Talk:Futurepop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music
Portal
Futurepop is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Electronic music Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Why is this listed under "Pop Music" (at the bottom)?

Just because a musical genre has the word 'pop' in it doesn't make it pop music. Pulseczar 10:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's simply "trancey pop music", nothing more. There is not a great EBM influence, the most of these artists don't use EBM elements. Future Pop is therefore not really an outgrowth of EBM. It's more an outgrowth of the electropop and electro-industrial movement of the 1990s. --~Menorrhea 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Popular music is music belonging to any of a number of musical styles that are accessible to the general public and are disseminated by one or more of the mass media." This does definitely not sound like futurepop. It seems to be the exact opposite! So it's not pop, not rock, not punk, not soul, rap or anything like that. You say it's not ebm. It's not post punk so it should not be goth either. It doesn't sound like trance, but possibly it origins from EDM? Maybe it would have spared us lots of confusion if ronan and stephan called it futuredisco? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.246.90.103 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
I agree, this doesn't seem to fit under pop music. It's not pop music in the narrower sense (i.e., the sort you get in the charts), nor does it qualify under the broader "popular music" sense (since this isn't exactly mainstream). Mdwh 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evils Toy

Evils Toy was never EBM. It was a german dark electro act, nothing more. --62.214.133.168 10:09 July 29, 2005

Same goes for Birmingham 6 (band), so we're having a minor edit war about that one. It's a stalemate right now. I'd say if it's unclear whether old B6 fits in this rather novel genre, then leave it out. For any genre or subgenre, you would want to provide a rather short list of bands that are truly representative, not a full list of anything that might somehow be considered essential. So go for the good examples, not what you think is the essence of a subset of all things culture: There is no such essence. --80.127.65.12 09:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
That was me. :) For comparison: From the description of futurepop, it seems some Front 242 songs I know would fit into this category, so the (theoretical) question is why should we not include F242 in this list? The answer is that F242 didn't set out to make futurepop, that they have always resisted public attempts at classification of their work, and that they were musically active before the term futurepop arose. The same is very likely true for B6: All their (older) work that I know is strictly non-synthpop, but it might be true that their more recent work does fit in this category, unlike obvious synthpop bands like Namnambulu and Neuroticfish. So what you'd want to have in this list is good examples, not any band who ever made something that sounds like it fits the description. I could even argue that the title of the list is too vague. Are these bands that made futurepop their major project, or bands that could be considered to have mainly made such music, or bands that publicly declared their influences or direction as such but should be labeled differently? I think the best way to go forward is to rename the list to Examples of futurepop bands and then qualify each item in the list with good arguments for and against their inclusion in the list. If you can tell me straightforward that B6 used to make EBM proper and has recently (within the last years) turned to a more synth/trance sound (as notably F242 did in the early nineties, around the time B6 was founded), then that information should be provided in the list. Something like:
B6's 199[5-9] album Foo Bar is a classic example of Futurepop.
, just as you might add:
Most of F242's work after 1993 consists of futurepop-style songs and remixes with clear influences from the trance and synthpop (sub)genres.
--JeR 10:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Also note that the list is at odds with the Vertreter list in the German counterpart to the Futurepop article as well as with the Dutch article. --JeR 11:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
From the German and Dutch articles mentioned above, I gather the term was coined in 1999 and has been abandoned by its creators since, because it drew too much commercial attention from bands they considered were not up to their standards of musical quality. A bit like what Front 242 did way back with the term EBM. In the early nineties, members of 242 distanced themselves from EBM for much the same reasons. --80.127.65.12 20:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
On top of that, B6 was founded in 1991. A categorisation made by two artists (not musicologists) in 1999 about a genre they invented could hardly be seriously applied to the works of a band active in a completely different genre 8 years before. Please explain why B6 ought to be in this list.
OK, what I think I am going to do is to translate the pretty good German page replace the current English one. --80.127.65.12 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
woah now, don't just replace it; take the useful info from the german version and add it to the existing english version. refactor the page if you have to, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. thanks :) --MilkMiruku 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Futurepop"

The term Future Pop came not from Ronan Harris. It's the title of a german book, released in 1999. http://www.luise-berlin.de/Lesezei/Blz00_10/text11.htm

this book title was the inspiration for the term of this kind of music. the first mention of the future pop musicstyle was in 2001. --87.122.41.187 18:38, March 7 2006

interesting, but are there any references that this is anything other than coincidental? --MilkMiruku 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This book was reviewed in the german magazine Zillo in 1999. Zillo is a magazine for the music of the electro- and goth subculture in germany and it's very famous. ;-)
The music of groups like Icon Of Coil or VNV Nation was called "elektro" in the 90s and early 2000s. Months after the book release (about 2000/2001), Icon of coil and VNV nation were described as Future Pop in the same magazine. --87.122.41.187 03:37, March 8 2006
but still, is there any reference in zillo that specifically links the title of that book with the music genre?
also, i've found interview with ronan harris of vnv that talks about the term and it's usage in the media (i tried to find this months back but must have totally missed it). also, here's another reference --MilkMiruku 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
We really need a source of the first mention. Do you know the year of ronan's word creation? Ronan lives mostly in Germany and he is a popular DJ here. He is also present in the german music magazines. I think, he looked for a term of his musicstyle and found this term in the Zillo magazine or other media.
“All of our songs are kind of catchy, so let’s give it a word.”... hmmm, ok, but i can't find a detailed source... ronan didn't mentioned the way of his word creation. (your 2nd URL doesn't funct) --Menorrhea 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
fixed the link. i'd be fine with referencing the book but only if a quote from ronan or stephan can confirm it --MilkMiruku 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a link to an interview I did with Ronan from 2002 in which he said he and Stefan came up with the term. He said nothing about getting the name from anywhere else (and I spoke to him for a long time). It's very likely that a number of people came up with the term around the same time, but the most important for the scene is the fact that Ronan and Stefan started using it for their own musc. I can confirm, though I didn't quote it [[1]] that Stefan backed up what Ronan said. Donnacha 10:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EBM or futurepop artists?

As you can see on the EBM page (Notable Artists), there are a few artists mentioned there that you can see here, we must decide where we should have them, I don't like the idea that you have them both here and there Shandris 09:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The categories are not mutually exclusive, and there is no definitive description of either. This isn't science. — JEREMY 10:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently Emerging

That phrase, "recently emerging" is going to get outdated quickly, due to the changing nature of what is "Recent." Should it maybe be changed to say something about the time period of the early to mid '00s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.75.198 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, it's now a declining scene! Donnacha 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)