Talk:Dream pop/Archives/2017

Merge with Shoegazing?

Why not? Every single source from the '90s proves that both, dream pop and shoegazing, had described one and the same movement in British pop music. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The use of the terms is just regionally dependent (U.S. vs. U.K.). --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The two genres are closely related but not identical. While many bands (Cocteau Twins, Slowdive) provide an intersection of the genres (just as there are bands that intersect post-punk and dream pop, like The Chameleons), there's loads of iconic dream pop bands that are definitely not shoegaze. Whatever was written in the 1990s is relevant but lots of things have changed since then, and the genre has been redefined over time by critics, bands and listeners alike. Look at the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dream_pop_artists Some really classic dream pop bands, that are not shoegaze: Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise, Luna, Cardigans, Beach House, Azure Ray, Au Revoir Simone, Blue Nile, Lana Del Rey, Ocean Blue, Saint Etienne, etc. That alone should give you a clearer sense of where shoegaze and dream pop differ. Dream pop is softer and less distorted than shoegaze, less angular and cold than post-punk, but dreamier/moodier than plain indie-rock. Anyway, this article really should be rewritten as it focuses way too narrowly on the shoegaze/Simon Reynolds definition of dream pop and not enough on what actual listeners and bands have since redefined it as. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Greg. Is there any reliable source that could back up your point of view? I'm afraid we have to use primary sources, mainly from the '90s music press. As far as I know, Mazzy Star was never called a dream pop or shoegazing band. There is really no doubt that dream pop was the US American term for the British shoegazing phenomenon. All of these "softer" and "harder" argumentations are just POV. Here is a list of sources:

https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=4892887&find=5314794&x=m#msg5314794

Dream pop bands and shoegazing artists are identical. The definition of today may be different from Reynolds' textbook definition and the definition of the '90s music press. But as you know... Nothing works without reliable sources. And there really are not many sources in this article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Dream pop bands and shoegazing artists are identical"...well that clearly isn't the case, since the artists I cited above (all listed as dream pop in their Wiki articles) are not shoegaze, or are you suggesting they are?

"As far as I know, Mazzy Star was never called a dream pop or shoegazing band." Yes, they most certainly have been:

Pitchfork: "Next week, 1990s dream pop greats Mazzy Star will return with their first album in 17 years, Seasons of Your Day"

Under the Radar: "- Earlier this fall dream pop duo Mazzy Star released Seasons of Your Day, the band's first album in 17 years"

Paste Magazine: "And even though Mazzy Star has been absent for a while, the group's reign of dream pop lingered on whenever we heard “Fade Into You” play"

Etc. If I had time I am sure I could find dozens more via Googling.

OK here is the main issue. You seem to assume that genres are automatically named and defined at the time they coalesce. This sometimes is the cause (shoegaze for example). In many other cases, maybe most in music history, genres are named, defined, and come into common usage at a later date or over time. Dream pop is one of these. It's not really relevant to find '90s sources---dream pop is the term used to describe this genre TODAY. The relevant sources are recent and current major press articles and reviews, artists' self-definitions, etc.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, this isn't simply my personal POV. You may not like the term but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not used in popular culture:

An excellent primer for what the genre means: http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-dream-pop-albums/

Obviously its own genre if it has an Amazon list, no? http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Music-Dream-Pop/zgbs/music/602088

http://www.scaruffi.com/music/dreampop.html

Urban Dictionary: dreampop Pioneered by Scotland's "Cocteau Twins", dreampop is a catch-all term for ethereal (Dreamy) music with high, drifting vocals and a swirling wall-of-sound texture. Related to noisepop/shoegaze, but distinguished by frequent use of non-guitar electronics. Dates from the 80s but is experiencing a mdoern revival (M83 et al.) dreampop is related to but has distinct origins from shoegaze

Rate Your Music: Dream Pop [Genre371] Dream Pop is a genre characterized by an overall subdued atmosphere - from the vocals to the melodies - producing a dream-like, sleepy, or spacious feel. As the name suggests, songs are structured around traditionally Pop-sounding progressions, often with a steady though de-emphasized beat and vocals that are lower in the mix and possibly run through effects so as to offer a more ethereal feel. Band structures are usually pretty straightforward sporting a guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. Vocals are a distinguishing element of Dream Pop and can often be viewed predominantly as an instrument, with importance being placed moreso on providing melody and less on the actual lyrics. In addition, it is not uncommon for there to be more than one vocalist, either working in unison or switching off. Females have a very prominent role in this genre in this respect, with acts such as My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, and Mazzy Star - among others - having female vocalists. It is also not uncommon for Dream Pop to be fused with other genres like Shoegaze or Noise Pop. The main distinguishing factors though are that while they all offer a similar, "blanketing" feel, Dream Pop does not rely on "walls of sound" (as in Shoegaze) or heavily distorted, very driving guitars (as in Noise Pop). Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

They are neither shoegazing nor dream pop (Lana del Rey? Cardigans? Saint Etienne? Are you serious?). Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise and many others were well-known in the '90s. And nobody used the term "dream pop" to describe their music. Isn't that really strange?

And of course, '90s sources are absolutey relevant, because they are primary sources. They describe a genre of music that was popular in the early '90s. All this mislabelled neo-indietronic/folk/singer-songwriter/witchhouse/synthpop stuff of today has nothing to do with it.

I really don't care about "sources" of today's web magazines. Every school kid can write a review.

"Females have a very prominent role in this genre"

No, they don't. Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"An excellent primer for what the genre means: http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-dream-pop-albums/"

This is really fucked up. Especially the first 4 albums. You can't be serious. That's exactly the reason why i'm not a big friend of webzines. Really everybody can spread his ahistorical POV across the world. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to find a book (more up to date) that defines dream pop in a different way. But again... Reynolds seems to be the only person that cares about the genre. This is an excerpt from the book "Bring the Noise" from 2007:

— "Shoegaze came directly out of My Bloody Valentine but was also shaped by - no point in being fake-modest here - the climate of writing that enfolded MBV and A.R. Kane (my personal pet group and the guys who coined the term "dreampop", another name for shoegaze)."

If there is any other reliable post-millennial source, please let me know. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A second book from 2008: Performing class in British popular music, ISBN 0-2302-1949-7, Page 149:

— "The archetypal dream pop bands were Slowdive, Ride, Lush and Chapterhouse, predominately pop bands who incorporated the sound of Cocteau Twins with the harder, more dissonant guitar sounds of The Jesus and Mary Chain and My Bloody Valentine."

So it seems that 6 years ago the definition of dream pop was pretty much identical to the '90s definition. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mazzy Star, Julee Cruise and many others were well-known in the '90s. And nobody used the term "dream pop" to describe their music. Isn't that really strange?" Again, you seem bent on this idea that genre names and/or their definitions never change over time. This is clearly erroneous as any look at music history can tell you. To give two examples...in the late 1970s up through 1984-85, bands like the Banshees, Cure, Joy Division, etc. were called post-punk (which they still are). From 1985 or so after, they were also considered part of (and the founders) of goth. It was retroactive. Here's another. Back in 1975-76, "punk" mainly meant bands in the NYC CBGB scene. The definition changed over time to focus more on the British '76-77 punk scene. So today, most people would not label the music of say, Blondie, Television or Talking Heads as "punk rock." The definition changed over time. Best one would be classical. Guess what? If you went back in time to the early 1800s, I can guarantee you that Beethoven would not understand what you meant by the word "classical"---it is a wholly retroactive classification. Classifications for such genres as blues, jazz, reggae, new wave, psychedelia, heavy metal etc have all changed and shifted over time. Trying to "police" usage of genre names to conform to the way they were used decades ago is a futile battle. Ahistorical is in the eye of the person trying to maintain an outdated definition.

"And of course, '90s sources are absolutey relevant, because they are primary sources. They describe a genre of music that was popular in the early '90s." Says you. I say, as do most current mainstream print and web media, that dream pop is mainly a current term.

"I really don't care about "sources" of today's web magazines. Every school kid can write a review." Well that's your wholly subjective and kind of narrowminded view. Whether you like it or not, media sources like Pitchfork and Under the Radar are considered reliable mainstream sources.

"Females have a very prominent role in this genre"
No, they don't. Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer."

Well, first of all the two genres are not the same, for the nth time. Second, even if we are talking about just shoegaze, that's not accurate either. At best they are gender even, something that was a hallmark of shoegaze. Cocteau Twins, Lush, Curve, Pale Saints, Slowdive, Bleach, Alison's Halo, Blonde Redhead, Cranes, Medicine, Drop Nineteens...nope, no female vocals there!Greg Fasolino (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Again, you seem bent on this idea that genre names and/or their definitions never change over time."

It doesn't matter what i think. There are no reliable sources that could underline your point of view. But you are absolutely right. I'm not a friend of ahistorical re-definitions.

Let me ask you a question: What is the current definition of dream pop? I'm afraid there is no definition. Post-punk, Goth and "post-Goth" (4AD stuff), country music, folk, americana, soft rock, indietronics, electronica... Really everything is tagged as "dream pop" nowadays. None of these genres had anything to do with the original definition. And that makes an encyclopedic article impossible.

"Well, first of all the two genres are not the same, for the nth time."

Sources say otherwise. And there is nothing you can do about it.

"At best they are gender even, something that was a hallmark of shoegaze. Cocteau Twins, Lush, Curve, Pale Saints, Slowdive, Bleach, Alison's Halo, Blonde Redhead, Cranes, Medicine, Drop Nineteens...nope, no female vocals there!"

Make a list of male-fronted bands (Ride, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of Distinction etc.) and female-fronted bands. You'll see. Women in the genre don't make the genre a female-dominated genre.

There are women in punk, women in Goth, women in heavy metal music. But they don't play a bigger role than male vocalists. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Sources say otherwise. And there is nothing you can do about it." YOUR (old) sources say otherwise. My (current) sources, and the ones already referenced by others, say yes. It's entirely your opinion whose sources are valid and whose are not.

"Make a list of male-fronted bands (Ride, Chapterhouse, Kitchens of Distinction etc.) and female-fronted bands. You'll see. Women in the genre don't make the genre a female-dominated genre." You are confusing me and the writer from Rate Your Music. I never said it was female-dominated. YOU said "Most dream pop/shoegazing bands had a male singer," and that is what I was disputing. I said they were gender-neutral, especially compared to other genres of the time. The list of bands I made shows that pretty clearly. There's not much dispute that both shoegaze and dream pop feature a greater proportion of females, both musicians and singers, than the ones you mention like punk or metal.

"I'm not a friend of ahistorical re-definitions". History is not static, it is always changing. I notice you didnt' even try to address the specific examples I gave you of how musical genres and their definitions change over time. You can fight to try and keep things stuck in an old view of things, but you can't expect everyone else to never evolve.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"My (current) sources, and the ones already referenced by others, say yes"

You know what "reliable source" means? Urban Dictionary, Scaruffi and all this stuff aren't reliable sources. You can't use them in an encyclopedia. Same with RYM and its genre catalogue (most of those genres don't even exist).

"I said they were gender-neutral, especially compared to other genres of the time."

It doesn't matter (it's wrong anyway, because there were undeniably more male vocalists in this genre).

"The list of bands I made shows that pretty clearly."

What list? I see ten bands (in fact, Pale Saints was a male-fronted band). There were more than hundred bands. Maybe hundreds of bands worldwide.

The article on RYM says "Females have a very prominent role in this genre"... and this is just a fallacy, based on the popularity of Lush, Curve and two or three other artists... Trip-hop is mostly female-fronted. Ethergoth is female-fronted. Dream pop/shoegazing is clearly not. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

— "But by the '90s, Pink Floyd's blurry sound and androgynous aura were resurrected by a mini-movement of British neo-psychedelic bands known as 'shoegazers' or 'dreampop'."

— "The ruling Brit-pop aesthetic in 1991 was the dazed-and-confused androgyny of 'dreampop' bands"

This is one of the genre's characteristics. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Debating this with you further is pointless, so I will rest my case. You aren't interested in hearing what listeners and critics of the present day have to say, so why waste further breath explaining to you that the definition has changed over time.Greg Fasolino (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources, Greg... Maybe you don't understand what i'm saying. Bring me reliable sources. Thanks. All this drivel about "genres change" doesn't really matter. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, "reliable." Meaning sources you liked. Meaning **old** sources. That's a catch 22 here. I DID give you quite a few current sources, but you dismissed them, even though something like Pitchfork or Paste is clearly mainstream music criticism today. Most of my examples were in service of the Mazzy Star debate, but I am sure with 5 mins of Googling, I can find references to "dream pop" for any of the bands I listed (way) above that are now considered firmly dream pop but are obviously not shoegaze. Why waste my time though, if you are going to just dismiss these sources as too modern, too ahistorical, etc. Nobody is going to sit down and write an article in the New York Times on "How the Term Dream Pop Has Evolved Over Time." Simply isnt going to happen. the change is instead visible in what artists today are referenced as dream pop and why. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I told you already... you need reliable book sources, not the web crap of some POV-spreading teenagers who don't give a fuck about history.

Nobody is going to sit down and write an article in the New York Times on "How the Term Dream Pop Has Evolved Over Time."

It's neither my problem nor your problem. If there is no other definition, we have to use the original definition. It's that simple. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"I told you already... you need reliable book sources, not the web crap of some POV-spreading teenagers who don't give a fuck about history."

The fact that you would think of huge media sources like Pitchfork or Paste Magazine in that way just shows you do not have an accurate sense of current media or music criticism. Teenagers? Show me a teenager who works for those publications and I'll eat a Mazzy Star CD. Pitchfork is to 2014 what Spin and Alternative Press were to 1990, what Trouser Press and Creem were to 1980, and what Rolling Stone and Melody Maker were to 1970. Let me ask you something...have you or do you work in the music industry and/or the publishing field? What's your experience/knowledge level of same? I am not a teenager. I'm 49 and have been a music journalist all of my adult life, since 1984. I worked as a writer and editor for Spin, Creem, Rockpool, Trouser Press, Reflex, Faces, NY's Nightlife, Backstage/Shoot, Newsday, and dozens of other music and media magazines and newspapers, and wrote over 40 entries in the Trouser Press Record Guide books. Doesn't make me any better than you, but I'm not talking out of my ass. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

""It's neither my problem nor your problem. If there is no other definition, we have to use the original definition. It's that simple." No, actually it isn't. There are definitions, cited above, you just don't like them, which is entirely subjective on your part. You are not the final arbiter of which sources are legit, based on your own personal biases.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. I know exactly who you are. Many years ago I was the one who added The Naked and the Dead to the German Goth Rock article...

"There are definitions"

Where? Textbook definitions? Then show me. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Both Greg Fasolino and Greg Fasolino are both wrong on some aspects.

1. Shoegaze was not dream pop or considered dream pop at the time. 2. of the "list" that was presented by Greg only Julee Cruise I see as fitting in at the time. Mazzy Star was never called dream pop. Lana del who? not dream pop. Just a terrible take on a 1950's image, and just sounds ordinary.Starbwoy (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Article content

Again... this article needs a clear definition. Otherwise it's nothing else than a synonym or a subcategory of shoegazing. The influences are exactly the same: Neo-psychedelia, noise-pop, ambient, and Cocteau's ethereal goth/ethereal pop tunes. Any solution? --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is art not mathematics. Genres are fluid and blur into each other; there is no precise, rigid, ironclad, unchanging, exclusionary definition of any artistic and especially musical genre.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

... in an encyclopaedia we describe art. Even art has its own characteristics and a history. I mean, there isn't even a single source that proves that dreampop is a forerunner of shoegazing. That's the imagination of some Wikipedians who put this a-historical nonsense in the infoboxes. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The article needs good sources, published books written by musicologists.

Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There are books and sources from popular music magazines. But the problem is: Everytime they speak of dreampop, they mean shoegazing. They talk about the same bands (MBV, Lush, Slowdive, Chapterhouse, Ride etc.), they talk about the same shortliving phenomenon in British pop music. In 1994/95 they already talked about the death of the genre - it's completely identical to the death of shoegazing in the mid-'90s.

The most problematic sentence in this article is "A louder, more aggressive strain of dream pop came to be known as shoegazing". This is pure POV. Nobody ever said that shoegazing is harder or softer than dreampop, and vice versa. It's a typical Wikinvention. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dream pop is related to shoegaze obviously but is NOT synonymous. The issue is: The usage of the term 25 years ago is not identical to the current usage by a wide and large array of modern listeners, bands and music writers. There are plenty of archetypal, iconic dream pop bands that can not in any way be deemed shoegaze and have never been so. For example, visit the Wiki pages of say, Mazzy Star, Beach House, Luna, Wild Nothing, The Sundays, M83, The Radio Dept., Yo La Tengo, Bat for Lashes, The xx, Marissa Nadler, DIIV, even Cocteau Twins to go back further. All list dream pop as the main genre or one of them, and many do not list shoegaze at all. That is indicative of the current usage of the genre name. No critic or fan ever called Mazzy Star or Luna or The Sundays shoegaze. No present-day fan of the very popular Beach House ever called them shoegaze. The two terms form a Venn diagram as do many other musical genres that are closely related/connected (an accurate comparison would speed metal vs. thrash metal); that does not mean we can ignore the differences or assume that all the people currently using the term are morons who should be ignored for the sake of trying to make history stand still (actually, dream pop also intersects with genres other than shoegaze————electronica, slowcore, post-rock and neo-folk to name a few)...unless you think all of the band Wiki articles referenced below are in error for listing them as dream pop. Which is more parsimonious, assuming every single one of those below Wiki articles are wrong, or assuming instead that the narrow anachronistic view espoused by one guy (RivetHeadCulture) is right?
As for sources, the people listening to, writing about and playing dream pop right now are not really writing books. They're writing for blogs and magazines and Pitchfork. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of present-day genres and subgenres with solid Wiki articles that have not been written about in hardcover books by old rock critic dudes (speaking as one of that species).
The article as it is, is kind of a joke, not because it is redundant due to being synonymous with shoegaze, but bad because it tries to take a genre name that is common and popular NOW, and shoehorn it into a minor, very rigid usage from a quarter century ago.
All of the correct, useful and accurate info was deleted. It needs a major overhaul and return of prior article material to reflect the fact that it's 2015 not 1990.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.treblezine.com/10-best-dream-pop-albums/
http://www.allmusic.com/style/dream-pop-ma0000012303
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dream+pop
http://www.albumoftheyear.org/genre/39-dream-pop/all/
http://www.last.fm/tag/dream%20pop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazzy_Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocteau_Twins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Radio_Dept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_%281990s_American_band%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Nothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sundays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_for_Lashes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M83_%28band%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Nadler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_La_Tengo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_xx

Not again. We already talked about this. Mazzy Star was always a psychedelic folk/country band with blues influences. They were never considered "dreampop". Some post-millennium shitheads tagged them retroactively... after three full albums in the '90s that have been described as "country", "folk" and "blues"!

I reviewed Mazzy's first album when it came out and their 1994 tour with JAMC, and I certainly did not call them country or blues, it was alternative rock then. :) And of course they were not considered dream pop ***then****. As I keep saying, genres terms change and develop retroactively all the time. In retrospect, they are termed dream pop by a multitude of fans, listeners and journalists. You just are biased because you do not like the term and want to think genres names are fossilized and never change. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And there is no source for The Sundays. Show me one single source from the '90s. They were popular in the 90s. And they were not considered "dreampop" in any way. All this is a-historical post-millennium webshit and teenage POV. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would I show you a source from the '90s? You keep missing the entire point, as always. This is a MODERN term, used by people NOW on a regular and consistent basis, as my sources demonstrate. All the Wiki editors on all of those pages are all "post-millenium shitheads" and you are the only valid authority, right???Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SPIN, Option, Sound Choice and other magazines described it clearly as psychedelic rock, folk, country and blues. They never used the term "dreampop" to describe the music of Mazzy Star.

I'm missing the point? The point is very simple: If they weren't dreampop in the 90s, they never were. Dreampop was a widepread genre term in the 90s. So why did nobody use it to describe the music of Mazzy Star and The Sundays? Or The Innocence Mission? Or The Rose Chronicles? Or Sarah McLachlan? Nobody called them dreampop...

Your argument makes no logical sense here. "If they weren't dreampop in the 90s, they never were." Again, in your world, something (whether it be a band or a genre or god knows what else) can only be defined once, at the time of its first appearance, and can never be reassessed, redefine, recategorized, etc. from now until infinity. Good luck with that. The world moves on and definitions change. In every area of life, critics, journalists, historians and even nonprofessional everyday people look back at history and make connections that were not apparent in the past, and redefine things accordingly. Some of those reassessments stick and become the new terms for groupings of people or movements or artworks. Many if not most historical terminology is after the fact or retroactive. You can deny this all you want but it's not going to change the reality.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the current use. There is no reliable source for that, no book, nothing useful at all. You can discuss this 5 more years. It doesn't change anything. The article is a load of garbage. And no reader can use it. This is something that YOU have to understand. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"I don't care about the current use". Just because you don't care about something doesn't mean the rest of the world has to fall in line. Or else what? Nothing ever changes? Terms stay the same forever, frozen in time? Why add any new Wikipedia articles then? Or are you saying nothing will ever change on Wikipedia? 100 years from now, every term will be used in exactly the same way? That's ridiculous. Look at an encyclopedia from 1915 or 1815...is every term, every genre of art, every word usage the same? Sorry, not the case.

"There is no reliable source for that, no book, nothing useful at all." As if books (and I am a book lover and have written for several of them, including the Trouser Press Guides) are the only useful or valid sources of information on the planet. As if we are not in 2015, and there has never been a thing called the Internet, or blogs. Just because you cannot fathom a sea change in how serious music criticism has largely migrated to the world of online music magazines, blogs, social media etc. doesn't mean it's not accurate. You insult anyone who doesn't think the way you do, and dismiss anyone younger who might have something to teach you.

Lastly, don't tell me what I have to understand. A closeminded person living in the past and trying desperately to force the world to stay still and never evolve has little business telling others that the only way to proceed is to stick their heads in the sand instead of being objective and looking at what is actually being written and said in the world we are living in right now.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the web is: Every teenager can use it to spread his POV. Blogs? Useless crap. LastFM? Full of POV tags. All this shit is useless for an encyclopaedia.

You can call me close-minded and stubborn...it doesn't change anything. Bring some reliable facts. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Try and argue that Billboard, the gold standard for music in the U.S., are useless teenagers... "Dream pop darlings Mazzy Star": http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1886320/mazzy-star-to-release-first-album-in-17-years

And for the record, "All Music Guide to Rock: The Definitive Guide to Rock, Pop, and Soul" edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, Stephen Thomas Erlewine (yes, an actual book!) defines The Sundays as dream pop.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus... I really don't know why we are talking about this shit. These bands don't even appear in the dreampop article. And who knows? Maybe it was a teenager who wrote an article for the Billboard website. Billboard never called Mazzy Star a dreampop band before. Not in the '90s.

And it is not a secret anymore that i don't like AllMusic. Most of their genre definitions are bullshit. But go on, work with it. If you have some sources, then why does the article on dreampop look like a plucked chicken? --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Billboard never called Mazzy Star a dreampop band before. Not in the '90s."

There you go. That is my entire point. The flagship source for music in the U.S. has updated their usage. It's not the '90s anymore! Definitions change. Just because you don't like AllMusic doesn't change the fact that they are an accepted source. The thing is, you just don't want anyone to change genre definitions, ever. And that's not the way the world works. As for the article, someone "plucked" it awhile back and denuded it of all the material and bands that would make it clear that the definition changed over time, and that it is not synonymous with shoegaze. Fixing that will be a big task but yes, I plan to tackle it when I have time. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean User:Michig? But he was right. The article was a big pile of chicken shit. Right from its early beginnings in 2003.

Definitions don't change that easy. Post-punk is post-punk, goth is goth, heavy metal is heavy metal. Or do you call Judas Priest and Iron Maiden pop music? The original definition of dreampop is irrefutable. It is or was a synonym of shoegazing, primarily used in the U.S. You can add a new section for the modern use. If there are some good sources, there should be no problem with that. But it doesn't change the original meaning of the term (which is well-sourced). --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"The original definition of dreampop is irrefutable."

No, lots of genres start out as referring to a tiny group of bands and later expand to encompass many others. And vice-versa. Shoegaze originally referred to a very small social grouping of London bands; it had less to do with sound, but it later changed considerably. Goth is not goth, as you wrongly said, nor heavy metal. Bauhaus were a post-punk band (and are). Later, in retrospect to their early years, they were considered goth. They are both. Those two genres interlap. Judas Priest were mainly known as a hard rock band in 1974...while the term "heavy metal" was indeed used then, it was not a sharply defined genre the way it grew to be by the end of the 1970s. You labor under this intense misconception that genre names are somehow like math, rigidly defined and immutable, and that artists somehow slot perfectly and wholly into one genre. In this, you are out of step with how the vast majority of fans and critics look at music genres. Read one of those larger genre entries and you will see how many changes and expansions of the terms are encompassed and included. I have no idea why you are so obsessed with dream pop since you obviously don't like the genre category, or why you have such animosity towards treating it like any other changing, expanding, mutable genre. But it will be treated as any other, not as something pristine that you alone can guard from change.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly bands and artists that were considered in their day as members of one genre, but were later classified as another genre. I have no problem deferring to reliable sources in that regard. If a reliable source says that a band from the 1990s is dream pop then that's enough for me. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Binksternet.

Bauhaus was considered goth since 1979 or 1980... not later.

"Bauhaus was considered goth since 1979 or 1980... not later". Nope. Now who's the one who is ahistorical? The word "goth" did not even become common usage (common, as in used regularly to describe a genre, not an adjective used here and there in a few reviews) until 1982-83 in the UK, and 1984-85 in the U.S. I started listening to Bauhaus in 1981 and not one single person in the US knew the word "goth" at that point. They were a post-punk band. Goth as a genre was retroactively applied to post-punk bands from the 1979-81 period like Bauhaus, Banshees, Killing Joke etc.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the books and magazines of the 90s. The term dreampop had described shoegazing bands, nothing else. In fact, dreampop predates the word shoegazing. Shoegazing was some kind of insulting term that appeared in 1991 (see Lush interview or read Alt. Culture: An A-To-Z Guide to the '90s-Underground, 1995).

I was reading (and writing) for "books and magazines of the 90s" at the time. I was a music journalist for the entire second half of the 1980s and first half of the 1990s and read every major music magazine as part of my job. In any case, as the article still states, the term was first used to describe A.R. Kane, who are not in any way, shape or form a shoegaze band.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"I have no idea why you are so obsessed with dream pop"

I could ask you the same question... really. You seem to be the only person in Wikipedia who defends this barely sourced post-millennial bullshit. Most sources support what i call the "original definition". You can be sure, it has nothing to do with my personal taste in music.

Because it's one of my favorite genres of music, one I spend a lot of time collecting, listening to, and writing about, and making music within. Most sources? You mean most OLD sources. I've spent hours noting that current sources, from the most gold-standard big media like Billboard, to the go-to sources average listeners use today like AllMusic and Pitchfork, cite the modern definition, not the old one. Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And yes. This is an encyclopaedia. We have to simplify genre definitions. You don't have to tell me that genres are "fluid". I know that already. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you certainly seem to be denying the fact that this one is fluid.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not what i meant. It seems the term dreampop turned into something arbitrary. Today, the kids call every nonsense "dreampop" without any logical or stylistic context. It has nothing to do with the progression of a genre. Tell me, what has a cheesy band such as Grimes to do with dreampop? Nothing at all. It's some kind of chart-oriented bubblegum girlie pop with some contemporary r&b influences. But people call it "dreampop" without any logical reason.

And again... all this is barely sourced. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You let your personal opinions (subjectivity) about music and musical artists (and people younger than yourself) interfere with what should be objective viewing of music history. Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not an answer. It's empty drivel. Grimes has absolutely no stylistic connection to dreampop. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I started listening to Bauhaus in 1981 and not one single person in the US knew the word "goth" at that point.

Are you serious? Of course not! It was a British term at the time... Bauhaus have been described as gothic in 1980 (In the Flat Field review). The U.S. are not the centre of the universe. I hope you can live with that.

As I said, if you parsed my commentary, was that there is a difference between an adjective used in a handful of reviews, and a universal, commonly known genre name. I was reading all of the British music papers at that time and there was no universally known, separate genre of "goth." It was post-punk. SOME post-punk bands were occasionally described as gothic; that doesn't make a genre. The term did not coalesce into an actual recognized genre name until later. Show me a single article from 1980 discussing the ***genre*** of goth or gothic rock. You can't.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, come back to reality. Gothic, goth, gothic rock. It doesn't matter. They used it to describe a bunch of bands and a new form of music. They saw a connection between the music of Joy Division, Bauhaus and Siouxsie and the Banshees. And that's the starting point of a genre. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"In any case, as the article still states, the term was first used to describe A.R. Kane, who are not in any way, shape or form a shoegaze band"

You must be kidding, right? Listen to their early singles from 1986/87/88. This is proto-shoegazing, heavily influenced by the music of TJ&MC and Cocteau Twins! Shoegazing bands such as Slowdive called them a big influence!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apXriUyMhzA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz0g7sRaJUY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf8VhjLsv6c

--RivetHeadCulture (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I listen to that and think "dream pop" not "shoegaze" as is reflected in their Wiki article's sole genre identifier for the band.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So you think it doesn't sound like Ride and Slowdive? Yeah ...right. Sorry, Greg. That's completely bullshit. It uses all that feedback noise, a dreamy melody, the lazy vocal style. Pure shoegazing. The distinction between shoegazing and dreampop is artificial and ahistorical. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not write or edit the A.R. Kane article, so obviously I am not the Wiki editor who decided A.R. Kane were dream pop and not shoegaze. Check that article's sources if you must but leave me out of it, thank you.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep it cool, people, no personal attacks.

RivetHeadCulture, you appear to be analyzing various songs on your own, deciding on your own what is and what is not dream pop. You say "listen to their early singles" as part of your argument, when the argument should be look at this book or look at that magazine article. This is an encyclopedia, not a critical listening class. We tell the reader what has been published on the topic. So if you want to gain any traction here, you must discuss the published sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I honestly do not understand why this user is getting so angry over this that he continually has to use words like "drivel," "bullshit," "shitheads" etc. I am not a prude and am not personally offended but it's not helpful. RivetHeadCulture seems to think that since he dislikes the way current respectable and commonly cited sources use this genre term, it's "ahistorical" "bullshit" and thus not only to be considered invalid but is personally offensive. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to decide that modern-day music journalists, magazines and listeners are "wrong" and we should correct their genre terminology. The article has to reflect usage by sources including current sources and I guess that is unacceptable to RivetHeadCulture, but I hope others will advise as well. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

BECAUSE IT IS AHISTORICAL. The whole idea that dreampop is something else than shoegazing is an invention of Wikipedia. The "reliable" web sources of today exist because of the nonsense that has been written in Wikipedia more than ten years ago. That's the reason why some people call This Mortal Coil and other artists "dreampop". They used the unsourced nonsense of Wikipedia as a source. And yes, it is annoying. We discuss the same topic over and over again. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not your place to determine how or why reliable sources have chosen to categorize artists or delineate genres. It's our job to note what the sources say, not criticize the sources because you don't like what they say.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Aha, and Greg decides that A.R. Kane is not shoegazing or what? Pure POV. I'll add the sources i can find. I don't discuss this bullshit anymore, because it's fucking useless. Endless discussions without any result. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already told you for the third time now that I have never edited the A.R. Kane article so why do you keep insinuating this? If you have a bone to pick with that article's usage of genres and sources, please take it up with the Wiki editors who worked on that page.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not me, all the people who've worked on the A.R. Kane article did (I had nothing to do with it). Not to mention that the A.R. Kane article has a lengthy section on their musical style and shoegaze is nowhere to be found. So who is the one relying on POV?

From the article: "A.R. Kane's music has been called dream pop, a term coined by the band themselves and widely adopted among music critics thereafter.[10] The Guardian's Rob Fitzpatrick describes their sound as "blending dub, feedback, psychedelic dream-pop, house and free jazz."[11] Simon Reynolds portrays the group's early work as experimental pop music "influenced by Miles Davis, Cocteau Twins, Can and dub [in which] fragile, haunting melodies drifted through a hallucinatory haze of fluorescent feedback and effects-addled guitar."[12] The Quietus's Neil Kulkarni refers to their sound as "sensual, spiritual, vaporous, liquid, unearthly, subterranean."[13] The band often distanced themselves from traditional labels or comparisons." Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian... really funny, Greg. You like it? No problem: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/sep/19/ar-kane-rudy-tambala --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Then add it to their list of genres. I have no issue with it; as I told you, I've never edited that article. I was merely pointing out that all of the Wiki editors who DID work on it, used dream pop as their identifying genre, and all of the sources they listed did not mention shoegaze.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day we take what the independent sources state and when they don't agree we take what the best sources state or reflect the various differing view. It doesn't matter what any of us as individuals think is or isn't shoegazing or dream pop or whether there's any difference between the two. We go on what reliable sources say - that's pretty fundamental to this project. There is no place here for original research. --Michig (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The issue we are having here, in this voluminous debate, is that RivetHeadCulture does not like or agree with (personally) what the modern/current sources say, and therefore wishes to restrict all analysis to old sources that conform to his personal viewpoint. I am not trying to insert my own POV, but to assert that he cannot dismiss current sources because he doesn't like them, and when challenged about these sources (as mainstream as Billboard, AllMusic and Pitchfork) says that the writers must be teenagers. How do you argue with that?Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As i said before, a lot of your "modern sources" are untrustworthy, based on bad Wikipedia articles from the past. Most of today's web sources should be ignored, especially all this Facebook, LastFM crap and related nonsense. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"old sources that conform to his personal viewpoint"

You got it absolutely wrong. It has not much to do with my personal viewpoint but with the fact that all of the '90s sources prove that dreampop and shoegazing are the same thing. Every fucking single source from Newsweek to SPIN, from Option to CMJ New Music Monthly tells us the same thing. And even the books from mid-/late 1990s, such as The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll and Alt. Culture: An A-To-Z Guide to the '90s-Underground support this fact.

The question i ask myself is: What is more trustworthy? The sources from the golden days of dreamop/shoegazing or the web sources that have been published 20 years after the movement had died? To me, the answer is very simple. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple to me, too. The later sources are more objective; they have taken more developments into consideration. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. RivetHeadCulture, this illustrates perfectly that you are relying totally on your personal opinion instead of being objective. "Golden days"? "The movement has died"? Says who? You? That's your opinion. To me, dream pop is in its golden age right now. That's not relevant to anyone but me, though. What matters is what the larger community of listeners, musicians, and especially journalists think. It's not your place to tell them that a particular genre is dead or that what people wrote about it 25 years ago is more important. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"the fact that all of the '90s sources prove that dreampop and shoegazing are the same thing" Even if that were so, which I do not believe is correct, you again ignore the fact that Wikipedia does not discriminate or judge based on age or eras. It's your POV that "90s sources" are the only valid or trustworthy ones, and the way modern people use the genre terms are "wrong," but that's not your place to decide. Usage is usage. If some sources used the terms interchangeably in 1990, but in 2015, many sources make a distinction that has developed in that quarter-century, whether you like that change or not is irrelevant and must be ignored as POV. A respected source from 2015 is no more or less valid than one from 2005 or 1995 or 1985 etc. You don't get to call a commonly cited, respected modern source "untrustworthy" because it doesn't agree with your ossified viewpoint. That is the crux of this debate, not the actual music itself. You do not get to decide that your personal preference for the way things were written about 25 years ago is set in stone and invalidates the way people write about music today. As far as I can see, no other Wiki editors agree with that argument of yours. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Golden days"? "The movement has died"? Says who? You? That's your opinion.

No, that's what the sources say. I don't care about the current status of the genre. So stop talking bullshit.

"After an initial deluge of bands with one-syllable names, dream pop had played itself out by 1994, with only the most distinctive of the lot (My Bloody Valentine, Lush) remaining of interest to fans and critics."

— The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, 1995

Stereolab is one of the more intriguing groups to emerge from Britain's now-kaput dream-pop scene.

— SPIN, July 1993

Whatever happened to "dream pop"? Well, the smartest of those bands have turned on to techno, and are mixing their lustrous guitar stuff with sampled pulses and sequenced hypno-rhythms. My Bloody Valentine showed the way with 1991's Loveless, on which it looped its basslines and sampled its own feedback. The best of the new techno-affiliated dream-popsters, Seefeel, has struck a sublime groove midway between MBV's sensual tumult and Aphex Twin's ambient serenity.

— SPIN, June 1994.

By 1993/94, dream pop has been considered dead. D.E.A.D.

And by the way... WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES? Facebook is not a source. LastFM neither. Urban Dictionary? You really must be kidding. Even this stupid list of treblezine is not a reliable source.... --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are all 20+ years old. Genres ebb and flow. Just because it appeared a genre had "died" back in 1994 doesn't mean it is dead ***now***. I already gave a ton of current respected sources above (in addition to the less scholarly ones that were merely for illustration), confirming that the genre is alive and well, and being commonly used descriptively in a slightly different way than it was in 1990. I also provided a detailed list of modern-day bands, all post-1994, whose Wiki articles and listings by sources all describe them predominantly as dream pop. There's your sources and they're just as good as your old ones. As Binksternet pointed out " The later sources are more objective; they have taken more developments into consideration." You can say "I don't care about the current status of the genre" but you don't get to impose that preference on everyone else.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Other editors above remarked on this, and I am finally going to say something as it's starting to be obnoxious. Can you tone down your language? It's unnecessarily aggressive and insulting to keep referring to other editors' comments as "bullshit". I may disagree vehemently with you but I am able to do so in respectful language and I would ask you to do the same. It's part of the Wikipedia ethos as I am sure you are aware.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, don't you see? It is completely identical to the decline of the shoegazing movement!

I don't see a source that claims that dreampop is alive and had its heyday in the 2000s. So where is it? And your list is arbitrary. Many of these artists are not dreampop/shoegazers. They are folk artists, country singer/songwriters and simple alternative rock groups. Nobody ever called Yo La Tengo a dreampop group.

Says who? Just to prove a point, since they are one band among many that can illustrate this:

Pitchfork review: "As Byron Coley tells it in the liner notes, this "aging" involved the group transforming "from folk-rock reinvigorators into loose-stringed riff monsters, keyboard dream-pop hypnotizers, and beyond."" http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8872-prisoners-of-love/

The Guardian: "The next hour sees them jump through genres like an iPod Shuffle: Season of the Shark finds Kaplan crooning over mellow organ and gently brushed drums; Tom Courtenay, a perfect paring of dream pop and noise rock" http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jun/14/yo-la-tengo-meltdown-review

ABC News: "Yo La Tengo show their range with both the Georgia Hubley led dream-pop cover of “Fourth Time Around” http://blogs.abcnews.com/allan_raible/2007/11/review-im-not-t.html

LA Times: "concocting their nearly insubstantial, violet-washed blanket of often compelling dream-pop, intercut with patches of intensely played, distortion-suffused guitar and keyboards." http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/23/entertainment/et-nichols23

Those are pretty impeccable sources. You can find a ton more, too.

AllMusic: Listed as dream pop in "All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music" book.

On Allmusic site, listed styles for Yo La Tengo: Alternative Pop/Rock Alternative/Indie Rock Indie Rock Dream Pop Noise Pop

AllMusic quote: "A move to the Matador label predated the release of 1993's Painful, another winner informed by the atmospherics of shoegazer drones and dream pop." [Note that if shoegaze and dream pop were wholly synonymous there'd be no need for the author to list both here]

Cherwell review: "For the uninitiated, this is a play on shoegaze-meets-dream-pop, done by a couple who have been married for longer than even seems possible." http://www.cherwell.org/culture/music/2013/01/23/review-yo-la-tengo-fade [Again note that the sentence would make no sense if the reviewer intended for shoegaze and dream pop to be the same thing]

Britannica.com: "In this best-known, three-member incarnation, Yo La Tengo expanded its stylistic palette to include elements of British Invasion pop and alternative rock subgenres such as droning shoegaze and keyboard-washed dream pop." [Ditto, there'd be no point mentioning both if they meant the same thing]

Diffuser: "Over a dozen albums and assorted EPs, they've balanced distorted feedback-fueled freak-outs with wispy dream-pop" http://diffuser.fm/instant-expert-yo-la-tengo/

Line of Best Fit: "Popular Songs – their twelfth long-player – finds Ira Kaplan and Georgia Hubley getting the balance beautifully right between their experimental and eclectic urges and indie dream pop" http://www.thelineofbestfit.com/reviews/albums/yo-la-tengo-popular-songs-19041

MusicOMH review: "It is followed by Is That Enough, which sounds as if it should be a classic slice of Yo La Tengo dream pop" http://www.musicomh.com/reviews/albums/yo-la-tengo-fade

Of course, named in Treblezine's 10 Best Dream Pop albums: http://www.treblezine.com/10-best-dream-pop-albums/

Amazon defines Yo La Tengo under three main genres: alternative rock, indie & lo-fi, and dream pop: http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A602088%2Cp_lbr_music_artists_browse-bin%3AYo+La+Tengo

Both Spotify and Pandora's Dream Pop stations include Yo La Tengo: https://play.spotify.com/user/1222644856/playlist/6FBVjBSighI0YbaZfXGhjB?play=true and http://www.pandora.com/station/908501293846189105)Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And no, many of the later sources CANNOT be more objective, because they are fucking Wikipedia copies! --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That assertion has no merit. To say that Pitchfork, AllMusic, Spin, Billboard etc etc are all somehow copying Wikipedia and that none could possibly be using this term because it's accepted and understood by readers, is pure fantasy with zero evidence.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

To counter the assertion that dream pop is dead, here's dream pop from 2010: Beach House, Teen Dream, as described in Spin. They reinforce the impression in early 2011: [1] In 2012, Spin again finds dream pop in Blouse's debut album from late 2011.[2] Spin is not drawing from Wikipedia in their reviews of new albums! Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Beach House are a prime example as they are a totally current and VERY popular band, and are predominantly described as dream pop in myriad sources, and yet they clearly have nothing to do with shoegaze. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about users' impressions. I want a source that clearly states that dreampop is a vivid movement. One that says that dreampop has its golden days in the 2000s. It's that simple. I don't need a source that describes "nu-gaze" or anything like that. It's about the original dreampop/shoegazing movement. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Btw: Isn't it strange that most of the newer so-called "dreampop" artists appear in this dubious nu-gaze article?

If there are numerous popular current bands being described as "dream pop" in respected, mainstream modern sources, then obviously its a vivid movement or these bands would not be written about or popular.

Nu-gaze does not appear to be a genre term that has stuck or gained traction in sources over time; feel free to show me otherwise. Dream pop has only grown in the last decade as a genre descriptor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pure POV. Nothing else. You have not to decide what's "obviously". I don't see a reliable source. And i don't care about "nu-gaze". It's just another crap article from Wikipedia's past that spreads bullshit across the world wide web. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You complain about more recent sources being wrong and then cite a 1996 source for A.R. Kane being one of the original shoegazing bands, even though nobody called them shoegazing back in 1990. Inconsistent. --Michig (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In 1990, shoegazing didn't exist as a genre term. They have been described as dreampop (their own creation). Of course it's problematic, see also Cocteau Twins. That's even a bigger problem. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The term was first used in 1990 and for a few years after to describe bands such as Moose, Lush, Chapterhouse, Slowdive, and Ride, and the early 90s music press didn't as I recall describe A.R Kane as shoegazing, i.e. while the band were together. --Michig (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

1990? Interesting. Where did you find it? --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)