From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


i'm curious as to how the term "mashup" gained any credibility as a word. mashup? really? that's something you do with potatoes. anyway, you're free to delete this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

chocolateboy - I'm curious as to why you recently removed the generalized mashup entry and reinstated the redirect to a specialized entry with a limited scope. If you intend to revert again, could you please post justifications here?

Sure. It's unexpected [1] [2], unencyclopaedic and unsubstantiated. This isn't UrbanDictionary.
chocolateboy 21:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bastard Pop[edit]

I haven't seen the entry Chocolateboy removed, but I'd like to share a couple of thoughts: 1) NOBODY but NOBODY who DOES it calls it "Bastard pop". Anywhere. Nor have I EVER seen that term outside of *here*. 2) This is a new and evolving terminology; when there is no body of research with any substance, "original research" in the sense of "I've heard of the term many times, and am familiar with the subculture that spawned it" is the only recourse. Of course adding citations (in this case, "how to make a mashup" for example) would substantiate not only the article but also the proper term, which in this case IS "Mashup"; 3) This may be a perfect example of the kind of "edit" which is driving people away from Wikipedia; 4) "Bastard pop" is a pejorative term for something many of us are fond of. So, Chocolate *boy*, consider easing up. THere are some other principles for Wikipeda, which include RESPECT. Just a little hint. Twang 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the entry Chocolateboy removed
Just to clarify what you're "defending" in place of the current disambiguation page, here it is:
see Bastard pop for a thorough investigation of musical mashups.
"mashup" on a larger scale refers to a general aesthetic /ethic of 'reduce, reuse, recycle' + 'steal & pillage' practically applied to an artform/trade/technology (or combination thereof)...
very DIY. [3]
NOBODY but NOBODY who DOES it calls it "Bastard pop".
Reliable sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and bootleggers [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] &c. disagree.
"Mashup" or "mashups" are no more a substitute for "bastard pop" as the title of the article than "raps" or "breaks" are for hip hop or drum and bass. These articles are about the genre, not the names given to its songs or techniques. These names are mentioned prominently in the article and are linked or redirected as appropriate. At any rate, this dab isn't going anywhere. Mashup (web application hybrid) is the first link Google finds when searching for "mash-up" and the second for "mashup". "Mashup" (of course) traditionally referred to reggae mixes [15], so even if there was no competition from webapps, it would still suffer from the same ambiguity as "cut-up" and "bootleg".
As for your other points, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Check your facts.
chocolateboy 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In this particular case, Google is not a good authority to appeal to, as Google Inc promotes mindshare by encouraging programmers to create "mashups" using their technology. Yahoo search has the first two links pointing to Wikipedia, followed by two music sites. As far as sources go, links to Wikipedia shouldn't be used as verification for Wikipedia.
And re: this "dab" not going anywhere, only time will tell how long a "web application hybrid" remains notable enough for the 'pedia. Shoehorn 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You're not wrong. [16] [17]
And I'm more than happy to aquiesce to the status quo when there is a status quo. It's a bit of a shame (IMHO) that "mashup" is a dab rather than a link that explains how the web epigone earned its name...
But "Bastard Pop" is the formal name for the genre, and "mashups" is the ubiquitous (and at least one-third ambiguous) name for bastard pop songs. "Bastard Pop" is less encumbered by ambiguity and clearer than "Mashup (music)". 1/3 is not feeble enough to kick a competing namespace to the kerb. Would you really prefer Wikipedia articles to be called "Mashup (music)" rather than "Bastard Pop", "Jungle" (or "breaks" or "breakbeats") rather than "Drum & Bass" or "Rap" rather than "Hip Hop"?
chocolateboy 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There are distinctions to be made between jungle and drum and bass, and rap and hip hop, and I'd rather go for clarity through context than trying to force a "better" classification where it isn't wanted. Even calling it a genre is a big strong, categorizes the genre of most of the examples from the bastard pop article as either electronic, hip hop, or both. I also don't find "mashup" to be a popular metonym for "song" or "track". A mashup is ultimately just a technique for mixing music, akin to the use of multi-track magnetic tape. Shoehorn 06:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Even calling it a genre is a big strong
No it isn't. [18] [19] [20] is irrelevant. It doesn't have a bastard pop or mashup tag. It also doesn't have a crunk, reggaeton, grime (music), punk, j-pop or techno tag. [21] Do you really think that somehow proves that those genres/subgenres don't exist or that the terms are incorrect?
A mashup is ultimately just a technique for mixing music
Feel free to add an article about the "technique" (I don't see how it differs in any way from hip hop or any other form of sampling as far as the technique goes), akin to the scratching or toasting articles. The bastard pop article, however, is about the genre.
chocolateboy 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I find discogs to be surprisingly conservative in their classification. I think WP would benefit from a similar attitute wrt music and music culture, I don't think trying to trace the ongoing development of genres/subgenres is something we should be doing (crystal ball and all that). And I don't see why you are so dead set on this "bastard pop" classification, cite me something out of an actual music print publication (Rolling Stone?) instead of the disposable Shoehorn 10:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think WP would benefit from a similar attitute wrt music and music culture
Then I suggest you resume your campaign here when you've persuaded the editors of the abovementioned articles to delete or rename them. Good luck with that.
cite me something out of an actual music print publication (Rolling Stone?)
You're gonna have to point out the policy page that says a music article must justify its title or existence with a reference to a Rolling Stone article. I've searched high and low and can't find it anywhere. They (Rolling Stone) also, apparently, haven't heard of:
Sounds like a bug in Rolling Stone to me. If you have a problem with the credibility of the Sydney Morning Herald,, Paul Morley, Salon, The New Yorker, Wired and The Guardian, then I suggest you take it up on the talk pages of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research.
chocolateboy 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you forget to make a point there somewhere?
mashup music [34] 12,900,000 hits on google
"bastard pop" music [35] 159,000 hits on google
You can continue to cherry pick articles from Salon, The New Yorker, ad nauseum, but it won't change the fact that "bastard pop" was never the popular term. Shoehorn 23:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made 33 referenced points. You've just contradicted yourself again. Google is biased. Google is reliable. "Music print" sources are the only reliable sources. Google is a reliable source. Wikipedia should be surprisingly conservative. Wikipedia should keep its finger on the pulse of the Google zeitgeist. It's not a genre. The genre is called "mashup" [sic]. Wikipedia should limit itself to the handful of categories used by Wikipedia should "innovate" and "invent" a new "mashup" category, just for this "crystal ball"-gazing article, which shouldn't really exist anyway.
The stats for "bastard pop" vs "mashup" are as irrelevant as the stats for "rap" vs "hip hop" and "breaks"/"jungle" vs "drum and bass" for reasons outlined ad nauseam above and here.
chocolateboy 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The bastard pop article is a piece of shit anyway. You can have it, chocolateboy. Shoehorn 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time someone called it Bastard pop[edit]

But it is and always will be Mashups or Mash-Ups. Problem is that Hybrid Web 2.0 APIs are now using the term Mashups. But that's a recent thing.

Bastard Pop is a correct way to describe Music Hybrids, but Mashups is more relevant.

What to do eh?

I vote for the Mashups Disambiguation page to refer to "Mashup (web application hybrid)" and "Mashup (Music Hybrid)".

Bastard pop will disappear faster than it was coined as a term. Listen to any radio station or serach the web - Mashups is always used and you NEVER hear the term Bastard Pop.

My 2c —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

My 50 Cent :-) is that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
chocolateboy 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jamaican derivation[edit]

I'm interested to see the entry discuss the Jamaican patois derivation of the word. Do dictionary definitions belong here? If so, I'll have a go at writing a better one, but I wanted to check in first.

If at all, I think the idea is to disambiguate the term in different musical contexts - "mash up"/"mashin up" in the reggae/ska context and "mashup" in the "combining sources" sense - in Jamaica at least, there is also the sense of destruction ie 'the police dem mash up me head' [36]


How is this lame ass article on wikipedia? I looked at the Wikipedia logo to the left just to check it wasnt Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Mashme Project[edit]

Hello there. I do not have too much experience with Wikipedia. I did my B.A. project on Mashups and I'd like to share it with whoever thinks it might be useful to him. On the website there is a multimedia approach to explain this topic. There are simple explanation in textform, embedded video examples and audio interviews from people like Lawrence Lessig. Furthermore there are selected links to scientific rescources.

The url is[1]. Feel free to use, recycle and link to it. It is under the creative commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mashup minded[edit]

Can we put a direction to mashup minded here? -Michael.kutch (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).