Talk:Electropop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

shouldn't list include anthony rother? he's created lots of cult electronic music, including 'electro pop' album.

Electropop Musicians List[edit]

There are a lot of artists on that list that are merely pop artists who have taken electropop influences and used them in their own work. A number of them shouldn't be included in a list of "notable electropop musicians". Someone needs to clean up that list. I mean Sugababes and Hilary Duff?!! Christ....

An article that talks about a particular genre of music and gives a list of notable musicians from the genre should be mainly listing artists that have had something substantial to contribute to the genre. If there's a wiki article on jazz music should we then include Christina Aquilera as a "notable jazz musician" because her last album had jazz influences? Strictmachineaddict 10:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)IOI I agree but you are wasting your time on wikipedia, when it comes to music it is too subjective. Most people who are serious technopop/electro fans know what the genre is and they would know that Britney is not electropop. The actual wiki article on Britney classes her as Pop so why is she classed as electrpop here? Sources are important but they must be GOOD sources. I can find a source backing up any opinion but it doesn't make it authoritative. However this small insignificant article is not worth my time.

I did add YMO to list the list but it will probably be removed despite the encyclopedia of popular music listing them as second only to Kraftwerk in terms of pioneering electronic music.

Subgenre?[edit]

Who says that electropop is a subgenre of synthpop? COuldn't it be exactly the opposite?--Doktor Who 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The intro now reads... "first flourished from 1978 to 1981 in both England and Germany. Electropop laid the groundwork for a mass market in chart-oriented synthpop, but later became seen by musicologists as merely a subgenre of synthpop." 9th August 2006.

The only subgenre SynthPop is New Wave and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.29 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Synthpop has become a broader term to indicate a variety of pop made with synths.... so of course electropop falls under that category. Its pop made with synths after all. Having said that "synthpop" should be among the "derivative forms"...not in the "stylistic origins" as it is now. there was NO synthpop before electropop....electropop was the first form of synthpop(and infact in its origin the terms were used as synonymous).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencer07 (talkcontribs) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC) x

Regardless of whether it is derived from, there appears to be a general consensus that 'Electropop' shouldn't be listed as a subgenre. Do I have permission then to remove 'Electropop' from the 'Subgenres' section of 'Synthpop'? I have to say though - I'm still happy to push for a merger. POW™ (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply wrong[edit]

Everything in this article is wrong. --Dr. Who 01:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • AAAHHMMM....DUB has been around since the late 60's. Just experimental madness and spin offs from rocksteady and reggae production. Because DJ's and Producers discover it in the mid 90's does not make it anything new. It would be a subgenre of reggae, as with Dancehall.

I agree, 1978 - 1981? more like 1978 - 1983 at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.196.223 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree with extending it to 1983. the original author of this article confused the futurist movement of 1978-1980 with electropop which actually peaked from 1981 to 1983.(the electropop tag was actually created to break away from experimental "futurism" underlining its pop nature) infact the first bands and records to be defined as electropop by UK media of the time ("Smash Hits" and "Sounds" UK magazines)all date to 1981 : Depeche Mode-speak&spell, Human League Dare (their earlier work fell into "futurism") and SoftCell Non stop Electronic Cabaret. the term stood for Elecronic Pop (POP!) and was heavily in use up to mid 80s all across europe. There was a debate between Human League and OMD on who invented electropop....with OMD claiming they had invented the electropop formula in 1979 with "Electricity" but with other bands dismissing such claim as the song didn't have a fully electronic sound (it didnt have an electronic beat). 1978-1983 covers the whole scenario and accounts for the massive electropop hits which were released up till 1983 (from yazoo "don't go" to eutythmics "sweet dreams" ,depeche mode "get the balance right"...with new order "blue monday" in 1983 closing the era).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencer07 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream artists[edit]

Please forgive me if I do so incorrectly, but I assume that the only reason Rachel Stevens, Hilary Duff, and Girls Aloud were removed from this article is because they are mainstream artists, but they all release electropop records. Rachel Stevens's Come and Get It is widely regarded as a seminal pop album (a review), and Hilary Duff's new album is receiving a similar reception. Girls Aloud were one of the acts that brought electropop back into the pop mainstream in 2003-2004.

In short, please don't remove artists and groups from the list because you don't like them, ESPECIALLY when references are given, as opposed to every other artist in the list. 68.185.182.12 07:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you're going to list artists in a "notable electropop musicians" list they should have atleast contributed something substantial to the genre as opposed to pop artists who have taken on influences from a genre. What qualifies Rachel Stevens and Hilary Duff as notable electropop musicians? Strictmachineaddict 10:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they have sources. One of these days I am going to gut the entire list and leave only the artists that have sources declaring them "electropop." Hilary Duff, for instance, does, and will not be deleted. Rockstar (T/C) 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
they are mostly reviews of their music, which as I stated takes influences from electropop. I wouldn't consider them notable electropop musicians. Perhaps these people who want Hilary Duff and her ilk to be included in the article should make a separate list of people whose music is influenced by electropop - that would be more accurate. They are pop artists - I don't see how they've done anything notable in the electro field. Even Kylie Minogue her material is more pop that's only recently taken on electropop influences. The term "electropop" gets bandied around by pop fans as if every person releasing an album with even a vague synthesised beat is an electropop musician. Strictmachineaddict 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not what you said is true, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and this project cares more about what reliable sources say than what the truth is. A better explanation of this can be found in the FAQs of WP:V. Rockstar (T/C) 05:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, but Mixel Pixel and Lo-Fi-Fnk are notable.
Please note, [[1]] says "Any edit lacking a source may be removed." This wording would seem to imply that edits with sources should not be removed without a good reason. I know people take music personally, so don't be offended when I say your opinion is not a good enough reason. Please don't remove it again, Strictmachineaddict, unless you can find a fault with the sources or another source disputing the claim. If we were going to remove artists, the three in contention should really be the only three to stay, seeing as they are the only sourced ones. 68.185.182.12 04:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

MUUUUU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.198.110 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


How is Lady Gaga and Hillary Duff Electropop. I mean there lyrics arent even Scifi....There even under Synth Pop they can never live along side Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Human League. Lady Gaga album is too...modern day Hip Hop influenced...She is more Dance Pop out of anything. For female ElectroPop The KNife ok, Goldfrapp ok...but Lady Gaga? Besides most of the mainstream crowd doesnt even know what Electropop is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.29 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right but in Lady Gaga's case (do not know about Hillary Duff) she is being linked to a new female electropop movement by several reliable sources. Genre descriptions sometimes undergo change as do words in general. We have the right not to like it but it still must go into articles. As for the two more modern groups you mentioned if you find reliable source cites that describe them as electropop feel free to put them in the article Edkollin (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User 715.119 is absolutely right. The only people daft enough to lump Lady Gaga, Hilary Duff or any Top 40 pop diva under the electro or synthpop banner, are those so absolutely clueless about the genres that they lump together all music with any remote shred of electronic/synthesized influence. I've seen Britney Spears cited in the Synthpop article as an example of a modern "synthpop revivalist", FFS. What the hell? Now Gaga would, of course, like to fancy herself some cutting edge electro artist inspired by 70s Glam rock, yet you clearly get the impression hearing her music of nothing more than cheesy dance-pop, in a slightly 90s Eurodance vein...and way too heavily influenced by hip-hop. It's just typical mainstream pop bullshit. I swear, NOBODY has any sense of what a genre is anymore. The article gives no serious impression of what an Electropop style consists of. It discusses/lists artists from all over the spectrum of Synth, post-punk, dance AND modern bubblegum pop, with very few examples of distinguishable Electropop given.

--And holy shit, it's Edkollin again! Wow. I KNEW that there was something annoyingly disagreeable about the post above mine. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Robyn[edit]

I think Robyn should be in the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.222.50 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lily Allen[edit]

I think Lily Allen should be mentioned in the "rise of female eletropop" area. Unlike artists like Hillary Duff, Allen has modified her image to fit the electropop sound from her sophomore album, and has implied that her newer electropop sound will be permanent. In addition, there needs to be a citation for "record labels are trying to give male electropop a 'geeky' image." 68.43.83.93 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I favor putting a separate sentence for her and the Yeah Yeah Yeah's as acts known for other styles adding electro pop elements Edkollin (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing but a name..[edit]

Seriously guys, think about it. Electropop is nothing but a name.. but to call it a genre? Well we have electronica, synthpop, new wave, dance-pop or even club/dance, but why do we need another fake genre that mixes electronica with dance-pop? JaymanJohn (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Could say this about any Genre. It was tehno pop then Synthpop and now electropop. Blur would fit fine as a New Wave Band, but since they came out in the 1990's they are Britpop. Radiohead, Coldplay are really progressive rock but since they came out in the 1990's they are alternative. etc etc. But Wikipedia rules do not care about this. The "Electropop" trend has been the subject of or mentioned in numerous articles in reliable sourced publications (BBC, The Times,NY Times) on both sides of the Atlantic. It easily meets the notability clause so I have to vote to reject the deletion proposal.Edkollin (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that deletion would go against notability, but I would probably be in favour of a merger with synthpop, especially since the articles do not distinguish these two "sub-genres". Much the same bands and history are used.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me but 'electropop' is nothing more than a name..to sell magazines, to attract readers. Eventhough 'electropop' is mentioned to the mass audience, it doesn't really stand out strong enough in the music industry. People gets confused with it. I mean what is 'Electropop'? Lady GaGa's The Fame? La Roux's La Roux? Blur's Parklife? Don't get confused with Dance-Pop and Club/Dance's style.. GaGa is Dance-Pop + Urban. La Roux is Dance-Pop + Pop music. Blur's Parklife is Britpop/Indie Pop fused with Club/Dance, Alternative Dance and Dance Rock style of music. If you can make it more specific.. maybe you can keep this page.. but for me, I see nothing. Sorry if this didn't explain things correctly. It's my pov about electropop.JaymanJohn (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"Maybe it's just me but 'electropop' is nothing more than a name..to sell magazines, to attract readers. Eventhough 'electropop' is mentioned to the mass audience, it doesn't really stand out strong enough in the music industry." Not just you. Like I started to say above most genre naming is about marketing. Sometimes there is substance behind it sometimes there is not but substance is always a secondary concern. But just because it is marketing based or has a non definitive mass appeal does not make it article unworthy. In my view compared to Alternative Rock or New Wave where acts that are diametrically opposed to each other in every way are classified togeather electropop is relatively specific. Edkollin (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Okay I see what what JaymanJohn is saying. Many people actually refuse to put Electropop as a genre in some artist articles because its just another form of synth pop. Many Synth Pop artist only do Sci fi lyrics once in a while for exception of A FLock of Seagulls. Duran Duran travels in and out with the sci fi lyrics. But please Lady Gaga is not electropop whatsoevr. Come on there is nothing sci fi about her lyrics. SHe might have a sci fi look but you need the lyrics. People are ven labelling Britney Spears and Cascada as Electropop. NO! there Dance-pop and Cascada is also Eurodance. La Roux I would say is Electropop. But Lady Gaga is definatly not. Electropop isnt even popular in mainstream music in america...in fact most americas dont even know what it is. Paparazzi is the closest song with sci fi lyrics with the "purple tears" lyric but even thats pushing it cause purple tears could be reference when a girl that wears eye liner begins to cry she gets purple tears. Lets leave Lady Gaga off this article please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said the I have a number of reliable sources call Lady Gaga electro pop and she has a nickname "electropop princess" also sourced. You or I might disagree but we can't write the article based on our feelings. Genre names over the years do become "catch all" to the annoyance of the originators. I think I dealt with the lack of knowledge in America by using writing that this is primarily a British thing (Although La Ruox and Little Boots are making some headway on the dance club charts). As for people disagreeing with the whole concept, find some cites it would be great for the article. Edkollin (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Than this article is contradicting itself. The lyrics must be scifi lyrics for it to be Electropop according to this article. I have the LAdy Gaga cd there is nothing scifi about her lyrics. Plus mainstream artist dont even know what it is. Lets leave in the artist that we are 100% sure that they are Electropop. Like HUman League, Depeche Mode, Soft Cell. Ect....there is too much doubt about lady gaga. I might give you Synth pop but she is not electropop whatsoever. People are calling electropop techno music combined with dance pop or Dance pop that has alot of electronic vibe in it. Thats not true electropop music. Also please show proof of these "sources" If theses sources are american than its not saying much because alot of americans dont know what Electropop and maybe even synth pop is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you shouldn't consider conceding a case for Synthpop either, because she's not. Gaga is dance-pop, and is only labeled differently due to the (pretentious) way that she markets herself combined with the way she dresses. If people merely heard her music without knowing anything about her in a personal/image sense, they would easily come way with the impression of typical radio pop music. Unfortunately, audiences are easy to fool (including "reliable" critics) these days. Good luck with getting Eldkollin to provide proof of those sources of his, though, lol. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. The "reliable" sources fooled or not saying she is electropop are right there. That is all the proof I need. Why don't you find a reliable source(s) that says she is not electropop. There has to be some somewhere. Then write in the article this is not a universally held view and by name list the reliable sources that dispute that she is electropop.
Off Topic: I hope I'm wrong but you probably won't do that though because you do not like the "reliable source" rules. That is nice but do you have a better idea?. I don't agree with your original meaning is the only meaning idea. There would lot of upset LGBT people if you applied that line of thinking to the Gay article. I don't agree that that if an artist is dance pop she can not be electropop also. By the way I personally do not think Ms. Gaga is electropop or dance pop but disco or post disco. Any my opinion like yours is completely useless to this article. Edkollin (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely opposed to the "reliable source rule" by any means, but the problem comes with battles over what's considered reliable. You have often rejected edits that have been presented with many reliable sources. I'm sure the names SPK, Fad Gadget and The Stranglers ring a bell. You will reject submissions without explaining what makes the accompanying sources too "lacking" for your taste, and it frankly gives off vibes of anything but the "neutrality" you champion.

I'm glad that you don't actually agree with the very sources that you use to support certain cases, but you don't think there's a reason for disagreements you and I have with them beyond "just not liking it"? It could be in fact, because of OTHER information that we have encountered. Gaga's wiki article consistently lists her as "electronic" rather than electropop. Allmusic.com doesn't list her under any "electronic music" related banner - just pop, dance r&b. I could present these sources, but then be "overridden" by someone with an Entertainment Weekly article which mentions electropop a few times in a review of her CD. Who decides what's reliable here?

Also, are you saying the Electropop has evolved into a more simple and mainstream, dancey-pop genre? I'm guessing it must have for most of those modern artists listed to qualify. But the article itself doesn't even explain the evolution. It just jumps right ahead into the 2000s naming a bunch of artists who don't remotely fit the definition of the genre given in the article's opening, and whom have nothing in common with the type of artists listed as early Electropoppers. Many of whom (the early artists), oddly enough, are also commonly linked to Synthpop (and even post-punk) music, despite the definition explicitly stating that the two (electro and synth) are not interchangeable. It's just confusing and weak.74.69.64.52 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Off topic: Generally Wikipedia is pretty clear about what is reliable sourcing. First and foremost academic sources, non tabloid music publications, then "mainstream media" . Tabloid media and fan and artist websites are not considered reliable sources. Social Media is very frowned upon . Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source. Yet when it comes to lists many editors consider it the be all and end all as far as reliability is concerned. If a Wikipedia article says so and so group is synthpop I may still delete it or put a citation warning on it, if the said article has no or poor sourcing and after a brief search I can't find any. The other issue is what constitutes a synthpop, electropop, or New Wave artists. Does the group have to be primarily synthpop to be put on a list?. Have a little bit of it to be put on list?. Have "one" album primarily be synthpop?. In my view the artists should be primarily or at least have a major part their careers be of the genre being listed. If I see a source like allmusic that lists a bunch genres and synthpop is on the bottom of the list and not discussed at all in the article to me the source does not consider them primarily a synthpop group and they should not be on the list.
On Topic: The article jumps right from the 80's electropop to the current catch all definition without a discussion because I or anybody else apparently has not seen an article discussing or analyzing this change. If I see one of course I will add it. This differs from New Wave where there are multiple reliable sources for how that name came into use. In my view you probably won't see an article discussing this "jump". Electropop is a convenient nostalgic genre name to call someone. My guess is that Little Boots and La Roux probably would have been called techno in the 90's and "New Wave" in the 80's (in the US) because that was the bandwagon at that time. Edkollin (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Split the article[edit]

I think maybe this article should be split into Electropop and Electropop (2000s genre), because this recent electro pop has very little to do with original electropop, and artists such as Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Timbaland, Pitbull are loosely related to Kraftwerk and the type of music they pioneered in the late 70s. Also, I think there's a need for a separate description box for contemporary electro pop, as it has different roots from original electropop and when someone arrives to the artcile to read about contemporary electropop and reads that Techno developed from electropop, he'll get a bit confused. --217.21.43.222 (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a rewriting issue not a split article issue. You need to describe the different and/or additional roots of the contemporary version of the genre. There is a strong relation between LaRoux, Little Boots and 1980's synthpop (to add more confusion we called it technopop more often then synthpop way back when). Is it not the point of Wikipedia to inform readers coming to read about the current version that there was a original version?. Whatever is done, please completely document it from reliable sources; scholarly books, articles from music journalists in non tabloid and music publications etc. If these sources do not describe 1980's electropop as a different genre we can't. Another point; I do understand the Lady Gaga is reviled in many quarters and many people violently disagree with her being described as electropop. This opinion can't inform how this article is revised (Of course reliable sources disagreeing with Lady Gaga being described as an electropop is article worthy). Check New Wave Music to see how a music genre that has gone though multiple changes in definition, and changes in definition that are more radical then electropop is handled for tips on how and how not to proceed. 209.225.141.253 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You've got ratio, but aren't contemporary publications doing enough to differentiate electropop and contemporary electropop by claiming Lady Gaga and, for instance, Timbaland's "The Way I Are" are electropop? And the other point is, are there any explicit claims in any sources that the music being described as "electro pop" nowadays is the updated version of original electropop? I mean, if no statements of such kind can be found, then there's a right to make another article about newer electropop. I haven't heard neither LaRoux nor Little Boots, but I am sure connections between 80s new wave/synthpop/electro/electropop and contemporary electropop can be found. As one can find simillar connections between hip hop and funk, but they are still different styles. -- 217.21.43.222 (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In the cites we do have in that section they say La Roux, Little Boots are influenced by the 80's sounds but they don't say its another genre. Wikipedia articles are written based what is verifiable not necessarily what is true. Another words if the legitimate sources do not do their jobs we can't do it for them. For this reason it would be against Wikipedia policy to create a 2000's electropop article if no legitimate sources make such a declaration. Edkollin (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins[edit]

Most genre based music articles have an origin based sub-section, which this article lacks. I suggest we have one here, or at least a paragraph, that can deal more fully and appropriately with the forerunners of the genre, such as "Krautrock" pioneers like Kraftwerk, which is rather lost in the beginning of the History section here.--SabreBD (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthpop and electropop[edit]

Are those two the same thing? Synthpop article explains that electropop is "more robotic" than synthpop itself, but doesn't list any sources for such a claim. I've come up with this idea as many synthpop artists are sometimes listed as electropop artists and vice versa. And I've found at least two [reliable] sources, that support my idea:

And you are free to look if there are more sources on the topic here: Google.Books search on: "electro pop" synth pop. -- 82.209.225.13 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you have found grounds for a merger.--SabreBD (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess it would be great to merge them, but I think that more detailed research on the subject is needed. -- 82.209.225.13 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone understand the difference between Electropop and Synthpop enough to better distinguish them in this article? Udibi (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Synthpop is merely popular music which uses synthesizers, while electropop is a form of popular music which takes themes from electronic music. According to Dictionary.com, Synthpop is defined as: popular music played with synthesizers and having light upbeat melodies and lyrics. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand too. Synth pop tends to be more new-wave influenced, which is NOT found in electropop. Electropop is primarily an equal combination of ONLY two genres, electronic and pop, whilst taking indirect influences from disco and its successor genre, post-disco. BTW, electropop uses more electronics whilst maintaining a distinct pop sound, whereas synth pop tends to be sparser and its usage on electronics is not that heavy. I do not agree the merging with electropop and synth pop, because I completely reject that move. Aki (talk, contributions). February 20 2017, 21:17 (PST).

Where are the sources?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources are a major headache to a user like me... Stop persisting me about it if you wanna stop me from being persistent to you, OK? No threats, just slightly annoyed... Also, don't remove the pics I've added before, we'll talk about this in this section later...-- Aki (talk, contributions). April 11 2017, 16:12 (UTC).
???
"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."
You need sources to support whatever info you want put in the article. You can't just write whatever you want because you're too lazy to find people who share the same opinions - that's backwards to how Wikipedia works.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not lazy, it's just that I can't find highly reliable sources that support my edits. Also again, do NOT remove images I add there. The article looks completely bland without four or just two images. Sorry to burst your bubble about this anyway and don't reply back... -- Aki (talk, contributions). April 21 2017, 14:35 (UTC).

Electroclash[edit]

The way the article is written electroclash artists are assumed to be electropop. While they are obviously related in some way is this correct?. Edkollin (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Popularity.[edit]

Someone keeps saying this genre is mainly popular in the UK. It is not. All the electropop artists come from the UNITED STATES, for example Lady Gaga and Ke$ha. Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachereaseply944 (talkcontribs) 01:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am that "somebody". First of all there are two different issues. One is popularity and one is country of origin. The statements in the article reference popularity. La Roux this week has just made it to number 71 in US after hitting number 2 in UK last year. She also had another top 20 single in the UK. Lily Allen whose (we will find a reference for her) album was number 5 in US one week then plummeted. It was number 1 or 2 in UK and stayed in the top 20 for months. Her electropop hit "The Fear" hit number 96 in US and number 1 in UK. Little Boots, Tinchy Stryder, and JLS also had top 20 singles in UK in 2009 and not in the US. Everybody I just listed comes from the UK so your statement that "All the electropop artists come from the UNITED STATES" is FLAT WRONG. When it is written that it is particularly HIGH in the UK that is not saying that it is not HIGH elsewhere. The sources in the article specifically mention the UK as a place of high popularity for electropop. You are making a claim in the article and have listed no sources to back it up. You must find reliable sources for your claim. Weird as this might sound even if hypothetically every electropop artist comes from the US and was popular only in the US you would still have to find reliable sources to back that up for it to be acceptable for the article. That is the Wikipedia guidelines. So pleeeese do not change the article again until you find sources. Edkollin (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Actually...[edit]

I live in the US. I know what's popular here, considering I AM A TOP 40/MAINSTREAM RADIO DJ IN THE US. & no. that music is Pop/R&B. & all Lady Gaga's singles have reached #1 on the Pop 100 here, whereas in the UK, only 4 of her singles have reached number 1. Also, our top songs in the US this year have been TiK ToK, for the first THREE MONTHS of the year, followed by the electro song imma be, then Break Your Heart - Taio Cruz, and now Rude Boy - Rihanna. Not to mention, Blah Blah Blah by Ke$ha which peaked at #7 whereas in the UK, it charted only at #11. Then, Your love is my drug, (ke$ha's new shingle) has already gone to number 27 based on radio airplay before it's official release date, due to just airplay, where in the UK it only went to number 63. Also, consider the fact that the two electropop songs "Boom Boom Pow", and I gotta feeling" by the Black eyed peas spent a combined back to back six & a half month run in the US ONLY last year, from the end of march until the middle of October. Then, there is the fact that "3" by Britney Spears debuted at #1 in the US, without having any previous chart position, whereas in the UK, it debuted at only number 7. Lastly, ALL THESE ARTISTS ARE FROM THE US : Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, The Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears, Owl City, LMFAO, Adam Lambert, Christina Aguilera, Leighton Meester, Heidi Montag, (yes Leighton Meester & Heidi Montag had TONS & TONS OF REQUESTS AND RADIO AIRPLAY IN THE US.), Usher (who has now switched over to electropop, in the US), & Miley Cyrus, who is releasing a techno album in the US in June, and Flo Rida who uses electropop beats in his songs. Now from what I know, NONE of these artists are doing better with any album / single sales in the UK, then they are doing in the US. (except for bad romance by Lady GaGa & telephone.) (Bad Romance - #2 in US) (Telephone - #3)

So, lets at least say it's mainstream popularity is mainly in the US & UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachereaseply944 (talkcontribs) 03:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am American myself. Since you are a DJ you must have access to charts and playlists you can use them as reliable sources for popularity. You also must find reliable sources that describe all of these acts you mentioned as electropop. And it should be more then they use synths it has to say electropop. Again those can be industry publications you might have access to, academic publications (although that would be hard to find), the music publications, the non tabloid press(NY Times, LA Times Associated Press etc). You should not use fan or band websites and you should try and stay away from sources that are just advertisements. Stay clear of social media. Allmusic, Pitchfork and of course Billboard are fine websites. Although it s preferred that there is a hyperlink that is not a requirement so don't let that get in your way. The thing is we can't just print editors opinions no matter as in your case how informed they may be. Editors here have noticed that in the last few years the differences between dance pop and electropop have gotten quite blurred (If you read above you will see to the great dismay of many editors). I would like to add something to the article on this topic but have not found sourcing so if you can find something that would be helpful. As for the article and box I will demphisize nationality for now. Edkollin (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You should not have taking out the Citation and Original Research Warnings because there is there still work to do. For Owl City,Lady Gaga and Black Eyed Peas although we established they were electropop earlier by reliable sourcing we do not have sourcing establishing that their success continued in 2010. Billboards website would be useful for establishing this. For Usher we do not have sourcing that he had success in 2010 or that he is electropop. For Ke$ha and Ellie Goulding we do have that sourcing and I used a technique where you can use the same reference twice to tidy it up a bit. It is considered a poor form to delete warnings before the situation that caused the warnings is rectified. My personal view is that your sentence is redundant since the the previous material is basically saying the same thing. So if I were you I would find the missing sources then delete the sentence. If you add a sentence like that then you have to find a source that claims that electropop has continued into 2010 because of said artists otherwise it is considered a form of Original Research Edkollin (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

i agree with teachereaseply ^^^[edit]

I also believe that it should be mentioned that it's more sucessfull in the US. Everyone here likes it, and it pushed R&B/Rap/Rock out of the mainstream in the US ONLY. Also, he right when he says basicly all the artists who make this genre of music are from the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy775433 (talkcontribs) 01:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This statement is that "basically all" the electropop artists are Americans is wrong as demonstrated by the article and arrogant as you can get. And "everyone" likes it, really? everyone?, so is the the statement that electropop pushed R&B/rock /rap out the mainstream in the US ONLY. Actually the idea that electropop has pushed out these other genres in America is completely and utterly wrong. I see that Eminem is debuted at number 1 on the Billboard 100 this week. He is that pushed out rap music. Usher is number 2 that is that pushed out R&B. Number 3 is B.o.B. that is RAP+. Number 4. Taio Cruz BRITISH R&B singer featuring Ludacris (hip hop). Number 5, that is B.o.B again. 6. Rihanna dance pop, R&B, electropop whatever. Number 7 is Train, ROCK. 8 Ke$ha, 9. 3OH!3 Featuring Ke$ha both electropop. Number 10 Lady Antebellum: Contemporary Country. Godsmack debuted at number 1 this week on the Billboard 200 album chart another example of that rock music that has been pushed out of the mainstream. AC/DC and (Carole King and James Taylor) are also Billboard 200 top ten, two very different variations of rock music. Electropop has done very well lately in America on its own and as a influence which is great, but please do some very basic research before making ridicules statements. Edkollin (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

about this..[edit]

yea andy and teacherease are....... yea well as it is one of the biggest genres in America now, its also popular worldwide, not just there so, edkollin should add something about it being popular worldwide, not just in the UK & the US. Because, i am from Canada and it's HUGE here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indieiseasy (talkcontribs) 18:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't depend on other people if you have an idea. Find some reliable sources for these claims and add this information yourself. This sounds like very good addition for the article Edkollin (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Synthpop and Electropop articles?[edit]

The two read almost identical to one another, so merging the two would make logical sense. ---- 71.254.118.175 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

stylistic origins, derivative forms[edit]

mr 86.5.75.208 :"electro and techno are instrumental and nothing to do with pop" hello? this article is about Electropop....not about Pop. electro and techno owe an awoful lot to electropop in terms of SOUND and STYLE. (4/4, electro sound, beats , synth bass, grooves and the futuristic innovative approach) both the electro and techno wiki articles mention synthpop (therefore even more so electropop) in their stylistic origin . and btw there was more than a few electropop& technopop tunes which were instrumentals . in case u didn't know also kraftwerk were labelled as electropop/technopop at the time ;)(in their 19878-1983 period) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.148.66 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Be civil. This means no name calling
"both the electro and techno wiki articles mention synthpop (therefore even more so electropop) in their stylistic origin". Hopefully those articles have reliable sourcing that can be used for cites here. Edkollin (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pop Punk[edit]

The article claims that Pop-Punk is a stylistic origin for electropop which I find dubious since Pop-Punk is a not an electronic genre in anyway. If there is no disagreement about this in the next few days I will delete that claim. Edkollin (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it. If you find confirmation for the claim please put it back Edkollin (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What's with the recent change to the 'Stylistic Origins' box?[edit]

I haven't been back here for a while, but the Stylist Orig. box used to have separate lists for the 70s-80s incarnation of Electropop and the current incarnation. Now it's just one list which seems more oriented on the modern "Electropop".

And as a side note, I'm pretty sure I've seen this "genre" listed in the Wikipedia profile of every commercially successful artist and song from the last 5 years. Does anyone know where the sudden obsession with this term originated? Theburning25 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My memory is hazy but the separate origins lasted a brief amount of time. "Reliable sources" never have separated the two. On your side note "reliable sources" are not above in engaging in pack journalism. Edkollin (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the "Citation needed" in every sentences[edit]

The will be removed 00:00 +8H GMT due to flooding and confusion with this article. No opposition needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.154 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

that's not how it works, find citations, or the text will eventually be excised. Best not remove tags

without first addressing the issues highlighted. --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger with Synthpop[edit]

significant overlap, no citations to support the notion that this is somehow a "genre" distinct from synthpop. See here for possible reason for this confusion, it boils down to a difference in journalistic terminology used in the US at the time, relative to that employed in the UK (the latter being the main exporter of synthpop in the early 80s). It is exactly the same genre of the music that is being referred to, but if someone can come up with valid citations that support a clear distinction, all the better. --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been floated several times. Can we actually do it this time and sort out the confusion. There is good evidence here that they are different terms for the same thing. If there are differences of emphasis we can deal with those in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree merger is a good idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Synthpop is a completely different genre in my opinion. But if you guys want to merge, it's up to you. Sinfully Wickid (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
At the moment we have evidence that they are the same, if you have any evidence to the contrary now would be a good time to present it.--SabreBD (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It was considered a sub genre in the 1980s. This is 2011 and I have seen no evidence that it is considered distinct now. Edkollin (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Synthpop has sort of evolved into Electropop, I agree. But Disco has evolved into house. Doesn't mean that they still aren't two genres. Sinfully Wickid (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, please supply evidence. Also it would help if you used colons to indent in a discussion rather than stars which create a bullet point.--SabreBD (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
But house acts late 1980's forward are described as "house" not "disco". "Synthpop" and "Electropop" seemed to be used in 2011 interchangeably.(Electropop used more,"indie dance" occasionally in the U.S.) Don't have a problem with the merged article saying they used to be distinct if reliable sourcing can be found, which will be tough. Edkollin (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with the merge. --Waldir talk 18:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
If this is consensus, can we go ahead with the merger or are other steps needed? If so, I'm volunteering to write the merged article but I'd like others who know more than me to help me with it and give advice; but I have other projects so I can't do it right away, but soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Its probably a good idea to wait for 5-7 days as a minimum, since not everyone checks Wikipedia on a daily basis.--SabreBD (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've never done this before, so please forgive me for any formatting errors. I've currently been doing an assignment on Electropop, and coincidentally, the differences from Synthpop. Now, I've not found much, but the only definitive source which differentiates between the two is [2]. However, after listening to pieces listed as either for some time, there IS a slight difference in sound-based texture. Unlike the articles given, I find that synth-pop further exploits the sensation of artificiality, and generally electro-pop is more melodic. This is not definitive, and an actual musicologist should be found. In any case, a merger would severely mess up the information I am compiling right now, which I may share if I remember once I finish. To also mess things further up, t should also be noted that this [3] info. states electropop and disco as the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.230.167 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lady Gaga Book is a book about her not necessarily about the genre so a complementary source might be needed. The other is a textbook for budding musicians so would carry some weight and yes does mess things up as no source directly says the terms are the same thing. Whatever the future holds the Hollin Jones book does provide a source for many things that have been uncited and adds some electropop groups and electropop influenced groups we don't list so a rewrote parts of the article we do have based on the book. Edkollin (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Motorpop?[edit]

Synthpop has another term, motorpop, but it's rarely used, so, it's disregarded usually. 121.54.32.133 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Defining the Genre[edit]

Dance-Pop - Carly Rae Jepsen Katy Perry Demi Lovato Selena Gomez

Synth-Pop - Tegan and Sara Owl City Ellie Goulding Robyn

Electro Pop - Lady Gaga Britney Spears Charli XCX Girls Generation Cascada(circ.2009)

Electroclash - Fischerspooner Scissor Sisters (early)

Electro House - Martin Garrix Zedd Robin Porter Deadmau5

Electro - Afrika Bambaataa

Electronica - Kraftwerk Boards of Canada Brian Eno

Just so no one merges this page with any of these genres because they are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshirisu (talkcontribs) 01:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Kraftwerk and Brian Eno, electronica? They're clearly not: "In North America, in the late 1990s, the mainstream music industry adopted and to some extent manufactured electronica as an umbrella term encompassing styles such as techno, big beat, drum and bass, trip hop, downtempo, and ambient,..." What have to do a marketing term invented in late 90s with some classic 70s artists? Deepblue1 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The artists listed here are mainly recent ones, but how are the origins of synthpop different from the origins of electropop? If I understand correctly, electropop is Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Kesha, also Ellie Goulding's "Burn", etc... Where did this sound come from? 2001:1470:FAC2:526:59C7:D1A5:CF3E:455B (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Good thing this page was un-merged[edit]

Whoever merged Electropop with Synthpop is completely wrong. The genres are considerably different in their sounds,origins, and production. If anything should be merged with Synthpop it should be New Wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshirisu (talkcontribs) 23:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Information[edit]

  • Infrared sounds are sounds that can not be heard by the human ear. It is lower than sub bass. Electropop uses low frequency synthesizers (such as synth bass) but not inaudible frequencies.
  • By listing almost every electronic music genre on the Stylistic Origins section in the infobox crowded up the infobox. Most of these genres did not have any sources and had little relevance to the Electropop genre.
  • Vocaloid is a vocal synthesizer used a certain type of anime/Jpop music and not electropop music. It should not be included on this page.
  • A bitcrusher is not a musical instrument it is an audio effect.
  • A DAW or a digital audio workstation is a type of software that allows for the production, editing, and recording of music. While it may contain software synthesizers and tools used in the creation of electropop and other styles of music it is generally not considered an instrument.

Thanks for your contributions.

"Typical instruments"[edit]

The instruments parameter in the infobox should contain the instruments that are verifiably part of the genre. Wikipedia requires all information in the encyclopedia to be verifiable, which means there should be sources discussing how an instrument is part of the genre. If there are no sources, then the parameter should remain blank.

Furthermore, the instruments parameter has no guideline at Template:Infobox music genre, which is unfortunate. Such a guideline would tell us whether to put an exhaustive list of every instrument that can be used in electropop, or only the instruments that appear in 100% of electropop, or somewhere in between those two extremes, for instance, an instrument that appears in a majority of the songs in the genre.

Still, the basic problem is one of finding sources that actually discuss instruments in the genre, not sources that mention instruments in passing—not ones that mention instruments used on a particular song or album. Instead, the sources should be talking about the genre and about typical instruments used in the genre. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"New section"[edit]

Why there is a "New section" tab link on the regular article for "Electropop"? It really bugs me at all to have a "New section" link on the regular Wikipedia articles?--67.101.6.238 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The regular article for "Electropop" is not a talk page.--67.101.6.238 (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Because this 25 January 2015 edit added the magic word behavior switch __NEWSECTIONLINK__ to the page. I have no idea why they did that. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless it was an unintended side-effect of making an edit using Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, my instincts were right: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Stop adding various magicwords FORCETOC, NOEDITSECTION, INDEX and NEWSECTIONLINK. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electropop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)