Talk:Psychedelic pop

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge

Oppose; I don't think Psychedelic pop and Psychedelic rock should be merged. The two are distinct and different genres; in essence they are as distinctly different as Pop and Rock are, it just happens to be the psychedelic aspect of those genres that we're talking about. As such, merging the two would be like saying that Black Sabbath operate in the same genre as Herman's Hermits. There's a world of difference between Psychedelic rock bands (like the Blue Cheer for example) and The World of Oz (who were Psychedelic pop) for example. I do, however, agree that there seems to be a lot of crossover and contradiction in this and other related articles, and that they all need a good clean up. Kohoutek1138 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice the Psychedelic Rock article covers all band-based Psychedelia as well as some references to electronic dance music. A fan of Hawkwind is more likely (IMO of course) to be interested in Gong, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues and The Yardbirds than Black Sabbath and Budgie. This article is only a fragment and most of the relevant info is already included in 'Psychedelic Rock'. If I had my way I'd move 'Psychedelic Rock' -> 'Psychedelic music' and simply get rid of all the sub-genre pages. Tim flatus (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the right direction. Ridernyc (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an easy one. The roots of psychedelic folk, rock and pop are all related, and they interact, but the outcomes are different in terms of genre. I would tend to edge towards keeping them separate, cleaning up and removing the contradictions (and other problems), then summarising each on Psychedelic music, which could perhaps deal with the origins. But its a very big job.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the first step of the job would be to merge everything then split it off again if we have a stand alone article. If we are going to try to clean up 3 or more articles it is never going to happen. Ridernyc (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with that as a methodology, as long as the individual articles are kept until the new versions are ready. An under-construction tag could be added to prevent major attempts to re-edit.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to reiterate something I've posted on the "Psychedelic Rock" talk page; Allmusic.com lists "Psychedelic Rock", "Psychedelic Pop" and "Neo-Psychedelia" as three distinct and separate sub-genres of psychedelic music. I'd say that allmusic is a pretty reliable and well respected source for popular music and they obviously deem the three types of psychedelia to be different enough to warrant three separate entries. In my mind, this only goes to strengthen the case for having three separate pages here on wikipedia as well.Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:53, 03 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with vigor and determination. I admit that drawing the line in some cases will be tough, but it's got to be done. Would you call When the Music's Over by The Doors "Psychedelic Pop"? No way, it's "Psychedelic Rock". As for a tune like Itchycoo Park by the Small Faces, that's much more of a "Pop" tune with strong elements of the "Psychedelic" thrown in, both in the lyrics and the early phase-shifting sound. Both Wikipedia articles label them correctly; they are distinctly separate genres. Case closed, in my opinion. Jusdafax (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Oppose"...injustice to both the genres as they themselves have rights to their diffeent noirs that they have created among the population. Sytematically, ZZ Top, Strawberry Alarm Clock and more conventional bands like 13th Floor Elevators aren't the same sound or use the same methods as Jefferson Airplane, Iron Butterlfy or the late 70s psychedelic treat Pink Floyd. They hold completely different aspects towards whether posters or themes or even stage lights. As usual, this isn't a really debabtable one, Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.43.127 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No Wikipedians... Two entirely different things. --Scieberking (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rock is not pop. End o' Story. Stevolivin (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no nooo! I strongly oppose merging. pop is for those who wish they were rock but can't get close! Like Stevolivin said "Rock is not Pop" Damn right my fellow wikipedean, & it is indeed the "End o' Story". Oasis & Pixie Lott are not the same thing. Oasis are rock, Pixie is Pop. they are 2 compleatly different genres. J (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose! They are two different forms that just happen to use the same word "Psychedelic". Firstlensman (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly not a consensus for a merger and yet have all those objecting noticed that this article fails to mention all the major "psychedelic pop" acts and actually is full of rock artists? This is probably one reason for the suggestion of merger. I suggest that we close this part of the debate and see if it is possible to construct a properly sourced and notable article on "psychedelic pop". I have just finished cleaning up psychedelic rock so I am fairly well up on this at the moment and will undertake it as soon as I can.--SabreBD (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may be totally wrong but is it just me or is the current state of this article talking about the same exact thing as Neo-psychedelia. the Neo-psychedelia article is just a list, the intro actually says nothing when you read it. Also since there seems to be only the two of us actually working on the article, I'm not sure how much the random votes above count towards a consensus. If people are not going to deal with the blatantly obvious problems present in the articles I don't see why they should have a voice. I really am not sure if this can be sourced as separate genres. People are trying to take a bunch of neologisms and turn them into factual articles, all of this stuff followed the same exact course of development. Ridernyc (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't disagree with this. In the 60s psychedelic pop was just the more commercial end of the spectrum of psychedelic music, so it was really not developing as a seperate genre. On the issue of Neo-psychedelia I have posted my thoughts on that talkpage, but yes it is the same thing as currently mentioned here.--SabreBD (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just figured out the answer, all of this belongs in the Psychedelic music article I never even noticed it existed with all these sub pages. The new Rock article you wrote becomes the main article and we merge/redirect everything there. Since most people have objected to using the terms rock/pop moving everything to the generic term music should solve everything. Ridernyc (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only reservation is that psychedelic music would have to include every form of such music, including everthing with acid in front of it. It might not be hard to find the rock and pop elements among all that.--SabreBD (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There not there now, I don't see why they would need to be anymore then they are now just links in a see also section. The template already covers them, I actually think the template could use some cleaning. Ridernyc (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been decided not to (my vote also goes to oppose), why the merge template is still on top of the main article? Why not remove it? Elitropia (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque pop

The issue of whether the origins of psychedelic pop lie at least partly in baroque pop has come up in a recent edit to the infobox. When I cleaned up the article I glossed over this as the literature is less than clear as to which came first, or whether they arose at the same time. I will take another look, but if anyone has valid sources that help it would be great if they could post details.--SabreBD (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psychedelic pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Psychedelic_pop"