Talk:Baroque pop

Baroque Pop or influenced by Baroque Pop

I'm just not sure that some of the bands listed in the "Modern Baroque Pop" list are actually baroque pop, or if their just strongly influenced by baroque pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.62.240.2 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the name baroque pop...

start with the similarities between the music and the music in the baroque era? Mainly the harpsichord.. (also hurdy gurdy, bass viol, lute, violin, and baroque guitar.) how do the bands in this INCREDIBLY long list fit in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verstandlich (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

...I agree, alas we're still looking for a definitive early media usage of the term. My opinion is that the use of classical instruments with a classical sensibility and ambitions would constitute a modern baroque pop. i.e Joanna Newsom and Andrew Bird are classically trained, Rufus Wainwright and Sufjan Stevens already branching into classical composition. 212.139.87.10 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Markw1504 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be named chamber pop? The definition and bands fit perfectly, and the term itself appears a lot more popular than "baroque pop" (on the net, at least).

...to be fair - Allmusic seems to differentiate between those two - apparently "baroque" is the 60's, while "chamber" belongs to 90's. Hmm... Squeal 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither are very attractive terms, but baroque is at least descriptive (i.e. ornate, elaborate) and has been common journalistic usage for several decades. I hope to add to this thread when I can organise my articles and record collection. Markw1504 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one could also argue that baroque is misleading because it incorrectly suggests a specific timeframe (mainly, baroque period in western art), while chamber suggests similarities to classical chamber music (which is, for the most part, true). But, yeah, I guess you're right. From what I've seen in the meantime, it's exactly as the article puts it now - chamber pop is a newer term strongly associated with the indie movement. I'm sure baroque pop was in use long before I was around; but as it is now, chamber pop seems more popular (even if it's a bit counter-intuitive when used to describe bands like Belle & Sebastian, and completely fails with regards to The Polyphonic Spree). Both are important, though, and I just hope some day this article will have enough content to justify a split. :) Squeal 15:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While I was researching for a clean-up of the article I fond that Chamber Pop/Rock was also a 1960s term. Much to my surprise.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename Baroque Pop

I think this is better capitilisation. Think about it and do it. --AresAndEnyo 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Screw it I'll do it. --AresAndEnyo 04:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a proper noun--see all other genres on wp--indie pop, post-rock, geek rock, lo-fi -- definitely do not rename. Moonty 05:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine Noted but it still seems wierd to me everywhere else has a capital p in pop. --AresAndEnyo 08:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Baroque pop artist list

I really like Iron and Wine AND I really like baroque pop, but I can't see that Iron and Wine fulfils any qualities of the latter, i.e the songs and instrumentation are conventional folk/blues. I've removed him.

Added Harry Nilsson to the 'old guys' list. Markw1504 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Joanna Newsom to the 'new guys' list. Markw1504 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Judee Sill (and her bach-influenced compositions) to the old list. Don't know how this one was missed. Markw1504 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are slightly different descriptions of baroque pop in this article and at Indie rock#Current trends. Many of these artists have a folky aspect, but do the majority of them have quiet vocals? Pomte 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Bela fleck fit into this category? Nina simone is folk/jazz/blues, but frequently had a pianist that would go off on long bachesque solos...169.233.53.82 09:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Kurt Angle". Until he starts a musical career, I'm fairly certain he shouldn't be on a list of artists in any genre, nevermind this one. If there's proof of a career, feel free to correct me. 12 July 2007

Why is Paolo Nutini on the list? I think he's alright but I don't see how his style could conceivably be considered Baroque Pop, even given how wide the scope of the genre is.80.195.246.3 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A Google search confirms that Nutini has virtually no media references to baroque pop. Hence, removed. Markw1504 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This list is ridiculous. Every band that ever used a string instrument doesn't need to be on it. The term becomes so broad as to be meaningless. Jamrifis (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest contributors could Google the artist name and "baroque pop" and look for several reputable media references. Markw1504 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could not agree more. My god does this list get me angry. These bands share like nothing meaningful in common. ILikeThings (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the names on the list I either agree with (Tindersticks, Decemberists, Divine Comedy) or don't know enough about, but Coldplay? Really? Studio overproduction shouldn't equate to baroque/chamber/whatever pop, I don't think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.165.29 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Dipitron n Fitzwacker, as the only Google entry was for the listing on this site! 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markw1504 (talk • contribs)

I added a hidden note requesting inline citations for any additions to the list. Those who watch this page will know edits largely consist of this list being addded to and then deleted by regular editors. This might help and certainly helps justify any deletions. We will have to purge the list of those without citations at some point, so if you have evidence from a reliable source for those without them please add them.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The list is now purged. If you wish to add an artist please give a citation--Sabrebd (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Having edited the list down to only those with a reliable reference, it has grown again, largely because Real.com think every current band is baroque pop, and frankly I am not convinced this is a reliable source. I suggest that we incorporate some of the key artists into the text and delete the list, replacing it with a link to the category for Baroque pop artists.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I received no response so I restored it to just key artists.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Beginning paragraph

"Baroque pop is a style originated in the mid 1960s as the flipside of sunshine pop. It used similar orchestrations but was infused with a melodramatic edge."

what does being a "flipside" mean? also, it doesn't make it clear whether the second sentence describes baroque or sunshine pop.Clockwrist (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

i deleted most of your baroque page . . .

there is a lot more information to be had regarding a subject such as this . . . i'm sorry, i feel bad doing it, but it had to be done . . . it is seen as a vague subject as it is, i think this regard is brought about by too many writers of the subject not having a clear view of what it really is, or who's really making it . . . if you have any questions please contact me, i also encourage discussion with anyone . . . i know i can do this page justice, and i will . . . all great cities have been built upon existing cities, i thank you for laying the foundation . . . Rwohlfeil (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this listing is getting worse, and with posts like this I feel little inclined to bother further. markw1504 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the revisions page and compare my edit!

I ask the community to please take a moment and compare my version of the article with the current one . . . I was only about 1/3 of the way with my article when it was reverted back to it's original . . . Anyone who knows anything of the subject, please come to my defense and let me finish and give justice to this article . . . thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwohlfeil (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point somewhat! It is not about appealing for someone to "come to your defense". No one is attacking you. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture belonging to all. We try to improve articles rather than re-writing them wholesale. This article has been growing for over 3 years. If you can work within it to improve it - that would be ideal. If you think it needs to be completely overhauled - please set out your reasons for wanting to do so on the Talk Page and seek input. And work as part of a team to improve it. Davidpatrick (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the pre-existing article (despite it's three year developement) has gone nowhere . . . and this is because there's no foundation for it to grow from, it's just been three years of lint catching in a dryer trap, if it's not changed the dryer will burn itself up . . . why do you think most of the discussions are negative and question the validity of the piece? donovan is not mentioned once in the old article, and he's probably the most important figure in baroque pop! . . . you obviously did not read where the new article was headed . . . i understand the collaborative need, but this building has decayed beyond repair, it must begin anew . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.31.176 (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated, but the revert was undoubtly necessary. In addition to removing the existing content without incorporating it in your article, and leaving the article unfinished and unreadable - your version is worse in many aspects - it uses informal writing style and contains unfounded POV statements (" Sunshine Pop, which was a commercial answer to Baroque Pop", "of, say, Pet Sounds", "And all these elements moved together on a road called forward.", "IVORY TOWERS OF BAROQUE POP", to point out a few examples). Please consider adding to the existing text and using tone and style more suited for encyclopedia. And if you really need to replace the entire article (which you shouldn't), work on it in your personal namespace until it's finished and then consult the change with others. Squeal (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop or Rock

This article refers to 'baroque rock n' roll' at the start, in musicology I find most references to 'baroque rock'. The article also mentions relatively few of the British acts usually identified as fundamental to that kind of rock, but this may be because they are 'rock' not 'pop' (see, for example, the Guardian article in the notes). It seems to me this should be covered somewhere in detail, but I would be interested in reading opinions about the best solution: a separate 'baroque rock' article with references to this one; an 'English baroque rock' page (the term is used) that points to this for cross influences (and vice versa); a redirect from 'baroque rock' to here and then the addition of some subsections to deal with those bands. Opinions welcome.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The best I can come up with is.... Baroque pop is to pop music what progressive rock is to rock music. It's a more complex form, likely to have more varied instrumentation and/or more ambitious song structures. Whilst the term baroque originated in the 60's due to a trend of using the harpsichord in pop songs, it is often used by music journalists in another definition of baroque, which is to say it is more ornate and complex than typical pop music. In terms of modern artists the two most often cited are the classically influences pop songs of Rufus Wainwright and the complex arrangments of Sufjan Stevens' music in their non-standard time signatures, instrumentation and counterpoint. Markw1504 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done my best to incorporate this into a clean up. I also added some clarification and citations as requested in tags and above. I will add redirects to this article from "Baroque rock" and "Chamber rock". I hope this will resolve any possible confusion.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A minor instrumentation error

While there is a string quartet on the Beatles song "Yesterday", the Harpsichord metioned as being in the song "In My Life" is actually a baroque piano piece which George Martin played on the piano and then played it back and rerecorded at double speed to get the sound he wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmaartist (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are right, can you supply a reference so that we can support the change?--Sabrebd (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay

Shouldn't Coldplay also be listed as a baroque pop recent artist? Many of their songs include string sections, and one has a viola solo as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.45.173 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They certainly deserve a mention if a reliable source can be found that points to this.--SabreBD (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

The article says that in western European music history Baroque music was hittin' between 1600 and 1760. I have generally heard the dates to be between 1600 and 1750, because Bach died in 1750. The date should be changed.  ? ? ? "Baroque music describes a style of European classical music approximately extending from 1600 to 1750."[1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremybass49 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The source actually said 1750, so I just changed it to that. Thanks for raising it.--SabreBD (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

the idea that baroque pop was a reaction to commercial music is preposterous

baroque pop was actually immensely popular in the 90s, from the record 'automatic for the people' by REM (which *was* a reaction), to singles like disarm by the smashing pumpkins or iris by the goo goo dolls. even nirvana's most popular record was actually the unplugged one with the string sections. it was also an integral component of the brit-pop sound, showing up in bands like oasis and verve. that section really needs to be taken back by a few years to the early 90s - baroque pop was not a reaction to alt. rock, but one of the most fundamental aspects of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

i could even say that i remember a time around '95 or so when "incorporating baroque pop elements" and "selling out" were virtually synonymous. we need to remember singles by collective soul, the cranberries and countless others in the mid 90s that, by adding baroque elements, were accused of abandoning the energy of rock for *greater* commercial potential. really, a proper history here needs to talk about the importance of nirvana's unplugged record. that was really the turning point. but, the key point that is absolutely imperative to correct is the idea that adding chamber music elements was a reaction to the mainstream; the truth is the furthest thing from that.

to be honest, i've wondered for years if the decemberists are *actually* named after the collective soul song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is entirely fictional

I worked in all levels of the music industry during the 70s and 80s, most especially in used record stores where I had to price every record ever pressed. Later I started a retailing business where I dealt with record wholesalers.

Prior to 1990 (I use that year because during the 90s I was more "out of the loop"), NO ONE used the term "baroque pop" EVER, PERIOD.

The problem with Wikipedia allowing any "fact" if you have ONE reference, is that you can find someone somewhere saying just about anything.

Prior to 1990, the number of genre and sub-genre names in use was less than 1% of the number used now.

The only term in use that was even close to "baroque pop" was "Progressive Rock". A few reviewers might have used the phrase "symphonic rock" but that was never a genre term.

And that is a major point - A journalist's phrase does not indicate a genre or sub-genre existed with that name.

And The Rolling Stones were never classified as any of this (smh).

(I expect that when you are old, you will be looking at the Wikipedia entries for 2015 and shaking your head at how far it has drifted from reality.) 162.205.217.211 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

162.205.217.211 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Newsweek, 1982: "It's been five years since Costello first burst into view. Since then, he's composed and recorded nearly 100 songs in a protean range of styles: bare-knuckled rock, baroque pop ..."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Using a price gun<>encyclopedic knowledge of music, particularly analytical/critical terms created or popularized through academics. "Well, I never heard of it" is zero basis for an article's deletion. The term has enough support for an article's existence. Many such terms (not just in music but in film, literature, and other fields of human endeavor) are applied much later, so of course you may not have heard it at the time you worked in the record store. Just as no one in 1945 ever looked in the paper and said "Let's go see that new 'film noir' down at the Rialto."PacificBoy 04:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of music articles like this using terms coined by obscure American pop culture academics and popularised by American magazines like Rolling Stone. It's particularly irritating with British acts of the 60s and 70s who never used the terms themselves (and still don't). --Ef80 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Not in citation tags

The baroque rock reference is in the bit of reference 1 that says "by early 1966 the term "baroque rock" had gained wide currency..." which goes on to describe the instrumentation and that it is a companion term to "folk rock" and "raga rock". The reference to Chamber pop in the Allmusic article states that it "draws heavily from the lush, orchestrated work of performers including Brian Wilson, Burt Bacharach, and Lee Hazlewood, Chamber Pop arose largely as a reaction to the lo-fi aesthetic dominant throughout much of the 1990s alternative music community." So what is the problem with this?--SabreBD (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The work of Wilson and Bacharach does not equate to baroque pop. You can just as easily interpret that sentence to be about orchestral pop or progressive pop. This is the problem that results. If baroque rock is the same thing as baroque pop, it needs to be verified, not guessed.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK then, if we are not going to deploy any common sense, lets follow the logic and recreate the articles for baroque rock and chamber pop, since there is clear evidence from reliable sources that they exist and remove that information from here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The AllMusic page for baroque pop states: "its spirit lives on in everything from the Philly soul sound of the early '70s to the like-minded chamber pop sound of the mid-'90s." If you can infer "baroque pop is interchangeable with chamber pop" from this single statement, then there's nothing stopping anyone from deriving "baroque pop is interchangeable with Philadelphia soul". And that's ridiculous. If baroque rock is the same thing as baroque pop, simply prove it.
Most music genre pages on this site are already embarrassing enough with how often OR edits slip by and are subsequently treated as universal fact on forums and such. Only now have I ever thought, "Wait, are they really the same?" And sure enough, the linked source says nothing of the sort, and nobody would have ever said it prior to the mid-2000s or so..--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

use of tagging in the article

@Ilovetopaint: I'm kinda surprised as the level of tagging you've applied in this article, at Pet Sounds#Recording and production also. I've raised this issue in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Clarification on tagging articles re verifiability issues, hoping or thinking there might be a relevant guideline. Please feel free to join the discussion – and everyone else should too, of course. I'll also post something at Talk:Pet Sounds. JG66 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baroque pop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Phelps (BYU) (talk · contribs) 20:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing this article today. Phelps (BYU) (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Minimal changes are needed

The text in the sound clip box is somewhat ambiguous. For a while I thought that you listed Matthew Guerriri as the writer of "Walk Away Renée", but then I went to the song's Wikipedia page it lists three different men who wrote the song and none of them are named Matthew Guerriri. Initially I thought that you meant to say Michael Brown, who you mention as its writer later in the Baroque pop article, but then I realized that you were referring to Michael Guerrieri who works for the Boston Globe. You might want to say reporter instead of writer to avoid confusion in the future. Michael Guerrieri's name is misspelled throughout the article as Michael Guerriri, which needs to be fixed.

The final section (dissipation and revival (1970s–present)) could be a lot smoother. It needs to be more comprehensive and fluid. The use of the word quaintness could also be changed to remove any feeling that opinions are being shared. The group the Divine Comedy is mentioned in the captioned picture next to the final section; you might want to consider mentioning them in the body of the article and maybe find other examples of baroque pop groups that fit into the same 1970s-present category.

The final section is that way because there's almost no significant coverage of baroque pop since the 1970s. It's a ubiquitous term, but nobody really discusses it beyond "...[X] is a baroque pop band...they have string sections".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Phelps (BYU): Any other suggestions?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

I just made a couple of corrections to the text. Also, Note 5 currently carries a self-published tag and Ref 8 connects to a dead link, both of which need to be fixed obviously. The ref formatting in general could do with some work: inconsistent style for dates; no web retrieval dates; Allmusic vs AllMusic; inconsistent cite formatting for refs 4 & 5. Thought I'd mention those while I was here … JG66 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baroque pop. 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/20081219160418/http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/eras/brqcom.html to http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/eras/brqcom.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding songs

I'd like to add "Eloise" and "I Can't Let Maggie Go" to the Baroque pop list as they are both absolutely classic examples of the genre, but I can't find an option that allows me to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seso101 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll notice that the article provides sources for the moniker when applied to songs. Which sources call the 2 songs you mentioned "baroque pop"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For No One

I don't know enough to say what songs should be mentioned, but I am surprised to see no mention of The Beatles's "For No One" in light of its use both of the French horn and polyphonic harmony. Opinions? Joe Avins (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oxford Music Online

It is interesting, when you search "Baroque pop" (w/out"") at OMO there is no result of the combination whatsoever. "Baroque rock" gets you a single entry of the combination: Tim "Buckley’s insatiable musical exploration, as he progressed through baroque folk-rock and avant-garde jazz styles." Other than that, there is a definitive reference of Baroque music to hard rock (guitar solos) and heavy metal (structure). Just saying. MenkinAlRire 10:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)