called "pop music", and should describe a cross-cultural controversy about whether such a genre exists in the U.S., rather than just the UK.
There also seems to be consensus that the problem for this Pop music genre article is disambiguation from the cultural subject of popular music, so that editors will write here about a genre, rather than a cultural concept and its trends better described at Popular music.
In addition to a disambiguation notice at the top of the article as mentioned, is there any objection to moving the article name to Pop music (genre) ? Milo 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

a name change might help make the point that this article is supposed to be about the genre - but what about the fact that at present it *isn't* about the genre? i don't have the resources or expertise to rewrite the article myself, but to my eye about 90% of it should be deleted or moved to Popular music ... Sssoul (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to another stage of project organization and implementation. See Top-down and bottom-up design#Management and organization and Critical path method.

In this case, by properly move-renaming the article, and placing a disambiguation notice, the useful off-topic material can be transferred in cooperation with Popular music, Record chart, and possibly Music industry editors. If those articles are already in reasonably well-structured condition, it may be best to avoid "dumping" additional text on them, by transferring useful off-topic text from this article to the talk pages of those articles.

This may leave Pop music a bit stubby, but other editors will no longer be confused by off-topic text, and will know what to write "top-down". Milo 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

sounds like a plan, Milomedes - would you like to do the honours? Sssoul (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since comments have been posted during the last three months, it seems reasonable to close the RfC and take consensus action.

First, I'll write the disambiguation notice (a type of "hat note") in the header.

Next, I'll do the pagemove, and clean up any double redirects indicated at "What links here" (though bots help solve this problem now). Typing in the old title "Pop music" will automatically redirect to the new page. In most cases, existing inline text at other articles will not need to be changed. In some cases, "See also"s may benefit from changing to the fully disambiguated title for readers who aren't sure which article they want to read.

When there is no objection, as seems to be the case here, a pagemove rename can be done informally. Occasionally editors busy elsewhere are surprised by a pagemove, so I'm prepared to negotiate with them if necessary.

After that, even though you (Sssoul) aren't a reference research writer, I assume you can do the editing work of copying, deleting, and transferring useful off-topic text from here to other articles talk pages, with suitable explanatory posts to help the editors there use this material (or not) as they think best. Milo 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) in fact i don't feel comfortable doing that editing/transferring task on my own - that's why i've been asking for input from other editors. some consensus about how much of the existing article to leave here would be really valuable. Sssoul (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

the editing/transferring of content can proceed even though the title-change has been challenged. it would be really really helpful to have some discussion of which parts of the article should stay on this page - please and thank you ... Sssoul (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

update: okay, so i've started moving material from this article to the Talk: Popular music and Talk: Record chart pages. i'd really really welcome other editors' views on this ... thanks ... Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Pop music → Pop music (genre) move has been reverted, and there is now a discussion about that move ongoing here. While I understand the sentiment to make the title more clear and less confusing, I don't know of any precedent for that being a basis for adding more precision to an article title. There appears to be no objection to the claim that the genre is the primary use of the name, just that it still gets confused with Popular music. When an article is downright misleading (e.g., Tidal wave), then alternatives and clarifications are in order. But I just don't see justification for more precision here. The WP:PRECISION guideline itself only calls for more precision when necessary. Is it really necessary here? I don't see it. Anyway, this discussion should continue at the Requested move discussion below. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

for the record: your statement that "[t]here appears to be no objection to the claim that the genre is the primary use of the name" is incorrect. just look at the article history and previous discussions on this talk page - over and over you see multiple editors asserting either explicity or implicity that the primary meaning of pop music is an abbreviation of popular music. in other words: just because you and i feel the primary use is for the specific genre, there is very ample evidence that large numbers of wikipedia editors do not view it that way. the current title is misleading for large numbers of people. the proposal to disambiguate the title to "Pop music (genre)" hasn't been tried yet, and - speaking as an editor who's been involved with/interested in this article for several months - the title change seems well worth trying in order to reduce the ongoing confusion over the intended subject of this article.

what reason does anyone have to oppose this move? "it doesn't seem necessary to me" is a reason to remain neutral. "there's no precedent"? so give this a chance to become a precedent - it might be a step toward real improvement of this article. what possible benefit is there in opposing the move?? Sssoul (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop music → Pop music (genre) — Procedural nomination to determine whether this article is the primary meaning of "pop music" (see also prior RfC about this article's scope). This article was renamed to Pop music (genre) with the rationale: This article is about a specific genre which needs disambiguation from "popular music" of all genres (diff). I've reverted the move and opened this WP:RM discussion per WP:BRD, because I'm of the opinion that this move is potentially contentious. The argument can be made that this article is the primary meaning of "pop music", in which case the parenthetical clarifier is unnecessary and a hatnote link to popular music and/or a disambiguation page is sufficient. — Muchness (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction: There was no prior RfC. There is a current RfC of three months duration which hasn't closed yet. The RfC discussion still has general consensus priority over this parasitic Requested move discussion.

The RfC has a naming discussion that Muchness improperly ignored. He didn't even bother to ask at the RfC if anyone disagreed with his position – or worse, if he was simply mistaken and had reverted based on parenthetical clarification guiderules that no longer exist (see my guiderule research post below). Note: The same RfC has been renewed since originally posted 18:47, 25 September 2008 [1] Milo 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support renaming the article, to emphasize that this article is supposed to be about a particular genre of music, not about popular music in general. i don't understand Muchness's statement that "this article is the primary meaning of 'pop music'" - the whole point of the RfC (and earlier discussions) is that as it now stands the subject of the article is woefully unclear; evidently it isn't universally obvious what the "primary meaning" of the term 'pop music' is. changing the article name to specify that this page is about a particular genre rather than about trends in popular music in general should help to keep the article on topic; obviously (as noted above) a great deal of the content needs to be removed as well. Sssoul (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• You said you don't understand the statement, [The argument can be made that] this article is the primary meaning of "pop music"; what I meant was that it can be argued that the genre of pop music is the most commonly understood meaning of the term "pop music", and I opened this move request to try to determine whether that's the case. If the genre is the most common usage, this article may need to be cleaned up to clarify its scope and content, but adding a parenthetical clarifier to a primary topic's title goes against WP's standard naming conventions. On the other hand, if the genre of pop music isn't the most commonly understood meaning of the term "pop music", then we may need to locate a disambiguation page at Pop music. --Muchness (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks - that's clearer now. as i noted above i think the article as it currently stands as it stood before i moved most of the material to Talk: Popular music is strong evidence that it is not obvious that the specific genre is what's meant. Sssoul (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the page move (though I understand that there may be trouble in deciding the scope of the article). Pop music is pop music. Popular music in general would never be called that. Sam⁵ (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand that the proposed page move is from Pop music to Pop music (genre)?

The problem is that readers and editors in other English-speaking countries weren't raised in your culture, so the parenthetical disambiguation is to communicate with certainty to everyone. Milo 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

in fact if you read this article edit: before i moved most of the content and/or its talk page, it's quite clear that some people do use the term "pop music" to mean "popular music in general"; and please note this quote from the article on popular music: "Popular music is sometimes abbreviated to pop music, although pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre." Sssoul (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The second part of sentence you quoted validates my point: "pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre". The right thing to do is to limit the scope of this article to what is normally meant by "pop music": there's no need to change the page name to do this. The see-also hatnote deals with any confusion (very rare), and you may sometimes need to moderate over-zealous editors. Sam⁵ (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

... um, but your point was that "popular music would never be called [pop music]", which is not right: please note the first half of the sentence i quoted, plus the RFC above, plus earlier sections of this talk page (like this one, this one and this one); please also look at the article history, to see what it contained before i jettisoned about 85% of it this morning. all of that is evidence of months and months of multiple editors mistaking this article for an article on popular music in general and/or record-chart trends. a hatnote very similar to the one that's there now (here's a diff that shows it: [2]) didn't prevent that confusion; and the confusion has not been "very rare" - it's been woefully frequent and longterm. and it's meant that wikipedia doesn't have an article on the specific genre called pop music. i hope that giving this article an unambiguous name and clearing out the irrelevant material will encourage someone who has the knowledge/resources to turn it into a decent article on the subject of this specific genre. Sssoul (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ps:i still don't understand the reasoning behind these "oppose" votes. even if you believe (despite all the evidence) that it's not necessary to give the article a more specific name, why are you *against* giving it a more specific name? what negative result do you anticipate if it's moved to "Pop music (genre)"?? Sssoul (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support renaming the article.

Muchness' presumption seems to be that a primary meaning title can't be parenthetically clarified. I can find no such guiderule forbidding parenthetical clarification of any title, or doing that being against naming conventions. If there is no such guiderule, it doesn't matter whether a title is a primary meaning or not.

Muchness (05:42): "primary meaning of "pop music", in which case the parenthetical clarifier is unnecessary"

That does not logically follow. A clarifier may be necessary, independently of whether the meaning is primary or not. A primary term can still be ambiguous, and still need disambiguation and clarification.

Muchness (05:42): "a hatnote link to popular music and/or a disambiguation page is sufficient."

No, it isn't sufficient. As I pointed out above (Milo 02:53): "..."See also"s may benefit from changing to the fully disambiguated title for readers who aren't sure which article they want to read." I oppose the idea of forcing readers to navigate to a page they don't want to read, if based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT of eight additional title characters: " (genre)".

Muchness (07:42): "adding a parenthetical clarifier to a primary topic's title goes against WP's standard naming conventions."

There are six instances in Wikipedia:Naming conventions about adding parenthetical clarifiers to names, and none about not adding them.

In Wikipedia:Disambiguation, there is likewise nothing about not adding parentheses. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles, there is a specific guiderule to do so:

For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available: ... A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses.

Now maybe I missed a non-obvious guiderule page, but until it is cited, what I read is that any confusing title may have a parenthetical clarifier added to it, and that primary meaning is simply irrelevant to an optional clarifier. Milo 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, per WP:NC and WP:COMMONNAME, the most common name used to refer to the topic of an article should be used to name an article. If that name is ambiguous and the topic in question is not the primary usage of that name, then disambiguation per WP:D is required. WP:PRECISION allows for additional precision in a name, but only "when necessary". The only basis that makes additional precision necessary, so far as I know, is, again, disambiguation. I know of no mandate for an article title to clearly define its topic; so far as I know the only requirement is that it reflect the most common name used to refer to that topic, or is the most common but is disambiguated as necessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be using the term "disambiguation" differently than the first line of WP:D. Please read the RfC above which is a general consensus of the need for disambiguation at the article. Milo 11:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title, Pop music, reflects the name most commonly used to refer to the article topic, and further disambiguation is not required as this topic is primary usage for this name. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

further disambiguation is not required That's a theory. The RfC consensus section above decided otherwise. There is an actual ambiguation problem here that needs to be fixed. Milo 11:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You're apparently not fully appreciative of the concept of the primary topic for a given name. For a topic to be primary, it must be ambiguous. What you seem to be saying is that even though the genre is the primary use, since there are other uses of that term (i.e., the secondary use of the meaning more commonly referred to as Popular music), it must be disambiguated. This logic flies in the face of the very concept of primary topic, since it could be applied to any primary topic, particularly if you argue an article cannot be at a given name even if it is the primary use merely if that name conflicts with the secondary name of some other topic. I mean, if that situation requires disambiguation, we can't have primary topics. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support moving Pop music to Pop music (genre). I also support moving Pop music (disambiguation) to Pop music. --Una Smith (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

can i ask why the proposed move is regarded as "potentially contentious", please and thank you - what objections are expected to having an article that's specifically about the genre called pop music? Sssoul (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

By "potentially contentious", I meant that plausible objections could be raised to the rename. There are no objections to having an article about the genre, the discussion is whether the the article about the genre should be located a) at the primary topic name pop music, or b) at the disambiguated name pop music (genre), with pop music presumably reformatted as a disambiguation page. --Muchness (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You really need to restudy this subject. No disambiguation page is needed under current guiderules. Milo 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(replying to your support comments upthread). Okay, thanks for clarifying things, and you're more or less accurate in your representation of my position regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguators. As I see it, our disagreement centers on our differing interpretations of WP:D guidelines. My take on it is that their sole function is to distinguish between multiple articles that share the same name; your take is that they can be added to any article title, even a primary topic, if they make the title less confusing. My opinion then is that even if your interpretation of WP:D guidelines is correct (which I strongly dispute), it's worth discussing whether redirecting this article to pop music (genre) is an improvement on keeping the article at pop music per WP:NAME. Hopefully discussion here can reach a consensus one way or another. --Muchness (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Muchness (18:57): "...WP:D guidelines. My take on it is that their sole function is to distinguish between multiple articles that share the same name; your take is that they can be added to any article title, even a primary topic, if they make the title less confusing."

Ok, I agree that accurately describes our two positions.

Muchness (18:57): "...even if your interpretation of WP:D guidelines is correct (which I strongly dispute)..."

Using good debate procedure, let's separate the issues and establish guiderule facts vs. opinions before restarting the RfC pagemove-rename improvement-or-not discussion.

At Milo (14:28) above, I cited a specific guiderule (hereafter called "Guiderule2") at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles (WP:D):

WP:D#N-Guiderule2: 2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses.

I also searched WP:D for any instances of guiderules forbidding parenthetical disambiguators, and found none. I also cited six instances in Wikipedia:Naming conventions about adding parenthetical disambiguators to names, and none about not adding them.

You have provided no citations from those two guidepages, or any other guidepage to show that my position, based on Guiderule2, is incorrect. Yet you "strongly dispute" it, based on nothing that you have so far been able to cite. That means your position is supported only by the weakest position of WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs. my position that is citable to Guiderule2.

Do I really need to insist that in comparing our two positions, Guiderule2 trumps your personal dislike of parenthetical disambiguators in merely confusing titles? Milo 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that WP:D#N-Guiderule2 is part of a section that starts out with "For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title..." Thus, the guideline is only operative for disambiguating ambiguous pages. Also note that the very first naming convention states that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Adding parenthetical words definitely makes it harder to directly link to articles: you have to know what the parenthetical words are. In practice, because of these two guidelines, parenthetical words are only added for disambiguation, but not elsewhere. hike395 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hike395 (02:57): "...the guideline is only operative for disambiguating ambiguous pages."

Yes, that's what this is about. Read the RfC above.

Hike395 (02:57): "...you have to know what the parenthetical words are."

Um, I don't get it, Hike395. Were redirects developed after you learned the basics at WP? You've been editing since 2003, but you don't seem to know that redirects made that issue (and that argument) go away long ago.

Anyway, not a problem. Pop music would continue to redirect to Pop music (genre). If you had read my post in the RfC, you would have seen that I recommended that pop music be used for inline article text where it is typically understood through context; but, lacking such context, "See also"s should use the fully disambiguated form: Pop music (genre). Milo 08:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with hike395) I've requested input from interested parties at Talk:Disambiguation. WP:D is concerned solely with disambiguation, i.e., resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term is likely to be the natural title for more than one article. Hence, by definition, all the guidelines at WP:D are intended for that purpose – to distinguish between multiple articles that share the same name. The mentions of parenthetical clarifiers at WP:NAME similarly relate only to matters of disambiguation; in other words, to distinguishing between multiple articles with the same title. The WP:D guideline is intended to provide guidance only on how to make article names less ambiguous relative to other articles with the same name, not relative to their own content. As far as I'm aware, no current guideline states or implies, "In addition to disambiguating articles, parenthetical clarifiers may also be appended to any article title to clarify that article's scope and content." --Muchness (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Muchness (03:18): "...all the guidelines at WP:D are intended for that purpose – to distinguish between multiple articles that share the same name."

That too, but that is a special case restriction of what WP:D actually says. The first line reads:

WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic... "

This article's title term fits that WP:D definition of disambiguation: The single term pop music can be associated with the topic of the genre called "pop". But for some people and cultures, "pop" is also associated with the concept of "popular music"; that is, music of many genres having mass media market appeal, including the "pop" genre.

The rest of your post cascades errors based on the initial incorrect assumption (that the special case restriction is the general case), so they need no separate response. Milo 08:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

this is a quote from the article on popular music: "Popular music is sometimes abbreviated to pop music, although pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre." reading the article on pop music as it now stands, as it stood before i removed about 85% of it, it's obvious that many many people have mistaken it for an article on popular music in general. ie, there is ambiguity.

at the same time, it's my feeling that eliminating the irrelevant content from this article and tranferring it to the talk pages of Popular music and/or Record charts is even more important than renaming it. it would be brilliant if someone would join in the RfC above to discuss that - thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

update: i've gone ahead and moved large sections of the material to the talk pages of other articles where i hope it might be relevant, and rearranged this article some - but i'd still be grateful for input from other editors about those changes. thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By analogy, the problem with just removing the trash, is that there is still a sign that says "dump here". In a year or so, the trash is likely to be back.

Granted that the disambiguation notice may help some for now, but it's been my experience that disambiguation notices get altered by editors who are sure that the notice must be wrong, rather than the ambiguous title they are sure means what their parents told them it meant. Milo 08:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

The bottom line appears to be this: at least one editor thinks Pop music needs to be disambiguated. At least one other editor does not. Rather than arguing about it, how about exploring the idea? That can be done in several ways. Two that I find useful are (1) creating or expanding a disambiguation page, and (2) disambiguating incoming links to the article with the (claimed) ambiguous title. Pop music (disambiguation) exists, but arguably needs to be expanded: it lacks the sub-genres and fusion genres and relevant see-also's found on Pop music. Pop music has over 10,000 incoming links (I stopped counting at 10,000): Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music. Probably those links should be dispersed among the many related pages. How about all of you involved in the RfC have a go at disambiguating those links as if Pop music were a disambiguation page with links? --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Una, thanks for the research that you and Sssoul did today.

All the useful work you are describing is wasteful to undertake "bottom up", when some other editor will undo or work against it, because s/he has a different "top down" interpretation of the title.

I respectfully disagree with your analysis, analogous to the synthetic controversy 'one scientist thinks there is man-made global warming and another does not'. A consensus to disambiguate the article's concept to "genre" has been made by the three month Pop music RfC. Without implementing that RfC consensus, there is no way to stop the long, slow, Pop music edit war. There is no way to implement that RfC consensus without "top down" disambiguating the title using parentheses. Sssoul helped discover that a previous disambiguation hatnote had failed due to being both ignored [3] and removed [4].

Ok, I take your point that you want to avoid the argument, thanks for your help. I see no way to avoid an argument, if standing firm for the principle of RfC consensus, against trivial wikilawyering that the community firmly opposes, and even worse, factually incorrect wikilawyering.

The disambiguation issues are very technical, so there are other responses to the copy of your post above at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#A proposal where there is much expertise on disambiguation guiderules. Milo 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why was dab info deleted?

Some disamibiguation information was just deleted from the article lead. Why? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Una just removed the text hatnote I wrote because none of the templates were adequate. Maybe the reason is for standardization, but that is for routine work, not special cases that require creative solutions. Adding text to templates requires new editors to learn parameter programming, so they will be more inclined to just delete it. Two hatnotes have been deleted here in 6 days, which evidences my point above that hatnotes alone aren't adequate for disambiguation.

Well, I asked for help, so let's see what is the consensus. Milo 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The templates are adequate and Pop music is not a special case. I used one of the standard disambiguation hatnotes, linking to the standard disambiguation page. I also deleted the tangential sentences about Popular music from the lead. This page reminds me more and more of Captain, which until earlier this year was a grab bag article with a huge number of incoming links. Now it is a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My position is that all edit-warred and culture-conflicted pages are special cases. (The root concept was expressed by General/President Eisenhower when he said "All wars will astonish you.").

I've had success with the use of extensive text hatnotes in stopping persistent, inflammatory, off-topic insertions at culture-conflicted pages. As the saying goes, one can't argue with success. Milo 08:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop for boys and Musical Evolution

In response to the comment above about 'pop music' being for impressionable young (or not so young) girls, with attractive male singing pop groups like 'Take That' or 'Westlife', more.... there are also several girl pop groups that young men enjoy to watch! The most successful British pop act of recent years is 'Girls Aloud.' They also sing well and the team behind them produce sophisticated clever pop. This team also produce another successful UK girl pop group, the Sugar Babes. On the other hand Simon Cowell has produced a successful boy band who sing classical songs - Il Divo. I've no idea what genre they fit into! That is where identifying 'music genres' is so complex - as there is huge overlaps between the genres.

I think of it as a 'Musical Evolution' - where Mozart stole from chorale music; Bach from folk tunes; Scott Joplin from jazz and classical; Debussy from Joplin; Cole Porter from Jazz and folk and classical; the Beatles from hymns, the Blues, Indian influences;

For me the term 'Pop Music' is an umbrella term that includes what we look on as mainstream, modern, chart music that is connected to the new availability of recorded music. In other words music that has broad appeal, and sells well. Within this umbrella are many sub genres. It can also mean music that tries something new.

In the 50s Frank Sinatra made the girls swoon with popular tunes and his crooning voice. With Sinatra it was his voice as much as the tunes. The Supremes appealed to young men as much for their looks, as their voices and popular songs. As a music fan it is the vocals and vocal harmonies that are often what I enjoy the most. Music as in any of the Arts never stands still.

LaurynK 06:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

please check out the article on Popular music - that's more like the "umbrella" you're looking for. Sssoul (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No - 'Popular music' to me is about popular songs through the past centuries and includes folk songs. Wheras the term 'Pop Music' clearly makes me think of music and songs in the 'Pop charts' over the past few decades, beginning in the 50s. I am an older music fan and have followed these Pop charts for many years. I feel with downloading the Pop charts have changed and lost their importance the past years - from the music I see my teenagers interested in today. They listen to a much broader range of genres than was ever available in the 60s, as it is so readily available to them - from Electro, indie rock, acoustic, power pop, alternative, more - all kinds of sub-genres. There still is a Pop chart - the chart songs are often included on commercial radio stations which provide many with background music. The sophisticated promotions of many pop artists these days appears like big business - with young people being groomed and manipulated for several years before they are sprung on the public. Many pop songs follow a formula which has produced previous pop hits.

LaurynK 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

in that case perhaps the article on record charts is the umbrella you're looking for. this article is trying to focus on a specific music genre called "pop music", not about record chart trends or about popular music in general. Sssoul (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

one more time: the intended subject of this article

please read the previous sections on this talk page that demonstrate that the consensus is that this article is supposed to be about a particular music genre. please stop inserting a personal essay about other uses of the term. if you can provide sources - and if you rewrite the material in an encyclopedic tone - maybe it would fit the articles on record charts and popular music, but please keep this article on the subject of the particular music genre. thanks. Sssoul (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The section in question (diff) reads like an opinion piece, and falls short of WP's WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV guidelines. It needs substantial copy-editing for tone, style, clarity and attribution. --Muchness (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree this information should be removed. The information is

1. Completely unsourced. While I understand the sentiment on Lecochonbleu's userpage, I don't agree that just because one editor believes something to be true and multiple editor's believe that the information does not belong that it should stay until sources are found.

2. Is not written in an encyclopedic manner. There is much rambling in the information. One of the sentences in the addition is 88 words long, that includes the 2 parenthetical statements that are inserted into the sentence. The information is very hard to follow.

3. The information is in the wrong article. This appears to be discussing Popular music in general not Pop music.

4. Not withstanding 3, the information is in the wrong place in the article. The information has been placed in the lede, which is supposed to be an introduction to the article as well as a summary of the article. Without this information the 2 paragraph lede does a good job of summarizing and introducing the 2 section article. With this information the 8 paragraph lede overwhelms the 2 section article.

A new name 2008 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)