Talk:Dream pop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pop music (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Dream pop is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge with Shoegazing?[edit]

Why not? Every single source from the '90s proves that both, dream pop and shoegazing, had described one and the same movement in British pop music. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The use of the terms is just regionally dependent (U.S. vs. U.K.). --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Nope. The two genres are closely related but not identical. While many bands (Cocteau Twins, Slowdive) provide an intersection of the genres (just as there are bands that intersect post-punk and dream pop, like The Chameleons), there's loads of iconic dream pop bands that are definitely not shoegaze. Whatever was written in the 1990s is relevant but lots of things have changed since then, and the genre has been redefined over time by critics, bands and listeners alike. Look at the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dream_pop_artists Some really classic dream pop bands, that are not shoegaze: Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise, Luna, Cardigans, Beach House, Azure Ray, Au Revoir Simone, Blue Nile, Lana Del Rey, Ocean Blue, Saint Etienne, etc. That alone should give you a clearer sense of where shoegaze and dream pop differ. Dream pop is softer and less distorted than shoegaze, less angular and cold than post-punk, but dreamier/moodier than plain indie-rock. Anyway, this article really should be rewritten as it focuses way too narrowly on the shoegaze/Simon Reynolds definition of dream pop and not enough on what actual listeners and bands have since redefined it as. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Is there any reliable source that could back up your point of view? I'm afraid we have to use primary sources, mainly from the '90s music press. As far as I know, Mazzy Star was never called a dream pop or shoegazing band. There is really no doubt that dream pop was the US American term for the British shoegazing phenomenon. All of these "softer" and "harder" argumentations are just POV. Here is a list of sources:
https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=4892887&find=5314794&x=m#msg5314794
Dream pop bands and shoegazing artists are identical. The definition of today may be different from Reynolds' textbook definition and the definition of the '90s music press. But as you know... Nothing works without reliable sources. And there really are not many sources in this article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


"Dream pop bands and shoegazing artists are identical"...well that clearly isn't the case, since the artists I cited above (all listed as dream pop in their Wiki articles) are not shoegaze, or are you suggesting they are?

"As far as I know, Mazzy Star was never called a dream pop or shoegazing band." Yes, they most certainly have been:

Pitchfork: "Next week, 1990s dream pop greats Mazzy Star will return with their first album in 17 years, Seasons of Your Day"

Under the Radar: "- Earlier this fall dream pop duo Mazzy Star released Seasons of Your Day, the band's first album in 17 years"

Paste Magazine: "And even though Mazzy Star has been absent for a while, the group's reign of dream pop lingered on whenever we heard “Fade Into You” play"

Etc. If I had time I am sure I could find dozens more via Googling.

OK here is the main issue. You seem to assume that genres are automatically named and defined at the time they coalesce. This sometimes is the cause (shoegaze for example). In many other cases, maybe most in music history, genres are named, defined, and come into common usage at a later date or over time. Dream pop is one of these. It's not really relevant to find '90s sources---dream pop is the term used to describe this genre TODAY. The relevant sources are recent and current major press articles and reviews, artists' self-definitions, etc.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, this isn't simply my personal POV. You may not like the term but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not used in popular culture:

An excellent primer for what the genre means: http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-dream-pop-albums/

Obviously its own genre if it has an Amazon list, no? http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Music-Dream-Pop/zgbs/music/602088

http://www.scaruffi.com/music/dreampop.html

Urban Dictionary: dreampop Pioneered by Scotland's "Cocteau Twins", dreampop is a catch-all term for ethereal (Dreamy) music with high, drifting vocals and a swirling wall-of-sound texture. Related to noisepop/shoegaze, but distinguished by frequent use of non-guitar electronics. Dates from the 80s but is experiencing a mdoern revival (M83 et al.) dreampop is related to but has distinct origins from shoegaze

Rate Your Music: Dream Pop [Genre371] Dream Pop is a genre characterized by an overall subdued atmosphere - from the vocals to the melodies - producing a dream-like, sleepy, or spacious feel. As the name suggests, songs are structured around traditionally Pop-sounding progressions, often with a steady though de-emphasized beat and vocals that are lower in the mix and possibly run through effects so as to offer a more ethereal feel. Band structures are usually pretty straightforward sporting a guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. Vocals are a distinguishing element of Dream Pop and can often be viewed predominantly as an instrument, with importance being placed moreso on providing melody and less on the actual lyrics. In addition, it is not uncommon for there to be more than one vocalist, either working in unison or switching off. Females have a very prominent role in this genre in this respect, with acts such as My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, and Mazzy Star - among others - having female vocalists. It is also not uncommon for Dream Pop to be fused with other genres like Shoegaze or Noise Pop. The main distinguishing factors though are that while they all offer a similar, "blanketing" feel, Dream Pop does not rely on "walls of sound" (as in Shoegaze) or heavily distorted, very driving guitars (as in Noise Pop). Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


They are neither shoegazing nor dream pop (Lana del Rey? Cardigans? Saint Etienne? Are you serious?). Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise and many others were well-known in the '90s. And nobody used the term "dream pop" to describe their music. Isn't that really strange?
And of course, '90s sources are absolutey relevant, because they are primary sources. They describe a genre of music that was popular in the early '90s. All this mislabelled neo-indietronic/folk/singer-songwriter/witchhouse/synthpop stuff of today has nothing to do with it.
I really don't care about "sources" of today's web magazines. Every school kid can write a review.
"Females have a very prominent role in this genre"
No, they don't. Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


"An excellent primer for what the genre means: http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-dream-pop-albums/"
This is really fucked up. Especially the first 4 albums. You can't be serious. That's exactly the reason why i'm not a big friend of webzines. Really everybody can spread his ahistorical POV across the world. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


I tried to find a book (more up to date) that defines dream pop in a different way. But again... Reynolds seems to be the only person that cares about the genre. This is an excerpt from the book "Bring the Noise" from 2007:
"Shoegaze came directly out of My Bloody Valentine but was also shaped by - no point in being fake-modest here - the climate of writing that enfolded MBV and A.R. Kane (my personal pet group and the guys who coined the term "dreampop", another name for shoegaze)."
If there is any other reliable post-millennial source, please let me know. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A second book from 2008: Performing class in British popular music, ISBN 0-2302-1949-7, Page 149:
"The archetypal dream pop bands were Slowdive, Ride, Lush and Chapterhouse, predominately pop bands who incorporated the sound of Cocteau Twins with the harder, more dissonant guitar sounds of The Jesus and Mary Chain and My Bloody Valentine."
So it seems that 6 years ago the definition of dream pop was pretty much identical to the '90s definition. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


"Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise and many others were well-known in the '90s. And nobody used the term "dream pop" to describe their music. Isn't that really strange?" Again, you seem bent on this idea that genre names and/or their definitions never change over time. This is clearly erroneous as any look at music history can tell you. To give two examples...in the late 1970s up through 1984-85, bands like the Banshees, Cure, Joy Division, etc. were called post-punk (which they still are). From 1985 or so after, they were also considered part of (and the founders) of goth. It was retroactive. Here's another. Back in 1975-76, "punk" mainly meant bands in the NYC CBGB scene. The definition changed over time to focus more on the British '76-77 punk scene. So today, most people would not label the music of say, Blondie, Television or Talking Heads as "punk rock." The definition changed over time. Best one would be classical. Guess what? If you went back in time to the early 1800s, I can guarantee you that Beethoven would not understand what you meant by the word "classical"---it is a wholly retroactive classification. Classifications for such genres as blues, jazz, reggae, new wave, psychedelia, heavy metal etc have all changed and shifted over time. Trying to "police" usage of genre names to conform to the way they were used decades ago is a futile battle. Ahistorical is in the eye of the person trying to maintain an outdated definition.

"And of course, '90s sources are absolutey relevant, because they are primary sources. They describe a genre of music that was popular in the early '90s." Says you. I say, as do most current mainstream print and web media, that dream pop is mainly a current term.

"I really don't care about "sources" of today's web magazines. Every school kid can write a review." Well that's your wholly subjective and kind of narrowminded view. Whether you like it or not, media sources like Pitchfork and Under the Radar are considered reliable mainstream sources.

"Females have a very prominent role in this genre"
No, they don't. Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer."

Well, first of all the two genres are not the same, for the nth time. Second, even if we are talking about just shoegaze, that's not accurate either. At best they are gender even, something that was a hallmark of shoegaze. Cocteau Twins, Lush, Curve, Pale Saints, Slowdive, Bleach, Alison's Halo, Blonde Redhead, Cranes, Medicine, Drop Nineteens...nope, no female vocals there!Greg Fasolino (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


"Again, you seem bent on this idea that genre names and/or their definitions never change over time."
It doesn't matter what i think. There are no reliable sources that could underline your point of view. But you are absolutely right. I'm not a friend of ahistorical re-definitions.
Let me ask you a question: What is the current definition of dream pop? I'm afraid there is no definition. Post-punk, Goth and "post-Goth" (4AD stuff), country music, folk, americana, soft rock, indietronics, electronica... Really everything is tagged as "dream pop" nowadays. None of these genres had anything to do with the original definition. And that makes an encyclopedic article impossible.


"Well, first of all the two genres are not the same, for the nth time."
Sources say otherwise. And there is nothing you can do about it.


"At best they are gender even, something that was a hallmark of shoegaze. Cocteau Twins, Lush, Curve, Pale Saints, Slowdive, Bleach, Alison's Halo, Blonde Redhead, Cranes, Medicine, Drop Nineteens...nope, no female vocals there!"
Make a list of male-fronted bands (Ride, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of Distinction etc.) and female-fronted bands. You'll see. Women in the genre don't make the genre a female-dominated genre.
There are women in punk, women in Goth, women in heavy metal music. But they don't play a bigger role than male vocalists. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


"Sources say otherwise. And there is nothing you can do about it." YOUR (old) sources say otherwise. My (current) sources, and the ones already referenced by others, say yes. It's entirely your opinion whose sources are valid and whose are not.

"Make a list of male-fronted bands (Ride, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of Distinction etc.) and female-fronted bands. You'll see. Women in the genre don't make the genre a female-dominated genre." You are confusing me and the writer from Rate Your Music. I never said it was female-dominated. YOU said "Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer," and that is what I was disputing. I said they were gender-neutral, especially compared to other genres of the time. The list of bands I made shows that pretty clearly. There's not much dispute that both shoegaze and dream pop feature a greater proportion of females, both musicians and singers, than the ones you mention like punk or metal.

"I'm not a friend of ahistorical re-definitions". History is not static, it is always changing. I notice you didnt' even try to address the specific examples I gave you of how musical genres and their definitions change over time. You can fight to try and keep things stuck in an old view of things, but you can't expect everyone else to never evolve.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


"My (current) sources, and the ones already referenced by others, say yes"
You know what "reliable source" means? Urban Dictionary, Scaruffi and all this stuff aren't reliable sources. You can't use them in an encyclopedia. Same with RYM and its genre catalogue (most of those genres don't even exist).


"I said they were gender-neutral, especially compared to other genres of the time."
It doesn't matter (it's wrong anyway, because there were undeniably more male vocalists in this genre).


"The list of bands I made shows that pretty clearly."
What list? I see ten bands (in fact, Pale Saints was a male-fronted band). There were more than hundred bands. Maybe hundreds of bands worldwide.
The article on RYM says "Females have a very prominent role in this genre"... and this is just a fallacy, based on the popularity of Lush, Curve and two or three other artists... Trip-hop is mostly female-fronted. Ethergoth is female-fronted. Dream pop/shoegazing is clearly not. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


"But by the '90s, Pink Floyd's blurry sound and androgynous aura were resurrected by a mini-movement of British neo-psychedelic bands known as 'shoegazers' or 'dreampop'."
"The ruling Brit-pop aesthetic in 1991 was the dazed-and-confused androgyny of 'dreampop' bands"
This is one of the genre's characteristics. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Debating this with you further is pointless, so I will rest my case. You aren't interested in hearing what listeners and critics of the present day have to say, so why waste further breath explaining to you that the definition has changed over time.Greg Fasolino (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources, Greg... Maybe you don't understand what i'm saying. Bring me reliable sources. Thanks. All this drivel about "genres change" doesn't really matter. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, "reliable." Meaning sources you liked. Meaning **old** sources. That's a catch 22 here. I DID give you quite a few current sources, but you dismissed them, even though something like Pitchfork or Paste is clearly mainstream music criticism today. Most of my examples were in service of the Mazzy Star debate, but I am sure with 5 mins of Googling, I can find references to "dream pop" for any of the bands I listed (way) above that are now considered firmly dream pop but are obviously not shoegaze. Why waste my time though, if you are going to just dismiss these sources as too modern, too ahistorical, etc. Nobody is going to sit down and write an article in the New York Times on "How the Term Dream Pop Has Evolved Over Time." Simply isnt going to happen. the change is instead visible in what artists today are referenced as dream pop and why. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I told you already... you need reliable book sources, not the web crap of some POV-spreading teenagers who don't give a fuck about history.
Nobody is going to sit down and write an article in the New York Times on "How the Term Dream Pop Has Evolved Over Time."
It's neither my problem nor your problem. If there is no other definition, we have to use the original definition. It's that simple. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"I told you already... you need reliable book sources, not the web crap of some POV-spreading teenagers who don't give a fuck about history."
The fact that you would think of huge media sources like Pitchfork or Paste Magazine in that way just shows you do not have an accurate sense of current media or music criticism. Teenagers? Show me a teenager who works for those publications and I'll eat a Mazzy Star CD. Pitchfork is to 2014 what Spin and Alternative Press were to 1990, what Trouser Press and Creem were to 1980, and what Rolling Stone and Melody Maker were to 1970. Let me ask you something...have you or do you work in the music industry and/or the publishing field? What's your experience/knowledge level of same? I am not a teenager. I'm 49 and have been a music journalist all of my adult life, since 1984. I worked as a writer and editor for Spin, Creem, Rockpool, Trouser Press, Reflex, Faces, NY's Nightlife, Backstage/Shoot, Newsday, and dozens of other music and media magazines and newspapers, and wrote over 40 entries in the Trouser Press Record Guide books. Doesn't make me any better than you, but I'm not talking out of my ass. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
""It's neither my problem nor your problem. If there is no other definition, we have to use the original definition. It's that simple." No, actually it isn't. There are definitions, cited above, you just don't like them, which is entirely subjective on your part. You are not the final arbiter of which sources are legit, based on your own personal biases.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Don't worry. I know exactly who you are. Many years ago I was the one who added The Naked and the Dead to the German Goth Rock article...

"There are definitions"

Where? Textbook definitions? Then show me. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A louder, more aggressive strain of dream pop came to be known as shoegazing[edit]

There is absolutely no source for that (and I'm sure a source doesn't exist). It's POV at its finest. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


"These bands kept the atmospheric qualities of dream pop, but added the intensity of post-punk-influenced bands such as Sonic Youth and The Jesus and Mary Chain."

My belly hurts if i see this article... The shoegazing section is simply ahistorical. Listen to A. R. Kane's late-'80s dream pop sound (songs like "Haunting", "Up", "W.O.G.S." etc.). It's shoegazing par excellence. The distinction is completely fictitious. The influences are the same, the sound is the same. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Influences[edit]

I think Gothic Rock should be added as an influence/crossover of some of the artists. JanderVK

citation needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.143.196 (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I just read Reynolds' NYT article from 1991. The description of the genre is slightly different:
"Dream pop combines nebulous, distorted guitars with murmured vocals sometimes completely smudged into a wall of noise."
Reminds me of Noise Pop!? But the following sentence is much more interesting:
"Other influences include the ethereal soundscapes of the Cocteau Twins and the fractured "avant-garage" rock of Sonic Youth."
There is this ethereal thing again. It was possibly a bigger influence than traditional Gothrock. Any interviews/oral history?


There is another reference in the Reflex magazine from September 1988. It says:
"...4AD, a company that had corralled all that was gothically ethereal..." [sic!]
...while the dreampop article in Wikipedia claims that the...
"...4AD record label is the one most associated with dream pop..." (unsourced, btw)
I agree with Greg Fasolino. Dreampop is not a subgenre of Ethereal. But like user Caparrzzo02 i also think that Ethereal predates Dreampop and, as an influence, it should be a part of the infobox, right behind post-punk and neo-psychedelia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.70.21 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Origin conflict: Attribute/Coined[edit]

The first paragraph is confusing and contradictionary, attributing the term "Dream pop" t o both A.R. Kane ("to whom the term has been attributed") and Melody Maker ("allegedly coined by Simon Reynolds and Chris Roberts").--Piepie (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion (why not?)[edit]

I came across this article and am sorely tempted to take it to deletion, it is pure original research, it is not a valid sub-genre of anything, it's not because one guy (in the States) used the term once that it is a musical genre, otherwise we'd have "shitkicking hillbilly" and the like. None of it is referenced and is all pure speculation im my opinion, shoegazing is sufficient, maybe with a sub-section about more ethereal bands. Feedback? CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tis a vaguely defined sub-genre, it's true. But it is used by both CMJ and SPIN writers as a legit classification (examples [1]). Allmusic also gives it a description page. I'd oppose deletion. (p.s. I'd love to see an article on "shitkicking hillbilly", btw ;)) The Interior (Talk) 17:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Vaguely-defined, because it doesn't really exist, this is a classic case of stuff going up on Wikipedia and then (almost) all of the information on the web leeches from the wp website.
I don't know what all those wierd books are that come up on google books but look at this one, it says "source:Wikipedia". And in this article the writer states "No critic-created musical sub-genre of recent years", which just reinforces what I'm saying, it's a purely artificial sub-genre popular with one or two US writers (in the nineties) more or less.
What I object to is the article's knowledgeable tone when all of this is more or less OR and lumps a whole heap of bands together because the author/authors think that they are broadly "dream pop" or were influences. So, merge to shoegazing? CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, when I linked the page above, it was for the CMJ and SPIN reviews, not for the Wiki ripoff "books". Arguably, all genres are created by critics and reviewers. It is through repetition in music mags that terms such as "grunge" and even "rock-and-roll" gained traction. One prob with the article is that it supposes a continuum between late 80's UK groups and the modern Pitchfork scene. Which is perhaps reasonable, but shouldn't be here. Pitchfork itself uses the term quite often, it would be wonderful if the folks over there made a stab at defining it. My preference would be to see this article stripped down to something resembling the Allmusic summation, which is the only remotely concise description I've been able to find. "Shoegaze", judging by our equally unreliable-looking article, is strictly limited to a time and place (late 80's, early 90's UK). The Interior (Talk) 03:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh bother, we have an unreferenced list too - List of dream pop artists. The Interior (Talk) 03:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, well, let's see what we can do by knocking heads together then. I object to the pure speculation such as the Velvets "Sunday Morning" or Lennon's "#9 Dream" were early influences on dream pop, for example. There are a whole raft of bands in the article that I know nothing about, but for example The Legendary Pink Dots are an experimental, industrial psyched out band and if you visit their page you will see a lot of genres listed that seem to be far removed from dream pop. Maybe we should start by sorting the wheat from the chaff, which would mean visiting the pages of all the bands mentioned to see if they could reasonably be considered "dream pop" (overall defining sound and not just a song here or there). What say you?
Well as to genres and critics, yes and no, sure the critics find names to call the stuff (but not always, I think some of the uk urban music such as Grime named itself) but some stuff evolves due to artists evolving towards a different sound and so you get Acid House, Hard House, Deep House and so on. Madchester for example was a critic defined genre that lumped together disparate bands and then a load of other people jumped on the bandwagon so it became a movement, albeit briefly. I think "dream pop" was one of those things that didn't really stick and a lot of the bands wouldn't identify with it. Oh and "shitkicking hillbilly music" would be a great category ;-) CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this sways anyone's opinion left or right but most if not all major internet radio stations (Rhapsody, Last FM, etc.) have Dream pop as a category. Searching live365 yields more results. Rateyourmusic has Dream Pop as a specific category. --Popoi (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


The funny thing is:
In the early '90s, bands such as the Cocteau Twins and their ethereal soundscapes were considered an influence on dreampop (see Reynolds). In the mid-'90s, the influences became the "grandparents of dreampop". The definition of dreampop has changed over the years. First it was described as a melodic variant of noise pop (without the noise) and it was (almost) identical to shoegazing (My Bloody Valentine was one of the earliest bands who were called "dreampop"). A few years later, the '80s influences had become the spearheads of the genre (Chameleons, Felt, Cocteau Twins etc.). The whole thing was redefined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.69.110 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The inline lists of bands are getting out of hand[edit]

These seem to be continually expanding, and in the cast majority of cases are unsourced. I would be inclined to simply remove them. One or two sourced examples is fine but these long lists of original research really drag the article down. --Michig (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is, after all, a List of dream pop artists article. We could cut it back to the ones with reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term[edit]

The article claims that the term has been used in the 1980s. But why it is so hard to find any sources from this decade? The regular use of the term dates back to 1992. So it seems that most of the '80s forefathers have been labeled retroactively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.70.173 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A first genre definition appeared in Reynolds book "Blissed out: The Raptures of Rock" in 1990. Couldn't find anything from the '80s. In the book Reynolds describes A.R. Kane as a black variant of The Jesus & Mary Chain, but without the Noise Pop vibe.
In 1992, different magazines started to use the term more frequently (SPIN magazine, Option music magazine, The New Yorker, Newsweek etc.). SPIN, Billboard and other popular magazines didn't use it in 1990/1991. The term is (obviously) an invention of Simon Reynolds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.69.110 (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

mid-1980s vs. late-1980s[edit]

If dreampop is a musical genre, all of these albums could be representative. Do you people agree with me? But all these albums were released in 1987/1988. My question: Why says the infobox "mid-1980s"? Which album from the mid-1980s marks the starting point of the genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.79.169 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)