Talk:Lounge music

flag this article
I don't know how to flag articles. This one is terribly unencyclopedic. Take this sentence for example, "Rocko's Modern Life had the coolest lounge episode."

What the........ seriously I can't believe this article isn't even flagged. Little help??

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

This is an incredibly ridiculous article, very unprofessional in nature, provides aboslutely no information about the genre.


 * Can we get someone who actually knows a little about lounge to edit this? - 24.168.57.47 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the two posters above. This article conflates the post-1990s 'Lounge Music' genre with 'Lounge Singing.' They should be two separate articles because they are completely separate topics.MontanaMax (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Montana MaxMontanaMax

Definitions
The bulk of this article should be transposed into pop music.

This article truly misses the point: the vocal material the author sees as lounge is really what was middle aged folks' vocal pop.

The lounge material was really just instrumental music, and was called such in the period or was called "exotica." Apparently, the authors have confused the word lounge singer, a term for pop singers, for a general subgenre, lounge. User:Dogru144 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of actually existing Categories / error in wikipedia cross-reference capabilities
several categories, such as camp, Capitol Records, kitch were remover. They are now being restored. Whether they are red and appear as non-existence is an error of the wikipedia cross referencing system. If you doubt that there is an article on Capitol Records, which was the US distributor of artists such as Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole or the Beatles, go search in wikipedia for Capitol Records. Dogru144 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the categories, but I don't quite understand why you've restored them. I think there may be some misunderstanding about what categories are for and how they are used. You mentioned that they show up as non-existent pages because of a Wikipedia error, but I have searched through Wikipedia's list of categories and they definitely do not exist.
 * Also, I'm certain that there is an article on Capitol Records, but if you feel that such an article is relevant then add a link to it in a "See also" section, or better yet, work it into the main text. Adding Category:Capitol Records to this article will merely point to a list of all pages marked with the category (of which there are none), not to the Capitol Records article itself. For more info see WP:Categorization. Binary 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Central relevance of categories to lounge record
The above poster has questioned the propriety of including Capitol Records as a category. In the 1940s to 1970s certain labels were profoundly fundamental to and synonymous with certain genres of musice. Note, for example the difference between the styles of Motown artists and Atlantic or Volt artists. The Motown label fashioned artists to play to a broader (including white audience). It is a consensus among music journalists and record afficianadoes that the Atlantic and Volt labels had a reputation for more edgy, more gritty sounds and presentations. (On similar note, for a while in the late 1990s and early 2000s Interscope was strongly identified with gangsta rap.) None of this is meant to cast aspersions on particular sub-genres. It is merely a fact that certain artists had certain sounds, and that labels often specialized in getting these artists under their rooves, so to speak. Liberty, quintessentially, and Capitol Records played such as a role as being full of performers that were classic to the styles now recognized as "lounge". Again, refer to the labels of the artists in this article (Sinatra, Cole, Gleason, Shearing, [Peggy] Lee, etc) and note the Capitol connection. Dogru144 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis on need to search categories properly / Comment on wikipedia errors in category linkage
Before you allege that categories do not exist, click in the long box on the left side of the screen and enter the words such as kitsch or Capitol. These categories do exist. It is a fault of wikipedia that the category references appear in red at the bottom. Do not rely on clicking on the red words at the bottom. Wikipedia's links are not working properly. Dogru144 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Binary 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved contention over link to Capitol Records / profound wikipedia technical error in red letters for existing article
I appreciate the patient comments conveyed to me on the other page, however, the comments still did not exactly spell out why reference to Capitol Records is inappropriate. So, please explain more fully how this reference to Capitol Records is inappropriate. (Why are you saying that no Capitol Records article exists? Please enter the words  in the search box.  You will find a full article on Capitol Records.  As noted above: Capitol is to lounge as Interscope is to gangsta rap.) On a similar note, kitsch is fundamentally important as a label for lounge music. Wikipedia's own article on kitsch recognizes that a hallmark of kitsch is its inferior imitative quality. You would note that scholarly considerations (musicological works in published texts) ignore the vast majority of lounge artists. For example, Will Friedewald, Gunther Schuller, and John Storm Roberts (the author of the 'Latin Tinge' on Latin music) ignore the exemplary lounge figures such as Martin Denny, Les Baxter, George Shearing, Jackie Gleason. Dogru144 03:22 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy re categories
OK, I read your message again. I see that you acknowledge that an article exists. However, I have encountered a very broad range of instances of categories, many of them far less serious than others. Please explain the criteria for classification as a category and not as an article. I have sometimes entered categories. Initially they appear as red; however, in a few days, they appear blue.

Links/ References
Quite objectionable are the links at the bottom. Hardly any of them relate to the 50s/60s lounge subgenre. They relate to 90s/00s chill and electronica genres. User:Dogru144 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing
"Lounge music" is simply a pejorative term, invented by Rock fans, to make jazz and traditional American pop music performers appear to be inferior. The logic being, that performing in a lounge denotes the lack of talent to be able to perform in a larger venue. Nevermind, that the majority of "lounge" performers, have more formal musical training than most Rock musicians.

Prior to the rock movement, virtually every known musical performer would be considered a "lounge" act, by today's common standard.

Users of this term, are largely ignorant of music appreciation and history.Eelb53 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the above.

Whoever said "Swinging music of the era is also considered lounge and consisted of a schmaltzy continuation of the swing jazz era of the 1930s and 1940s, but with more of an emphasis on the vocalist" -and then went on the include Sinatra and Jackie Gleason together doesn't really know much about music. Whilst an argument can be made that Gleason performed "lounge", in fact he even claimed a lot of his stuff was aural wallpaper, its hard to think of anything that Frank did that was "aural wallpaper".

Louis Prima and Sam Butera could rock and swing harder than anybody.

I'll try and put this on my list to come back and do some improvementsTim O&#39;Leary (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

Confusing article
This article covers two different musics called "lounge" -- the exotica and space-age pop of the 50s and 60s, and the lounge/swing music of the 30s and 40s. Problem is, the article does a poor job of differentiating and separating the two. The "Resurgence" section is especially bad, conflating the lounge revival of the early 90s with the swing revival of the late 90s and early 2000s. One minute it's talking about the lounge revival, then the next sentence says, "In the 2000s Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine has added to this resurgence by covering (usually profane) hit songs of other genres (primarily metal and hip hop) in the style of a lounge singer." No, actually it didn't add to the lounge resurgence -- it was part of a different revival, the swing revival. Someone should clean this up. skylights (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no musical characteristics that define a piece of music as "Lounge". It's whatever the individual listener defines. Also, the genres usually defined as "Lounge", existed for decades before they were called "Lounge". Genres of music are determined by something musically that defines and differentiates them from other genres. "Lounge music" is determined by the appearance and the dress of the performer, and often the presence of musical instruments that exclude the prevalence of electric guitars. There is nothing different in the music, that didn't exist in the 1930's thru the 60's.

An accurate article describing "Lounge music", would note that the term originated with "shock jocks" on radio stations featuring hard rock music. The earliest I heard the term, was from Steve Dahl (of Disco Demolition fame) on a Chicago station in 1982. He went into a monologue complaining about the media coverage of Karen Carpenter's death, and at some point stated "The Carpenters were just a lounge act". In the succeeding decades, every time I have heard the descriptive term "Lounge" applied to a piece or performance of music, it has been from someone heavily invested in hard rock, classic rock, or heavy metal. Either as a DJ, performer, or just a fan. I have never heard the term from individuals involved in the higher levels of music education, nor those who perform in the Jazz or Traditional Pop genres. Which leads me to believe the term is a creation by those on the opposite side of the musical spectrum, to offer an all inclusive term to describe music they don't like. It would be the same as the 1950's when the older generation disliked Rock music. It was often described as "noise". Should we have a Wikipedia article for "Noise music", and toss all variances of Rock music into that category? That is essentially what is happening with Jazz and Traditional Pop, with this "Lounge music" nonsense. eelb53Eelb53 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lounge music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112153311/http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2001/02/06/murray/index1.html to http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2001/02/06/murray/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ultra Lounge
I just deleted the "Ultra Lounge" section. It was talking about venues, not music, and the two sources it cited were travel guides to Las Vegas. Completely irrelevant in an article that is nominally about music. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)