# Talk:Synth-pop

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Here's a request. Make it acknowledge that the spelling "synthpop" is also used. That's used in article headlines as mentioned below, and is very common.71.236.206.225 (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I swear few months ago it was synthpop. Why change it?

It should be 'Synthpop' if you are taking about the British music scene and British synth music a la 'Synth Britannia' on BBC: Four
"Documentary following a generation of post-punk musicians who took the synthesiser from the experimental fringes to the centre of the pop stage.
"In the late 1970s, small pockets of electronic artists including The Human League, Daniel Miller and Cabaret Voltaire were inspired by Kraftwerk and JG Ballard, and they dreamt of the sound of the future against the backdrop of bleak, high-rise Britain".
"The crossover moment came in 1979 when Gary Numan's appearance on Top of the Pops with Tubeway Army's Are 'Friends' Electric? heralded the arrival of synthpop. Four lads from Basildon known as Depeche Mode would come to own the new sound, whilst post-punk bands like Ultravox, Soft Cell, OMD and Yazoo took the synth out of the pages of NME and onto the front page of Smash Hits. By 1983, acts like Pet Shop Boys and New Order were showing that the future of electronic music would lie in dance music. Contributors include Philip Oakey, Vince Clarke, Martin Gore, Bernard Sumner, Gary Numan and Neil Tennant".
It was Synthpop, because in the UK it was in the naming style of Electropop, Britpop, Eurodance et al (alternatively I suppose it would have been 'Synth. Pop' in the style of 'Alt. Rock', 'Alt. 90s' and 'Alt. 00s' or Synth Pop in the style of New Wave, Heavy Metal without the hyphen, as bizarrely the hyphen only ever seemed to be used when talking about genres that have come over from America like Hip-Hop or used instead of a slash like in the case of Hip-House i.e. 'that Beatmasters record its a bit Hip-Hop, its a bit House', though both Hip-Hop and Hip-House are now used without a hyphen on here). I also suppose it was Synthpop because it was originally a form of alternative music that became TOTP-worthy and found in the charts but not cheese (I hope I am using that hyphen in TOTP-worthy correctly!).
However the word 'Synthpop' is handy without the hyphen when you're dealing with the online argument that "Don't You Want Me was the first synthpop Number 1". I do not have the link to the thread to hand, but some people said "Cars" was 'Proto-Synthpop' (as Numan was not 'happy, shiny poptastic POP!'), which some may agree with, some disagree with...however it becomes hard on the eyes if people are writing Proto-synth-pop and putting millions of hyphens and dashes all over the place (I suppose some other people could argue that "Cars" was not synth-pop and just 'synth', especially if that hyphen is being used as a slash... which would make "Don't You Want Me" a record that's a little bit 'synthy' and a little bit pop because its made by alt. boys who have teamed up with pop girls)
It doesn't really matter if people want to use synthpop or synth-pop, but keep to one style guide, don't be like Wired Magazine and have a headline that says "Proto Synthpop Turned Yellow Magic Orchestra Into Godfathers of Electro" before adding "You're mistaken if you think synth-pop started with Devo. In the '70s, YMO used tools like a programmable drum machine and a synthesizer to create a unique sound" . Please keep to synthpop and electropop or synth-pop and electro-pop, don't mix it up...same goes for Hip-Hop and any other music genre where this is a problem, however being British (and from a pre-internet age of CDs and Tapes) I would go for synthpop and electropop if I was setting a style guide, though it may also be true that 'writers are overusing hyphens' these days, please see "Dash it!" by Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times for more info on that matter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.75 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It should at least be mentioned that both spellings are used.71.236.206.225 (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think the article should be renamed to synthpop to be consistent with the spelling of related genres.. See also Talk:Synth-pop/Archive 1#Synth pop vs. Synthpop Solidest (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Synth-pop. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://ecentral.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F3%2F2%2Fmusic%2F16390129&sec=music
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604184727/http://www.pucchronicle.com/k-pop-splashes-into-the-west-1.2741892 to http://www.pucchronicle.com/k-pop-splashes-into-the-west-1.2741892
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

He was talking about the synthesizer, not the synthpop genre.
He reneged on his position and eventually used synthesizers.[1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.54.92.144 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Did he though? From what I understand after reading the There is a Light That Never Goes Out article, Johnny Marr played the synthesizer to emulate classical elements, and I believe is the only song, or one of few songs by The Smiths to feature a synthesizer, which could be because the band didn't have enough time to bring a full fledged orchestra on board, or didn't want to use one, so brought in a synthesizer to give the song classical instruments feel. The song itself is not synthpop as the synth itself does not appear until closer to the end of the song, and carries the song until is abruptly ends when it seems like it's going to slowly fade out. With the synth only being used to give the song an orchestra feel, it cannot classify as synthpop, but rather symphonic rock, which could be seen as a precursor of sorts due to it using synthesizers to give rock songs a classical feel, especially so with progressive rock bands such as Moody Blues with Nights in White Satin. Moline1 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop! Lets discuss the optimal description here.
My view is that there is a close association between Synth-pop and New Wave but that the AllMusic reference is utterly insufficient to establish one as a subgenre of the other. It is a short description with no named author. Much better references are needed if we are to make such a definite claim. If better references can be found then I will concede the point but they would need to be proper WP:RS sources.
Plausible arguments can be made that early Synth-pop pre-dates New Wave, although their heydays are closely related. The vagueness of the term New Wave makes this hard to sort out. The association is probably the best point to make in the lead. What we need to do is start the article with an uncontroversial statement and only delve into any controversy later on. Without researching better sources I'd be recommend something like this:

"Synth-pop (short for synthesizer pop;[3] also called techno-pop[4][5]) is a genre of pop music that became prominent in the late 1970s and was closely associated with new wave music."
Of course, we need better references and if those guide us to something different then that is where we should go.
If there really is a radically different definition of the terms in the US and the UK then we need to reference this properly. We also need to remember that other countries exist and might have views on the matter too. Personally, I suspect that this is really just a difference of emphasis, not a fundamental difference in definition. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You’re absolutely correct.  Synth-pop is a standalone genre of pop music, not just a subgenre of new wave. There are many synth-pop acts who aren't new wave, and many other, smaller genres that are classified as "genres", not "subgenres". Furthermore, on the wiki page for new wave, synth-pop is listed under "derivative forms" alongside other independent genres like alternative dance, rather than under "subgenres", causing internal inconsistency. Also, the page “list of synth-pop artists” describes it as a “genre”, not “subgenre”. Even the page itself, “Synth-pop”, notes that “It arose as a distinct genre in Japan and the United Kingdom” literally two sentences later and repeatedly refers to it as a “genre”. In short, the current description is most insensible and in dire need of changing, so I shall do so at once; if anyone objects, please respond here. In order to recognise the ambiguity of the issue I shall describe it as “a genre of new wave music *or* pop music”, similar to how hi-NRG is described as a “genre of uptempo disco *or* electronic dance music (EDM).” I have also added a quote from a reliable source (which also repeatedly describes it as a “genre”, not subgenre) on synth-pop’s status describing its relation to pop music in the same league as new wave - the relationship is up for contention, so both should be included on Wikipedia instead of relying on a single source (the AllMusic page) as one does now. Janglyguitars (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
As written on the Allmusic website, synth-pop is a subgenre. UserFlash (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
In addition, new wave music itself evolved from pop music. UserFlash (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
According to the procedures in Wikipedia, you should have opened a new discussion and not responded to an old discussion. UserFlash (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The AllMusic reference may say that, but, as put by DanielRigal, it is "utterly insufficient to establish one as a subgenre of the other." In the UK, synthpop/electropop was considered an entirely separate phenomenon from the New Wave, which referred to late 70s/early 80s punkish pop bands like Buzzcocks and The Jam. AllMusic may be widely used on Wikipedia, but it is an American site and reflects the incredibly loose American usage of the term new wave. Indeed, the other source used as a citation, the book Music in the 20th Century, does not in fact refer to synthpop as a new wave "subgenre", but rather part of the "umbrella term" usage of new wave which included "power-pop groups" as well as "myriad synthesizer-pop bands". Curiously, the Wikipedia page for power pop does not describe it as a "subgenre of new wave", nor even list new wave amongst the "stylistic origins" section of the page. For consistency's sake, it really ought to if we are to describe synthpop as a new wave subgenre, but clearly we would be mistaken in both cases. Also, note the source says "myriad synthesizer-pop bands", not "all" such bands, implying that even using the term as loosely as possible, there were still some synthpop groups who would not have qualified as new wave. This I think is inarguable, and probably the strongest reason why Wikipedia should not describe synthpop as merely a "new wave" subgenre. The 80s Eurodisco group Modern Talking, for instance, has synth-pop listed as one of its genres, but no sane person would ever claim this group had anything to do with new wave (indeed, such a group encapsulated much of what Punk/New Wave sought to destroy). Yet the reader of Modern Talking's page, clicking on synth-pop under the list of genres, is directed to a page which describes it as a "subgenre of new wave music", which is fundamentally untrue and misleading in implying that this group had any relation to new wave whatsoever. Wikipedia should not be in the business of misleading its readers like this. Synth-pop, as the name implies, is fundamentally its own genre of pop music, just like dance-pop and any number of "-pop" genres. The fact that new wave is also a form of pop music does not make them the same thing. Even the page "Category:Synth-pop new wave musical groups" describes synthpop as "a distinct genre during the new wave era of the late-1970s to the mid-1980s." For this reason, I think DanielRigal's proposal of describing synthpop as a "a genre of pop music that became prominent in the late 1970s and was closely associated with new wave music" is best, though failing that my proposal of "genre of new wave music or pop music" is reasonable as a compromise. To refer back to DanielRigal once again, the German page for synth-pop does not mention new wave at all in its lead and the French one does not claim it as a subgenre, so why should the English page be so uniquely wrongheaded? Janglyguitars (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and speaking of other countries, the Wikipedia articles in other languages might be worth looking at. The German one does not mention new wave in its lead while the French one does but not as prominently as in our article and does not claim it as a sub-genre. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think they are synonym!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 
And Allmusic has clearly mentioned synthpop is subgenre of new wave, But FreakyBoy hasn't given any reliable sources!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.193.18.34 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC) 

The blind are leading the blind here, it seems. Regard this revert by Moonsun147258. First of all, no explanation is given: that is disruptive. Second, and here is the good part, it restores proper parameters to some of the citation templates. Third, it removes--and this is the rub--this source added by FreakyBoy. That source is here, page 374. Problem is that the source is awful. It's a selection of conference papers, which--academically speaking--means they shouldn't be cited. The article is about "Detection of Communities with Multi-Semantics in Large Attributed Networks; fuck me if I know what that is, but it's not an article about synthpop, that's for sure. Moreover, it's not even written in proper English--it wouldn't pass in Freshman Comp, it's so incompetent grammatically. What it is supposed to verify is that synth-pop is some sort of spawn of electronic music and pop, and not a child of new wave (who cares...); what it says is "synth pop music origins from "new wave," "post-punk," and is popular in "80s."" In other words (I could parse this more but it's getting boring): no. The source is not to be used (deriving it's knowledge from a word cloud), and it doesn't even verify what it's supposed to verify. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, neither source should be used in that case?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyBoy (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 

I don't know about AllMusic, I have no opinion, but DanielRigal is no fool. Surely it can't be hard to find good sources. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
There is good literature on the topic ([2], for instance), but I'm afraid Wikipedia editors are more likely to look for simple one-liners to nail down some genre. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Even though it not really about the relationship between new wave and synthpop, please read 'Why Synthwave Isn’t Synthpop (And Why It Matters)' on ironskullet by Preston Avery (June 12, 2019). Avery might be overly 'precious' when it comes to synthpop, synthwave and darkwave...but Avery does make some important points and talks about synthpop's relationship to new wave, industrial, EBM and mainstream 80s pop.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If "Kraftwerk" were the first to play a Synth Pop, Germany should to be the ONLY pionner of this music genre. Yellow Magic Orchestra only copied the European idea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesternUniverse (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC) 

When did synthpop originate? The late 1960's or 1977-80, as is currently listed in the article? If you listen to Popcorn by Gershon Kingsly from 1969 and Hot Butter in 1972, and Dream Weaver and Love is Alive, both by Gary Wright, they are all synthpop. Let's also not forget the Clockwork Orange soundtrack which is also all synth music. This concludes it originated in the late 1960's in a basic form, but did not adopt all of its elements to make it complete until the late 1970's when new wave burst onto the scene. I edited the years to say Late 1960's-Early 80's (to account for synthpop's development during that timeframe), along with the aforementioned songs as being the reason for changing it, but someone reverted it saying those songs don't constitute synthpop and that the years are correct along with a Rolling Stone source. While they are certainly credible, I feel they don't capture synthpop's origins in the aforementioned songs. So, what do you guys think? Should we keep the years at 1977-80, or should we change it to Late 1960's-Early 80's to account for those aforementioned songs and the arrival of new wave? Heck, on the synthrock page, it says that has been around since the late 1960's, however, in actuality, that is not true. People are probably conflating synthrock and progressive rock and saying progressive rock was originally termed for music that would be otherwise termed synthrock, however, progressive rock synthesizers were used to give the song's a classical/symphonic feel, and not in the way they would be following synthpop's dominance. So, we can safely say synthpop originated in the late 1960's as there is credible evidence to that, however, there is no credible evidence that a rock band in the late 1960's-1970's used a synthesizer outside of the progressive rock/orchestra rock setting. Plus, the synthrock article is very bare bones that it would almost make better sense to merge it here with a section on it along with synthpunk, rather than it having its own article, especially if it's not as in-depth as this one is. I tried making it more in-depth by including rock bands that used a synthesizer prominently to give it a head start, but it was reverted as unsourced.Moline1 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"Popcorn" and Gary Wright are not synthpop, even though it is right to mention "Popcorn" in the history of Electronic Music, just like Paul Hartnoll did last night on Trailblazers Of Electronic Music (alongside Chicory Tip), though "Popcorn" is more of a cheesy novelty thing. I think some people are getting mixed up between Synthpop (in the British 80s sense) and records that have a synthesizer/electronic keyboards/Bontempi organ on it. For example take Kajagoogoo...on here it says that Kajagoogoo/kædʒəˈɡuːɡuː/ were a British new wave band, best known for their 1983 hit single "Too Shy" (and a synth-pop act as well). Where this might be the case in the USA, they were just a pop band in UK. Yes, they had a bloke on keyboards (and also the keyboardist from Duran Duran producing a lot of their records), but if that bloke with the 'fancy organ' has pressed the Shakatak-setting on their keyboard for a lot of their tracks, are they really synthpop or new wave? Combined with the fact that it states that synthpop 'features synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument' on here, then Kajagoogoo are probably not synthpop as for a lot of the time the dominant musical instrument on a Kajagoogoo record is the 'bass', with the bloke on keyboards at the back doing his Shakatak thing and Nick Beggs out front playing with his stick. Therefore Kajagoogoo are as synthpop and new wave as they are jazz-funk (see Shakatak and especially see Level 42 - who are not synthpop or new wave even though they've got Mike Lindup on keys and have been credited as such), which is just silly. A lot of this is the Scouting for Girls argument but with keyboards and not guitars...but I suppose that's the problem with having such an ambiguous term that is used differently on both sides of the Atlantic...it would have been better for someone to have given it a 'locked down' name representing a time, place and scene...it would have been less troublesome if the journos had called it 'Mini Metro' (with reference to The 80s with Dominic Sandbrook there).
By the way Trailblazers Of Electronic Music started of their history in 1920s Soviet Russia and only mentioned synthpop once (even though it was a show featuring interviews with people like Andy McCluskey, Paul Humphreys and Wolfgang Flür)...in regards to 'punky new wavers' Blondie having a 'Synth-Pop-Disco' sound on "Heart Of Glass".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

please change ((Dutch)) to ((Netherlands|Dutch)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Very biased article with poor research and musical understanding. First of all, instrumental synthpop in Europe predates the British origin starting in about 1978 however due to language barrier and less competitive music industry European acts especially French and Belgian aren't as well know but musically they are the originators. Instrumental pop of Fredric Mercier, Jacno, Telex, vocal pop of Lio and one song of Plastic Bertrand from 1978 which can be considered first vocal synthpop song are neglected. Secondly synthpop didn't influence dance music to a great extent, space, italo and electronic disco along with hi NRG are the direct progenitors of EDM, house, techno and trance and there are many pre 1979 examples of instrumental synth/space disco, dance and hi NRG having the important features of these genres. The articles seems to portray a very layman narrative of music with no deep insight. Sharjeel.k126 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a point there. Even though I am from the UK I would not say the pre-1980s origins of synthpop music are not British, though the 80s idea of synthpop (where this alternative music became chart pop on TOTP/Kid's TV then 'sold on' to America thanks largely to the development of MTV) was could be seen as a British development, though one less about music (apart the fact its electronic music with a lack of guitars) and something more cultural, socio-political and to do with the economics of the time.  For example Synth Britainia is very much a story from the post-punk/New Wave-era and not really about teen pop/chart pop/cheesy pop. That programme has synthpop's roots being with Kraftwerk (i.e. European), with the soundtrack of A Clockwork Orange also important (even though the book was by Anthony Burgess, I wouldn't call A Clockwork Orange a wholly British film especially with the involvement of Stanley Kubrick [OK he had moved to the UK and didn't like flying back to the USA, but he wasn't making especially 'British' films e.g. Carry On... films, even if the subject matter was] and Warner Brothers.
It might be the case that synthpop (an alternative independent music scene and style) and synth-pop (pop music with a lot of synth) are two different  things but with a lot of acts overlapping...so maybe you should do an article called 'European Synthpop' and leave this article to the American viewpoint and the 'MTV-friendly Haircut Bands' (regardless of them being British or not).
For less commercial stuff from the UK, may I point you in the direction of Cherry Red's Electrical Language: Independent British Synth Pop 78-84:
WINDPOWER – Thomas Dolby
SCIENCE FICTION – Alan Burnham
WARM LEATHERETTE – The Normal
STAY WITH ME TONIGHT – Alex Fergusson
TARANTULA – Colourbox
FANTASY – 100% Manmade Fibre
BANDWAGON TANGO – Testcard F
ELECTRICAL LANGUAGE – Be-Bop Deluxe
THE WORLD – Dalek I
HONOUR AMONG THIEVES – Chain Of Command
RED FRAME/WHITE LIGHT – Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark
RED CASTLES – The Legendary Pink Dots
LIFES ILLUSION – Ice The Falling Rain
THE HUMAN FACTOR – Music For Pleasure
SHE’S AN IMAGE – Poeme Electronique
I’M THINKING OF YOU NOW – Box Of Toys
THE PLANET DOESN’T MIND – New Musik
HOPE DEEP INSIDE – Schleimer K
THE DISTANCE FROM KÖLN – Native Europe
TECHNICAL MIRACLE – Voice Of Authority
CIRCUS OF DEATH – The Human League
XOYO – The Passage
CROWDS – A Popular History Of Signs
OCTOBER (LOVE SONG) – Chris And Cosey
FEEL SO YOUNG – Laugh Clown Laugh
CROATIA – Basking Sharks
MR NOBODY – Thomas Leer
RICKY’S HAND – Fad Gadget
HYPNOTIC RHYTHM – Local Boy Makes Good
DROWNING IN BERLIN – The Mobiles
EVEN NOW – Edward Ka-Spel
LYING NEXT TO YOU – Passion Polka
RABIES – Naked Lunch
DO IT – The Limit
WORK SONG – Robert Calvert
BABY WON’T PHONE – Quadrascope
IT HAPPENED THEN – Electronic Ensemble
IN THE MORNING – Jeanette
NIGHTLIFE – Those Attractive Magnets
MY COO CA CHOO – Beasts In Cages
YOUR LOVE IS LIKE A SLUG – The Bodhi-Beat Poets
VEIL LIKE CALM – Eyeless In Gaza
DESTITUTION – Camera Obscura
GOOD TIMES – Drinking Electricity
HAPPYFAMILIES – Zoo Boutique
FEELS LIKE WINTER AGAIN – Fiat Lux
FALLING DOWNSTAIRS – Colin Potter
OUR LITTLE GIRL – David Harrow
IT NEVER RAINS IN OUTER SPACE – Futurhythm
ZENNOR – Goat
VIDEOMATIC – Final Program
TADDY UP – Pink Industry
YOU DON’T LOOK THE SAME – Play
CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION – The Fast Set
TRACE OF RED – Two
LYING HERE – Shox
DAYTIME ASSASSINS – The Builders
BEATING HEART (12″ VERSION) – Section 25
ABSENT FRIENDS – Joe Crow
JAMAICA DAY – Faction
GENERATOR (LASERBEAM) – Tim Blake
TOUCH – Lori And The Chameleons
THE SECRET AFFAIR – Jupiter Red
I’M YOUR MAN – Blue Zoo
EVEN ROSES HAVE THORNS – Jesus Couldn’t Drum
PAINT IT BLACK – Techno Pop
CHASE THE DRAGON – Kevin Harrison
OTHER PASSENGERS – Thirteen At Midnight
YOUR VOICE – Freeze Frame
STAY WITH YOU – Time In Motion
LIVE WIRES KILL – The Toy Shop
SURFACE TENSION – Analysis
TIME – Paul Haig
CONTEMPLATION – Solid Space
COMMITTED TO VINYL – Martin O’Cuthbert
LOOK DON’T TOUCH – Science
THE WISHING TREE (MEGATREE MIX) – Charlie’s Brother
WORKING MODEL – The Quarks
THERE’S SOMEONE FOLLOWING ME – Eddie & Sunshine
HAPPY XMAS (WAR IS OVER) – Hybrid Kids  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.75 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

On wiki there are articles for British jazz, British hip hop, British soul, British rock music, British rock and roll, Britpop, British rhythm and blues, British pop music and British popular music...now if there are so many differences between what the terms new wave and synthpop mean to people in the UK and USA, shouldn't there be articles about these popular genres viewed only from a British perspective, maybe called British punk and new wave and British synthpop (with obviously no hyphens used).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 

Is Nick Kamen's Each Time You Break My Heart (his last hit according to the introduction today on Pick of the Pops) really synth-pop? The reviewer for the record said that the Dance mix was "light synth-pop"...but this is not the main single, which just sound like some bloke singing Madonna. However Madonna's albums from the period come under the following genres...

Pop/dance-pop/dance-rock/post-disco/Dance
...so there must be a genre discription missing. Note: "I Promised Myself" sounds like an Erasure B-side so that's alright (though its listed under Synth-pop and pop rock)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 

To quote Preston Avery (see below)
"This confusion was further compounded in the ‘80s as early synthpop was incorporated into a larger melting pot of commercial music that blended the characteristics of synthpop and new wave with funk, soul, hip-hop, and a high number of other styles. As the genres evolved into newer and increasingly unrelated styles, a lack of familiarity with synthpop’s origins and defining characteristics caused the synthpop label to be passed along indecisively to new genres. The Pointer Sisters’ 1984 album Break Out is a great example of this melting pot of music ideas, and it contains previously unrelated genre elements like R&B and synthpop alongside one another on the very same songs. Despite the influences of synthpop on the album, however, none of the entries on Break Out can be properly classified within the genre, and it is more accurate to refer to it as “‘80s commercial pop” or simply “‘80s pop.”

Isn't this the same for Nick Kamen's "Each Time You Break My Heart" and other similar records from around the time.

With reference to Why Synthwave Isn’t Synthpop (And Why It Matters) by Preston Avery (Ironskullet June 12, 2019) and the synthpop/synthwave genre map shouldn't the 'See Also' section be as follows...


### See also
Chillwave
Dance-pop
Darkwave
Electronic body music
Electropop
Industrial music
Schaffel beat, triplet feel popularised in electronic music
Synthwave
Vaporwave
Wonky pop

Change: "In 1971 the British movie A Clockwork Orange was released with a synth soundtrack by American Wendy Carlos. It was the first time many in the United Kingdom had heard electronic music."
To:
"Excepting the theme of the popular show Doctor Who, with an electronic theme song executed by Delia Derbyshire in 1963, and heard by millions of Britons every Saturday evening, the 1971 British movie A Clockwork Orange, with a synth soundtrack by American Wendy Carlos was the first time many in the United Kingdom had heard electronic music score." 
 65.51.193.109 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm afraid we can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself (see WP:CIRCULAR), and I my quick review doesn't point to a source in that article that supports the text you're requesting. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Is “Synth-pop” really the correct label for this genre?  First of all, “pop” is not a genre; pop is short for popular: in the 20s pop was Dixieland jazz, in the 30s it was swing, in the 50s it was rock and roll, doo-wop, and R&B - long story sort: not a genre. So stop using the term pop to describe a “style” of music.  When this stuff  came out in the 70s and 80s everyone called it Techno.  As far as I’m concerned it’s still Techno, and that’s what we should be calling it now - Techno 47.185.231.204 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

90.230.43.85 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I would like too edit if that's ok

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I recently learned that Synth-pop is a subgenre of New wave, so I put it under the genre in the templates for Rock music and Post-disco.  Could someone put those templates on this page? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. For the last time, start getting your music genre information from books and articles written about music genres. Your disruption must end. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This line is unacceptable and misleading for an encyclopedic reference such as Wikipedia. One or two sources do not and cannot firmly establish one genre as the "subgenre" of another, when the vast majority of scholarship on the genre of music in question (synthpop) treat it as an independent form within popular music. To give just one example, reference no. 7 on the main article page gives as a "working definition of synth pop", "popular songs with prominent synthesizer instrumentation." Elsewhere in the same reference, the piece notes that "for a time in the early 1980s, synth pop was mainstream electronic dance music". Does that not make synthpop also a "subgenre" of EDM? Or is not new wave therefore an EDM subgenre, since we are to believe that its own subgenre, synthpop, is a form of EDM? Nowhere is this mentioned on the page for electronic dance music, and rightly so - this is one source's opinion, not the consensus viewpoint. AllMusic may be a widely used source on Wikipedia, but it alone does not override all other scholarship. The other source used as "evidence" of synthpop's subgenre status does not actually say anything about it being a subgenre, but merely notes that "myriad synthesizer-pop bands" as well as "power-pop groups" were included under the new wave "umbrella". Power pop is not recognized as a "subgenre" of new wave by Wikipedia, as it ought not to be since this article says nothing of the sort. Likewise, it merely notes that many synth-pop bands also were considered new wave, but does not in any way state that synthpop exists solely as a form of new wave music.
To say that synthpop is merely a "subgenre of new wave music" is therefore reductive, anachronistic, and inaccurate. While every source describes synthpop as a form of popular music, many don't mention new wave at all. Wikipedia itself describes it as a "derivative form" of various genres (new wave, disco, etc.) and a "distinct genre" rather than a "subgenre" of any one genre, besides the one instance in the lead on this page, and later on when it notes that "In the US, [...] synth-pop is considered a subgenre of new wave". America is not the world, and our encyclopedia should not be regionally biased in this manner. The German page for synth-pop does not mention new wave at all in its lead and the French one does not claim it as a subgenre, so why should the English page be so uniquely wrongheaded?
Yet this is evidently a contentious issue, and there are discussions going back years on the talk page to prove it. The mere fact that no consensus exists ought to be enough to demonstrate that the current state of this page is unacceptable. The page has not always described synth-pop as a "subgenre of new wave music"; but was edited to say that some years ago (again without a consensus), so the onus is as much on those who make that argument as it is on my end. In fact, it bears heavier on the other side, for what I am arguing is already the consensus opinion of scholarship on this issue. Indeed, not only do the years of talk page disputes prove the lack of consensus on establishing synthpop as a "subgenre" of new wave; but so do the sources themselves used in the article, such as reference no. 2, which states that "What separated synth-pop from, say pop music with synths—or categories such as new wave—remained (and remains) a point of contention". What I think is not a point of contention, however, is that synthpop is a genre of popular music. On that we should be able to form a consensus. Janglyguitars (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the "subgenre of new wave music" line is misleading and I feel it should be removed. Synth-pop is typically remembered as a genre of the 1980s, but that does not mean its existence begins and ends with new wave and there are numerous potential arguments about synth-pop work that support this. As has been been noted in previous discussion about this issue, there's a divergence between the UK/Éire and the US/Canada about the definition of new wave, but I think it's fair to say that key to the genre's definition is its era. It is tied to the late 1970s and 1980s and thus has an expiry date, as it were; I don't think anyone would consider an act who first recorded in the 1990s to be new wave. There are, though, numerous synth-pop works by such acts - synth-pop is not a genre restricted to a specific period or generation of musicians. The Magnetic Fields' "Holiday" (1994), for example, is considered a synth-pop album by various sources (Exclaim, Stereogum, AllMusic) and it is defined as one, with those sources cited, on its entry on this site. Crystal Castles, formed in 2006, have also produced synth-pop. The same goes for Ladytron, formed 1999. Synth-pop is also the first genre listed (with sources) in the infoboxes for M83, formed 1999, and John Maus, born 1980.One of the three sources used for Maus is a 2011 interview in which he dismisses the notion that his music is 80s revivalism; " "I don't address my music in terms of nostalgia or retromania. I think synthesisers and waveforms allow for a sonic complexity that goes beyond the palette we're used to with guitars. The palette was there in the 80s so why was it set aside and forgotten? That thread can be taken up again". This music is not new wave music, and these artists are not new wave artists, but the sources support them all making synth-pop. I don't think I even need to mention Kraftwerk - were they parroting a new wave innovation when they made their synth-pop works? The "subgenre of new wave music" line would imply so. I agree with Janglyguitars that this is a major inaccuracy we are peddling currently. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the style can be noted as a genre that was part of the new wave music, because the new wave includes several genres, including synth-pop. UserFlash (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, synth-pop is defined as a subgenre just like dance-pop. UserFlash (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Binksternet Thoughts? I think @Humbledaisy and I have made our case. I would only add that the extent of my proposal is to restore the first sentence of the article to its original state prior to 18 November, 2016, when it described synth-pop as "a genre of pop music" until on that date it was altered without consensus, discussion, or any explanation whatsoever. Additionally, on 6 October, 2016, the page was edited to change "genre of popular music" to "genre of pop music" (again with no reason given), so perhaps it would be best to revert to "genre of popular music" instead (though either way would be fine). Janglyguitars (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I would be swayed much more by an argument that was forward looking rather than reactionary. I am not convinced that any of the past efforts at this page were definitive. Rather, we should be comparing the best available published sources to determine what would be the most appropriate summary for our readers. Certainly one must factor in the All Music Guide editorial staff description from their 2001 book, which says that "Synth-pop was one of the most distinctive subgenres of new wave." They emphasize the pop aspects. This is in contrast to Frank Hoffman's Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound which asserts synth-pop is a genre of rock that is also called technopop or electropop. I think we must tell the reader that there is not a single definition of synth-pop, that it may be a genre or a subgenre, and that it may have come from rock or pop. For contrary viewpoints we would name the proponents on each side of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
It should definitely be written that synth-pop is recognized as a subgenre of the new wave music, as it is written in AllMusic. UserFlash (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion synth-pop is a subgenre just like dance-pop. UserFlash (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Your proposal to compare the views of different sources in the article is probably the best solution long-term, but it would require some major rewriting, which itself would create more issues needing consensus. In the short-term, I think the most important thing is that the page must cease misleading readers, as it currently does by describing one source's point of view (the AllMusic source) as definitive without acknowledging the variance of opinions in the sources. In regard to @Humbledaisy's point, I would also mention that the page Category:Synth-pop new wave musical groups exists in its entirety in recognition of the fact that not all synth-pop falls under new wave. The page itself reads, "This category contains synthpop new wave bands. Synthpop was a distinct genre during the new wave era of the late-1970s to the mid-1980s. This category is to distinguish itself from modern-day synthpop bands of the 21st century revival."
I think the easiest and least contentious way to improve the main synth-pop article would be by changing the sentence in the lead to "synth-pop is a genre of popular music", or by adopting the definition given on the page List of synth-pop artists, which reads, "Synth-pop (also known as electropop or technopop) is a music genre that uses the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." Later, when more voices are involved, we can discuss how the page can be rewritten to compare the views of the different sources. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the AllMusic source will by no means be removed if my change goes through, but, like the source for "pop", will merely be relegated to the infobox until a consensus is agreed upon how to best integrate it into the article. The source can still be present on the page without being immediately mentioned within the first sentence of the article. Therefore, I move for consensus that the section "subgenre of new wave music" in the article's first sentence be changed to "genre of popular music". Janglyguitars (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it can be noted that the genre was also created as part of the new wave music. UserFlash (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It's already noted in the infobox under "Stylistic origins" along with other genres. But the fact remains that synth-pop already existed independently from new wave, as HumbleDaisy mentioned with Kraftwerk. The page must be changed so that it stops misleading users, and I think we can all agree that broadly speaking, synth-pop is a genre of popular music. Thus I will now correct the page, and instead of reverting it please respond to the points we have made here if you still disagree. Janglyguitars (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no source that specifically says that synth-pop is a genre of popular music. UserFlash (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
As Binksternet said, you cannot simply ignore AllMusic and similar sources on the article, and of course do not edit without consent on the talk page. UserFlash (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The AllMusic source is IN THE INFOBOX. Why should that ONE SOURCE determine what the first sentence of the body says when no others agree with it? Some sources say it is rock, others say pop, others say EDM, others say Eurodisco. THE ONLY THING those genres have in common is that they all fall under the umbrella of "popular music", so this is clearly the consensus opinion they share. Surely, @Binksternet, you must know that it is not proper procedure to rely on one source for such a contentious and refutable description which was added WITHOUT CONSENSUS, when "popular music" is something everyone can agree upon (except UserDash because he's being deliberately obstructive). over the  Furthermore, it makes NO LOGICAL SENSE based on the Wiki itself, where synth-pop is described as a "Derivative form", NOT a "subgenre" of new wave. As Humbledaisy and I have explained, in detail, there are many, many synth-pop acts who do not qualify as new wave. The page WOULD NOT EXIST otherwise. How do you respond? Janglyguitars (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
So you think synth-pop isn't popular music? Don't be ridiculous. Dance-pop, new wave, glam metal, disco, EDM, trance, and EVERY OTHER FORM of rock'n'roll and pop music in general are "popular music". This is not controversial, it is obvious, so obvious that it shouldn't need saying. NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DISAGREE. It is not up for debate, unlike saying "subgenre of new wave", which is EXTREMELY CONTENTIOUS and backed up by only one source (the other one says no such thing), so YOU MUST FORM A CONSENSUS ON THAT. We have given our reasons, they are sound, and not one of them has been refuted or even addressed by you or anyone else. End of discussion. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Dance-pop for example is defined as a subgenre. but even if your claim is true, you can't make changes without consent on the talk page, and certainly not use a source that doesn't mention synth-pop as a genre of popular music. You must stop the editing wars. UserFlash (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
You're the one who is arguing for a contentious, easily refutable claim. We have refuted it many times over.  I am the one arguing for the consensus opinion of the sources. The onus is on you, and you are the one who is preventing constructive edits through your edit warring.  How can you not consider synth-pop to be a genre of popular music? If I suddenly started claiming something ridiculous, like that it was a genre of jazz, would we need unanimous consent before proceeding? In any case, I DO NOT CONSENT to your edits. "Popular music" is the most neutral, agreeable, and obvious way to describe it. It was what the page said in the first place before someone added the "subgenre of new wave" line without any discussion or consensus whatsoever. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The "genre" vs. "subgenre" debate is contemptible. Synth-pop is described as a "Distinct musical genre" ALL ACROSS WIKIPEDIA except for the first sentence in its own article. This is idiotic. Synth-pop is CLEARLY BROAD ENOUGH of a category to define as a genre, not subgenre, of popular music. In his "Guide to Electronic Music", Ishkur writes that "the term Synthpop has been used to refer to any and all synth-driven rock music from Indie Pop to Discopunk (and maybe even Eurodance)." That doesn't sound like a "new wave subgenre" to me. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not your place to decide that some sources are wrong, and erase them from existence. On Wikipedia, we must summarize the literature for the reader, and when the literature contains contradictions between sources, we tell the reader about those contradictions.  Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we need to find what would describe synth-pop as a genre as it is sometimes defined and as a subgenre as it is sometimes defined as well. But there is no source that describes synth-pop as a genre of popular music. For example in the pop music article, synth-pop is mentioned as a subgenre along with dance-pop, but they cannot automatically be considered popular music genres. UserFlash (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like you are citing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considered unreliable per WP:USERG. Certainly we can and should be concerned about giving the reader the same information no matter which article they are looking at, but our sources should always be external to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion right now it should be written that synth-pop is a subgenre of the new wave music because there is a source that says it explicitly. UserFlash (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If you actually read the chapter on synthpop from the book I quoted, it makes clear that it's genre of popular music, but fine. I'll just add the part describing it as electronic dance music instead. Janglyguitars (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I was not "erasing it from existence", but rather confining it to the infobox with the other sources, many of which make no mention of new wave. Because these sources contradict one another, I sought to put a broad, generalized term under which all the various genres fit, "popular music", in the lead of the article, but apparently a basic grasp of the definition of "popular music" is considered highly controversial in these parts.
Simon Reynolds, a widely respected authority on the history of popular music (hehe) of the last 40-odd years, wrote an entire article about the history of synth-pop in which the term "new wave" never appears. In the first paragraph (about the history of synth-pop, remember), he writes that "synthesizers in popular music actually go back much further than the mandroid melancholy of Gary Numan". There it is right there, "popular music" - but really, it shouldn't have taken Simon Reynolds to figure this out for us. Later on, speaking about synth-pop's broader relation to popular music, Reynolds has this to say: "In some ways the crucial word in synth-pop isn't "synth" but "pop"." A-ha (no pun intended)! So synth-pop is a kind of pop music as well. Again, it shouldn't have taken a writer of Reynolds' caliber to make this evident to Wikipedians, but here we are. So why, again, are we giving sole precedence in the lead of the article to an anonymous author employed by AllMusic, instead of accepting the edits I have been trying (for the sake of consensus, if you consider the sources) to make despite your best efforts @Binksternet? Janglyguitars (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I would also add that with his statement that "synthesizers in popular music actually go back much further than the mandroid melancholy of Gary Numan", Reynolds is not only defining synthpop as a genre (sue me) of popular music, but openly disputing that synthpop only existed as a new wave subgenre, since it existed before the New Wave itself. Janglyguitars (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
For the last time, stop the editing wars. Stop making edits without consent on the talk page. The last edit you made was also done without consent on the talk page. You have to accept it and stop. UserFlash (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
No. You have no right to revert my most recent edit, especially since @Binksternet has said the best thing for the article would be to include the viewpoints of multiple different sources in the article. But since you can’t accept anything but your own way, despite having been shown to be wrong time and again, I’ll try once again at compromise and consensus-building: how about we just forget all this “genre/subgenre of what” stuff and use the definition that’s on the page List of synth-pop artists: “Synth-pop (also known as electropop or technopop) is a music genre that uses the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument.” Surely you can’t divine any spurious objections to such a simple and straightforwardly obvious statement of fact. Janglyguitars (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
So it's settled then @UserFlash? “Synth-pop is a music genre that uses the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument.” Janglyguitars (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are so insistent on replacing the current description when there is a source with information about the style. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is no such thing as a "compromise" in Wikipedia, certainly when there is already an accepted source. UserFlash (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
There certainly is such a thing as "compromise". Please read Wikipedia:Consensus again. If you read, I don't know, maybe the last 5000 words I've written on this talk page, you might get an idea about why I'm "so insistent". I can only say the same thing about 37 times before you decide to actually read and comprehend it. Janglyguitars (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course, if there was another source that explicitly says that synth-pop is a genre of another genre, of course it could be added, but at the moment there isn't one. UserFlash (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@Janglyguitars I always  viewed Synthpop as a fusion of new wave and electronic music, taking the quirky pop oriented sound of new wave, but with prominent electronic instrumentation throughout. I think its misleading to not acknowledge its association with new wave in its description, as many of synthpop most famous acts are undeniably also associated with new wave such as Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Human League, Eurythmics, OMD etc 86.11.146.201 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe synth-pop is just as much of an umbrella term as new wave is
FreakyBoy (talk)

I agree @FreakyBoy. This chapter, from the book Popular Music Genres: An Introduction, says:
Our term synthpop, while not 'value-free', can be employed to transcend many of the other terms' limitations. In particular, it can cover the wide terrain between groups such as Adam and the Ants, who made little use of synthesiser technology but whose post-punk style was both resolutely pop and populist, and Cabaret Voltaire, who used synthesiser technology in an avant-garde 'industrial' style (and therefore achieved high credibility and low sales). Somewhere between the two is New Order, who despite massive success with their single Blue Monday, never fully capitalised on their popularity, at least partly due to the esoteric business practices of their label Factory Records.
This is clearly a term with very broad usage. Also, since this is a chapter in the book "Popular Music Genres: An Introduction" (and Phil Oakey's face appears right above the title on the cover), I'd encourage you to use this source to replace the badly supported AllMusic reference for "subgenre of new wave" with "genre of popular music". This chapter, which is far more detailed than the AllMusic summary (as are the other sources I cited above, like Simon Reynolds' synthpop history piece which makes no mention of 'new wave'), quite directly contrasts synthpop with new wave, almost framing them as opposites:

The new decade saw elements of youth culture self-consciouslyembrace the new consumerism in order to gain success. 'Style' became a transcending signifier, aided by the shift in music journalism from the weekly 'inkies' (New Musical Express, Sounds, Melody Maker) to the recently established fortnightly or monthly 'glossies' (The Face, i-D, Smash Hits). Concepts such as design, marketing and image became central to the star-making machinery. There was nothing altogether new in this process, but they now became more overt, blatant and significant elements. After the monochrome blacks and greys of punk/new wave, synthpop was promoted by a youth media interested in people who wanted to be pop stars, such as Boy George and Adam Ant, and who 'looked good in colour: Numan ... Toyah' (Rimmer 1985: 19). [emphasis added]
As is clear to anyone who looks at the sources, calling synthpop a "subgenre of new wave" is just wrong; the author even cites a contemporary source (Dave Rimmer) from 1985. Since I was wrongly blocked from editing this page, you should go ahead and replace the AllMusic source in the body (while leaving it in the infobox) with this source and change "subgenre of new wave" to "genre of popular music". I've made a citation for you as well, so it should be pretty easy.
Thanks for helping out FreakyBoy :) Janglyguitars (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

To finish the discussion, based on the source presented in this discussion, and because some see this style as a genre of new wave music, and some see this style as a genre of popular music, I recommend writing this: "Synth-pop is a genre of popular music and new wave music that first became prominent in the late 1970s and features the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." The internet is full of sources that define the synth-pop genre also as part of new wave music, so both this genres, new wave music and popular music, can be mentioned. UserFlash (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I’d prefer “popular music or new wave” to recognise that the popular music source pits synthpop in direct opposition to new wave, but anything would be an improvement over the current status of the page. Janglyguitars (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I changed the wording according to the sources. UserFlash (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Since the edit has been reverted, I recommend that it be written simply: "Synth-pop is a style of new wave and pop music that first became prominent in the late 1970s and features the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument." The word "style" would loosely define synth-pop as a genre and subgenre. It will be possible to use the sources that already exist on the page for new wave music and pop music. UserFlash (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Let’s get this sorted out! If you want to try editing it again hopefully it won’t be reverted, as we seem to have at last come to a consensus here on the talk page. Janglyguitars (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Added a source to define synth-pop as a genre. genre of genre can also be a subgenre. all the sources on the page will loosely define the style. UserFlash (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll update the synth-pop section on Electronic dance music to match. Janglyguitars (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I find this to be incorrect in that it has no basis.
The lyrics are not about an androgynous person,so why are the vocals androgynous? If it is because the voice of the _woman is not high pitched or considered deep for a _woman, this is an unintelligible insignificant opinion/observation that I don’t believe is relevant to the description. just say she has a deep voice, it has nothing to do with androgyny. Deedssky (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

i know the word origins of word Kuyalanz (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

in this article. Could be a record of some kind. 2601:40F:4401:5920:3CEA:BD08:C581:3F91 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe it is not mispelled... (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)