This article was nominated for deletion on 25 October 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Shouldn't she also be considered for this genre? __ meco 06:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And RAH Band? __ meco 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather classify her style as "Blue-eyed Soul". But German Hong Kong Syndicate and Swiss Double were Sophisti-pop, maybe also some titles by Danish Laid Back or Swiss Yello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.203.91 ( talk) 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Who is the Queen of Sophisti-pop?
72.82.199.241 ( talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see how this term is encyclopedia-worthy. If you search the books on Google Books, it's barely mentioned at all. Any major genre has dozens of matches in magazines etc. 86.161.31.85 ( talk) 19:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This term has next to no currency, especially in Britain where all these acts come from. It was never used as a genre name in the 80s and isn't widely used or understood now. Who even came up with the term "sophisti-pop"? Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this term was not in use during the eighties, but I like it a lot now. The bands listed here do have something in common, which is neatly caught in the term sophisti-pop. I haven't contributed to this article at all, so I'm unbiased. I thought I'd mention that I find this grouping very useful for encyclopaedic purposes, since - as said - it reflects a personal perspective as music aficionado which I couldn't put a name on previously.
Dieter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.185.9 ( talk) 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is this 'something' they have in common? I can't think of anything apart from nationality that links Prefab Sprout with Sade, ABC with Johnny Hates Jazz or the Style Council with Matt Bianco. Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 20:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As a fan of freestyle music, Safire is absolutely not sophisti-pop. Her freetyle hits and power ballad, "Thinking of You" are so opposite of the sophisti-pop genre. A big club hit of Safire, "Boy, I've Been Told" is popular among us freestyle enthusiasts. She often does freestyle reunion shows and to be honest I can't believe she was among the artists mentioned in this article. She is in the freestyle music page, as she needs to be. Removed her from the list, even though AllMusic mentioned her, mistakenly. DJghr1 ( talk) 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This term didn't exist at the time, and is not necessary to adopt now. It's just pop. Some pop is better than others but it's all pop. 76.97.76.83 ( talk) 22:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be removed. The term was invented recently by someone at allmusic to lump together all these artists. In the 80s this was just 'pop' 92.17.52.178 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, original research is not allowed. Sign your posts. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Per above, stating that this genre "emerged in the 80s" means that these disparate acts were regarded as connected and that this term was widely used for them (or even used at all) in the 80s. None of the sources supports either of these assertions (naturally, as it is false) so the claim should be removed. If it emerged as being regarded as a genre, this appears to be no earlier than the 2000s, long after the heyday of the acts in question. There is not apparently any earlier instance of usage of the term. Whichever way it is worded one runs the risk of either convoluted phrasing or veering into synth but that certainly applies to the current wording, which is misleading at best, if not downright wrong. One thing that is supportable though is that there is current usage (though seemingly scant, as evidenced by artists supposedly of the genre themselves being unaware of it). How about "Sophisti-pop is a currently-used term to denote a subgenre of pop music, the artists having emerged during the mid-1980s in the UK." Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right, it's not something I remember from the 1980s even though I grew up with all these acts in the late 1980s. It wasn't a term widely used in the UK in the 1980s (when journos would have probably written it down as Sophistipop without the hyphen in a similar way to Britpop or Europop). Most journos would have just said these pop acts were being 'blue eyed soulsters'...though there seems to be some criticism/cultural appropriation attached to the Blue-eyed soul term according to wiki, this is why I have added...
"As large number of Sophisti-pop acts would have fallen under the Blue-eyed soul (or if they were a Scottish pop act in Cut Magazine[7], Celtic Soul) genre at the time, the idea of Sophisti-pop may have been developed by journalists/bloggers due to a number of racist connotations implied by the term 'Blue-eyed soul'[8][9][10], whilst grouping all the acts under a 'Yuppie Music'[11][12] tag may have overlapped too much with those soft-rock chart artists now grouped under the 2000s-era Yacht rock term". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.202 ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
therefore should't there be a link to Blue-eyed Soul [6] on this page especially if Sophisti-pop is a music that incorporates "elements of jazz, soul, and pop" that seems to be made mostly by 'white guys' even if those white guys are not Michael McDonald. (P.S. if someone is going to say "Well Sade Adu is not a white guy"...then remember that some see her/her band as being a proper soul/jazzy-soul/smooth jazz act and that Halo James [7] [8] [9] included the bloke who co-wrote "Smooth Operator", though by 2005 around '95% of pop fans' [not an actual fact like "nine-million bicycles in Beijing") had forgotten this bunch of blue-eyed soul poppers/Bros wannabes...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.202 ( talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
References
When The World Knows Your Name (1989)
Aside from Wikipedia not being a source for itself, the discussion does not regard the reliability of the source or sources, it regards what they say. They do not say what you say; you are synthesising different aspects to say something they do not. You must not pool sources to draw conclusions they do not. Please, as requested, read WP:SYNTH. You would also do well to familiarise yourself with WP:NOTFORUM as you are also straying in that direction. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 16:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
References
I obtained the ref that has just been labelled "unreliable as per WP:MUSIC/ABOUT.COM", and the accompanying text removed, from that very editor in their recent edit here, which they have contradictorily retained in the article. I'm also unclear where in the ABOUT.COM link there is an indication that this ref is unreliable as it appears to discuss an unrelated web site and makes no mention of the author as reliable or otherwise.
There is also the assertion that the information removed is "unnecessary in lead section". This implies it would be okay elsewhere but the article only has one section of text so there is no "lead section" to remove it from or further body of the article to relegate it to. So the information was just erased (as the editor has done repeatedly in the past). Per the discussions above, it is highly pertinent in an article about a music genre to note that it is only regarded as such retrospectively and was not so-regarded at the time. If the ref is genuinely unreliable, the information can be challenged and removed but classifying it as unnecessary seems too close to just not liking it. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I've flagged this at WikiProject Music. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 20:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is Mutt Lunker being over-protective of this genre? Please explain yourself without just posting links to the Wiki manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 ( talk) 15:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Matt you say "As well as being an imposition to foist your essay upon the talk page, it is likewise an imposition to provide a reading list with no explanation as to what point it is supposed to be illustrating"
Please stop the scattergun approach of posting multiple threads in different places, including partly duplicating them on my own talk page. If it's about the article, keep it at the article. How I, or you, or any other user, view an article's subject is neither here nor there; Wikipedia is about the views of reliable sources. Our own views are original research and are barred. Again, signing your posts will be an aid to others following them; please do it. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 October 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Shouldn't she also be considered for this genre? __ meco 06:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And RAH Band? __ meco 06:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather classify her style as "Blue-eyed Soul". But German Hong Kong Syndicate and Swiss Double were Sophisti-pop, maybe also some titles by Danish Laid Back or Swiss Yello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.203.91 ( talk) 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Who is the Queen of Sophisti-pop?
72.82.199.241 ( talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see how this term is encyclopedia-worthy. If you search the books on Google Books, it's barely mentioned at all. Any major genre has dozens of matches in magazines etc. 86.161.31.85 ( talk) 19:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This term has next to no currency, especially in Britain where all these acts come from. It was never used as a genre name in the 80s and isn't widely used or understood now. Who even came up with the term "sophisti-pop"? Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this term was not in use during the eighties, but I like it a lot now. The bands listed here do have something in common, which is neatly caught in the term sophisti-pop. I haven't contributed to this article at all, so I'm unbiased. I thought I'd mention that I find this grouping very useful for encyclopaedic purposes, since - as said - it reflects a personal perspective as music aficionado which I couldn't put a name on previously.
Dieter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.185.9 ( talk) 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What is this 'something' they have in common? I can't think of anything apart from nationality that links Prefab Sprout with Sade, ABC with Johnny Hates Jazz or the Style Council with Matt Bianco. Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 20:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As a fan of freestyle music, Safire is absolutely not sophisti-pop. Her freetyle hits and power ballad, "Thinking of You" are so opposite of the sophisti-pop genre. A big club hit of Safire, "Boy, I've Been Told" is popular among us freestyle enthusiasts. She often does freestyle reunion shows and to be honest I can't believe she was among the artists mentioned in this article. She is in the freestyle music page, as she needs to be. Removed her from the list, even though AllMusic mentioned her, mistakenly. DJghr1 ( talk) 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This term didn't exist at the time, and is not necessary to adopt now. It's just pop. Some pop is better than others but it's all pop. 76.97.76.83 ( talk) 22:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be removed. The term was invented recently by someone at allmusic to lump together all these artists. In the 80s this was just 'pop' 92.17.52.178 ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, original research is not allowed. Sign your posts. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Per above, stating that this genre "emerged in the 80s" means that these disparate acts were regarded as connected and that this term was widely used for them (or even used at all) in the 80s. None of the sources supports either of these assertions (naturally, as it is false) so the claim should be removed. If it emerged as being regarded as a genre, this appears to be no earlier than the 2000s, long after the heyday of the acts in question. There is not apparently any earlier instance of usage of the term. Whichever way it is worded one runs the risk of either convoluted phrasing or veering into synth but that certainly applies to the current wording, which is misleading at best, if not downright wrong. One thing that is supportable though is that there is current usage (though seemingly scant, as evidenced by artists supposedly of the genre themselves being unaware of it). How about "Sophisti-pop is a currently-used term to denote a subgenre of pop music, the artists having emerged during the mid-1980s in the UK." Mutt Lunker ( talk) 11:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right, it's not something I remember from the 1980s even though I grew up with all these acts in the late 1980s. It wasn't a term widely used in the UK in the 1980s (when journos would have probably written it down as Sophistipop without the hyphen in a similar way to Britpop or Europop). Most journos would have just said these pop acts were being 'blue eyed soulsters'...though there seems to be some criticism/cultural appropriation attached to the Blue-eyed soul term according to wiki, this is why I have added...
"As large number of Sophisti-pop acts would have fallen under the Blue-eyed soul (or if they were a Scottish pop act in Cut Magazine[7], Celtic Soul) genre at the time, the idea of Sophisti-pop may have been developed by journalists/bloggers due to a number of racist connotations implied by the term 'Blue-eyed soul'[8][9][10], whilst grouping all the acts under a 'Yuppie Music'[11][12] tag may have overlapped too much with those soft-rock chart artists now grouped under the 2000s-era Yacht rock term". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.202 ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
therefore should't there be a link to Blue-eyed Soul [6] on this page especially if Sophisti-pop is a music that incorporates "elements of jazz, soul, and pop" that seems to be made mostly by 'white guys' even if those white guys are not Michael McDonald. (P.S. if someone is going to say "Well Sade Adu is not a white guy"...then remember that some see her/her band as being a proper soul/jazzy-soul/smooth jazz act and that Halo James [7] [8] [9] included the bloke who co-wrote "Smooth Operator", though by 2005 around '95% of pop fans' [not an actual fact like "nine-million bicycles in Beijing") had forgotten this bunch of blue-eyed soul poppers/Bros wannabes...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.239.202 ( talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
References
When The World Knows Your Name (1989)
Aside from Wikipedia not being a source for itself, the discussion does not regard the reliability of the source or sources, it regards what they say. They do not say what you say; you are synthesising different aspects to say something they do not. You must not pool sources to draw conclusions they do not. Please, as requested, read WP:SYNTH. You would also do well to familiarise yourself with WP:NOTFORUM as you are also straying in that direction. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 16:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
References
I obtained the ref that has just been labelled "unreliable as per WP:MUSIC/ABOUT.COM", and the accompanying text removed, from that very editor in their recent edit here, which they have contradictorily retained in the article. I'm also unclear where in the ABOUT.COM link there is an indication that this ref is unreliable as it appears to discuss an unrelated web site and makes no mention of the author as reliable or otherwise.
There is also the assertion that the information removed is "unnecessary in lead section". This implies it would be okay elsewhere but the article only has one section of text so there is no "lead section" to remove it from or further body of the article to relegate it to. So the information was just erased (as the editor has done repeatedly in the past). Per the discussions above, it is highly pertinent in an article about a music genre to note that it is only regarded as such retrospectively and was not so-regarded at the time. If the ref is genuinely unreliable, the information can be challenged and removed but classifying it as unnecessary seems too close to just not liking it. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I've flagged this at WikiProject Music. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 20:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is Mutt Lunker being over-protective of this genre? Please explain yourself without just posting links to the Wiki manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 ( talk) 15:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Matt you say "As well as being an imposition to foist your essay upon the talk page, it is likewise an imposition to provide a reading list with no explanation as to what point it is supposed to be illustrating"
Please stop the scattergun approach of posting multiple threads in different places, including partly duplicating them on my own talk page. If it's about the article, keep it at the article. How I, or you, or any other user, view an article's subject is neither here nor there; Wikipedia is about the views of reliable sources. Our own views are original research and are barred. Again, signing your posts will be an aid to others following them; please do it. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)