Talk:List of synth-pop artists

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizicus (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Howard Jones should definitely be on this list. Also Human League et al. 2600:4040:7D6F:8E00:A1B1:28C8:60CB:9AF0 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing: God Module, Neuroticfish, Velvet Acid Christ, Die Krupps, Wumpscut, and Zeromancer from the list

 * Proof Zeromancer is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Zeromancer/+tags
 * Proof God Module is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/God+Module/+tags
 * Proof Neuroticfish is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Neuroticfish/+tags
 * Proof Velvet Acid Christ is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Velvet+Acid+Christ/+tags
 * Proof Die Krupps is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Die+Krupps/+tags
 * Proof Wumpscut is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/%3Awumpscut%3A/+tags

More: All bands listed here should be added to this list if not already.


 * last.fm's top synthpop artist list is generated by users of the site as are its artist biography pages, thus last.fm can not be considered a reliable source. Read this to read Wikipedia's guidelines for what is considered reliable sourcing. Basically reliable sources are academic in nature, journalists for mainstream media (NY Times, BBC, Fox News etc), music journalists. "Reliable" sources have rigorous fact checking. All social media, personal websites, publicity websites, blogs (with the exception of blogs by reliable sources) are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia not necessarily because they are wrong but there is no way to know who is the author or what fact checking has taken place. If you considered this you can see why an individual editors personal opinion of the absolute truth, or just plain common sense, or what everybody just knows to be true will never be considered a reliable source. For an act to be included in a Wikipedia list, at a minimum either in this article or in the acts Wikipedia article the act must be called specifically "synthpop" by a reliable source. As I keep on mentioning every act that uses synthesizers are not synthpop. The Who and Emerson Lake and Palmer were pioneers in the use of synths but are not considered synthpop.  Although industrial might have some synthpop influences it is considered a different genre of music then synthpop by reliable sources.


 * Bottom line unless you find reliable sources saying an act is synthpop here or in their article the act may be deleted from the list. Although it might take some time to get back to you because I am busy feel free to ask any questions. Edkollin (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is synthpop
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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * It goes without saying that like other lists, there needs to be a wikipedia article on the band in the first place for the list to link too. Lists are not a place to contest (or circumvent) WP:BAND or WP:NOTABILITY Archivey (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bear with me because I am used to people disagreeing with and sometimes  personally attacking me for trying to delete material from music related lists so it is strange trying to argue add them. While we can and should look at how inclusion decisions are made elsewhere each article is considered separate. So yes like any other article lists are places to discuss notability. As I started to discuss above why should linking to a Wikipedia article a requirement when  Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources? Since we are talking about Celebrate The Nun does not the fact they reached number 5 on the Billboard dance charts fulfill criteria number 2 for WP:BAND?. Because an article is not there for whatever reason for an act that meets criteria there is no reason to compound the mistake but not listing them.


 * I would like to see the deletion discussion for Celebrate The Nun. Thanks Edkollin (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion should definitely include a reliable source clearly stating that the band is synthpop (or has played synthpop at some stage in their career). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synth-pop
 * Synth-pop (short for synthesizer pop; also called techno-pop) is a subgenre of new wave music that first became prominent in the late 1970s and features the synthesizer as the dominant musical instrument.
 * I cannot hear new wave music at Lady Gaga. Not at all.
 * Consequently it's not Synth-pop. 88.67.113.70 (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

The majority of Lady Gaga's songs are under the Synthpop category so she is considered a synthpop artist. You know she is so why are you making such a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.230.88 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A cornerstone editing policy in Wikipedia in we don't add material we "know" to be true but which has been reliably sourced or verifiable which it finally has been. Edkollin (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Lady Gaga's songs are under the Synthpop category so she is considered a synthpop artist Orly, just like that? She just is? According to whom? "Whom" in the sense of being more than a Gaga fan or some publication lacking in musical expertise.

Tell me, what earlier synthpop pioneers has Gaga herself actually described as influential over her in any way, let alone MUSICALLY (the most important)? Ultravox? Soft Cell? Japan? Human League? Anyone? Where is their obvious influence in her songs supposed to be? Where is there evidence of a background she has studying or exploring the genre? "We know that she is", you say. What the hell do we know this BASED on, huh?

I mean, where do you folks get your Gaga "synthpop" vibe? Is it her obvious and self-cited MADONNA influence? The decidedly non-synthpop tied singer who pretty much everyone on earth must have instantly compared Gaga to the moment they set eyes on her? Madonna, who was part of "hi-NRG" Dance-pop, which if you read up was basically an earlier stage of today's Gaga/Britney/etc radio diva-pop. It's easy to see the direct descendance of these singers from the ones performing it back in the 80s, and easy to encounter evidence of them CREDITING Madonna and those singers. What about Gaga's crediting of British synthpop pioneers, huh? These artists crafted their OWN sounds out of their enthusiasm for electronics, and merged it with pop hooks in a very groundbreaking advancement of electronic music. Tell me how Gaga is putting her own stamp on that tradition. This "synthpop musician" has not contributed a single instrumental role to her songs' creations, which is hilarious in a genre created by the electronically-savvy. Theburning25 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, 70.130.230, I love how Lady Gaga being synthpop tied is so incredibly important to you that it's the sole theme of your Wiki editing history. You must really see her as today's incarnation of Gary Numan to be this intense over it. Mindblowing, really. Theburning25 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Every act that used synths will be labeled synthpop or electropop even by reliable sources at one time or another. An act that writes a synthpop song or used little synthpop influence is not a synthpop act. In a perfect world if we actually follow the rules there be at least a decent minority or majority of reliable sources that label an act synthpop before it is listed here. In a perfect world lists are supposed follow the same rules as regular articles. In reality these lists seemed to be used by people to see their favorite group in Wikipedia. In reality after pleading and pleading it is so rare to see somebody use reliable sources that when they are actually used who feels like deleting it. Lady Gaga, Daft Punk, a majority of reliable sources call them something else. Edkollin (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's even one reliable publication that refers to an act as a specific genre, it deserves a mention. – Chase  ( talk ) 01:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is a prescription for anarchy because you can find one person, even one reliable person to agree to anything. That hardly makes it verifiable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. And by the way while The New York magazine used as a source for Lady Gaga is a reliable source, I wouldn't put it on top of the heap of reliable sources for music. The writer is an award winning profile writer, this does not make her an expert on music genres. Edkollin (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the author is not an expert on music genres does not change the fact that New York is a reliable source. And if you really would like other sources (though it's not required since one reliable source already calls her synthpop), The Independent and The New York Times both refer to her music as synthpop and the Independent article also credits her with bringing the genre back into the mainstream. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Put in those sources, they sound good. But make sure the Independent link is not dead as it was in the main synthpop article, actually linking her to revival of the genre is very good. That being said their is no hard fast rule about how many reliable sources you need. Edkollin (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not one of those sources have demonstrated an understanding of the synthpop genre, but I suppose that isn't exactly what's needed here. This is the day and age of music genres being misapplied or reinterpreted, anyway. Older genres are pretty vulnerable in particular with this "80s revivalism" going on (though I don't see why they couldn't revive the more accurate "Hi-NRG" or "post-disco"). The likelihood of locating the statement "Gaga isn't synthpop" on any source is very slim, which sucks for people with knowledge on the real genre. Theburning25 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with these points. Also, to the new generation listening to and commenting to 1980's revivalism, what had so much meaning to people defining genres back then has none now. That said I was fan of the acts being discussed here and I never heard the term HI-NRG used then. It was New Wave or Technopop (not synthpop very much). Which tells you something, there is no "fact" about music or its genres, it's all subjective based on the listeners or reliable source writers time,place personality, etc,etc Edkollin (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

Perfume
I am leaving them on the list for now because there are numerous sources calling them "technopop". I am not familiar with the Japanese sources and do not know if the sources are reliable. Edkollin (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Electropop
Since the Synthpop and Electropop articles have been merged shouldn't we allow acts reliably sourced as electropop? Edkollin (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I won't delete or put warnings for any group with a reliable electropop reference here or in their article. Edkollin (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think so. I know this might sound WP:OR-ish, but despite the merge, sometimes these two terms are still used distinctly nowadays, as in not every electropop can be automatically classified as synthpop (i.e.: Kesha).  Snap Snap  20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What you need is a reliable source stating explicitly that the two terms are intervchangeable, or anything sourced as "electropop" should be left off here until a source saying "synthpop" is found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a source. --''' SabreBD  (talk ) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fact Magazine reliable?
An editor used it to source the Chromatics as synthpop. I put an unreliable warning on it because the publisher is called the "The Vinyl Factory" and to me it sounded like some sort of record company so I thought it might a magazine created to publicize its artists. And to me when a publication calls itself "FACT" it raises suspicions for me so I flagged it. Since I am from the states and the magazine is from the UK I will defer to UK editors. Edkollin (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Posner is NOT Synthpop
Mike Posner is not Synthpop, for crying out loud. Ok, so someone found one oddball article where he was stupidly labelled as such, therefore we have to include him in this list? Ridiculous, and an insult to the other artists in this list. 98.220.135.184 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed Baltimora and Daft Punk

 * Baltimora is mainly an italo disco band, and "Italo disco" is not a synonym of "synthpop", even if both of these two genres make use of synthesizers.
 * Put back, found reference saying they were a New Wave Synthpop act that had elements of Dance/Disco


 * Daft Punk is mainly a house/techno duo, not a synthpop duo. This is not an electropop duo either. Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Allmusic list
Unfortunately Allmusic list of top artists are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, as they are not generated by individual writers but by hits on various pages, so one of the major sources for this list needs replacing. If anyone can help with this it would be much appreciated.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done Edkollin (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, many thanks for that.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 11:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Multicolumns
I have fixed the usage of the three column presentation which doesn't work on narrow screens. please discuss here if there is a problem with using variable numbers of columns based on the browser window width. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Cure is not synthpop
The Cure have a few songs in the genre of synthpop. According to these criteria, you can add Elton John, Queen and David Bowie, because they also have songs that can be attributed to the synth-pop. 176.214.42.255 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor Mainstream List
Nearly all "underground" (not radio-played) bands are missing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNV_Nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblage_23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linea_Aspera_(band) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De/Vision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(band) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptygma_Berzerk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boytronic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_of_Coil ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.113.70 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)