Jump to content

Talk:Pop-punk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ManneredMan (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 22 September 2019 (→Blink's huge representation in pop punk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Green Day trilogy

This article needs mention of Uno! Dos! and Tre! as it was kind of a big deal. BlackDragon 02:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Black60dragon: No they weren't at all. Those albums aren't even primarily pop punk anyway SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emo pop

If Emo pop is no longer considered a mixture a Emo and Pop Punk and instead a fusion between Emo and Pop similar to that of Pop Punk should it not be mentioned at all here? Pop Punk is a genre many contemporary Emo groups are accosiated with and it is listed as a stylistic origin on Emo's respective page, can Emo be added as a derivative form then or a subgenre? Dekai Averett (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, go ahead and make that change as long as you don't remove any sources. If you find a source that defines emo pop a fusion of emo and pop punk, please add that to the emo pop page.--MASHAUNIX 23:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Emo be added as a Derivative form or Subgenre? Dekai Averett (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekai Averett: Don't make this change please. Emo pop is a mixture of pop punk and emo. Emo isn't even close to a subgenre of pop punk; it's already been established as a subgenre of post-hardcore and indie rock. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 17:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide a source that defines it that way? I would expect better from you than to make that change without any regard to sources cited and any explanation...--MASHAUNIX 21:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperLuigi22: you need to find a source that says so, if you can not it will be taken down again, and not by me. Dekai Averett (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekai Averett: The AllMusic source that has been used on emo pop's page explicitly states how it came from pop punk. Putting emo as a subgenre of pop punk would lead to confusion, as bands like Rites of Spring and Embrace who are members of the first iteration of emo aren't pop punk in the slightest. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 18:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, neither are they indie rock.--MASHAUNIX 21:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mashaunix: Can you clarify? I don't understand your sentence. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could just as well say that "Rites of Spring and Embrace ... aren't indie rock in the slightest".--MASHAUNIX 22:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mashaunix: Exactly, because they aren't. Rites of Spring are post-hardcore and emo. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, yet you also say "it's already been established as a subgenre of post-hardcore and indie rock". So you are contradicting yourself in your argument against considering emo a subgenre of pop punk. I don't have a strong opinion for either, just wanted to point this out to you.--MASHAUNIX 22:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mashaunix: You might have misunderstood me a little bit. There are two different forms of emo; both of which are acknowledged on the emo page. The first one is a subgenre of post-hardcore/hardcore punk which contains confessional lyrics and twinkly guitars. The second form is a form of indie rock, as well as math rock and alternative rock, which contains the same confessional lyrics as well as adding a unique vocal style. I was stating that Rites of Spring was in this first style of emo, which is post-hardcore. For example, Sunny Day Real Estate would be a second wave emo band.
I think it can be misleading to think of a strict hierarchy of genres. Genres, musicians really, are influenced and influence each other back and forth. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pop punk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 01:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easycore, infobox

Could Easycore be given it's own infobox in its section? It wouldn't be the only page to have a second infobox as Jazz-rock, Indietronica, and Jazzcore all have infoboxes on their respective pages (Jazz fusion, Indie rock, and Jazz punk). Dekai Averett (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Easycore is not as big a genre as you think it might be, and honestly the other examples probably shouldn't either. They do source their claims just fine, but I would object to why they are there in the first place because that's already been made clear in the prose (or if it's not, it could easily be done). dannymusiceditor oops 04:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 83 - a yahoo bio referencing Avril Lavigne's music as pop-punk or pop-punk inspired - is broken. --Nkcomn (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blink's huge representation in pop punk

Reading the article it only showcases Blink-182 being just another band that got mainstream, while not refering to them as being responsible for its huge influence in developing the subgenre. I made changes that I considered "major" in the summary, putting Green Day (along w/ Rancid and Offspring) in prompting punk rock (not pop punk) to mainstream success, while pointing blink as the band that made pop punk mainstream as a whole in late 90s, because of their glossy production made the band a household name in the subgenre, that propelled them to a more radio-friendly sound than their contemporaries. ManneredMan (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pop-punk&oldid=917222436"