# Talk:Experimental pop

Hey user:ilovetopaint, re that last reversion: WP:SYNTH applies to synthesizing multiple sources into statements—I simply summarized the general contents of the article into a lead summary—that's what the lead is supposed to do! If there's anywhere I editorialized, revert that, but I don't see the problem. Also, the term "experimental pop" seems to have already been defined generally enough by the first sentence, the other two you've returned seem pretty oblique and unrelated to the contents of the article, plus they are derived from singular books, no real consensus and therefore no reason to privilege them in the lead. The historical summary, however, speaks for itself.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1) I dislike the idea of naming specific artists in a lead unless it's undeniable that they "invented" the genre so to speak, like Dick Dale with surf music and MBV with shoegaze. Zappa, Barrett, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles are also mentioned as significant figures in ex-pop, yet they're mysteriously glossed over? Another thing about that is that it's an invitation for WP:GENREWARRIOR. Pretty much everyone who reads the paragraph sentence is going to see it as some "recommendations list" and try to edit in their favorite bands. 2) The revision makes new claims like:
"Brian Wilson pioneered art pop"
"Experimental pop blossomed in the late 1960s"
"Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, Laurie Anderson, and My Bloody Valentine would continue exploring integrations of pop music with experimentalism."
None of these statements are explicitly said in the article. They're implied, but they're not actually said. And again, why those musicians specifically? I also don't believe that "experimentalism" is synonymous with "experimentation". "Experimental pop" is different from "experimentalism in popular music". No such thing could exist.
I can only find three sources in this article that would work in the lead:
"Bill Martin wrote that experimental pop developed at roughly the same time as experimental jazz, and that it emerged as "a new kind of avant-garde" made possible by the historical and material circumstances of its time. ... By the late 1960s, highly experimental pop music, or sounds that expanded the idea of the typical popular song, was welcomed by young audiences ... Writer Owen Hatherley located a "literary-experimental pop tradition" running throughout the UK during the 1970s and 1980s.  ... this tradition "balanced sexuality and literacy, ostentatious performance and austere rectitude, raging ambition and class resentment, translating it into records balancing experimentation with populist cohesion."
If you can briefly summarize these claims in the lead, then go for it, but then the history would be cut off at the 1980s, which would look weird.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:ilovetopaint Hey I looked to see if there were any sources equating "avant-pop" with "experimental pop" (in the same way as the avant/experimental rock page), as it would definitely allow for a bunch of constructive additions to the page, such as this. Only source I found explicitly equating the two is this record label's page ("Avant-pop is experimental pop music"), but it's done in a non-promotional way (i.e. they're just explicitly defining the term, not labeling one of their artists etc), wondering if you think that's a "credible" enough source to make the connection.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No sorry, I had the same thought and couldn't find anything. Maybe something will turn up eventually--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This page needs to be merged with avant-pop they are synonymous terms. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)