Talk:List of synth-pop artists

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles

I added the b-52's. I think they would qualify as Synthpop, Just listen to Rock Lobster! - Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.199 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't modern talking, red flag or peter schilling be included in the list? and there are certain "sythnpop" sounding songs from bands not known to be a purely sythnpop band. I can think of Kon Kan's "I beg your pardon" or the Cure's "just like heaven". Philip Oakey's "Together in electric dreams" sounds like another one but im not sure what his general style is.

Philip Oakey was the lead singer of The Human League, who are already mentioned in the article. He released "Together in Electric Dreams" without the rest of the band, with producer Giorgio Moroder. Yes, The Cure released a few songs that closely resemble synthpop (the most obvious of which is 1983's "The Walk"), but I wouldn't include them on a list of synthpop artists. As for others, feel free to add them to the list, as long as they have a page on Wikipedia. John5008 | talk to me 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. cool, that's right about Moroder. thanks for reminding me. I added Peter Schilling. His "the different story" definitely has the most classic synthpop sound of all his music. And I made another addition; Like Depeche Mode, Erasure was still popular worldwide in the 90's.

Ordering

It seems to me that organizing the list by date is just causing all sorts of trouble, leading to duplication and such. I intend to change it unless I hear some objections. Feel free to add dates active to the bands. --Eyrian 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. At least we can see the evolution of synthpop from the eighties to the present time. I think of it like classical music. Bach and Chopin's both classical but one's baroque and the other's a romantic composer; you won't be able to tell how the music has evolved. Plus did you just revert it back to an original page or left out my minor change i.e Peter Schilling? Why dont we have both pages then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moreshige (talk • contribs) .

Peter Schilling is most certainly still on the list. Look under "s". As for the ordering, I don't think that listing bands in strict order of formation is truly that stylistically relevant. It might show a few casual connections, but I think that kind of relationship is better expressed in the text of individual articles (such as Synthpop itself).--Eyrian 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why is Apoptygma Berzerk still kept in this list, when it was agreed in the main article's talk page that this band generally cannot be considered synthpop?--Skraelinger 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce????

No, please. Beyoncé????

Hey, why not? If Silver freakin' Apples are on here. Hell, let's invite Engelbert Humperdinck over too and have us a REAL party!!

Suggested Additions

Add Machine in Motion (see some of their videos on youtube); also add BlueOctober UK (listen to some samples on amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.75.181 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Inclusion

A basic requirement of inclusion on this list is that the artiste's article must state (in the Infobox or prose) that their Genre is (or was) Synthpop. It can list other genres too as artistes tend to cross over. It matters not if you personally consider an artist Synthpop, as that is just WP:OR. Electropop, Darkwave New Wave, New Romantic, Pop are not Synthpop. Archivey (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad there is a list that actually has inclusion standards. As many Wikipedia artist articles are unsourced or poorly sourced I would require two reliable citations for any artist who (Has no Wikipedia article or whose Wikipedia article does not describe them as Synthpop or whose Wikipedia article has citation warnings or whose Wikipedia article is poorly or non sourced even with no warnings) Edkollin (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady GaGa

Until Lady GaGa's article says she is a Synthpop artist it is not going to be accepted on this list. Instead of edit warring to try and change the inclusion criteria. Edit Lady GaGa and add Synthpop first, if the genre is accepted by the consensus there, then add it to this list and not before.86.139.136.245 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who believes Lady Gaga falls under this category deserves a bat to the skull, end of story. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I need to apologize to Ed Kollin for flying off the handle and letting my frustrations about his edits and these lists in general get to me last night. While theoretically lists should go by the same rules as article in practice as even Ed Kollin has noted over in the New Wave list discussions the reality is different. Most editors seem to be inclusive or putting it another way another more relaxed regarding enforcing standards in lists then in regular articles. If a band is synthpop influenced not just primarily synthpop editors want to add them in. Same is true if a act is locally popular only. And editors cut some slack about finding sources for lesser known acts or acts that come from non English speaking articles. Invariably this gets opposed by a few editors with good intentions that want to strictly enforce the sourcing rules leading to edit wars. Many of these these editors while respecting sourcing rules have a blind spot regarding the de facto consensus guidelines. If your standards are being disregarded day after day this should be a signal the consensuses is strongly against your good intentioned viewpoints on these matters and that you should respect the majority view. If this happens I believe the number of edit wars would decline and in the long run most will be happy. Of course this requires people on my side and me specifically should stop acting like assholes also. 69.114.116.215 (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology Accepted: Where just going to have to disagree about inclusiveness. I find that once standards are loosened or if I give other editors a little bit of leeway this invariably gets taken advantage of. So if I seen overly or unfairly prickly about this that is why. Also every article has different editors and sometimes different standards. We can use other articles as guidelines but we are not bound to follow the way they do things. This article has developed a consensus for more strict interpretation of the rules then other lists have for whatever reason. The other articles have resulted in endless edit wars. I would like to avoid that here. I am going to reenter group that was deleted back because I have found reliable citing that they are synthpop and notable. With google etc I don't understand why everybody seems to find doing this onerous (not including groups big in non English speaking countries). Edkollin (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name-calling aside, your original sentiment was completely understandable, user 64.114. After all, you/we were trying to include someone on a list they pretty OBVIOUSLY belong on. Freaking frustrating website this is. The "anyone can edit" concept has proven pretty much to be a failure. There will always be particularly obsessive, controlling people hijacking things to keep it going their way. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]