# Talk:Chamber pop

Uhh... what's an Association of Chamber Pop? Not to overestimate google test, but for the genre name that widely used it should show up at least a few links to prove its existence (not to mention notability).
Since both the current content and the nomination seem thorougly flawed, I'm reverting to the redirect it once was. Hoping someday this topic gets a good article it deserves. Squeal 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Chamber pop/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article contains significant close paraphrasing/copyvio of multiple sources, particularly AllMusic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried, again, to rephrase the article contents. Remember that sticking to the sources and presenting the facts in standard sequences is not copyvio.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
But mirroring their expression may be. What is in the article is absolutely close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Drawing heavily from the lush, orchestrated work of performers including Brian Wilson, Burt Bacharach, and Lee Hazlewood... chamber pop placed a renewed emphasis on melody and production, as artists layered their baroque, ornate songs with richly textured orchestral strings and horns, all the while virtually denying the very existence of grunge, electronica" and "Influenced by the lush orchestrations of Burt Bacharach, Brian Wilson, and Lee Hazlewood, artists focused a renewed effort on melody and production, layering their songs with instruments like strings and horns while rejecting the development of simultaneous musical movements like grunge and electronica". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I broke up the sentence. Are there any other unacceptable spots?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but we might need to take a step back: your change didn't actually eliminate the problem. I'd suggest reading through this guidance before continuing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? I'm at a loss. There are only so many ways to configure simple statements of fact like "[music] was influenced by/drew on/based on [artist]", "the orchestrations of [artist] were lush/rich/layered". I've tried, yet again, to fix the alleged problem. If it's still an issue, I'm going to need someone to show me how this can possibly be resolved.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Seriously. Unique turns of phrase like "lo-fi aesthetic" can be quoted if there's no good way to rephrase, but means of expressing and combining facts should otherwise be original. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:LIMITED: "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact." We don't need to quote "lo-fi aesthetic" if we're forced to write something ridiculous like "artistic principle or taste which had attuned itself with a type of sound quality inferior to the majority of professionally recorded audio".
The lead already looks different enough from the AllMusic bio. There's no way to make it any more unique unless we remove half of its simple facts. Inspired by Burt Bacharach and lounge revival. Emphasizes melody and production. Avoids concurrent music movements.-Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
See the last paragraph of WP:LIMITED. The paraphrasing here is definitely far better than it was, but "Inspired in part by the lounge-music revival but with a complete absence of irony or kitsch" (article: "inspired partly by the 1990s lounge music revival, but without the irony or kitsch") is clearly more creative than "He was born in 1949". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a very tedious process. Are there any other examples left in the article?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I've rephrased the lead as an example. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Right so... there are no more issues...?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Getting there, but I'd prefer to see some further revisions to the article body. You mentioned above that you'd like to see an example of how this might be done - does the lead rewrite suffice? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really, all you did was remove simple facts (focused on melody and production / uses elaborate orchestra and voices / more complex than rock songs) and modify "concurrent music movements" to "contemporary genres". If what you're suggesting is to delete half the article, then I think other editors should weigh in and see whether this is really an issue.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
That is not what I'm suggesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

'typically more complex', 'intricate', 'intimate, precisely arranged'...
hyperbole without reinforcement from actual examples. the article doesn't even mention (beyond a quote about 'bluesy clamor') breaking the 'three chords & the truth' paradigm of most rock music & a lot of pop.
neither does it contrast this supposedly sophisticated genre with other departures from standard pop forms, e.g. prog-rock, or the symphonic rock of mike oldfield, the enid & others.
it's a reasonable first draft at the moment, with some of the right names & some of the right quotes, but it lacks analytical rigor; where are all the musicologists on wp?
duncanrmi (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)