Talk:Bubblegum music

Bubblegum is back now

Practically all the songs on the radio now are bubblegum pop now. Just because they "technically" call a song "hip hop" or "rock" or "R&B" doesn't make it that. I think it should be acknowledged that bubblegum is definitely back now, not just 'trying to come back' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.229.91 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC) It's not bubblegum, because it's not light and innocent. Current R&B, rock and hip hop music are heavy and oversexual. 194.141.3.17 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Teenagers

Should all references to "teenagers" in the modern bubblegum pop section be changed to "pre-teens" since the age range of teenagers is 13-19 and most listeners of this music are in the 10-12 age range. Perhaps "younger teenagers" would suffice, because I seriously doubt that 15-19 year olds listen to this type of music much these days. 142.151.156.113 16:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC) In some countries teens in the 15-19 age group listen to bubblegum pop. But in the U.S and the UK it's mainly 5-12 year olds. Generally 5-10 year olds. I'm school-age and I have to say that after 10 everyone either goes 'chav', listening to rap, crunk and R&B, or 'emo', raving about My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy and Panic! At The Disco. I know they're not 'emo', they're pop-punk, but those kids self-identify as emo, so let them be emo. In the 90s and 80s I guess it was more socially acceptable for teens to like bubblegum. Anyway,teens have been changed to pre-teens by now, as it should be.212.139.171.139 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• This article refers to current as well as historic music. As such, the target age range has changed over time. Do not change all "teen" to "pre-teen" - pre-teens were generally not purchasers of music in the 1960s and 1970s as compared to today. --MrLou 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• You are over-generalizing. There are a lot teens that liked/like/will like that music (believe it or not, I know some young adults that like some Bubblegum too, and they are deffinetly not kidults). It's just in a temporary hiatus, but it will soon be popular again. And 7-10 year olds in my country listen to children's songs, not so much to pop. And 50% of them actually never purchase any music, because they don't take music seriously. They just listen to what their parents listen. 213.240.234.212 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The school ager above is correct. While some 7 to 10 year olds do listen to "children's music" this age group or particularly girls in this age group are the prime target and buyers of "High School Musical" "Cheetah girls" "Hannah Montana" and the like and all the spin off accessories like dolls,posters etc. The article has cites demonstrating that this is not only true but that all sorts of records have been broken among this age group for purchasing and watching this "pop" music. Childrens music is mostly for the 6 year old and under crowd. I have an 8 year old niece and if I bought her childrens music I would be disowned. From what I remember from back in the late '60's bubblegum was big in the 5th and 6th grade after that it was what is now known as "Classic Rock" Edkollin 07:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What you are implying is that Bubblegum is Children's music, pre-teen music or Teen pop. Well, it does include all these, however, it also includes songs targeted at people 11-25 (only an example). As for me, this kind of music is better than most alternative music types (e.g. emo, punk, goth, metal etc.), because it's optimistic, since the ones in brackets usually sound pessimistic and melancholic. 213.240.234.212 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bubblegum is a separate genre then children’s music (Blues Clues,Sesame Street) or teen pop music (Late 1990's "boy bands",early Britney). If music is primarily marketed for 13-25 year olds it not bubblegum. But these are general trends. The marketing may be incorrect and a different or wider group liked the music then was expected (this was somewhat true for the first HSM which was marketed to 9-12 year olds but 7 year olds want crazy over it also). Some people that are out of the marketed to group will always like the music. And of course their are hybrids Edkollin 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information. Just to add - both bubblegum and teen pop are (in my view, of course) a lot better than R&B and current pop, when it comes to commercial music. At least early Britney was midly sexual whether some of the new "stars" are jst too sexual. 213.240.234.212 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Teen pop is called like that, because it is created by teens, not intentionally for teens. It is for everyone who may like it, usually young people. 213.240.234.212 10:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Teen Pop it is music marketed to teenagers and preteens not music necessarily created by teenagers. If you have a cite that backs up your claim put a link for it. Edkollin 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lemonpipers, etc.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about this subject to be able to integrate much more into this article, but there are a couple things that I think might be worth adding:

• The Lemon Pipers. They were an example of a band that wanted to record psychedelic music, but they had no artistic control over their recordings and were more or less forced to record bubblegum music.

• The discussion about the Ramones is interesting, and I seem to recall that some of the New Wave bands like the Cars and the Talking Heads were also influenced by 60s bubblegum. Who knows for sure? -- soulpatch

The original article was utterly and ridiculously POV (and a rather small minority one at that, at least within critical circles), describing gangsta rap and grunge as a blight, implying that the entire New Wave genre was little more than colorful clothes and wacky hair, describing the Clash as party-poopers. Most contentious was the idea that the Ramones are a bubblegum band--I can see how someone who doesn't particularly understand punk music, deconstructionism and modern art might make that claim, but seriously... The Cars and the Talking Heads, and the Beatles and David Bowie and Depeche Mode and plenty of other acts are influenced by bubblegum, but that is a far cry from being bubblegum. Taking that to the logical extreme, Marilyn Manson plays the blues and Tupak sang doo-wop. Anyway, I know you didn't write the original, soulpatch, I'm not trying to blame you or anything. I'm just venting because it seriously irked me.

I've never heard of the Lemon Pipes, but that situation is not unique. If I remember correctly, Tiffany was the same way and plenty of bands were pushed towards the mainstream by their record company, if not into outright bubblegum. Both of your comments could make an excellent addition to the article, though I'm not sure the Ramones bit applies to many bands besides the Ramones (maybe some of the later American hardcore punk). In any case, an in depth discussion of where bubblegum comes from, who makes it and who listens to it would be very interesting. Tokerboy 04:08 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

The Lemon Pipers had one big hit, "Green Tambourine". They had a minor followup hit with "Rice is Nice". soulpatch

Check out these liner notes on the Lemon Pipers that I found from Google: scroll down about halfway the page. http://www.scrammagazine.com/linernotes.html

soulpatch

Interesting--I think I have heard "Green Tambourine". The name sounds vaguely familiar. The liner notes are pretty interesting -- a "cohesive bubblegum album" -- time to see if I can download some. Tokerboy 04:37 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

• The Talking Heads certainly were, especially by the band The 1910 Fruitgum Company. Compare "1, 2, 3, Red Light" to anything from Talking Heads: 77. You will understand what I am talking about. As for the Cars, I can't hear that influence in their music, although it might be there amongst the Velvet Underground and Suicide-inspired music. -- Two halves

The introduction to the Cars "Just What I Needed" is exactly the same as The Ohio Express's "Chewy Chewy" 69.114.117.103 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (EK)

• • 1960s "Bubblegum" was based on some of the British Invasion acts like The Dave Clark Five and, especially, The Troggs, whose records served

as a blueprint for Kasenatz-Katz. Also, some UK glam rock like [[Gary Glitter]] and the early songs of Sweet, such as "Funny Funny", qualify as bubblegum, and are the missing link between The Ohio Express and The Ramones.

Removed

I removed:

Its original target audience has often been identified as the Baby Busters born roughly between the launch of Sputnik and the Apollo 11 moon landing, who would go on to embrace disco and, after that New Wave music, in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Because I'm not sure what the point of it is. The article already explains the target age demographic of bubblegum, and I have no idea what "original" means here... Tuf-Kat 17:14, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Quote?

What is that "famous quote about pornography" (Nomeata 02:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Misfits?

Anyone want to talk about the bubblegum pop present in The Misfit's singalong choruses? I think that would serve as an interestingly dark-yet-poppy counterpoint to the happy pop-punk of the Ramones. ---

Svengali

What's a "svengali-producer" and where does the term come from?--Theloniouszen 19:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It means a controlling producer who is the main creator of the record. In a pop-rock context it was first applied to Phil Spector. I would not consider Spector's records in his early to mid 1960s heyday to be bubblegum, even though some of them have bubblegum elements ( [[Bob B. Soxx and the Blue Jeans]], and The Crystals' "Da Doo Ron Ron" would come to mind. ) Such elements were quite normal in pop music in the first half of the sixties, and they are merely a stylistic convention. Perhaps the article should mention how much early 1960s pop-rock did predate bubblegum, and how bubblegum in some ways was a return to the pre-Beatles status quo. Or how much of Elvis Presley's mid-1960s output - agreed universally upon as his creative nadir - would fall into the bubblegum category. Or how some British Invasion acts like Herman's Hermits and Freddie and the Dreamers were for all practical purposes bubblegum acts even though they preceded Kasenatz-Katz and the Monkees. Etc. etc. etc.

Rewrite

I did some massive re-wording of the whole article, but it still needs a little help. Counter-points need to be added in some areas and more references are needed.

2000s section

This section needs a lot of help. I am not sure the impact and aspects of bubblegum pop in the 2000s can be accurately described yet. I wanted to delete this section alltogether, but decided to leave it as some kind of starting point.--Mattarata 03:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've copyedited it (and removed the notice, the rest of the article seemed to be fine). The factual accuracy stuff I leave to someone actually academically interested in pop music. It seemed to me that the relevance of pop punk and American idol to bubblegum pop might be rather dubious, but music genres are fluid by nature and can easily mean different things to different people. --Last Malthusian 15:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I don't see where Carrie Underwood would be considered bubblegum (more like contemporary country/contemporary Christian). Or maybe I'm just stuck back in the days of the Archies, Andy Kim and Tony Burrows.Jaguara 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The majority of BOTH the 1990s and 2000s sections should be MOVED or deleted because they largely consist NOT of Bubblegum, but rather of Teen idols, "boy bands" and "pop princesses" which belong on the Teen Pop page. I listened to clips from many of the the artists referenced, and they are more of the manufactured teen pop variety. If anyone objects, please explain why you believe these are Bubblegum Pop artists rather than Teen Pop artists. I'll wait a week or two before making the changes. MrLou 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted some of the 2000s section- it was full of music that isn't bubblegum at all whatsover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.24.59 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

• All of this stuff that's not strictly (or even largely) Bubble-Gum Pop should be edited out. This article has lost its meaning because too many artists who arguably do NOT fit the genre have been included. Perhaps a separate page "Bands influenced by Bubble-Gum Pop" or "ultra-commercial music/boybands and pop princesses" or "music my little sister/brother liked that I hate" et cetera. My suggestion for a starting point: the majority of the sections: 2000s, 1990s and 1980s need to go on a separate linked page "Post Bubble-Gum Pop". Contributors NEED TO reference the definition of Bubble-Gum Pop given in the intro section, AND give a song title as example if you feel the addition of a band is essential, i.e. , the 1980s 1990s 2000s+ sections should cite Artist-Title combinations that clearly meet the genre definition, since none of the bands currently listed are Bubble-Gum Pop per se. They may be ULTRA-commercial, appeal to young girls or boys, and have a charismatic, airbrushed front-person, but that doesn't make the artist "Bubble-Gum Pop" (but it might make them Elvis). If they have one single that meets the genre, does that make them a "Bubble-Gum Pop" act? No. However, if the majority of their hits (assuming they have more than one) are in the genre, I could see including them on the "Post" page. Historically, I believe most of the acts in this genre departed with the advent of FM radio (or more importantly, the decline of music on AM). Effective super-marketing of boy-bands, pop princesses and the like arose after the advent of cable tv, but these typically fit R&B/Dance/Pop genres better. Polished commercial pop-punk is not Bubble-Gum Pop either, its pop-punk. Sorry, same with power-pop. Who's with me? --MrLou 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried a few times to change/delete some of the stuff that is obviously not bubblegum, or rather influenced by bubblegum, but it kept getting reverted. Nukleoptra 12:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused

""Yummy Yummy Yummy" by The Ohio Express. With its double entendre title and arrogant delivery, the song was a smash hit."

How is "Yummy Yummy Yummy" a double entendre? And how is its delivery arrogant? it used to say the delivery was snotty, and I thought snotty was a poor word choice--Mattarata 17:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC) -- Cleaned up the 'double entendre' reference (couldn't figure that one either... "Yummy Yummy Yummy" is pretty single-entendre to me) with a simple reference to its chart position. Jason 18:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the word "snotty" was meant to mean "nasal" (an imprecise use of the word I believe) and not "arrogant." If you listen to the song you will readily hear how nasal Joey Levine's vocal delivery is.

--Reluctantpopstar 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The double entendre lyrics, an important element of the original bubblegum era, mixed the sweetness of candy with the sweetness of sex, so the songs appealed to pre-pubescent children on one level and adults on another. This is borne out by the songs "Chewy Chewy" and "Sugar Sugar" being used over the years in commercials for candy bars and breakfast cereals (such as Quaker's Chewy Granola Bars.) --Reluctantpopstar 09:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"My boy lollipop"... BTW, I heard one old song once going something like "Give me more, more, more of that bubblegum muisc", basically through the whole song. Does someone know more about this?

85.226.122.205 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) This song is "Bubblegum Music" by The Rock and Roll Double Bubble Trading Card Company of Philadelphia 19141. That last number is supposed to be a zip code, not a year. (I think I have the name right --- it's really long) This single was originally released on Buddah Records 1969, and was a psuedonym for the studio songwriters behind The Strangeloves. It's available on several compilation CDs.

One of the main themes of the book mentioned in the article article by Kim Cooper and David Smay , Bubblegum Music is the Naked Truth: The Dark History of Prepubescent Pop from the Banana Splits to Britney Spears, Feral House 2001 ISBN 0922915695 is the hidden sexual nature of the music. They also go into many of the controversies of this page such as the bubble influences of The Ramones. 13:25, 22 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Priorities

OK, I have one large bone to pick with this article, aside from the smaller text-related stuff... Why is there a whole section on the Ramones - who were most definitely a great band, but who were merely influenced by bubbblegum pop - and barely a sentence or two about the Bay City Rollers, who were bubblegum through and through? Perhaps there should be a page concerning bubblegum influence in punk; I'd splash the Ramones all over that. But really I'd only give them a slight mention here. Jason 18:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark Lanegan

Mark Lanegan's album Bubblegum has absolutely nothing to do with bubblegum music, one would know if one had listened to it.

Japan

No mention of influence on Japanese pop. I don't know enough to write it myself, but there must be plenty to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I'll do some research tonight. I know for a fact that in Japan and in some cases China there's a load of bubblegum. Nearly all of it's bubblegum. Teens there adore it. Dead Or Alive, for exxample, a 1980s band who worship the synthesiser, have had 18 number ones over there, and the singer is an icon. 212.139.171.139 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Suzi Quatro

Suzi Quatro was anonymously cut from the list of Chinn/Chapman acts. Is there a reason for this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No response after a week, I'm restoring. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Where does the term "Bubblegum Pop" come from? One early song that actually refers to bubblegum specifically (and not to music that would be described that way), and which certainly captures the "sound" we might think of as "bubblegum pop" would be the 1970's hit "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", by the Newcomers:

"It started back when we were were young; pigtails and bubblegum..."

Are there any earlier pieces that might be credited as the source of this phrase? —This unsigned comment was added by 40.0.40.10 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2006.

I don't think the term came from a song, I think it came from critics (or at least writers about music: rock criticism was in its infancy in the late 1960s). The term was well established long before 1970. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"lots of ad-libbing"?

Recently added to the list of characteristics: "lots of ad-libbing". I think this is wrong, and would like to see either a citation or a clear set of examples. In my experience, most bubblegum pop is rather precisely arranged, and leaves little or no room for ad libs. In particular, the Kasenetz-Katz and Chinn-Chapman recordings seem to me to be very producer-driven, with the bands being little more than a means to fulfill the producer's vision. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has removed this before I got around to it. Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Veronicas?

Can someone please explain to me why The Veronicas would be considered as bubblegum? And I thought bubblegum pop as that we know from the late 90's is dead, being replaced by the more urban feel pop now. Yelly.telus.14 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern Bubblegum?

I don't have time or inclination to edit this, but there's a raft of bands listed from the 90's onward who's 'bubblegum' status is doubtful at best. It seems to me that, somewhere along the text, the concept of 'bubblegum' got replaced with 'saccarin pop', which isn't really the same thing. How do the songs used on American Idol qualify as bubblegum, for instance? They don't, to me, but like I said, I don't really care enough to edit this.Eaglizard 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC) No, they are far from bubblegum, they are hard trash! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.141.3.17 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Emo??!?!?!

How is Emo even remotely related to Bubblegum? The target audience is only a small part. Bubblegum is more of the light-hearted simple music styles with "happy" themes than anything else. --Mattarata 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani?

Is Gwen Stefani bubblegum? Like her song Luxurious sounds like it to me.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Anthony- (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006.

Clearly clean pop-rock, but I'd say that too many of her songs have substantive lyrics to be true bubblegum. - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she's proper, 100 per cent bubblegum, but she is certainly influenced by it. She adores early 80s Madonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Influenced, yes. But you'll need to cite for that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Bubblegum Dance and Bubblegum pop

It seems that, even if these two may not necessarily be exactly the same thing, there is a great deal of overlap between them, and/or ambiguity over what would constitute "bubblegum pop" and "bubblegum dance" precisely, so I suspect covering all bases in one article would make more sense. ~ Matticus78 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge: agreed. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U | T | C [] M | E )} 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really think Bubblegum Dance should be merged into the Bubblegum Pop article because, even though they do have a few similarities, they are really quite different and should have separate articles that can be added to and developed more. Bubblegum Dance is a type of eurodance rather than pop, and the bands mentioned in the pop article don't really have much in common with the ones in the dance one. Maybe we could just add a reference in the introduction of each article linking to each other, and possibly one in the eurodance article as well that will link to the bubblegum dance article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgandrews (talk • contribs)

• Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so users discussing can see who has made what comments. Thank you. ~ Matticus78 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge Without more information as to exactly what Bubblegum dance is I have a hard time agreeing that it should be merged with Bubblegum pop. The bubblgum dance article gives virtually no information as to the styles or moves of the dance. Though I agree that cross-linking may be appropriate. --Mattarata 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge "Bubblegum Dance" appears to be a separate genre.MrLou 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't even think there is such a thing as "Bubblegum Dance." I'd like some citations. Even though the group Aqua does combine elements of both dance music and a bubblegum style, that doesn't mean they necessarily invented a new genre. DO NOT MERGE.

• DO NOT MERGE- Dance is tottally seperate from Pop.

• Do Not Merge - two distinct genres.PaulLev 08:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Teen Idol music with Bubblegum

The main problem with this article is confusing Teen Idol acts with bubblegum. For one thing the appeal is to a different age group. The boybands from the late 1990's played a mostly R&B oriented style , Kelly Clarkson is now a critically acclaimed pop influenced hard rock vocalist. The lyrics are not chewy gooey. 13:54 22 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Hmm. The lyrics of bubblegum were not always "chewy gooey": "Quick Joey Small" leaps to mind; Ram Jam's cover of Leadbelly's "Black Betty" also has some bubblegum elements in the arrangement, I think. I won't comment on the present-day stuff. - Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of David Cassidy and Leif Garrett article mentions as well as several 1980's and later acts mentioned in the article that I feel are or were primarly teen idol acts and not bubblegum. 03:34, 28 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

I would agree with these comments, and would suggest that, with few exceptions, "bubblegum pop" is an historic genre. If true, then instead of trying to portray "bubblegum pop" as an enduring genre, the article should reflect how the genre has influenced subsequent artists of differing genres, with specific song examples in evidence. MrLou 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bubblegum in 2006

What is bubblegum in 2006?. The Bratz although marketed to children uses teen themes. My 6 year old niece listens to many old songs of many syles that have been reworked for childrens listining. I guess you could use some TV theme songs from Nick at Nite. The big problem is that we are in a different era. When me and my cohorts listened played our bubblegum records on our 45 RPM record players back in 1968 we were 11 or 12 years old.We (or at least I) did not get the hidden sexual meanings. Most 11 or 12 years today would get them. Besides the Ohio Express would be totally lame to a Nentendo playing 10 year old. My 10 year old nephew listens to Linkin Park. In 1968 Bubblegum was marketed to 11 year old boys AND girls. Today everything is completly segmented (11 year old girl who is shy, lives in a Midwest upper middle class suburb who bought certain products when she was six) 14:06, 22 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

I am going to answer my own question. The answer is High School Musical. Almost every reference I googled used the word bubblegum. I added a few sentences about this in the main article. 01:25, 15 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Ed - I am not sure that High School Musical is Bubblegum Pop - Please take a look at the Teen Pop genre, I think it belongs there.MrLou 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reaction was my first reaction. As I said above I googled "High School Musical" with bubblegum and got 9000+ hits. Although the characters in the musical are teenagers the audience watching them is not the swooning 13 year olds associated with teen pop. Many children look up to and want to imitate teenagers. 69.114.117.103 06:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Bands vs Songs, POV, and the 80s

I. Associate Songs with the genre, NOT bands. Here's why: Perhaps we can agree that "genre" is associated primarily with "song" (title). When an artist consistantly releases songs in a particular genre, we associate the artist (or perhaps a particular "Album") with the genre (or vice-versa if the artist originates or impacts the genre). However, for a variety of reasons, including marketing, many artists release albums that contain songs that differ in genre. So it becomes difficult to qualify a band as being "bubblegum pop", unless that is the genre of the substantial majority of their songs. Therefore, to make this article more meaningful (and avoid disputes over whether a band is "bubblegum pop"), I would suggest we give songs as examples of the genre and leave the bands' genres out of the equation unless they only released "bubblegum pop".

II. POV still seems disparaging to this genre. The "Origins" section needs work to show the positive view of "bubblegum pop", i.e. uplifting, "fun", and whatever else those who embrace it say. It's not just commercial; it's commercial for a reason!

III. The 80s. This bit about hair bands is problematic in both grammer and content. It also seems disparaging and sexist to me, so I am going to delete it if no one objects. Otherwise, examples of particular "hair band" songs meeting the criteria given earlier in the article would be more useful in showing the influence of the genre. "Jump" comes to mind as a "bubblegum pop" lyric, yet the song sounds nothing like "bubblegum" to me. MrLou 07:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks and no one objects - I'm deleting the bit about hair bands. Also adding a bit about bubblegum pop hits released by artists not known for "bubblegum pop". MrLou 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins Section

This section should be split into separate Origins and Criticism sections 69.114.117.103 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Gwen Stafani's "Wind It Up"

I think it should be in and here are two reviews of the many references calling it bubblegum [1],[2]. The question I do have about mentioning the song is that the song is to overtly sexual. 69.114.117.103 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

abba and olivia newton john

a more serious side to pop? are you kidding me on? 217.42.160.208 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abba are serious. Anyone knows that. More serious than someone who doesn't know how to use capital letters and are too scared to sign their name after a comment anyway.....Cls14 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Amrican Idol

I deleted the paragraphs on the Pussycat Dolls and American Idol. Sorry whoever went to the trouble of typing it all up, but I don't think they're bubblegum pop. A couple of songs maybe, but not enough to be featured in the article really.

Latin Market additions

These additions do right a wrong but as with anything else citings are needed Edkollin 05:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a Credible Topic

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, this whole entry is just plain daft and shouldn't even be here. Pointless at best, misleading at worst.

The term 'bubblegum pop' might, at a stretch, warrant a mention in a dictionary, to indicate that it is a colloquialism, essentially derogatory, to express the view that some commercially-produced popular music, aimed at youngsters, lacks any particular artistic or intellectual merit. But that is about all it needs.

It does not appear to require this lengthy article, which seems to be giving contributors excuse to arbitrarily mention any number of artists and songs they feel fit the description. The reasons for specifying particular songs are tenuous, and attempts to chart a history and evolution of bubblegum pop, as if it has a distinct musical style and structure, are silly. To be frank, the term is pretty meaningless.

The apparent depth of the entry is tending to give importance to the topic as if it were a bona-fide musical genre. This can only be made worse as more people add to the litany of songs they consider to be bubblegum pop.

There is a danger that some readers might be overly influenced by the content, assuming it to be the product of serious research when, in reality, it is just a concoction of personal opinion.

A serious scholar of music history could justifiably delete the whole lot and replace it with a much more condensed and pithy definition, without all the self-important bloat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.169.52.254 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• This article was originally more condensed with enough examples and covered the genre through its demise in the 1970s. See my intended first step under the rewrite topic above. --MrLou 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1980's

The stuff about Tiffany is dead-on, esp. concerning The Beautiful You: Celebrating the Good Life Shopping Mall Tour '87; not so with Deborah Gibson, who seldom used shopping malls even for meet-and-greets to promote any of her first three Atlantic Records albums. Gibson actually toured dance clubs during the Dream Tour '87 and major venues for the Out of the Blue Tour and Electric Youth World Tour. Drug stores were far more likely to see Debbie Gibson cosmetics ads under the sponsorship of Natural Wonder (Revlon subsidiary brand). - B.C.Schmerker 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly Misleading Article

The most important thing this article misses is that the meaning of the term has changed. Bubblegum was a distinct genre in the late 60s and early 70s, and the section on those two decades sums it up reasonably. 'Yummy, Yummy, Yummy' and 'Sugar Sugar' were the archetypes of this genre - it dressed sexual ideas up in something more childlike, it was innocent, unashamedly fun, and principally driven not by prominent artists, but by producers. Labeling this music 'bubblegum' wasn't a put-down. That's just what it was called.

And for a long time, that was it. Nobody used the word 'bubblegum' to refer to music in the late seventies or the eighties. Certainly, there were musicians who enjoyed bubblegum pop, and consequently incorporated elements of it into their music. These included glam bands (Gary Glitter and T. Rex most prominently), the Ramones, and members of New York's new wave scene, like Blondie and the Talking Heads. But they certainly wouldn't have been labeled as 'bubblegum' at the time, and it should be plain to see that the bubblegum genre of the early 70s had a vastly different culture.

Some time in the late nineties, though, the term became popular again, but had a completely different meaning. It was used as a derogatory label - though not so much a genre - for groups like the Spice Girls and the Backstreet Boys, to suggest that their music was sugary and inconsequential - lacking the emotional weight of the grunge of the decade's first half or the earnestness of bands that conformed to the post-grunge aesthetic.

I very much doubt that people using this label had any idea that 'bubblegum pop' in a late 60s/early 70s context even existed. Superficially, the genres have a bunch of similarities - neither is very serious, both are fun, and both, if we cast Max Martin/Denniz Pop/Cheiron in Barry's role, were driven by a core of powerful writers and producers. But this is all completely ex post facto: the label applied in the late 90s and early 00s was completely different from the genre of the 60s and 70s, and no one intended it to link the two. Very few of the critical, cultural elements of bubblegum pop could be found in 90s/00s pop music.

It seems that people in this article have conflated the two concepts, and then begun to retroactively include the progenitors of the 1990s groups within the ambit of bubblegum pop, the logic being, 'Well, if the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears are bubblegum, then so surely are the New Kids on the Block and Tiffany'. If the thinking of these contributors mirrors the thinking of the general public (which I guess it might), then that needs to be included in an article that deals with 'bubblegum' as a label (though often unjustifiably applied) meaning 'airheaded, shallow, inconsequential'. But the article needs to make very, very clear that Tiffany and Britney Spears have absolutely nothing to do with 60s/70s bubblegum pop.

Exactly the same applies to acts who have come after the label began to be applied: although Hillary Duff, Simple Plan and Fall Out Boy play music that is sugary, fun, a little senseless, and tremendously influenced by the pop music of the last 25 years, none of them have anything whatsoever to do with 60s/70s bubblegum pop, and frankly, the relation of the latter two to the 90s bubblegum crowd is tenuous at best. The 2000s section of the article seems to think that its business includes all the pop music released this millennium. It doesn't.

Consider this a statement of intention and a justification for any changes I might make to the article, if I ever get off my ass and edit it instead of just ranting about it. --196.210.101.231 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in that very few people used the term bubblegum from about 1970 until recently. The influence bubblegum had on on punk/new wave was not generally recognized until the book Kim Cooper and David Smay (eds), Bubblegum Music is the Naked Truth: The Dark History of Prepubescent Pop from the Banana Splits to Britney Spears.' came out. And you are correct in that what is described as bubblegum today is with the possible exception of Gwen Stefani in many ways opposite of the 60's version. Then it was a form of rock music today it is a dance music. The corny be anyone you can be has replaced the sexual ones of then and the music today is marketed to girls only not both genders as was then. But meanings do change. Take the term "gay". In the 1940's if you were gay that meant you were joyous and happy. In the 70's through the 90's it meant homosexual. The meaning is changing again it means lame or wimpy and could refer as much to an object as a person. (The possible homophobic connotations for the new meaning is a topic for another discussion). And you mentioned New Wave the meaning of that changed quickly. The fact is is that bubblegum pop is used commonly today to describe the music coming out of the Disney Channel world, High school Musical,Hannah Montana, Cheetah Girls etc. Wikipedia has to reflect that. It could mean having two articles Bubblegum Rock to describe the '60's stuff and Bubblegum Pop for the current trend or keeping the basic structure here. That being said a revision is due here. There are broken links, Teen idol groups that do not belong and bubblegum influenced groups being confused with bubblegum. But before you make any major changes you should put it here leave it up a week or so before changing the article. Edkollin (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Teen Queens

The section which discusses Debbie Gibson and Tiffany at length as the reigning "Teen Queens" of the 80s never once mentions Madonna, who is perhaps the greatest and most enduring "Teen queen act" of the era, and maybe even ever - in the same catagory as the Beatles, or maybe even Elvis. Mrlopez2681 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

this is what happens when articles are a mass of unreferenced original research. Ridernyc (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eight Days A Week?

Would this Beatles classic be counted as bubblegum? I don't mean it negatively; I love the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.16.252 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This term denotes somthing else

I posted an article on Last.fm, and this time I added links to Wikipedia. All went well, until I came to the term bubblegum.

To begin with, bubblegum music originally denoted something sweet and sticky, essentially slow (like chewing bubblegum) and absolutely not upbeat. The example of (How Much Is) That Doggie in the Window? from 1953 is a good one, but The Andrews Sisters – I Can Dream Can't I is better. I lived in the sixties, and never heard someone denoting the examples in the main article as bubblegum. In 1957 Patti Page had another song Old Cape Cod, which is a true bubblegum.

The origin of this genre is not clear. The first example that I know of is Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? from 1932. It looks like this genre is a consequence of the Great Depression. If I Didn't Care from 1939 is a good example too. Anyhow, until I have a better definition, I am going to use this term for those sticky songs.

Gideonrv (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, all this is your opinion. I'm not sure how you decide that "To begin with, bubblegum music originally denoted something sweet and sticky, essentially slow (like chewing bubblegum) and absolutely not upbeat." The term "bubblegum music" seems not to have existed until such songs as "Yummy Yummy Yummy" and "Simple Simon Says" which are certainly upbeat, hit the charts. The main part of the article, dealing with bubblegum music through to 1972, is based on reliable third-party sources. (Material on bubblegum post 1980, in particular, is mainly unreferenced and largely confuses bubblegum with teen-oriented pop, for my money, but that's a separate issue). Bottom line: unless you can add contrary information that comes from a reliable source, I'm happy to stick with what's written in the article. Grimhim (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My memories of what was called bubblegum in the late 1960’s (I was what is known as a tween then) coincide with what is in the article not yours. I read your user page and I see that you grew up in Israel so perhaps what was considered bubblegum was different there then in America. You should look for reliable Israeli sources that agree with your memories. Edkollin (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Assertions

"From about 1972 the genre began to evolve into the teen idol phenomenon in the US and glam rock in Britain. Bubblegum left a powerful legacy in the later rise of prefabricated boy bands and girl bands such as The Spice Girls and Take That". Teen idols existed before bubblegum. Does Frank Sinatra, Elvis and The Beatles ring a bell?. As for prefabricated teen idols you had Fabien and Bobby Darin before bubblegum and one could call the early Beatles a prefabricated boy band. I am still trying to figure out how bubblegum give rise to the girl groups and princesses since late sixties bubblegum groups (with the exception of two Archies cartoon characters) were populated by males. Edkollin (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the Beatles were a prefabricated band holds no water at all, but I take your point about bubblegum evolving into the teen idol phenomenon, which had existed decades earlier with a different set of idols. Certainly the word "evolved" is used in "Bubblegum is the Naked truth" (the definitive analysis of the genre) to describe its decline and what replaced it. Possibly "evolved" is the wrong word here; "supplanted by" might be more accurate. What really happens is that a certain type of music will decline in popularity and will be overtaken by a similar style -- in this case, teen idol groups contrived and constructed, with more sophistication than in the past, to appeal to very young music buyers. The method of marketing these new bands essentially adapts and refines the techniques used to market genuine bubblegum bands such as the Archies and Ohio Express. I'll look at it again. Grimhim (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Like the "supplemented by" suggestion. And on my part "prefabricated" to describe The Beatles was the wrong word choice. But what I was trying to say is the that the Beatles in the Beatlemania period like bubblegum had a well thought out tightly followed marketing plan. I would think that the marketers of "boy bands" wanted a repeat of Beatlemania not the next Ohio Express Edkollin (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Shakira

How is Shakira a bubblegum pop artist? I shall be bold and remove her. Cls14 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

we need more pie and cheese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.234.33 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with removal Edkollin (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hanson in the 1990s

I've removed Hanson from the 1990s section again, on the grounds that they are not the sort of band being referred to in that paragraph. That section deals with the Spice Girls, etc reviving the "classic" bubblegum era techniques of catchy, simple, up-tempo pop tracks aimed at younger music buyers, a line-up assembled by producer-svengalis, and heavy merchandising aimed at a similarly young audience. The examples given are Steps, S Club 7 and Scooch. All were bands manufactured by managers to perform music written for them by hit-making songwriters. Hanson were different: teen appeal, certainly, but they were a family of self-taught musicians who went through the "traditional" method of developing their act and gaining exposure before scoring their first hit. I gave the bubblegum article a decent workover some months back and have tried to keep to the subject. Bubblegum has teen appeal, but not every teen-oriented band is bubblegum. Grimhim (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times external link says

"A decade ago, boy bands such as 'N Sync and girl-women such as Spears projected adult sexuality even when expressing youthful emotions. Tween pop goes back one more incarnation, to Hanson and the Spice Girls, whose breakthrough hits sent forth positive vibes on waves of power-pop sunshine".

Unless you can find reliable sources that disagrees with this Hanson belongs in the article. Where to place it is tricky. The article as it is strictly goes by decade and with the Spice Girls already there putting in that paragraph was in my view at the time the least bad alternative. You can add another paragraph or sentence to that paragraph describe the two acts as precedents or break the strictly by decade rule and put this in the late 2000's tween pop paragraph. Edkollin (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, Hanson were definitely a pop band with teen appeal. The LA Times was writing about bands with a teen appeal. However this Wikipedia article is about bubblegum pop, not teen pop. Bubblegum has teen appeal, but not every teen-oriented band is bubblegum. Bubblegum was an invention of the late 1960s and was a genre within pop music. One of its key defining characteristics is that it was a faceless genre, created by producers who could have chosen anyone to play and sing. By that definition, and even with that mention in that LA Times article, Hanson was never bubblegum, so it doesn't belong in this article. Grimhim (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The particular L.A. Times external link is about tween pop. It is in the title. It has a tween pop cheat sheet. Weather tween pop is another genre is another discussion we probably should have at some point. This article for now has accepted the Disney acts discussed as bubblegum pop. The link cites The Spice Girls and Hanson as both breakthrough artists for the late '00's tween pop acts earnest upbeat attitudes and labeled them as tween pop directly. You still have not come up with anything more then personally you disagree with authors conclusions you have to give me a reliable source that disagrees. Hanson belongs in the article probably as bubblegum absolutely as precedent setters for the late '00's Edkollin (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You have this round the wrong way. It's not up to me to produce a reliable source to disagree with your assumption that Hanson were bubblegum pop. The LA Times article was writing about tween pop, not bubblegum pop. Tween pop includes acts such as the Spice Girls and Hanson because they appeal to tweens. Spice Girls were also a bubblegum act as defined by their means of creation and performance as discussed above. The Disney acts, because of the way they were created and marketed, also were. Hanson were not. You're missing that distinction. This Wikipedia article is about bubblegum, not music of the 90s or music of the 00s, though some editors have in the past used this article to write about pop trends in those decades. All I want is for this article to stick to the point. Grimhim (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Did not miss the point that "Tween Pop" might a different genre then "bubblegum pop" I mentioned that. Going on the assumption that Hanson is not a bubblegum act does not mean they should not be mentioned as a precedent. Songs by non bubblegum bands specifically mentioned in the article as precedents are the Dixie Cups and Patti Page. The point is the article cited is about tween pop bands that are also bubblegum pop bands. Because of that there is a different lyrical content then bubblegum acts of other generations. Hanson is cited as a precedent for that. Edkollin (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But you're not discussing precedents at this point. The paragraph refers to the popularity of two pre-fabricated bands that followed the format of the '60s bubblegum acts. What was then written was this: "Similar groups around the time included Hanson, Steps, S Club 7 and Scooch." I have already explained the fundamental difference between Hanson and those three other bands. There is nothing in that paragraph, nor the LA Times article, to support your argument that Hanson were a precedent for bubblegum. For God's sake, bubblegum's classic period was over eight years before any of the Hansons were born. Why not create another article on tween pop and insert them as an influence in that? Grimhim (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Will remove all my tween pop work because of no consensus now and my belief that no consensus will ever be reached between us. As you know Wikipedia rules says that if one person disagrees there is no consensus. You have a very strong belief that that late 2000's Disney type acts are not really bubblegum or that they cannot be bubblegum and tween pop at the same time. I could find one cite that labels Cyris bubblegum and another cite that labels her tween pop but since the the L.A. Times article (or any article discussing the very same groups) use the phrase "tween pop" while discussing them the article will be unusable. The "For God's sake" phrase makes me wonder that even if I pen a tween pop article we just disagree so much that a consensus will not be reached there either. Edkollin (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The cite used above discussed above [3] is the type of analytical piece meant for an external link. In real life putting a thing like that in an external link is problematic. I have had two types of negative experiences with this. If I put in material in from an external link I will invariably get that material warned for lack of citation or deleted for that reason. I have tried leaving material like that both as a cite and an external link to avoid such problems but my citation have been deleted because it is against the rules to put a source in as both. Suggestions? Edkollin (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening paragraph?

The opening paragraph seems to be a little biased, and at least one of the assertions ("driven by producers and using faceless singers") is countered by a listing of the various bbg groups later in the article. It may very well have begun this way, but modern bbg is by no means faceless (rather the opposite).

Vulture19 (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Intangible style ?

If "intangible" in the opening text is intended in a metaphorical sense to mean "hard to define" or "indefinable" then remove it. Unless it means something else, in which case we need an alternative. Defining something as indefinable has a whiff of logical paradox about it. Rob Burbidge (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"2000s" Edits

I'm not personally familiar with this subject, so I'll err on the side of caution by pointing out a few issues here rather than making the edits myself. The last two sentences in the "2000s" subsection ("Jonas Brothers are the most successful band and group in the genre worldwide,The Jonas brothers have 4 platnuim albums tied with miley cyrus and Nsync."), which were recently added, seem questionable. The first sentence sounds like opinion (at least in the absence of any objective substantiation) and the second sentence appears to be inaccurate.

A quick glance at the wiki discographies for the three acts mentioned shows that N'Sync is the only act with four RIAA-certified platinum albums. Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers each have three. In which case N'Sync appears to be the most "successful band" in the genre. And if I'm wrong and all three acts do indeed have four platinum albums, it seem problematic to state that the Jonas Brothers are the most successful group in the genre, and then in the very next sentence state that they have achieved album sales roughly equivalent to two other acts.

If it is decided that this contribution should stay, its formatting should be cleaned up (e.g., commas around non-essential adjective clause, run-on sentence, spacing, capitalization, inconsistent use of definite article as applied to Jonas Brothers, wikification).