Talk:Lounge music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] flag this article

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

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

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

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

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

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

[edit] Definitions

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

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

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

[edit] Restoration of actually existing Categories / error in wikipedia cross-reference capabilities

several categories, such as camp, Capitol Records, kitch were remover. They are now being restored. Whether they are red and appear as non-existence is an error of the wikipedia cross referencing system. If you doubt that there is an article on Capitol Records, which was the US distributor of artists such as Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole or the Beatles, go search in wikipedia for Capitol Records. Dogru144 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the categories, but I don't quite understand why you've restored them. I think there may be some misunderstanding about what categories are for and how they are used. You mentioned that they show up as non-existent pages because of a Wikipedia error, but I have searched through Wikipedia's list of categories and they definitely do not exist.
Also, I'm certain that there is an article on Capitol Records, but if you feel that such an article is relevant then add a link to it in a "See also" section, or better yet, work it into the main text. Adding Category:Capitol Records to this article will merely point to a list of all pages marked with the category (of which there are none), not to the Capitol Records article itself. For more info see WP:Categorization. Binary 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central relevance of categories to lounge record

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

[edit] Emphasis on need to search categories properly / Comment on wikipedia errors in category linkage

Before you allege that categories do not exist, click in the long box on the left side of the screen and enter the words such as kitsch or Capitol. These categories do exist. It is a fault of wikipedia that the category references appear in red at the bottom. Do not rely on clicking on the red words at the bottom. Wikipedia's links are not working properly. Dogru144 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Binary 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved contention over link to Capitol Records / profound wikipedia technical error in red letters for existing article

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

[edit] Wikipedia policy re categories

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

[edit] Links/ References

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