Jump to content

Talk:List of baroque pop artists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Gentle Giant

Gentle Giant belongs here. The third paragraph of the GG page indicates baroque as an influence and anyone who has listened to their music would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.74 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I totally agree. Gentle Giant is the shiznit![reply]

Hmm, I don't really think coldplay should be on this list.

Agreed, and its unsourced. I have removed it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with ears knows John Grant is baroque pop, you guys aren't very good at music x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.200.205 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added John Grant to the proposed addition list below, maybe if we can find a source he can be added to the main article Wolffystyle (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Jónsi? The page for his album, Go, lists Baroque Pop as a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.170.78 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself so there simply needs to be an external reliable source that indicates it is in the genre.--SabreBD (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent edit (revision 448277053) that removed several bands from the list for not being in the reference. I'd like to point out that the reference is for a list of top artists of baroque pop. As such, it would seem that the list changes with time. I am in no way against the removal of artists from the list, just saying that it's not a reliable reference for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carandraug (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artists who could be included, but whom need external links:

Recent Artists

1960s

Wolffystyle (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of unsourced entries

I removed entries from the list that have a citation, but do not appear at it. They have since twice been restored. Since under WP:BURDEN it is that it is incumbent on an editor adding or restoring information to produce the proof I will be interested to understand what the reasoning is here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references point to (and are contained on) the artist pages, under genre, for the most part. Having any kind of reference is a bonus as these lists often have none. Check out the Indie pop and Alternative rock articles. This is actually one of the better, more accurate lists. From the artists you removed, Andrew Bird, Steve Adey, Arcade Fire, Bon Iver (and others) are all notable Baroque pop. Snoop God (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen those lists and I notice that you have actually removed references from the Indie pop list. It may be accepted on Wikipedia that list articles survive without sources, but they are not exempt from the MOS and WP:CHALLENGE states clearly that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation". Well these are being challenged, so if there are reliable sources on their articles which indicate they are baroque pop why not make them consistent with the rest of the article and the MOS and place those references on this page. As long as there is a reliable source here for them I can see no problem with them being listed. There certainly is no justification for having these entries with a citation that does not support the case for them being here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the aforementioned artists (even the ones you didn't remove) have similar non-references. Note the All-Music citation is actually pointing to 'Chamber pop' (a list that does not actually cite any of the artists). I would suggest you have a problem with the article, rather than the credited list of artists. To reiterate, this is one of the better articles - you can at least follow the references and see the genre tag on the respective artist pages. Snoop God (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Baroque pop you will note that the terms are used interchangeably. It might be useful to reiterate that at the top of this article for clarity's sake. I am well aware of what is at the citation. I am unlikely to have a problem with this article as, if you check the edit history, you will find I created it. I do have a problem with the downgrading of its quality by dispensing with inline citations. Again, if you want to keep those acts, please supply references and that will resolve the issue and maintain the quality of this list.--SabreBD (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to add add a template and see if people go to the trouble and add individual references. Or start the list again? I would have a problem with you deleting some and keeping others. Snoop God (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which template you mean, do you mean one that states citations needed? I think the thread above is pointing out that the Allmusic list at that point keeps changing, which, if that is true, means it is not a reliable source. I will try to see what substitutes I can see for the acts on that list, with a bit of luck we can keep them all, which would be my preference.--SabreBD (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did not saw this discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Linking for the top artists of the moment in AllMusic doesn't seem very reliable since the top changes. Even using the note "retrieved on ..." is no good since there's no way to see who were on the top in a specific date. If you want to keep a link to AllMusic, there seems to be a page for single artists/bands where their genre is listed. That could be used. Would like to point out that some of the artists such as Andrew Bird are not considered Chamber/baroque pop by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carandraug (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed the bands but then re-added some of them with specific references which now got removed. Could someone put them back please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carandraug (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Is there an artist that you think should be added or removed? Allmusic is not the definitive guide to baroque! I'm sure there are people on this list who are not listed on their site. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but from what I understood of what was discussed, is that bands without a reference should be removed. They do not have references (actually they do have, but it is an incorrect reference since those bands are not in that list). I had removed those bands and moved them into the above section of "Artists who could be included, but whom need external links". Since the reference was for a AllMusic page and I had some free time, I then looked on each AllMusic's artist page and used it as reference IF they were listed as chamber pop (the second commit that you reverted together with the first). I know AllMusic is not the definite guide to anything, actually I had never used it before, but I guess it's a better guide than no guide. --Carandraug (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but do you think any of the said artists are not baroque? The artist page should have the baroque genre listed and the references should point to them. Snoop God (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point on giving my opinion on whether or not I think the bands are baroque since it is not valid for wikipedia as source of info. If you see the history of revisions of this page, you'll see that some bands were added and then removed because someone came after and thought they were not baroque. If personal opinion is valid then we'll have to bring them back too.
And what do you mean with "The artist page should have the baroque genre listed and the references should point to them."? You mean the artist page on AllMusic? ::::
If a band is added to the list, it should have a reference that confirms that the band does belong in the list. A reference for the genre on AllMusic makes no sense, at least not if it is repeated in front of each artist since it is not related to the point that the artist name makes on the list (which is, that the specific artist is part of the baroque pop genre). The only place I can think of it as a valid reference is once, at the top of the page as definition of the style but then I think that would be better as link to the wikipedia page of the genre. --Carandraug (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean the artist pages on Wikipedia. Snoop God (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to checking the artist articles for sources, but there needs to be an inline reference on this page.--SabreBD (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many people will contribute to the list but adding a template will help. This page is not a definitive source, but a rough guide. Genre is very subjective (even with references). These lists are open to conjecture and similar lists suffer with the same problems, though this is one of the better ones. Snoop God (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you said "The artist page should have the baroque genre listed and the references should point to them." can't be. You can't use a wikipedia article as reference to another wikipedia article. --Carandraug (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but these lists do not really conform to Wiki policy. Snoop God (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that genre is very subjective but if a band is baroque "enough" there should be a reliable source that can be used as reference. A rule is needed here. If no reference becomes acceptable, then people will end up discussing whether a band is of the genre or not. --Carandraug (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to split this dicussion in two different points. Please reply under each of them:

Can we at least agree that the current reference to AllMusic baroque genre for most of the artists is plain wrong? It doesn't say in anyway that the artists are of that genre (aside the few ones on the top) and even AllMusic does not consider some of the artists that use it as reference as baroque musicians. I am not talking about removing those artists right now, I'm just talking about removing the obviously incorrect references. --Carandraug (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the Allmusic references are creating more confusion and could be removed. Snoop God (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the incorrect reference that was repeated a thousand times. --Carandraug (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should artists without a reliable reference be allowed in the article page? It might be argueed that an article such as this, a list of names that are links to the wikipedia artist page, are not typical wikipedia pages and using the artist wikipedia article band as reference should be enough. OK. But then, the wikipedia artist page should require a reference saying that the artist/band does indeed belong to the genre. If it can't supply it, the genre should be removed from the artist page and the artist then removed from this list. --Carandraug (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with individually referencing is that baroque doesn't get banded about by journalists and any mention could still be challenged or open to conjecture. I think it best to open a discussion objecting to an artists inclusion and then gaining consensus for the removal. Snoop God (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be discussing if an artists belongs or not to a genre (by personal experience, that's a waste of time). Like you said, if music journalism is still open to challenge and conjecture, I imagine that would also apply to any wikipedia editor. Also, bands that are clearly baroque, no matter how much journalism ignores the genre, will have a reference somewhere stating it. Bands that have a couple of songs with hints of baroque may not have such reference but then, maybe that's because they're also not baroque enough to be considered to the list. I already added references for some bands (but removed no one). As such, my opinion is: if there is no reference for the inclusion of the band as baroque (be it on the "list of baroque artists" wikipedia page or in the artist wikipedia page), the artist should be removed from the list (as a "no baroque artist" or as "not relevant enough as baroque") --Carandraug (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to work out if this comment is serious, or perhaps this is just a slip of the tongue. It may be cool, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. Whether we think the bands are in this genre or not is irrelevant, and the only standard we can rely on are reliable sources and I have to agree with Carandraug's summary above. I can see the value of having proposed acts that need sources here on the talkpage, but then again - I am not sure why I should do that work for anyone else. I have begun an attempt to check the handful of remaining unsourced acts, without, it has to be said, a great deal of success, but we need to return to the RS bar again soon, as already unsourced bands are beginning to creep back in to the article and having made the effort to maintain this over a number of years, I would be very loath to let its quality deteriorate.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with adding external references is that no one will use the article (other than yourself...maybe you should create a document on word...lol). Seriosly, the most significant reference is contained on the artist pages, because editors most familiar with the subject are adding genres. Snoop God (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that usually there is not a reliable reference on the artist article page and even if there were Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself, so the sources need to be repeated here if they are valid. We cannot rely on the expertise of those adding genres to the articles of bands, which is one of the least accurate and reliable things connected with music on Wikipedia.--SabreBD (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree as genre isn't normally referenced on music articles, probably because it is so subjective, and people have different ideas about styles. Decompartmentalising is definitely the way forward. Snoop God (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and Sources

It appears that the people watching this particular page believe that 1960's Baroque Pop artists should only be listed if they are 1) notable and 2) can be sourced elsewhere as being considered Baroque Pop. I feel like enforcing both of these at once is restricting to the list and makes it appear as though there are only a handful of 1960's baroque pop artists. I can understand if it needs to be sourced, but what is the problem with putting up non-notable artists (by Wikipedia standards) who can be sourced as Baroque Pop? Has it occurred to people that maybe people come to this list looking for a large if not exhaustive list of baroque pop artists from the 1960's, and might be led to believe that there are only a handful when actually there are quite a few? Keep in mind that the 1960's were a long time ago and that there are a good number of artists whose names have become obscured with time and therefore are not notable for Wikipedia purposes but whose major label output (or part of it) counts as baroque pop. I feel that it is only fair that if a non-notable 1960's artists can be sourced elsewhere as baroque pop, then they should be allowed to be included in this list.

The lesser known artist in particular I am referring to is Teresa Bennett (aka Teresa). She released on album on Dot records in 1969 called Anita Kerr Presents Teresa. Her lone album was reissued in Japan a few years ago and is largely a baroque pop album; there is an Allmusic review that mentions Baroque Pop as one of the genres on the album.[1] If you listen to the links to the tracks on her album that are currently in YouTube, that's about as baroque pop as it gets; she even covers the Bee Gees' "I Started a Joke" on the album, which is one of baroque pop's best known songs.

There are more lesser-known artists listed on a baroque pop blog that I found recently, and again, many of these are obscure artists, but I think that if they can be sourced as baroque pop, then they should be allowed to be included with a source, even if they are not notable otherwise. Why hamper discovery of lesser-known artists from this period?--Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ankeny, Jason. "Teresa Anita Kerr Presents Teresa". Allmusic.com. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
I feel like enforcing both of these at once is restricting to the list and makes it appear as though there are only a handful of 1960's baroque pop artists - All lists on Wikipedia have to be restricted. Lists on Wikipedia are not supposed to be exhaustive except in very specific scenarios where the scope of possible entries is very narrow (like a discography, filmography, list of presidents of a certain country, list of people who have hit x number of home runs, etc.). Otherwise Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, catalog, etc. This list is not for every baroque pop artist -- it's for every notable baroque pop artist. (see WP:SALAT, WP:CSC, and the essay which tries to more succinctly tie various policies and guidelines together on this topic, WP:WTAF). As Wikipedia has a policy of no original research it's not good enough to just list something and claim it belongs, either. So just because an artist is notable doesn't mean he/she/they belong on a list for a certain genre unless we can provide reliable sources showing as much. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, I'd encourage you to write an article about Teresa if she's notable. If you're unsure of how to do that, Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to start. I'd be happy to help -- I have no particular problem with this person or her inclusion in Wikipedia -- just with undiscerning lists with no encyclopedic inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious artists

As I noted here, there must be some discretion taken with this article. Is baroque pop 'Baroque-flavored pop/rock music', or is it a loose term encompassing any indie artist that ever used strings and horns? Baroque does not mean orchestral.-Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I added explicitly mention "baroque pop" and associate all the artists of the list with the genre. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources you listed are journalists who are promoting a relatively recent artist. They are not people who have demonstrated any reliability on the subject of music, they're most likely just repeating what has been written in a fluff press release. It doesn't line up with most academia that discusses baroque pop. All of these artists are variously cited as baroque pop, chamber pop, or just simple indie pop/rock. Each of these are very distinct genres. This is a very confusing list of very disparate-sounding artists. In light of this genre's incoherence, it's not encyclopedic to note every single time an up-and-coming indie artist releases a single that has strings in it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are reliable sources, mainly music magazines. Also "All of these artists are variously cited as baroque pop, chamber pop, or just simple indie pop/rock" is definitly your point of view, which is irrelevant here. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also stop removing sourced entries without justifying why. You need to discuss it here for example. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example why do you continue removing the Bee Gees from the list ? PopMatters clearly says they were first associated with the genre before going disco, which justifies the inclusion of the group in the list. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate. ... To know where we have a dispute and where a simple mistake, consider whenever the author is really an expert on the topic (and not an expert on another topic, making a brief reference to something beyond his area of expertise), or if the text that breaks the mainstream knowledge is provided on purpose or as a mere passing-by comment.
"Baroque pop" is a real genre, but it's also a buzzword. That's why there is ostensibly a connection between Panic! At the Disco, Momus, and Van Dyke Parks.
It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia. We are not here to robotically compile facts and citations according to a strict set of rules, we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. This task requires the application of judgement and discretion in order to create a neutral and readable encyclopedia.
I have justified my reasoning. The sources I removed simply never stated what you said they stated. The words "baroque pop" were uttered, but never broadly to describe what an artist mainly produces.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Bee Gees: my mistake, I did read that source wrong.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." That's exactly what I've been doing this list. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read what I had just quoted? In short, sometimes those sources are wrong and are not based in any rational assessment of the artist's music. Just because "it's written in a book" doesn't mean it should be here. Especially when there are valid reasons to suspect it's all nonsense. How is, for instance, Arcade Fire or Momus baroque pop? What qualities of the baroque do they exercise in their music? Can you identify them yourself? I can confidently say where and when the Divine Comedy, Colin Blunstone, and Van Dyke Parks are baroque pop, but can you do the same for multiple Vampire Weekend or Lana Del Ray songs?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that all the sources I used to complete the list are reliable (most of them are music magazines) which, per WP:LISTPEOPLE, justifies all the new additions to the list. The fact "baroque pop" is a hard-to-define genre has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources I used so far, nor my own knowledge of the genre. Again you're using your personal point of view instead of focusing on what sources say. It doesn't work like this though. Anyway if multiple sources explicitly describe one artist as "baroque pop" (and that's certainly the case for most of the artists I added to the list) then you shouldn't remove them. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're confused with how Wikipedia works yourself. Again, "We are not here to robotically compile facts and citations according to a strict set of rules". Look, if you can find a source that says, essentially, "baroque pop is used with little consistency by music journalists and rock critics", then there would be nothing to tag in this article. The reader will know for themselves to take everything listed with a grain of salt. Otherwise, I have a bit of a problem with an article that postulates ridiculous claims like that Fun or the Walker Brothers are baroque (are they talking about "The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore"?). Editors are supposed to have discretion. If you can't offer any rebuttals to my case, then you have no grounds to remove my tags.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your page is not a rule or a guideline, simply an essay, but nevermind. Sure I should have added more sources to "confirm" all these artists are definitly associated with the genre, but I didn't have the time to do so. I'm pretty sure that, however, they are other sources which describe them as "baroque pop" as well (especially Arcade Fire, Panic! at the Disco or Florence + the Machine). Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually able to find any source that calls them baroque pop and then follows up why? I've never been able to find any journalist who does this. They just call a band 'baroque pop' and then expect the reader to infer for themselves whatever that means.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I can find sources like this, then I would add them in the list. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a result, "At its best, Suckers' baroque pop struts confidently in glam platforms, blithely eager to please." is enough to say the band plays baroque pop. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Beatles a raga rock band?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the genres they were associated with, but they are obviously other sources which associate them with other genres. Anyway you can't compare the Beatles with Suckers, who only released three albums in their whole career. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So there's a double standard, is there? I can argue the same thing for the Beach Boys, who recorded even less baroque pop. Off the top of my head, there are three songs from Pet Sounds: "I'm Waiting for the Day", "You Still Believe in Me", and "God Only Knows". And yet you're lobbying for them to be considered a baroque pop band? You know, the Raga rock article has a system that I would much rather prefer than this article's existence — a list of notable song examples, instead of a WP:LISTCRUFT of so-called baroque pop musicians. This is a better idea, no? Although something of that sort already exists on the baroque pop article anyway.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm fine with this stand-alone list. However you should perfectly know that some artists, such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys or the Bee Gees were only associated with baroque pop at one time in their whole career. However it doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in this list, and it doesn't mean this list should be deleted either. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, WP:LISTPEOPLE shouldn't be used to judge the standards of genre lists.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: Are there sufficient sources which write about baroque pop in a way that distinguishes modern usage from the 60s genre? If so, there could be a case for limiting or splitting this list. I've noticed some other lists related to punk and rock music draw such lines. Otherwise, for me, I tend to view lists as being a bit more inclusive than articles about the artists themselves. If reliable sources call artist X genre Y (not just e.g. one song), and we have a list of Y artists, that's fine to include. On the other hand, the article about X should take care not to give that undue emphasis to Y if it's a minority of sources throwing around the term willy-nilly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Anders

Christian Anders is not Baroque Pop, but German Schlager. 46.114.238.154 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Gouldman

Graham Gouldman, who wrote “Bus Stop” an “No Milk Today” is a founder of the genre and essential to any list of baroque pop artists. 46.114.238.154 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan

Donovan should be included in any list of baroque pop artists and is probably the most popular representative of the genre. 46.114.238.154 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_baroque_pop_artists&oldid=1259675006"