![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why not? Every single source from the '90s proves that both, dream pop and shoegazing, had described one and the same movement in British pop music. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The use of the terms is just regionally dependent (U.S. vs. U.K.). -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 09:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The two genres are closely related but not identical. While many bands (Cocteau Twins, Slowdive) provide an intersection of the genres (just as there are bands that intersect post-punk and dream pop, like The Chameleons), there's loads of iconic dream pop bands that are definitely not shoegaze. Whatever was written in the 1990s is relevant but lots of things have changed since then, and the genre has been redefined over time by critics, bands and listeners alike. Look at the list at
/info/en/?search=List_of_dream_pop_artists
Some really classic dream pop bands, that are not shoegaze: Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise, Luna, Cardigans, Beach House, Azure Ray, Au Revoir Simone, Blue Nile, Lana Del Rey, Ocean Blue, Saint Etienne, etc. That alone should give you a clearer sense of where shoegaze and dream pop differ. Dream pop is softer and less distorted than shoegaze, less angular and cold than post-punk, but dreamier/moodier than plain indie-rock. Anyway, this article really should be rewritten as it focuses way too narrowly on the shoegaze/Simon Reynolds definition of dream pop and not enough on what actual listeners and bands have since redefined it as.
Greg Fasolino (
talk)
13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Dream pop bands and shoegazing artists are identical"...well that clearly isn't the case, since the artists I cited above (all listed as dream pop in their Wiki articles) are not shoegaze, or are you suggesting they are?
"As far as I know, Mazzy Star was never called a dream pop or shoegazing band." Yes, they most certainly have been:
Pitchfork: "Next week, 1990s dream pop greats Mazzy Star will return with their first album in 17 years, Seasons of Your Day"
Under the Radar: "- Earlier this fall dream pop duo Mazzy Star released Seasons of Your Day, the band's first album in 17 years"
Paste Magazine: "And even though Mazzy Star has been absent for a while, the group's reign of dream pop lingered on whenever we heard “Fade Into You” play"
Etc. If I had time I am sure I could find dozens more via Googling.
OK here is the main issue. You seem to assume that genres are automatically named and defined at the time they coalesce. This sometimes is the cause (shoegaze for example). In many other cases, maybe most in music history, genres are named, defined, and come into common usage at a later date or over time. Dream pop is one of these. It's not really relevant to find '90s sources---dream pop is the term used to describe this genre TODAY. The relevant sources are recent and current major press articles and reviews, artists' self-definitions, etc. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, this isn't simply my personal POV. You may not like the term but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not used in popular culture:
An excellent primer for what the genre means: http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-dream-pop-albums/
Obviously its own genre if it has an Amazon list, no? http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Music-Dream-Pop/zgbs/music/602088
http://www.scaruffi.com/music/dreampop.html
Urban Dictionary: dreampop Pioneered by Scotland's "Cocteau Twins", dreampop is a catch-all term for ethereal (Dreamy) music with high, drifting vocals and a swirling wall-of-sound texture. Related to noisepop/shoegaze, but distinguished by frequent use of non-guitar electronics. Dates from the 80s but is experiencing a mdoern revival (M83 et al.) dreampop is related to but has distinct origins from shoegaze
Rate Your Music: Dream Pop [Genre371] Dream Pop is a genre characterized by an overall subdued atmosphere - from the vocals to the melodies - producing a dream-like, sleepy, or spacious feel. As the name suggests, songs are structured around traditionally Pop-sounding progressions, often with a steady though de-emphasized beat and vocals that are lower in the mix and possibly run through effects so as to offer a more ethereal feel. Band structures are usually pretty straightforward sporting a guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. Vocals are a distinguishing element of Dream Pop and can often be viewed predominantly as an instrument, with importance being placed moreso on providing melody and less on the actual lyrics. In addition, it is not uncommon for there to be more than one vocalist, either working in unison or switching off. Females have a very prominent role in this genre in this respect, with acts such as My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, and Mazzy Star - among others - having female vocalists. It is also not uncommon for Dream Pop to be fused with other genres like Shoegaze or Noise Pop. The main distinguishing factors though are that while they all offer a similar, "blanketing" feel, Dream Pop does not rely on "walls of sound" (as in Shoegaze) or heavily distorted, very driving guitars (as in Noise Pop). Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise and many others were well-known in the '90s. And nobody used the term "dream pop" to describe their music. Isn't that really strange?"
Again, you seem bent on this idea that genre names and/or their definitions never change over time. This is clearly erroneous as any look at music history can tell you. To give two examples...in the late 1970s up through 1984-85, bands like the Banshees, Cure, Joy Division, etc. were called post-punk (which they still are). From 1985 or so after, they were also considered part of (and the founders) of goth. It was retroactive. Here's another. Back in 1975-76, "punk" mainly meant bands in the NYC CBGB scene. The definition changed over time to focus more on the British '76-77 punk scene. So today, most people would not label the music of say, Blondie, Television or Talking Heads as "punk rock." The definition changed over time. Best one would be classical. Guess what? If you went back in time to the early 1800s, I can guarantee you that Beethoven would not understand what you meant by the word "classical"---it is a wholly retroactive classification. Classifications for such genres as blues, jazz, reggae, new wave, psychedelia, heavy metal etc have all changed and shifted over time. Trying to "police" usage of genre names to conform to the way they were used decades ago is a futile battle. Ahistorical is in the eye of the person trying to maintain an outdated definition.
"And of course, '90s sources are absolutey relevant, because they are primary sources. They describe a genre of music that was popular in the early '90s." Says you. I say, as do most current mainstream print and web media, that dream pop is mainly a current term.
"I really don't care about "sources" of today's web magazines. Every school kid can write a review." Well that's your wholly subjective and kind of narrowminded view. Whether you like it or not, media sources like Pitchfork and Under the Radar are considered reliable mainstream sources.
"Females have a very prominent role in this genre"
No, they don't. Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer."
Well, first of all the two genres are not the same, for the nth time. Second, even if we are talking about just shoegaze, that's not accurate either. At best they are gender even, something that was a hallmark of shoegaze. Cocteau Twins, Lush, Curve, Pale Saints, Slowdive, Bleach, Alison's Halo, Blonde Redhead, Cranes, Medicine, Drop Nineteens...nope, no female vocals there! Greg Fasolino ( talk) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Sources say otherwise. And there is nothing you can do about it."
YOUR (old) sources say otherwise. My (current) sources, and the ones already referenced by others, say yes. It's entirely your opinion whose sources are valid and whose are not.
"Make a list of male-fronted bands (Ride, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of Distinction etc.) and female-fronted bands. You'll see. Women in the genre don't make the genre a female-dominated genre." You are confusing me and the writer from Rate Your Music. I never said it was female-dominated. YOU said "Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer," and that is what I was disputing. I said they were gender-neutral, especially compared to other genres of the time. The list of bands I made shows that pretty clearly. There's not much dispute that both shoegaze and dream pop feature a greater proportion of females, both musicians and singers, than the ones you mention like punk or metal.
"I'm not a friend of ahistorical re-definitions". History is not static, it is always changing. I notice you didnt' even try to address the specific examples I gave you of how musical genres and their definitions change over time. You can fight to try and keep things stuck in an old view of things, but you can't expect everyone else to never evolve. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Debating this with you further is pointless, so I will rest my case. You aren't interested in hearing what listeners and critics of the present day have to say, so why waste further breath explaining to you that the definition has changed over time.
Greg Fasolino (
talk)
12:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. I know exactly who you are. Many years ago I was the one who added The Naked and the Dead to the German Goth Rock article...
"There are definitions"
Where? Textbook definitions? Then show me. -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1. Shoegaze was not dream pop or considered dream pop at the time. 2. of the "list" that was presented by Greg only Julee Cruise I see as fitting in at the time. Mazzy Star was never called dream pop. Lana del who? not dream pop. Just a terrible take on a 1950's image, and just sounds ordinary. Starbwoy ( talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Again... this article needs a clear definition. Otherwise it's nothing else than a synonym or a subcategory of shoegazing. The influences are exactly the same: Neo-psychedelia, noise-pop, ambient, and Cocteau's ethereal goth/ethereal pop tunes. Any solution? -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 16:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Dream pop is related to shoegaze obviously but is NOT synonymous. The issue is: The usage of the term 25 years ago is not identical to the current usage by a wide and large array of modern listeners, bands and music writers. There are plenty of archetypal, iconic dream pop bands that can not in any way be deemed shoegaze and have never been so. For example, visit the Wiki pages of say, Mazzy Star, Beach House, Luna, Wild Nothing, The Sundays, M83, The Radio Dept., Yo La Tengo, Bat for Lashes, The xx, Marissa Nadler, DIIV, even Cocteau Twins to go back further. All list dream pop as the main genre or one of them, and many do not list shoegaze at all. That is indicative of the current usage of the genre name. No critic or fan ever called Mazzy Star or Luna or The Sundays shoegaze. No present-day fan of the very popular Beach House ever called them shoegaze. The two terms form a Venn diagram as do many other musical genres that are closely related/connected (an accurate comparison would speed metal vs. thrash metal); that does not mean we can ignore the differences or assume that all the people currently using the term are morons who should be ignored for the sake of trying to make history stand still (actually, dream pop also intersects with genres other than shoegaze————electronica, slowcore, post-rock and neo-folk to name a few)...unless you think all of the band Wiki articles referenced below are in error for listing them as dream pop. Which is more parsimonious, assuming every single one of those below Wiki articles are wrong, or assuming instead that the narrow anachronistic view espoused by one guy (RivetHeadCulture) is right?
As for sources, the people listening to, writing about and playing dream pop right now are not really writing books. They're writing for blogs and magazines and Pitchfork. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of present-day genres and subgenres with solid Wiki articles that have not been written about in hardcover books by old rock critic dudes (speaking as one of that species).
The article as it is, is kind of a joke, not because it is redundant due to being synonymous with shoegaze, but bad because it tries to take a genre name that is common and popular NOW, and shoehorn it into a minor, very rigid usage from a quarter century ago.
All of the correct, useful and accurate info was deleted. It needs a major overhaul and return of prior article material to reflect the fact that it's 2015 not 1990.
Greg Fasolino (
talk)
14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.treblezine.com/10-best-dream-pop-albums/
http://www.allmusic.com/style/dream-pop-ma0000012303
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dream+pop
http://www.albumoftheyear.org/genre/39-dream-pop/all/
http://www.last.fm/tag/dream%20pop
/info/en/?search=Mazzy_Star
/info/en/?search=Cocteau_Twins
/info/en/?search=Beach_House
/info/en/?search=The_Radio_Dept.
/info/en/?search=Luna_%281990s_American_band%29
/info/en/?search=Wild_Nothing
/info/en/?search=The_Sundays
/info/en/?search=Bat_for_Lashes
/info/en/?search=M83_%28band%29
/info/en/?search=Marissa_Nadler
/info/en/?search=Yo_La_Tengo
/info/en/?search=DIIV
/info/en/?search=The_xx
I reviewed Mazzy's first album when it came out and their 1994 tour with JAMC, and I certainly did not call them country or blues, it was alternative rock then. :) And of course they were not considered dream pop ***then****. As I keep saying, genres terms change and develop retroactively all the time. In retrospect, they are termed dream pop by a multitude of fans, listeners and journalists. You just are biased because you do not like the term and want to think genres names are fossilized and never change. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth would I show you a source from the '90s? You keep missing the entire point, as always. This is a MODERN term, used by people NOW on a regular and consistent basis, as my sources demonstrate. All the Wiki editors on all of those pages are all "post-millenium shitheads" and you are the only valid authority, right??? Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Your argument makes no logical sense here. "If they weren't dreampop in the 90s, they never were." Again, in your world, something (whether it be a band or a genre or god knows what else) can only be defined once, at the time of its first appearance, and can never be reassessed, redefine, recategorized, etc. from now until infinity. Good luck with that. The world moves on and definitions change. In every area of life, critics, journalists, historians and even nonprofessional everyday people look back at history and make connections that were not apparent in the past, and redefine things accordingly. Some of those reassessments stick and become the new terms for groupings of people or movements or artworks. Many if not most historical terminology is after the fact or retroactive. You can deny this all you want but it's not going to change the reality. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"I don't care about the current use". Just because you don't care about something doesn't mean the rest of the world has to fall in line. Or else what? Nothing ever changes? Terms stay the same forever, frozen in time? Why add any new Wikipedia articles then? Or are you saying nothing will ever change on Wikipedia? 100 years from now, every term will be used in exactly the same way? That's ridiculous. Look at an encyclopedia from 1915 or 1815...is every term, every genre of art, every word usage the same? Sorry, not the case.
"There is no reliable source for that, no book, nothing useful at all." As if books (and I am a book lover and have written for several of them, including the Trouser Press Guides) are the only useful or valid sources of information on the planet. As if we are not in 2015, and there has never been a thing called the Internet, or blogs. Just because you cannot fathom a sea change in how serious music criticism has largely migrated to the world of online music magazines, blogs, social media etc. doesn't mean it's not accurate. You insult anyone who doesn't think the way you do, and dismiss anyone younger who might have something to teach you.
Lastly, don't tell me what I have to understand. A closeminded person living in the past and trying desperately to force the world to stay still and never evolve has little business telling others that the only way to proceed is to stick their heads in the sand instead of being objective and looking at what is actually being written and said in the world we are living in right now. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Try and argue that Billboard, the gold standard for music in the U.S., are useless teenagers... "Dream pop darlings Mazzy Star": http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1886320/mazzy-star-to-release-first-album-in-17-years
And for the record, "All Music Guide to Rock: The Definitive Guide to Rock, Pop, and Soul" edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, Stephen Thomas Erlewine (yes, an actual book!) defines The Sundays as dream pop. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Billboard never called Mazzy Star a dreampop band before. Not in the '90s."
There you go. That is my entire point. The flagship source for music in the U.S. has updated their usage. It's not the '90s anymore! Definitions change. Just because you don't like AllMusic doesn't change the fact that they are an accepted source. The thing is, you just don't want anyone to change genre definitions, ever. And that's not the way the world works. As for the article, someone "plucked" it awhile back and denuded it of all the material and bands that would make it clear that the definition changed over time, and that it is not synonymous with shoegaze. Fixing that will be a big task but yes, I plan to tackle it when I have time. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I was reading (and writing) for "books and magazines of the 90s" at the time. I was a music journalist for the entire second half of the 1980s and first half of the 1990s and read every major music magazine as part of my job. In any case, as the article still states, the term was first used to describe A.R. Kane, who are not in any way, shape or form a shoegaze band. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So you think it doesn't sound like Ride and Slowdive? Yeah ...right. Sorry, Greg. That's completely bullshit. It uses all that feedback noise, a dreamy melody, the lazy vocal style. Pure shoegazing. The distinction between shoegazing and dreampop is artificial and ahistorical. -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
BECAUSE IT IS AHISTORICAL. The whole idea that dreampop is something else than shoegazing is an invention of Wikipedia. The "reliable" web sources of today exist because of the nonsense that has been written in Wikipedia more than ten years ago. That's the reason why some people call This Mortal Coil and other artists "dreampop". They used the unsourced nonsense of Wikipedia as a source. And yes, it is annoying. We discuss the same topic over and over again. -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
From the article: "A.R. Kane's music has been called dream pop, a term coined by the band themselves and widely adopted among music critics thereafter.[10] The Guardian's Rob Fitzpatrick describes their sound as "blending dub, feedback, psychedelic dream-pop, house and free jazz."[11] Simon Reynolds portrays the group's early work as experimental pop music "influenced by Miles Davis, Cocteau Twins, Can and dub [in which] fragile, haunting melodies drifted through a hallucinatory haze of fluorescent feedback and effects-addled guitar."[12] The Quietus's Neil Kulkarni refers to their sound as "sensual, spiritual, vaporous, liquid, unearthly, subterranean."[13] The band often distanced themselves from traditional labels or comparisons." Greg Fasolino ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the day we take what the independent sources state and when they don't agree we take what the best sources state or reflect the various differing view. It doesn't matter what any of us as individuals think is or isn't shoegazing or dream pop or whether there's any difference between the two. We go on what reliable sources say - that's pretty fundamental to this project. There is no place here for original research. -- Michig ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Pitchfork review: "As Byron Coley tells it in the liner notes, this "aging" involved the group transforming "from folk-rock reinvigorators into loose-stringed riff monsters, keyboard dream-pop hypnotizers, and beyond."" http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8872-prisoners-of-love/
You complain about more recent sources being wrong and then cite a 1996 source for A.R. Kane being one of the original shoegazing bands, even though nobody called them shoegazing back in 1990. Inconsistent. -- Michig ( talk) 20:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why not? Every single source from the '90s proves that both, dream pop and shoegazing, had described one and the same movement in British pop music. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The use of the terms is just regionally dependent (U.S. vs. U.K.). -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 09:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The two genres are closely related but not identical. While many bands (Cocteau Twins, Slowdive) provide an intersection of the genres (just as there are bands that intersect post-punk and dream pop, like The Chameleons), there's loads of iconic dream pop bands that are definitely not shoegaze. Whatever was written in the 1990s is relevant but lots of things have changed since then, and the genre has been redefined over time by critics, bands and listeners alike. Look at the list at
/info/en/?search=List_of_dream_pop_artists
Some really classic dream pop bands, that are not shoegaze: Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise, Luna, Cardigans, Beach House, Azure Ray, Au Revoir Simone, Blue Nile, Lana Del Rey, Ocean Blue, Saint Etienne, etc. That alone should give you a clearer sense of where shoegaze and dream pop differ. Dream pop is softer and less distorted than shoegaze, less angular and cold than post-punk, but dreamier/moodier than plain indie-rock. Anyway, this article really should be rewritten as it focuses way too narrowly on the shoegaze/Simon Reynolds definition of dream pop and not enough on what actual listeners and bands have since redefined it as.
Greg Fasolino (
talk)
13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Dream pop bands and shoegazing artists are identical"...well that clearly isn't the case, since the artists I cited above (all listed as dream pop in their Wiki articles) are not shoegaze, or are you suggesting they are?
"As far as I know, Mazzy Star was never called a dream pop or shoegazing band." Yes, they most certainly have been:
Pitchfork: "Next week, 1990s dream pop greats Mazzy Star will return with their first album in 17 years, Seasons of Your Day"
Under the Radar: "- Earlier this fall dream pop duo Mazzy Star released Seasons of Your Day, the band's first album in 17 years"
Paste Magazine: "And even though Mazzy Star has been absent for a while, the group's reign of dream pop lingered on whenever we heard “Fade Into You” play"
Etc. If I had time I am sure I could find dozens more via Googling.
OK here is the main issue. You seem to assume that genres are automatically named and defined at the time they coalesce. This sometimes is the cause (shoegaze for example). In many other cases, maybe most in music history, genres are named, defined, and come into common usage at a later date or over time. Dream pop is one of these. It's not really relevant to find '90s sources---dream pop is the term used to describe this genre TODAY. The relevant sources are recent and current major press articles and reviews, artists' self-definitions, etc. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, this isn't simply my personal POV. You may not like the term but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not used in popular culture:
An excellent primer for what the genre means: http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-dream-pop-albums/
Obviously its own genre if it has an Amazon list, no? http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Music-Dream-Pop/zgbs/music/602088
http://www.scaruffi.com/music/dreampop.html
Urban Dictionary: dreampop Pioneered by Scotland's "Cocteau Twins", dreampop is a catch-all term for ethereal (Dreamy) music with high, drifting vocals and a swirling wall-of-sound texture. Related to noisepop/shoegaze, but distinguished by frequent use of non-guitar electronics. Dates from the 80s but is experiencing a mdoern revival (M83 et al.) dreampop is related to but has distinct origins from shoegaze
Rate Your Music: Dream Pop [Genre371] Dream Pop is a genre characterized by an overall subdued atmosphere - from the vocals to the melodies - producing a dream-like, sleepy, or spacious feel. As the name suggests, songs are structured around traditionally Pop-sounding progressions, often with a steady though de-emphasized beat and vocals that are lower in the mix and possibly run through effects so as to offer a more ethereal feel. Band structures are usually pretty straightforward sporting a guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. Vocals are a distinguishing element of Dream Pop and can often be viewed predominantly as an instrument, with importance being placed moreso on providing melody and less on the actual lyrics. In addition, it is not uncommon for there to be more than one vocalist, either working in unison or switching off. Females have a very prominent role in this genre in this respect, with acts such as My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, and Mazzy Star - among others - having female vocalists. It is also not uncommon for Dream Pop to be fused with other genres like Shoegaze or Noise Pop. The main distinguishing factors though are that while they all offer a similar, "blanketing" feel, Dream Pop does not rely on "walls of sound" (as in Shoegaze) or heavily distorted, very driving guitars (as in Noise Pop). Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise and many others were well-known in the '90s. And nobody used the term "dream pop" to describe their music. Isn't that really strange?"
Again, you seem bent on this idea that genre names and/or their definitions never change over time. This is clearly erroneous as any look at music history can tell you. To give two examples...in the late 1970s up through 1984-85, bands like the Banshees, Cure, Joy Division, etc. were called post-punk (which they still are). From 1985 or so after, they were also considered part of (and the founders) of goth. It was retroactive. Here's another. Back in 1975-76, "punk" mainly meant bands in the NYC CBGB scene. The definition changed over time to focus more on the British '76-77 punk scene. So today, most people would not label the music of say, Blondie, Television or Talking Heads as "punk rock." The definition changed over time. Best one would be classical. Guess what? If you went back in time to the early 1800s, I can guarantee you that Beethoven would not understand what you meant by the word "classical"---it is a wholly retroactive classification. Classifications for such genres as blues, jazz, reggae, new wave, psychedelia, heavy metal etc have all changed and shifted over time. Trying to "police" usage of genre names to conform to the way they were used decades ago is a futile battle. Ahistorical is in the eye of the person trying to maintain an outdated definition.
"And of course, '90s sources are absolutey relevant, because they are primary sources. They describe a genre of music that was popular in the early '90s." Says you. I say, as do most current mainstream print and web media, that dream pop is mainly a current term.
"I really don't care about "sources" of today's web magazines. Every school kid can write a review." Well that's your wholly subjective and kind of narrowminded view. Whether you like it or not, media sources like Pitchfork and Under the Radar are considered reliable mainstream sources.
"Females have a very prominent role in this genre"
No, they don't. Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer."
Well, first of all the two genres are not the same, for the nth time. Second, even if we are talking about just shoegaze, that's not accurate either. At best they are gender even, something that was a hallmark of shoegaze. Cocteau Twins, Lush, Curve, Pale Saints, Slowdive, Bleach, Alison's Halo, Blonde Redhead, Cranes, Medicine, Drop Nineteens...nope, no female vocals there! Greg Fasolino ( talk) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Sources say otherwise. And there is nothing you can do about it."
YOUR (old) sources say otherwise. My (current) sources, and the ones already referenced by others, say yes. It's entirely your opinion whose sources are valid and whose are not.
"Make a list of male-fronted bands (Ride, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of Distinction etc.) and female-fronted bands. You'll see. Women in the genre don't make the genre a female-dominated genre." You are confusing me and the writer from Rate Your Music. I never said it was female-dominated. YOU said "Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer," and that is what I was disputing. I said they were gender-neutral, especially compared to other genres of the time. The list of bands I made shows that pretty clearly. There's not much dispute that both shoegaze and dream pop feature a greater proportion of females, both musicians and singers, than the ones you mention like punk or metal.
"I'm not a friend of ahistorical re-definitions". History is not static, it is always changing. I notice you didnt' even try to address the specific examples I gave you of how musical genres and their definitions change over time. You can fight to try and keep things stuck in an old view of things, but you can't expect everyone else to never evolve. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Debating this with you further is pointless, so I will rest my case. You aren't interested in hearing what listeners and critics of the present day have to say, so why waste further breath explaining to you that the definition has changed over time.
Greg Fasolino (
talk)
12:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. I know exactly who you are. Many years ago I was the one who added The Naked and the Dead to the German Goth Rock article...
"There are definitions"
Where? Textbook definitions? Then show me. -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1. Shoegaze was not dream pop or considered dream pop at the time. 2. of the "list" that was presented by Greg only Julee Cruise I see as fitting in at the time. Mazzy Star was never called dream pop. Lana del who? not dream pop. Just a terrible take on a 1950's image, and just sounds ordinary. Starbwoy ( talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Again... this article needs a clear definition. Otherwise it's nothing else than a synonym or a subcategory of shoegazing. The influences are exactly the same: Neo-psychedelia, noise-pop, ambient, and Cocteau's ethereal goth/ethereal pop tunes. Any solution? -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 16:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Dream pop is related to shoegaze obviously but is NOT synonymous. The issue is: The usage of the term 25 years ago is not identical to the current usage by a wide and large array of modern listeners, bands and music writers. There are plenty of archetypal, iconic dream pop bands that can not in any way be deemed shoegaze and have never been so. For example, visit the Wiki pages of say, Mazzy Star, Beach House, Luna, Wild Nothing, The Sundays, M83, The Radio Dept., Yo La Tengo, Bat for Lashes, The xx, Marissa Nadler, DIIV, even Cocteau Twins to go back further. All list dream pop as the main genre or one of them, and many do not list shoegaze at all. That is indicative of the current usage of the genre name. No critic or fan ever called Mazzy Star or Luna or The Sundays shoegaze. No present-day fan of the very popular Beach House ever called them shoegaze. The two terms form a Venn diagram as do many other musical genres that are closely related/connected (an accurate comparison would speed metal vs. thrash metal); that does not mean we can ignore the differences or assume that all the people currently using the term are morons who should be ignored for the sake of trying to make history stand still (actually, dream pop also intersects with genres other than shoegaze————electronica, slowcore, post-rock and neo-folk to name a few)...unless you think all of the band Wiki articles referenced below are in error for listing them as dream pop. Which is more parsimonious, assuming every single one of those below Wiki articles are wrong, or assuming instead that the narrow anachronistic view espoused by one guy (RivetHeadCulture) is right?
As for sources, the people listening to, writing about and playing dream pop right now are not really writing books. They're writing for blogs and magazines and Pitchfork. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of present-day genres and subgenres with solid Wiki articles that have not been written about in hardcover books by old rock critic dudes (speaking as one of that species).
The article as it is, is kind of a joke, not because it is redundant due to being synonymous with shoegaze, but bad because it tries to take a genre name that is common and popular NOW, and shoehorn it into a minor, very rigid usage from a quarter century ago.
All of the correct, useful and accurate info was deleted. It needs a major overhaul and return of prior article material to reflect the fact that it's 2015 not 1990.
Greg Fasolino (
talk)
14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.treblezine.com/10-best-dream-pop-albums/
http://www.allmusic.com/style/dream-pop-ma0000012303
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dream+pop
http://www.albumoftheyear.org/genre/39-dream-pop/all/
http://www.last.fm/tag/dream%20pop
/info/en/?search=Mazzy_Star
/info/en/?search=Cocteau_Twins
/info/en/?search=Beach_House
/info/en/?search=The_Radio_Dept.
/info/en/?search=Luna_%281990s_American_band%29
/info/en/?search=Wild_Nothing
/info/en/?search=The_Sundays
/info/en/?search=Bat_for_Lashes
/info/en/?search=M83_%28band%29
/info/en/?search=Marissa_Nadler
/info/en/?search=Yo_La_Tengo
/info/en/?search=DIIV
/info/en/?search=The_xx
I reviewed Mazzy's first album when it came out and their 1994 tour with JAMC, and I certainly did not call them country or blues, it was alternative rock then. :) And of course they were not considered dream pop ***then****. As I keep saying, genres terms change and develop retroactively all the time. In retrospect, they are termed dream pop by a multitude of fans, listeners and journalists. You just are biased because you do not like the term and want to think genres names are fossilized and never change. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth would I show you a source from the '90s? You keep missing the entire point, as always. This is a MODERN term, used by people NOW on a regular and consistent basis, as my sources demonstrate. All the Wiki editors on all of those pages are all "post-millenium shitheads" and you are the only valid authority, right??? Greg Fasolino ( talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Your argument makes no logical sense here. "If they weren't dreampop in the 90s, they never were." Again, in your world, something (whether it be a band or a genre or god knows what else) can only be defined once, at the time of its first appearance, and can never be reassessed, redefine, recategorized, etc. from now until infinity. Good luck with that. The world moves on and definitions change. In every area of life, critics, journalists, historians and even nonprofessional everyday people look back at history and make connections that were not apparent in the past, and redefine things accordingly. Some of those reassessments stick and become the new terms for groupings of people or movements or artworks. Many if not most historical terminology is after the fact or retroactive. You can deny this all you want but it's not going to change the reality. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"I don't care about the current use". Just because you don't care about something doesn't mean the rest of the world has to fall in line. Or else what? Nothing ever changes? Terms stay the same forever, frozen in time? Why add any new Wikipedia articles then? Or are you saying nothing will ever change on Wikipedia? 100 years from now, every term will be used in exactly the same way? That's ridiculous. Look at an encyclopedia from 1915 or 1815...is every term, every genre of art, every word usage the same? Sorry, not the case.
"There is no reliable source for that, no book, nothing useful at all." As if books (and I am a book lover and have written for several of them, including the Trouser Press Guides) are the only useful or valid sources of information on the planet. As if we are not in 2015, and there has never been a thing called the Internet, or blogs. Just because you cannot fathom a sea change in how serious music criticism has largely migrated to the world of online music magazines, blogs, social media etc. doesn't mean it's not accurate. You insult anyone who doesn't think the way you do, and dismiss anyone younger who might have something to teach you.
Lastly, don't tell me what I have to understand. A closeminded person living in the past and trying desperately to force the world to stay still and never evolve has little business telling others that the only way to proceed is to stick their heads in the sand instead of being objective and looking at what is actually being written and said in the world we are living in right now. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Try and argue that Billboard, the gold standard for music in the U.S., are useless teenagers... "Dream pop darlings Mazzy Star": http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1886320/mazzy-star-to-release-first-album-in-17-years
And for the record, "All Music Guide to Rock: The Definitive Guide to Rock, Pop, and Soul" edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, Stephen Thomas Erlewine (yes, an actual book!) defines The Sundays as dream pop. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Billboard never called Mazzy Star a dreampop band before. Not in the '90s."
There you go. That is my entire point. The flagship source for music in the U.S. has updated their usage. It's not the '90s anymore! Definitions change. Just because you don't like AllMusic doesn't change the fact that they are an accepted source. The thing is, you just don't want anyone to change genre definitions, ever. And that's not the way the world works. As for the article, someone "plucked" it awhile back and denuded it of all the material and bands that would make it clear that the definition changed over time, and that it is not synonymous with shoegaze. Fixing that will be a big task but yes, I plan to tackle it when I have time. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I was reading (and writing) for "books and magazines of the 90s" at the time. I was a music journalist for the entire second half of the 1980s and first half of the 1990s and read every major music magazine as part of my job. In any case, as the article still states, the term was first used to describe A.R. Kane, who are not in any way, shape or form a shoegaze band. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So you think it doesn't sound like Ride and Slowdive? Yeah ...right. Sorry, Greg. That's completely bullshit. It uses all that feedback noise, a dreamy melody, the lazy vocal style. Pure shoegazing. The distinction between shoegazing and dreampop is artificial and ahistorical. -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
BECAUSE IT IS AHISTORICAL. The whole idea that dreampop is something else than shoegazing is an invention of Wikipedia. The "reliable" web sources of today exist because of the nonsense that has been written in Wikipedia more than ten years ago. That's the reason why some people call This Mortal Coil and other artists "dreampop". They used the unsourced nonsense of Wikipedia as a source. And yes, it is annoying. We discuss the same topic over and over again. -- RivetHeadCulture ( talk) 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
From the article: "A.R. Kane's music has been called dream pop, a term coined by the band themselves and widely adopted among music critics thereafter.[10] The Guardian's Rob Fitzpatrick describes their sound as "blending dub, feedback, psychedelic dream-pop, house and free jazz."[11] Simon Reynolds portrays the group's early work as experimental pop music "influenced by Miles Davis, Cocteau Twins, Can and dub [in which] fragile, haunting melodies drifted through a hallucinatory haze of fluorescent feedback and effects-addled guitar."[12] The Quietus's Neil Kulkarni refers to their sound as "sensual, spiritual, vaporous, liquid, unearthly, subterranean."[13] The band often distanced themselves from traditional labels or comparisons." Greg Fasolino ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the day we take what the independent sources state and when they don't agree we take what the best sources state or reflect the various differing view. It doesn't matter what any of us as individuals think is or isn't shoegazing or dream pop or whether there's any difference between the two. We go on what reliable sources say - that's pretty fundamental to this project. There is no place here for original research. -- Michig ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Pitchfork review: "As Byron Coley tells it in the liner notes, this "aging" involved the group transforming "from folk-rock reinvigorators into loose-stringed riff monsters, keyboard dream-pop hypnotizers, and beyond."" http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8872-prisoners-of-love/
You complain about more recent sources being wrong and then cite a 1996 source for A.R. Kane being one of the original shoegazing bands, even though nobody called them shoegazing back in 1990. Inconsistent. -- Michig ( talk) 20:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)