![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizicus ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
More: All bands listed here should be added to this list if not already.
I added the b-52's. I think they would qualify as Synthpop, Just listen to Rock Lobster! - Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.199 ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
wouldn't modern talking, red flag or peter schilling be included in the list? and there are certain "sythnpop" sounding songs from bands not known to be a purely sythnpop band. I can think of Kon Kan's "I beg your pardon" or the Cure's "just like heaven". Philip Oakey's "Together in electric dreams" sounds like another one but im not sure what his general style is.
Okay. cool, that's right about Moroder. thanks for reminding me. I added
Peter Schilling. His "the different story" definitely has the most classic synthpop sound of all his music. And I made another addition; Like Depeche Mode, Erasure was still popular worldwide in the 90's.
It seems to me that organizing the list by date is just causing all sorts of trouble, leading to duplication and such. I intend to change it unless I hear some objections. Feel free to add dates active to the bands. -- Eyrian 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is Apoptygma Berzerk still kept in this list, when it was agreed in the main article's talk page that this band generally cannot be considered synthpop?-- Skraelinger 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, please. Beyoncé????
Hey, why not? If Silver freakin' Apples are on here. Hell, let's invite Engelbert Humperdinck over too and have us a REAL party!!
Add Machine in Motion (see some of their videos on youtube); also add BlueOctober UK (listen to some samples on amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.75.181 ( talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A basic requirement of inclusion on this list is that the artiste's article must state (in the Infobox or prose) that their Genre is (or was) Synthpop. It can list other genres too as artistes tend to cross over. It matters not if you personally consider an artist Synthpop, as that is just WP:OR. Electropop, Darkwave New Wave, New Romantic, Pop are not Synthpop. Archivey ( talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Until Lady GaGa's article says she is a Synthpop artist it is not going to be accepted on this list. Instead of edit warring to try and change the inclusion criteria. Edit Lady GaGa and add Synthpop first, if the genre is accepted by the consensus there, then add it to this list and not before. 86.139.136.245 ( talk) 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who believes Lady Gaga falls under this category deserves a bat to the skull, end of story. 74.69.64.52 ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The majority of Lady Gaga's songs are under the Synthpop category so she is considered a synthpop artist. You know she is so why are you making such a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.230.88 ( talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The majority of Lady Gaga's songs are under the Synthpop category so she is considered a synthpop artist Orly, just like that? She just is? According to whom? "Whom" in the sense of being more than a Gaga fan or some publication lacking in musical expertise.
Tell me, what earlier synthpop pioneers has Gaga herself actually described as influential over her in any way, let alone MUSICALLY (the most important)? Ultravox? Soft Cell? Japan? Human League? Anyone? Where is their obvious influence in her songs supposed to be? Where is there evidence of a background she has studying or exploring the genre? "We know that she is", you say. What the hell do we know this BASED on, huh?
I mean, where do you folks get your Gaga "synthpop" vibe? Is it her obvious and self-cited MADONNA influence? The decidedly non-synthpop tied singer who pretty much everyone on earth must have instantly compared Gaga to the moment they set eyes on her? Madonna, who was part of "hi-NRG" Dance-pop, which if you read up was basically an earlier stage of today's Gaga/Britney/etc radio diva-pop. It's easy to see the direct descendance of these singers from the ones performing it back in the 80s, and easy to encounter evidence of them CREDITING Madonna and those singers. What about Gaga's crediting of British synthpop pioneers, huh? These artists crafted their OWN sounds out of their enthusiasm for electronics, and merged it with pop hooks in a very groundbreaking advancement of electronic music. Tell me how Gaga is putting her own stamp on that tradition. This "synthpop musician" has not contributed a single instrumental role to her songs' creations, which is hilarious in a genre created by the electronically-savvy. Theburning25 ( talk) 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, 70.130.230, I love how Lady Gaga being synthpop tied is so incredibly important to you that it's the sole theme of your Wiki editing history. You must really see her as today's incarnation of Gary Numan to be this intense over it. Mindblowing, really. Theburning25 ( talk) 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I need to apologize to Ed Kollin for flying off the handle and letting my frustrations about his edits and these lists in general get to me last night. While theoretically lists should go by the same rules as article in practice as even Ed Kollin has noted over in the New Wave list discussions the reality is different. Most editors seem to be inclusive or putting it another way another more relaxed regarding enforcing standards in lists then in regular articles. If a band is synthpop influenced not just primarily synthpop editors want to add them in. Same is true if a act is locally popular only. And editors cut some slack about finding sources for lesser known acts or acts that come from non English speaking articles. Invariably this gets opposed by a few editors with good intentions that want to strictly enforce the sourcing rules leading to edit wars. Many of these these editors while respecting sourcing rules have a blind spot regarding the de facto consensus guidelines. If your standards are being disregarded day after day this should be a signal the consensuses is strongly against your good intentioned viewpoints on these matters and that you should respect the majority view. If this happens I believe the number of edit wars would decline and in the long run most will be happy. Of course this requires people on my side and me specifically should stop acting like assholes also. 69.114.116.215 ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Name-calling aside, your original sentiment was completely understandable, user 64.114. After all, you/we were trying to include someone on a list they pretty OBVIOUSLY belong on. Freaking frustrating website this is. The "anyone can edit" concept has proven pretty much to be a failure. There will always be particularly obsessive, controlling people hijacking things to keep it going their way. 74.69.64.52 ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am leaving them on the list for now because there are numerous sources calling them "technopop". I am not familiar with the Japanese sources and do not know if the sources are reliable. Edkollin ( talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the Synthpop and Electropop articles have been merged shouldn't we allow acts reliably sourced as electropop? Edkollin ( talk) 02:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
An editor used it to source the Chromatics as synthpop. I put an unreliable warning on it because the publisher is called the "The Vinyl Factory" and to me it sounded like some sort of record company so I thought it might a magazine created to publicize its artists. And to me when a publication calls itself "FACT" it raises suspicions for me so I flagged it. Since I am from the states and the magazine is from the UK I will defer to UK editors. Edkollin (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike Posner is not Synthpop, for crying out loud. Ok, so someone found one oddball article where he was stupidly labelled as such, therefore we have to include him in this list? Ridiculous, and an insult to the other artists in this list. 98.220.135.184 ( talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately Allmusic list of top artists are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, as they are not generated by individual writers but by hits on various pages, so one of the major sources for this list needs replacing. If anyone can help with this it would be much appreciated.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the usage of the three column presentation which doesn't work on narrow screens. please discuss here if there is a problem with using variable numbers of columns based on the browser window width. Frietjes ( talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Cure have a few songs in the genre of synthpop. According to these criteria, you can add Elton John, Queen and David Bowie, because they also have songs that can be attributed to the synth-pop. 176.214.42.255 ( talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Nearly all "underground" (not radio-played) bands are missing
/info/en/?search=VNV_Nation /info/en/?search=Assemblage_23 /info/en/?search=Linea_Aspera_(band) /info/en/?search=And_One /info/en/?search=De/Vision /info/en/?search=Covenant_(band) /info/en/?search=Apoptygma_Berzerk /info/en/?search=Boytronic /info/en/?search=Icon_of_Coil ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.113.70 ( talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizicus ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
More: All bands listed here should be added to this list if not already.
I added the b-52's. I think they would qualify as Synthpop, Just listen to Rock Lobster! - Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.199 ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
wouldn't modern talking, red flag or peter schilling be included in the list? and there are certain "sythnpop" sounding songs from bands not known to be a purely sythnpop band. I can think of Kon Kan's "I beg your pardon" or the Cure's "just like heaven". Philip Oakey's "Together in electric dreams" sounds like another one but im not sure what his general style is.
Okay. cool, that's right about Moroder. thanks for reminding me. I added
Peter Schilling. His "the different story" definitely has the most classic synthpop sound of all his music. And I made another addition; Like Depeche Mode, Erasure was still popular worldwide in the 90's.
It seems to me that organizing the list by date is just causing all sorts of trouble, leading to duplication and such. I intend to change it unless I hear some objections. Feel free to add dates active to the bands. -- Eyrian 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is Apoptygma Berzerk still kept in this list, when it was agreed in the main article's talk page that this band generally cannot be considered synthpop?-- Skraelinger 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, please. Beyoncé????
Hey, why not? If Silver freakin' Apples are on here. Hell, let's invite Engelbert Humperdinck over too and have us a REAL party!!
Add Machine in Motion (see some of their videos on youtube); also add BlueOctober UK (listen to some samples on amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.75.181 ( talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A basic requirement of inclusion on this list is that the artiste's article must state (in the Infobox or prose) that their Genre is (or was) Synthpop. It can list other genres too as artistes tend to cross over. It matters not if you personally consider an artist Synthpop, as that is just WP:OR. Electropop, Darkwave New Wave, New Romantic, Pop are not Synthpop. Archivey ( talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Until Lady GaGa's article says she is a Synthpop artist it is not going to be accepted on this list. Instead of edit warring to try and change the inclusion criteria. Edit Lady GaGa and add Synthpop first, if the genre is accepted by the consensus there, then add it to this list and not before. 86.139.136.245 ( talk) 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who believes Lady Gaga falls under this category deserves a bat to the skull, end of story. 74.69.64.52 ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The majority of Lady Gaga's songs are under the Synthpop category so she is considered a synthpop artist. You know she is so why are you making such a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.230.88 ( talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The majority of Lady Gaga's songs are under the Synthpop category so she is considered a synthpop artist Orly, just like that? She just is? According to whom? "Whom" in the sense of being more than a Gaga fan or some publication lacking in musical expertise.
Tell me, what earlier synthpop pioneers has Gaga herself actually described as influential over her in any way, let alone MUSICALLY (the most important)? Ultravox? Soft Cell? Japan? Human League? Anyone? Where is their obvious influence in her songs supposed to be? Where is there evidence of a background she has studying or exploring the genre? "We know that she is", you say. What the hell do we know this BASED on, huh?
I mean, where do you folks get your Gaga "synthpop" vibe? Is it her obvious and self-cited MADONNA influence? The decidedly non-synthpop tied singer who pretty much everyone on earth must have instantly compared Gaga to the moment they set eyes on her? Madonna, who was part of "hi-NRG" Dance-pop, which if you read up was basically an earlier stage of today's Gaga/Britney/etc radio diva-pop. It's easy to see the direct descendance of these singers from the ones performing it back in the 80s, and easy to encounter evidence of them CREDITING Madonna and those singers. What about Gaga's crediting of British synthpop pioneers, huh? These artists crafted their OWN sounds out of their enthusiasm for electronics, and merged it with pop hooks in a very groundbreaking advancement of electronic music. Tell me how Gaga is putting her own stamp on that tradition. This "synthpop musician" has not contributed a single instrumental role to her songs' creations, which is hilarious in a genre created by the electronically-savvy. Theburning25 ( talk) 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, 70.130.230, I love how Lady Gaga being synthpop tied is so incredibly important to you that it's the sole theme of your Wiki editing history. You must really see her as today's incarnation of Gary Numan to be this intense over it. Mindblowing, really. Theburning25 ( talk) 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I need to apologize to Ed Kollin for flying off the handle and letting my frustrations about his edits and these lists in general get to me last night. While theoretically lists should go by the same rules as article in practice as even Ed Kollin has noted over in the New Wave list discussions the reality is different. Most editors seem to be inclusive or putting it another way another more relaxed regarding enforcing standards in lists then in regular articles. If a band is synthpop influenced not just primarily synthpop editors want to add them in. Same is true if a act is locally popular only. And editors cut some slack about finding sources for lesser known acts or acts that come from non English speaking articles. Invariably this gets opposed by a few editors with good intentions that want to strictly enforce the sourcing rules leading to edit wars. Many of these these editors while respecting sourcing rules have a blind spot regarding the de facto consensus guidelines. If your standards are being disregarded day after day this should be a signal the consensuses is strongly against your good intentioned viewpoints on these matters and that you should respect the majority view. If this happens I believe the number of edit wars would decline and in the long run most will be happy. Of course this requires people on my side and me specifically should stop acting like assholes also. 69.114.116.215 ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Name-calling aside, your original sentiment was completely understandable, user 64.114. After all, you/we were trying to include someone on a list they pretty OBVIOUSLY belong on. Freaking frustrating website this is. The "anyone can edit" concept has proven pretty much to be a failure. There will always be particularly obsessive, controlling people hijacking things to keep it going their way. 74.69.64.52 ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am leaving them on the list for now because there are numerous sources calling them "technopop". I am not familiar with the Japanese sources and do not know if the sources are reliable. Edkollin ( talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the Synthpop and Electropop articles have been merged shouldn't we allow acts reliably sourced as electropop? Edkollin ( talk) 02:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
An editor used it to source the Chromatics as synthpop. I put an unreliable warning on it because the publisher is called the "The Vinyl Factory" and to me it sounded like some sort of record company so I thought it might a magazine created to publicize its artists. And to me when a publication calls itself "FACT" it raises suspicions for me so I flagged it. Since I am from the states and the magazine is from the UK I will defer to UK editors. Edkollin (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike Posner is not Synthpop, for crying out loud. Ok, so someone found one oddball article where he was stupidly labelled as such, therefore we have to include him in this list? Ridiculous, and an insult to the other artists in this list. 98.220.135.184 ( talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately Allmusic list of top artists are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, as they are not generated by individual writers but by hits on various pages, so one of the major sources for this list needs replacing. If anyone can help with this it would be much appreciated.-- SabreBD ( talk) 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the usage of the three column presentation which doesn't work on narrow screens. please discuss here if there is a problem with using variable numbers of columns based on the browser window width. Frietjes ( talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Cure have a few songs in the genre of synthpop. According to these criteria, you can add Elton John, Queen and David Bowie, because they also have songs that can be attributed to the synth-pop. 176.214.42.255 ( talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Nearly all "underground" (not radio-played) bands are missing
/info/en/?search=VNV_Nation /info/en/?search=Assemblage_23 /info/en/?search=Linea_Aspera_(band) /info/en/?search=And_One /info/en/?search=De/Vision /info/en/?search=Covenant_(band) /info/en/?search=Apoptygma_Berzerk /info/en/?search=Boytronic /info/en/?search=Icon_of_Coil ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.113.70 ( talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)