Talk:Psychedelic pop Information & Talk:Psychedelic pop Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated Start-Class)

Music portal

Psychedelic pop 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 project's quality scale.

[edit] Merge

Oppose; I don't think Psychedelic pop and Psychedelic rock should be merged. The two are distinct and different genres; in essence they are as distinctly different as Pop and Rock are, it just happens to be the psychedelic aspect of those genres that we're talking about. As such, merging the two would be like saying that Black Sabbath operate in the same genre as Herman's Hermits. There's a world of difference between Psychedelic rock bands (like the Blue Cheer for example) and The World of Oz (who were Psychedelic pop) for example. I do, however, agree that there seems to be a lot of crossover and contradiction in this and other related articles, and that they all need a good clean up. Kohoutek1138 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In practice the Psychedelic Rock article covers all band-based Psychedelia as well as some references to electronic dance music. A fan of Hawkwind is more likely (IMO of course) to be interested in Gong, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues and The Yardbirds than Black Sabbath and Budgie. This article is only a fragment and most of the relevant info is already included in 'Psychedelic Rock'. If I had my way I'd move 'Psychedelic Rock' -> 'Psychedelic music' and simply get rid of all the sub-genre pages. Tim flatus (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That might be the right direction. Ridernyc (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not an easy one. The roots of psychedelic folk, rock and pop are all related, and they interact, but the outcomes are different in terms of genre. I would tend to edge towards keeping them separate, cleaning up and removing the contradictions (and other problems), then summarising each on Psychedelic music, which could perhaps deal with the origins. But its a very big job.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

and the first step of the job would be to merge everything then split it off again if we have a stand alone article. If we are going to try to clean up 3 or more articles it is never going to happen. Ridernyc (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with that as a methodology, as long as the individual articles are kept until the new versions are ready. An under-construction tag could be added to prevent major attempts to re-edit.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to reiterate something I've posted on the "Psychedelic Rock" talk page; Allmusic.com lists "Psychedelic Rock", "Psychedelic Pop" and "Neo-Psychedelia" as three distinct and separate sub-genres of psychedelic music. I'd say that allmusic is a pretty reliable and well respected source for popular music and they obviously deem the three types of psychedelia to be different enough to warrant three separate entries. In my mind, this only goes to strengthen the case for having three separate pages here on wikipedia as well.Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:53, 03 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, with vigor and determination. I admit that drawing the line in some cases will be tough, but it's got to be done. Would you call When the Music's Over by The Doors "Psychedelic Pop"? No way, it's "Psychedelic Rock". As for a tune like Itchycoo Park by the Small Faces, that's much more of a "Pop" tune with strong elements of the "Psychedelic" thrown in, both in the lyrics and the early phase-shifting sound. Both Wikipedia articles label them correctly; they are distinctly separate genres. Case closed, in my opinion. Jusdafax (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)