Talk:Noise pop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

To be perfectly honest, Im not sure how Noise pop was a mutation on Ska. Velvet Underground is definitely an influence and I can see how Birthday Party, Pop Group and The Smiths might be an influence, but Madness? Motown Junkie 17:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree[edit]

...noice pop is just that--pop music covered in noise, like Sonic Youth or, more recently, Pavement.


in my opinion, "noise pop" was a term created solely to describe Psychocandy. to me, sonic youth, pavement, dinosaur jr et. al. are simply good examples of alternative/indie in general. it's hardly a real genre, really. Joeyramoney 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think sonic youth, pavement, dinosaur jr have some noise pop songs, but not all of their songs are, I put them in because they're the ones pointed out on AMG [1], and genres are hard to define anyway --Surachit 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Noise Pop is more of a descriptive term for "noisy" indie music like JMC. It's not really easy to recognise what is so-called "noise pop" once you get outside of that small number of bands. Please don't get this article mixed up with Noise Rock either; that stuff is much more chaotic and closer to a mix of "noise" music and extreme punk, metal and hardcore. I'm not even sure Sonic youth should be in that category, as they are compose mostly fairly recogniseable songs. Check out noise-rock bands like Boredoms and Gore Beyond Necropsy and you'll probably hear the difference between noise rock and so-called noise pop.

Definitely don't merge this page with Noise rock. Two distinct styles of music. Noise rock is closer to experimental music at times (which is what places the genre under) and derives mainly from punk rock and No Wave. Noise pop primarily derives from the Jesus and Mary Chain. WesleyDodds 08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As with a lot of genres, there is a deviation between the orgin and actual usage, for instance Rites of Spring hardly resembles the modern "emo" music genre. This, too, seems to be the case, and compounding the problem is the fact that only a handful of bands from a decade or so could safely fall into this genre. So, I feel to fully improve this article, we must identify what "noise pop" is definitively. Could the warm, ethereal hum of the "You Made Me Realise" EP by My Bloody Valentine fall into the noise pop domain? What are the cliche or stereotypical elements to noise pop; i.e. is it heavy distortion and sugary pop lyrics? This movement in music is influential, if not on it's own standing, but as it relates to modern indie and alternative rock, and of course shoegaze. FerventDove 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good discussion here. I'll say and agree that noise pop and noise rock really have nothing to do with each other. AMG is just mistaken on that one. Also agree there's never been any actual scene for this music, either. 'Noise Pop' is just a descriptive term for small number of rock bands. -- Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


I really think the sample needs to be changed from the MBV song. Though MBV are noise pop, in addition to other things, most noise pop is usually a little lighter in tone and not as suffocating as that MBV song, or even most shoegaze-MBV. I suggest either something from 'Psychocandy', something from The Wedding Present's 'Seamonsters', or something from the first Velocity Girl ep. I'd do it, but I don't know how to. Other than that though, this is a good entry. -- Andy

Deerhoof and JAMC are good examples of varieties of Noise Pop[edit]

The list of bands is otherwise largely meaningless. This is not a catch-all term for shoegaze, alt rock or any modern electronic acts with ambient "noise" atmospheres and a female singer. Harshmustard (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing genres you know nothing about[edit]

There is no progressive/art rock influence in Noise Pop Harshmustard (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please so not personalise issues. Is there some reason that you do not consider Velvet Underground to be art rock, as stated on their article page? Their influence is supported by reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate to how much of a degree the VU were an art rock band or not (and they're clearly not prog which was in your first few edits) as I can see where this argument will head. The article only states their feedback + pop-orientation was an influence, nothing to do with art rock or prog. Any further inference suggests a misunderstanding of how genres work.
There is no personalising of this- it is a good rule. Do not edit what you do not understand.
I appreciate your other cleanups but this is a frustrating part of where Wikipedia's genre articles start to go wrongHarshmustard (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Lets stick to the issues. Are you disputing that VU are art rock or that they were an influence on noise rock?--SabreBD (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe I made it clear. The elements of their sound referred to as an influence does not fall under art rock nor prog. Classifing VU as art rock or prog does not necessarily imply all their recorded output falls under those genres. It's upon you to prove elements of progressive rock influenced noise pop artists, not the traits of one band tenuously associated with said genre, otherwise please revert your insertion. Harshmustard (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
So how would you define them?--SabreBD (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not going to debate to how much of a degree the VU were an art rock band or not (and they're clearly not prog which was in your first few edits) as I can see where this argument will head. The article only states their feedback + pop-orientation was an influence, nothing to do with art rock or prog. Any further inference suggests a misunderstanding of how genres work."
Unless you can demonstate any specific art/prog rock stylistic influence outside elements unique to the Velvet Underground please stop attempting to debate this. Harshmustard (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
If I understand your argument correctly it is that noise pop was influenced by a key art rock band, but not by art rock itself. I have to say it seems a strange distinction. It seems entirely legitimate to not this in the infobox so that the influence is clear. On those grounds we would have to remove the rest of the influence entries (and in just about every article), since we only have evidence of the taking of partial influences from bands. This clearly was a major part of the sound, as multiple reliable sources indicate. I am open to suggestions as to how this should then be recorded in the influences section, as it clearly needs to be. Perhaps you can suggest another solution.--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
VU may have elements of art rock but feedback is not a characteristic of art rock or at all common. Characteristics of art rock listed on the Wikipedia page are in most cases directly opposing those of noise pop.
I'm going to add Art Punk as an influence in its place as it partly descended from these aspects of the Velvets, relates to noise rock itself and may have some overlap particularly with later waves of noise pop, but which is another kettle of fish entirely. My main objection was with prog initially.
Ps Seeing as how you check this a lot you most likely saw I opened a new discussion point on the art rock talk page prior to all this, which would be a good place to discuss some of these genres. Will be adding another post to it shortly. Harshmustard (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
OK I am fine with the Art Punk description as I think that covers the influence. The only other option I could come up with is Experimental rock. I will take a look on the art rock talkpage. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)