Talk:Power pop

message: In the introductory paragraph:
:Musically the style is characterized by strong melodies...with instrumental solos kept to a minimum.... The Knack's "My Sharona" (1979) [is one] of the most commercially successful singles best representative of the power pop genre.
I'm sorry to inform you, but "My Sharona" has like a two minute guitar solo.  Personally, I don't think that's kept to a minimum, except maybe compared to a jam band like The Allman Brothers Band or O.A.R. I think the distinction should be made there, instead of where it is right now. Akrabbim 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instrumental Solos 

message: I'm with you on all that stuff, rg.  Ramones are definitely primarily punk and secondarily power pop.  Buzzcocks, probably the same, though the gap is less wide.  
I definitely think the Beatles are extremely influential on power pop, it's just difficult to call them that themselves, since most people believe it began with Raspberries, Big Star, Todd Rundgren, Badfinger, et al. 
To me, the ultimate power pop band is Cheap Trick, along with, in many ways, the Knack -- those bands really ARE a blend of Beatlesque pop with harder music and power chords.  Though, admittedly, some of this is a personal preference.  There is a big gap between Cheap Trick and, say, Marshall Crenshaw (who I'd personally consider more twee pop) -- but both are undoubtedly considered power pop, and their music is extremely different -- this is exactly why it's so hard to have a page explaining what power pop is.  A lot of bands in the power pop category have so little in common.
Sensorium
:I know...today's power pop is different - so their point of reference is a little bit more modern since they are much younger - that's why I believe that they have a little more "Cars" influence than say bands in 1978-79, they may have been fans or acquired the influence second-hand probably from Weezer who was produced by Ric Ocasek on their major label debut in 1993.
The power pop bands from 1979-1983 not only used Beatle-type arrangements and harmonies, but Pete Townshend style power chords and also in the case of songs such as The Beat's "You won't be happy"(Paul Collins Beat)- Keith Moon styled solo drumming courtesy of influences from "My Generation," and "I can see for miles."
So when the Who says they were power-pop; they were prophets.  I agree totally with that statements.  Some of the ones that you missed was Phil Seymour's Precious to me (1981) - Dwight Twilley's drummer... and Let's Active's "Every word means no." in (1985).
-- I removed Ramones and Buzzcocks as you suggested, as you are probably correct.  They are power pop, but only peripherally so, so they shouldn't be on this list.
Sensorium 23:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Artists (ctd)

message: I found some of the recent subtractions from the song list unhelpful to the article -- especially the deletion of Material Issue, one of the most popular power pop bands of the last twenty years, and Pursuit of Happiness, who had one of the few Power Pop hits during their time period.  So I added them back.
In addition, I removed the weird Pezband line in the middle of a paragraph about THE 80'S -- and in doing so also removed the line about Pezband "leading the charge" in the 70's.  Pezband, although an important power pop band, was neither influential nor popular enough to be considered leading the charge during Cheap Trick and The Knack's heyday.
Sensorium 06:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the whole list.  A lot of genre articles tend to spawn lists of notable bands, songs or albums, but they're never appropriate, and consensus is always to remove them.  If a song is so notable that the article is malinformative without it, then it should be mentioned and explained in the article.  A list is going to be ignored by most anyone who doesn't already know about the genre, and is inherently made up of the editors' opinions.  If there is significant discussion about which songs are the most notable in powerpop, then make a list called list of power pop songs or something, and ascribe those opinions to whoever holds them. Tuf-Kat 07:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtractions from the song list

message: Is power pop a form of pop or rock, or both?  Pop templates do not feature power pop, but from its name alone, one would surmise it is a part of pop music. Mandel 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Power pop - pop or rock?

message: The term was well known in the UK but was slightly different in it's usage. The british bands sometimes used sixties references as well but included a smart punk edge into their music. Because Powerpop happened straight after the Punk explosion. The best known artists were The Vapors or The Jags - somebody remember them? There are some more relations to punk/garage/sixties punk. For further information please visit the Bomp Records page  or read the article about Garage Rock. You can also include The Who related Mod-Bands like The Jam, The Chords and so on. There has never been a Mod-Rock genre for them. So i think in some cases Powerpop is their cup of tea. Some more ideas: .
It is a littlebit strange dating Powerpop back into the sixties. It's not working. You can not make the complete British Invasion of the sixties a Powerpop thing. Otherwise you should correct the place of origin to Great Britain ;-) It seems to be the best way to describe Powerpop as a modern and polished form of Garage Rock. Mostly short and straight songs, sixties-pop (Beat music) influenced and played with punk-power. My english is not good enough to rework this article. Maybe someone can check this informations and add a few pionts.--212.80.224.243 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make excellent points.  I've added a section in the article about late '70s UK groups and how by that time the term "power pop" had become ambiguous, with different meanings in the two countries.  Starry Eyes 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US Centered?

message: I've just started List of notable power pop songs from the list which was removed from the article.  Still just a stub and needs more work, ordering, sorting, etc.  I was thinking maybe sort into sons which were number 1 hits, songs which were in the top 10, etc., and alphabetize wtihin those.  I think having a list like this is important, and in some ways more useful than List of power pop musicians because of the nature of the genere.  This (IMO) is more a genre of singles - of big hit songs which get stuck in a lot of peoples heads and are often more well known than the musicians themselves (and almost always more well known than the album they were on).  So anyhow, didn't have much time right now to do much with the list, but hopefully it can grow and improve... ENpeeOHvee 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting list of songs 

message: Removing The Knack from the list???? How can that be - that is so over the top Beatles as you can get down to the orange and yellow Capitol label on the 45 to the album cover to the "LOve me do" influence on "Good Girls Don't."  But if it's true that you're reworking the list then I take back my statement.  I've added to this list previously by researching books and the internet and like any style of music, Power Pop retains some of its features but added new tricks as well. It doesn't sound the same in the 00s as it did in the 70s... - but you can tell what it is.
69.111.166.32 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing songs? 

message: "Power pop influence is also evident in the music of pop punk bands like blink-182, Tsar, and Jimmy Eat World." When did Jimmy Eat World become a Pop Punk band? JOJOFACE 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa, whoa, whoa... 

message: There was a red-linked "List of power pop musicians" which I changed to "bands" to parallel other articles. ("Musicians" IMO is confusing--makes it sound like every member of The Beat or whoever should be listed...) I can't find any list except in this discussion! I guess I'll start the page for now...
--Hcethatsme 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the list go? 

message: Two issues:
Issue one:
1) Anonymous editor, your constant and unacceptable reversions of my edit concerning the late 70's/early 80's power pop bands being signed to major record labels. I've already pointed out to you back on a June 13, 2007 edit that Shoes, the dB's, and Paul Collins' Beat were all signed by major record labels. You, however, keep reverting that edit.
Fact: After "Black Vinyl Shoes" was released on their own label, Shoes were then signed to Elektra Records, as this Allmusic link shows.
Fact: After the dB's released their first singles on the Albion label, they were then signed by I.R.S. Records, whose distributor was A&M Records.
Fact: Paul Collins' Beat was signed to Columbia/CBS records.
That is all that needs to be said on the topic. Stop reverting the edit.
Issue 2: Anonymous editor, you are editing using at least two different IP's. Please register an actual editor handle.
-- J.R. Hercules 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your reasons to remain unregistered, but I do agree with your edits. Thanks for pointing out my error re. The dB's. -- J.R. Hercules 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-warring from [[user talk:208.120.227.69|208.120.227.69]], who is also known as [[user talk:208.120.227.250|208.120.227.250]]

message: The lead-in says "Power pop is a musical genre that draws its inspiration from 1960s British and American pop and rock music." I believe this should be changed.  It seems there are two schools of thought:
# As currently written, it includes only music that was inspired by certain up-beat songs by the likes of the Beatles and the Who (e.g. "Ticket to Ride", "The Kids Are Alright")
# The other viewpoint considers bands like the Beatles, Who, Them, the Everly Brothers, the Hollies and others as the originators of the genre, and therefore they are included, along with those (later) who are influenced by the original sound. 
The opinions of people on either side are not of much concern here, as we have historical precedence that can't be denied.  Since the term "power pop" was used in 1967 by Pete Townshend to describe a certain type of rock music being created at that time, its definition is clearly music of The Who, Beatles, etc.  Townshend could not possibly have been referring to the Raspberries or Badfinger.  In fact, rather than saying "the Raspberries play powerpop" it may be more correct to say "the Raspberries play music inspired by 1960s powerpop" (although I would not put it like that myself). 
It then says "The music is characterized by strong melodies, crisp vocal harmonies, economical arrangements and prominent guitar riffs" - I suggest that, as currently written, it indicates that a song is only powerpop if it contains all of the the elements (strong melodies, crisp vocal harmonies, economical arrangements and prominent guitar riffs.) This is simply not true. 
Let's take the "prominent guitar riffs" part.  Largely, this is true, but consider the following examples of powerpop, where guitars are not at all prominent: 
* He's My Best Friend by Jellyfish
* Crank Yankers Theme by Adam Schlesinger & Steven Gold
* She's Not There by the Zombies
* Too Late for us Now by Roger Joseph Manning Jr
* Your Redneck Past by Ben Folds Five
I'm proposing that the main article should say is something like "The music typically incorporates a combination of musical devices such as strong melodies, crisp vocal harmonies, economical arrangements, and prominent guitar riffs."
I would like to fix the article, placing the etymology closer to the beginning with citations, making the aforementioned modifications, and correcting the current definition based on historical use.  Your thoughts are appreciated. -- Gekritzl 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with adding the words "combination of" to the existing topic sentence, but it's not correct to label the early music of the Who and the Beatles as "power pop", even if Townshend did coin the phrase back in the day. The whole point about "power pop" is that it was a style of rock music inspired by the British Invasion music, and developed by younger bands which came after that period. Sure, songs like "I Can't Explain" and "She Loves You" fit the "power pop" criteria, but they were brief musical excursions by The Who and The Beatles. They produced a few more songs in that style, then moved on and never played that kind of music ever again. And I'm not sure The Zombies' "She's Not There" is what one could call "power pop", either. Like most of the Zombies' faster stuff, the rhythm swings more than it "rocks", and the dynamics vary throughout the song. Plus, the electric piano solo is jazz-like; even if it were played on an electric guitar, it still wouldn't sound like a typical power pop guitar solo. -- J.R. Hercules 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Powerpop Definition

message: I don't think the New pornographers can be described as a prominent band. They have had very little success compared to the other bands listed, in fact it's only in the last year that they have had any real recognition. We have to be strict with these to stop editors simply adding their favourite bands to the list. --neonwhite  user page talk 05:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor who wanted Cute Is What We Aim For included is in no position whatsoever to make baseless accusations about edits motivated by "personal opinion" and "favorite band" status.  The New Pornographers are the best-reviewed band currently recording in the genre, and by every major national music publication: Rolling Stone, Spin, Entertainment Weekly, Onion, Pitchfork, Pop Matters, Billboard, Blender, Mojo, L.A. Times, NME, Village Voice, etc.  Metacritic lists almost 100 reviews for the New Pornographers' four albums; three of these average out to "universal acclaim," and the fourth is "generally favorable."  Metacritic lists 0 reviews for Cute Is What We Aim For, and you write that the "New Pornographers are even less prominent."  This is silliness.208.120.226.72 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The number of reviews a band has has absolutely nothing to do with it, this band has had one minor successful album, which only reached #34, compare this to Fountains of wayne (5 albums and a major hit in the US and UK, plus much exposure in tv and film) number, jimmy eat world (6 albums, two reaching #5 and a number 5 hit on the U.S. Hot 100), all american rejects (two chartig album on the billboard 200, one at #6, 3 hit singles on the hot 100 and uk charts), new pornographs (one album that reached #34, no charting singles) they simply are not prominent in any way. Please use common sense and do not disrupt the article by re adding it without making your case here based on something a little more substancial than your own personal view of the band. --neonwhite  user page talk 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fountains of Wayne have had a total of one Top 100 hit, "Stacy's Mom" (which reached #21).  They've had one album that reached the Top 100, "Traffic and Weather" (which reached #97).  However, it would be just as absurd to delete Fountains of Wayne for their "lack of success" because-- PRECISELY LIKE New Pornographers-- they have been recognized and celebrated for several years as being among the prominent acts in the power pop genre.  Why don't you go compare the (largely nonexistent) Billboard placements for Big Star, the dB's, 20/20, Shoes, the Records, Jellyfish, and several other bands cited in this article?  In citing chart numbers, you're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of this genre of music.  As you've repeatedly made what appears to be a retaliatory edit, made personal accusations of bias, and then invoked an "edit war," I've submitted this to "third opinion."208.120.226.72 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  The criteria is not notability but prominence and being well known performers, which they are clearly not. There has been alot of problems with anon users adding their favourite bands to this section so we have to be strict about inclusion. This is not a list of power pop bands, it is a paragraph about it's influence on important bands It needs to be limited, if we allow every slightly known band inclusion we are going to end up with hundreds listed. Having a brief period of success based on one single album's half decent sales does not indicate importance. Please use common sense Fountains of Wayne are obviously an extremely relevant band within this genre.  They have had much success outside of the US. I feel you have too far a americentric view, wikipedia views things in a worldwide context, where jimmy eat world and fountains of wayne are extremely well known and new pornographers largely unheard of. There is no consensus to add this. Please do not until the issue has been decided. --neonwhite  user page talk 17:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it shouldn't be deleted without consensus.  As for "too far a Americentric view," the new Pornographers are from Canada.208.120.226.72 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was added without any consensus to change the list and without sourcing so therefore it should be established here first. --neonwhite  user page talk 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  For context, the content of Wikipedia's Power Pop article repeatedly discusses the limited chart and commercial impact of the genre, which belies Neon White's interest in identifying some minor chart difference between two acts and using it as a rhetorical wedge or requirement.  Quoting the article:  "....achieved sporadic chart success during the period. However, the most influential of all the early-to-mid 1970s "pre" power pop-era groups was arguably Big Star, who released two unsuccessful albums and spent years relegated to cult status.... This early generation of power pop bands found they could not sustain their careers, as their British Invasion-influenced sound was strongly out-of-step.... power pop continued as a creatively viable —if commercially limited— genre.... independent, grass-roots power pop bands gained a small but dedicated cult following in the United States.... power pop flourished in the underground.... The sound made a mainstream appearance with the success of Weezer .... several Scandinavian groups such as the Cardigans, Merrymakers, and Wannadies enjoyed a modicum of critical favor with their take on the genre...."  In the Village Voice's critically comprehensive and well-publicized "Pazz and Jop" album voting poll, the New Pornographers' first three albums finished 17th (2001), 7th (2003), and 9th (2005). Fountains of Wayne's second album finished 19th (1999), and its third album finished 3rd (2003); neither their debut nor their fourth album were listed.  None of Jimmy Eat World's albums were listed.208.120.226.72 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph in question is about power pop's influence on promininent and well known current bands. It has nothing to do with the popularity of power pop over the years. Bands that are not well known and have had little success (the chart differences are not minor) really have not business being included. This is not an all-inclusive list. Obscure mentions in list articles vote by a handful of unknown critics simply don't make a band 'prominent'. The three bands listed have all had siginificant mainstream success and media attention. The New Pornographers are just not a stand out band like the others and any importance has not been demonstrated. --neonwhite  user page talk 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As it happens, the chart differences are not minor.  The New Pornographers' "Twin Cinema" album debuted at #44 on the Billboard chart, and "Challengers" debuted at #34, more than 50 places above Fountains of Wayne's highest-charting album ever (#97).  To repeat a point, Billboard charts have virtually nothing to do with standing in the genre, but they don't even help your comparison.  The New Pornographers have received Juno awards and nominations (Canadian Grammys).  Their music has been licensed in numerous ads, films and television series.  They've performed in venues ranging from the David Letterman Show to Britain's annual Glastonbury festival.  Your remark about "obscure mentions... by a handful of unknown critics" is not just an unexpected comment from someone who worries about "personal opinion," but also demonstrably incorrect-- the list of publication mentions are as "obscure" as Entertainment Weekly, the L.A. Times, or Rolling Stone.  They are without question a prominent power pop band-- the critical consensus is that they're one of the most prominent power pop bands currently recording.  Rolling Stone wrote "For seven years, the New Pornographers have been one of Canada's best rock exports," http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/15802874/review/15825553/challengers Pitchfork calls the band "a Davis Cup team of Canada's finest indie singer-songwriters"http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20366-twin-cinema?artist_title=20366-twin-cinema, All Music reports "When the New Pornographers released their first album, Mass Romantic, in 2000, they were a cult sensation...But by that point [their second album], the band had its own word-of-mouth following, large enough to attract the attention of indie rock standard-bearer Matador"http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=MIW030512080509&sql=10:89otk6axykra~T1, National Public Radio (NPR) declared " The New Pornographers' members have spent nearly a decade carving out a richly deserved reputation as virtually unparalleled masters of clever, lustrous power-pop"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12588681, MTV.com writes that the band "garnered a good deal of critical praise, receiving near-perfect rankings from such influential outlets as Rolling Stone and Pitchfork"http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/new_pornographers/artist.jhtml#bio, and even Ticketmaster notes "their albums have been hailed, by many, as power-pop masterpieces."http://www.ticketmaster.com/artist/702787  The onus is on you to explain why this does not qualify as "significant" media attention.  Perhaps while clarifying your understanding of genre prominence, you could also explain why you think the New Pornographers are "even less prominent" than Cute Is What We Aim For, as your edit summary of January 24 stated.  As you requested above, I have provided ample sourcing to establish the (unremarkable) claim, and I will be citing some of the above links in the article proper.  If you can provide a counter-sourced argument or a consensus to delete, please do so.208.120.226.72 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the billboard includes airplay, it is relevant if a band hasn't had airplay, my belief is that the new pornographers may have a cult folowing but have not broken into the mainstream in the same way as the other bands have largely due to their hit singles in multiple countries. You can't use record reviews (especially those that are of an excessively promotional nature) as proof that a band is big. Everyone is reviewed and critcs are now a dime a dozen on the internet. The article is not saying they are prominent within the genre but have mainstream prominence. If they'd headlined Glastonbury then they would be prominent, but thousands of bands have played there. --neonwhite  user page talk 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy to leave it as it is now and just mention a handful of notable bands rather than have an ineffective criteria based on a largely subjective view of what 'prominence' means. --neonwhite  user page talk 23:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A classy coda to a well-reasoned case.208.120.226.72 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the bands listed 

message: I believe Hüsker Dü should be mentioned, not just as a prominent group of this genre, but as one of the defining groups to whom critics have applied the term. Google search Badagnani (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hüsker Dü]]

message: I removed the refimprove tag, though other editors keep reinserting it. We have NINE references already for an article that's not large to begin with; that's more than sufficient. The template has been attached to the article for years now. 
If those editors who insist on keeping the refimprove tag up want to keep it up, I suggest they either a) specify exactly what within the article needs to be referenced; or b) add the references themselves. J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence of the refimprove tag

message: The List of power pop musicians article contains way too many artists incorrectly labeled as "power pop". I removed XTC (who were new wave, avant-garde, Beatlesque, you name it), Freedy Johnston (singer-songwriter folk-rock), Elvis Costello (a million styles of music), Utopia, The Kinks (calling one of the genre's influences "power pop" is like calling Mozart "neo-Classical"), and Twisted Sister (good grief)...as well as some other artists.
I'm not even sure about the list of power pop musicians even after my edits; how can we call Todd Rundgren a "power pop musician" when he only recorded a handful of power pop songs (great as they were)? Same goes for artists like Blondie, the Flamin' Groovies, and Marshall Crenshaw, to name just a few.
It would be best to limit the list to musicians who worked primarily in the power pop style. J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  the list is a list of notable bands and musicians that have been described as playing power pop music, or as contributing to the power pop genre. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's most distinguishing feature is NOT its many "list" articles, which often devolve into users inserting their pet bands/movies/characters/whatever.  However, it's worth noting that two of the so-called "Three B's" of power pop -- Beatles, Beach Boys, Big Star -- aren't even on the "notable" list.  Meanwhile, all-time legendary acts such as We Are Balboa, Danielle Egnew, 4 Out Of 5 Doctors, Ginger Sling, and Until June (just to unfairly pick on five) are.  Forget it, Jake-- it's Fanboytown.208.120.6.206 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of power pop musicians]] article

message: What about Everclear, specifically So Much For the Afterglow, which was very popular in the 90's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.250.90 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be sourced, Everclear doesn't seem like a Power Pop band. Great album, though. It changed my life. Redrocket (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everclear? 

message: Since when did the Bubblegum pop become a sub-genre of Power pop?  Can anyone find any trace of The Beatles or The Byrds in the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync?  There is no source I'm aware of that claims that Bubblegum pop is a sub-genre of Power pop.  If anyone can cite it, please do.  Otherwise I think it should be removed. Thorburn (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubblegum pop does NOT refer to the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync--check the link if you doubt that. Bubblegum pop is the teen stuff from the late 60s and early-mid 70s. I don't know that I would exactly call it a sub-genre of power pop, but it's certainly a related genre. "Goody Goody Gumdrops" by the 1910 Fruitgum Company, "Love Grows" by Edison Lighthouse, "Fox On The Run" by Sweet and just about all of the hits by the Bay City Rollers would be considered classics of both bubblegum pop and power pop. Brettalan (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubblegum Pop? 

message: I have wonderful news for you all: you can stop arguing about what bands are power pop and what bands aren't, because there is no such thing!! And that's because "power pop" is actually a very narrow musical term which can be defined quite simply, without all the nitpicking that's been tossed about here: power pop songs are POP songs - melodic and traditionally structured - which have POWER - uptempo beats with loud & crunchy passages known to guitarists as "power chords". It's that simple! Listen to "Can't Explain" & "Pictures of Lily": isn't it easy to see what Townshend was describing? It's a sound, a very recognizable one, that can be heard in any classic power pop song. But nobody - not the Who, the Beatles, the Raspberries, Badfinger, or anyone else you want to label as a "power pop band" - played that way on every song.  Not even close!  Every band mentioned in this article has made plenty of songs that are in no way power pop: they all stretch their wings to make ballads, bluesy rock, whatever. Songs are power pop, not bands: if a band played exclusively power pop, they would be very tiresome indeed. (Granted, the Records tried to make a go of it, but look where it got them :P ) SteveStrummer (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Pop "Bands"? Give It Up! 

message: Badfinger IS THE Pionner band of this music.
*Power pop,glam metal,blues rock,indie rock,new wave,synth pop,heavy metal,hard rock,pop rock...and more MADE only in ENGLAND!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrocker (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POWER POP made in ENGLAND 

message: Seriously, what is up with people insisting on putting "MMMBop" on this list? Someone finally offered some references...but the references don't come *remotely* close to estblishing that "MMMBop" is a power-pop song, let alone one of the most notable ones. The first one has this line: "Jackson Five voices offset by slick power-pop guitars and the sharp hip-hop production care of the Dust Brothers." OK, so it's saying that the *guitars" on the song are power-pop...so what? Is this also one of the most notable hip-hop singles of all time because it uses the word "hip-hop"? The next two don't even mention "power pop" in reference to "MMMBop"; they describe more recent Hanson records with the term. (I must concede I have no way to read the offline reference.) 
"MMMBop" sounds a lot more like the Jackson Five than it does like power pop. It's a fine bubblegum-soul pop record, but it's not really power pop, and it isn't mentioned in any of the sources about major power pop music (like the Sulpy/Sharp book, the Borack book, or the AllMusic essay, for example), is it? I don't want to create another edit war, but can anyone give me any argument or source to suggest that "MMMBop" is more notable in power-pop than anything by, say, the Bay City Rollers, the Bangles, Marshall Crenshaw, or the Smithereens? (Artists who aren't represented on the notable singles list at all?) It's hard to give a reference for a negative, but I think I've laid out a good case that this song doesn't belong in this article. Thoughts? Brettalan (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Power pop is inherently a subjective term, as evidenced by some of the delicate phraseology in the article's text.  Therefore, I'm inclined more towards the "inclusion" side of things.  I'd argue that a greater encyclopedic understanding is gained by mentioning non-paradigm acts and songs (along with context) than in eliminating them because they don't perfectly represent a standard that this same article can't specifically articulate.  "MMMBop" was an atypically prominent #1 single with wide-ranging critical acclaim.  From a historic standpoint, it precipitated the wave of boy band/Max Martin-y pop.  Though the song may not be "emblematic of the genre," it amply qualifies on "substantial mainstream visibility or commercial success" and comfortably fits as an influential single.  In my view, Hanson's got a better case than (for example) OK Go, Gin Blossoms, Tommy Tutone, or even Matthew Sweet.  I'd lean towards adding "Someday, Someway," too.208.120.7.152 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No question that "MMMBop" was an important record in ushering in the boyband pop era. It's just that that has nothing to do with power pop. It's too R&B based. You make a good point about mentioning non-paradigmatic acts, but that's better done in text rather than on a list because there's context. (That's why I support the mention of The Cars even though I don't really consider them a power pop band.) I do agree that if we're going to keep the list, "Someday Someway" belongs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettalan (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanson 

message: Per the above discussion, I've begun adding references for the songs on the notable singles list. I will add more, but of course it would be good if other people contributed. The goal is to have at least two good sources for every item, and then to put up a note saying that nothing should be added without two good sources. Comments welcome, of course. Brettalan (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now put in a note about this policy. Brettalan (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for notable singles list

message: Here are other terms for powerpop:
*Nu Rock and Roll
*Nu Garage
*Power Rock
Superastig (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources for those?--SabreBD (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Other terms for Powerpop

message: I see two references for putting ICSFM on this list. Anyone who thinks one of the first great rock (as opposed to rock and roll) songs has any connection whatsoever to power pop should be writing about polka music. I Can See For Miles led to Led Zeppelin (no pun intended), not the freakin' Rasberries. And it moved in the opposite direction of pop songs, which are naturally tight and upbeat. ICSFM is performed on a grand scale - like Hendrix. The article gets it right in the the source of all power pop was the Beatles. Short, to the point, melodic, moderate to up tempo, pop subject - mostly romance - in a guitar based band. No blues base allowed - all major key harmonies. I Can See For Miles was a sonic sledgehammer, not a bouncy tune with a rhythm guitar kick. Take it from me - I remember it when it was released. It was a great song because it wasn't pop. 
MarkinBoston (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Can't Explain" is a better example.Herbxue (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know, find references for "I Can't Explain" (or "The Kids Are Alright"), and we can make the switch. Brettalan (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can see for miles?  

message: Before this turns into an edit war--as I said when I reverted, if we're going to get rid of this list, let's discuss it first. This list has been developed over time and we've eliminated anything without sources. Articles are supposed to be self-contained; that is, just because information exists elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't belong in an article. That doesn't mean that there might not be good reasons to eliminate the list, and there have been objections to it before. Let's just discuss it first. If there's some degree of consensus to remove, I won't stand in the way. 
There's also the question of what can be done to improve THAT list. It includes things such as Katy Perry and One Direction which obviously are not power-pop records. But someone found an article which uses the term. This is actually discussed in this article, that the term is often misused. Honestly, my thought is to get rid of THAT list, which seems to me to be arbitrary and useless, not to mention that the first half just seems to be an alternate version of Category:Power pop groups. Again, though, the key thing is, let's discuss it and try to reach some kind of consensus, no? Brettalan (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable songs list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Power pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120310202336/http://rockandrolltribe.com/profiles/blogs/25-1960sera-garage-rock to http://rockandrolltribe.com/profiles/blogs/25-1960sera-garage-rock
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Power 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%2F9%2F4%2Fmusic%2F20070904092526&sec=music
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YBAQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8IsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6328%2C1137913&dq=power-pop&hl=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212135740/http://www.bomp.com/history.html to http://bomp.com/History.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013065416/http://www.tonighttheband.com/Power_Pop_1st_mention.html to http://www.tonighttheband.com/Power_Pop_1st_mention.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://powerpophalloffame.com/portfolio-posts/the-jellyfish/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would adding a list of well-known artists be beneficial to this article? Some artists are named within the article, but maybe having a list, especially with the more prominent artists would be a good extension. CHOCHO17 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article list of power pop artists and songs. Adding subjective lists to regular articles attracts constant disruption and is generally not a good idea. Piriczki (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of power pop artists  

message: It seems that there is a problem here. User:Piriczki has been changing power pop to a plain rock subgenre instead of the sourced pop rock. The user has been replacing it with rock, and then self-reverting himself back to pop rock. It makes me confused as to what the user wants, as I and another user have been keeping it pop rock, while Piriczki has been going back and forth. There's another user who supports the rock version as well. I've tried to settle this on Piriczki's talk page, but he keeps blanking the page no matter how many times I ask what the issue is because it seems that he doesn't want to respond. So, I've come here for help. Thoughts? SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded pop rock because it is sourced, but I was thinking about readding rock to the stylistic origin as well because it is sourced in the intro and I did not notice that right away. Since both are sourced, I think both can be included. Bowling is life (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea, I think that's perfectly fine as long as pop rock gets top priority. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pop rock will stay but since rock is a more general genre, I was thinking about changing the lead genre to rock. Does that sound like a good idea? Bowling is life (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like this. It looks kind of wierd listing pop rock before rock.: Bowling is life (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the infobox looks fine with pop rock at the forefront. Plus, we should always include the most prominent influence to a genre first, as the genre has all of the qualities of pop rock with a slight hard rock twist, as well as structures built on guitar riffs and minimal solos. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok sounds good, I'll add it. Bowling is life (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 00:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop rock and rock 

message: *Explain why you deleted the Power Pop Hall of Fame homepage? Espngeek (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LINKSTOAVOID #11 --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: External link deleted

message: What about the Babys as Power Pop? Robert Saldivar 4-39-20202605:E000:25CA:D900:B4D3:4F71:91DE:707 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it Time?… 2603:8000:D800:910:8166:BB9B:CE32:E5D0 (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Babys 

message: The section "1980s–1990s: Alternative rock" mentions the relatively unknown 2005 compilation "Yellow Pills: Prefill" but fails to acknowledge the original Yellow Pills compilation series from a decade earlier, which the Numero release tries to be a prequel for (hence the title).
The series, on defunct indie label Big Deal (see here), was a veritable who's who of late '80s/early '90s American power pop. Pepeverde (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow Pills