Talk:Pop-punk

Pop punk article title

Can we remove the hyphen from “pop punk” on its article’s title? The hyphen is not used in other articles, nor in its own article. I already edited the introductory paragraph to remove all instances of the hyphen. This is just something I realized. Ded Meem (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No. I have restored the hyphen. Simply because the hyphen is not used in another article means that it is dated and is a problem that needs fixing on that respective article. There has been some arguing over how to render the title, but ILIL's reasoning at requested moves was sound (this number may have changed): Most sources (particularly books and web articles centred on the genre) typeset "pop punk" as "pop-punk". This can be seen in the "References" section, where you'll find that 17 headlines spell the term as "pop-punk", whereas only 8 say "pop punk". dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's unfortunate that the predominately accepted typeset includes a hyphen, because it's not logical at all.

"Pop" in "pop punk" is an adjective, not a prefix. For example, pop rock is not "pop-rock"; it's "pop rock" (the current predominately accepted form, that is). Equivalently, it's never "country-rock"; it's "country rock". It's never "blues-rock"; it's just "blues rock". It's never "rap-metal"; it's simply "rap metal".

Genres such as "post-X" and "proto-X" include the use of a hyphen because those are prefixes being used to alter the actual raw meaning of the noun, whereas fusion genres and sub-genres use adjectives, or adjectival nouns, to describe a particular variety of the original noun.

The above adjectival noun examples work the same exact way as actual adjectives do:

• It's not "soft-rock"; it's "soft rock".

• It's not "hardcore-punk"; it's "hardcore punk".

• It's not "progressive-metal"; it's "progressive metal".

If the presence of the hyphen is considered standard typeset today, then I guess that's the standard typeset today. It's still linguistically incorrect.

Maybe one day it will be rectified such that the accepted standard will omit the hyphen...

Jdjd021 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Adam and the Ants?

You would have thought early 80's band, Adam and the Ants deserve a small mention given their string of chart hits, but there's nothing? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

From a Google search, the only source I can find that seems to call them pop punk is [1], which says "The music, needless to say, is rock and roll, a clever pop-punk amalgam". But this doesn't seem to be pointing to the pop punk genre, just that there are elements of pop and punk, and this is only referencing one album. Adam and the Ants are generally considered a new wave band as far as I know, which early on definitely had elements of pop and punk, but that doesn't make it pop punk. You can't even really argue it's proto-pop punk, because the Ants were making music at the same time as the Descendents. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

APT

Seems like you locked me out of editing so I’ll plead my case here. (Ridiculous I have to do this in the first place)

APT is not a pop-punk song. It has no business being in the “history of pop-punk” section. The source used to justify its presence in the article isn’t substantial in the slightest, especially when one only need listen to the song to refute that assertion that it’s a “pop-punk anthem.”

Olivia Rodrigo has a MUCH stronger claim to the genre, and yet the paragraph prior explicitly lists her music as pop-punk influenced. So it’s baffling how, immediately after, we throw all nuance out the window. It’s a stretch to even say APT is pop-punk inspired, the only punky thing about it is the fact that Bruno Mars and Rose are wearing leather jackets in the music video. The song is pure pop/K-Pop.

Can we please let reason prevail and edit out APT. Seriously you’d have to actively not listen to the genre to believe APT has any place in the history of Pop-Punk. 2607:F010:2E9:33:8D86:4859:49B6:AEE5 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page is not ridiculous, it's what should be done straight away to remove content like this, instead of engaging in an edit war. I understand not thinking "APT" is a pop punk, I wouldn't say it is, but counter to your opinion I think it is definitely closer to pop punk than Olivia Rodrigo, so I see the vision: it's a guitar-driven pop song where every chord is a power chord and it undoubtedly informed by power pop. That being said, it has been called pop punk by many WP:RELIABLESOURCES: Vogue (and again), Rolling Stone, (and Rolling Stone Australia), the UK Chart Company and Forbes, it's also been compared to Avril Lavigne (it's pretty similar to "The Best Damn Thing"). The policy WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE says we should stick to what the sources directly say and the source say it's a pop punk song. It is also only one sentence, so is very non egregious. I'd oppose any more than one sentence. Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

So we’re keeping it in the article because it’s been compared to artist who themselves only have a tenuous connection to the genre and would more appropriately be described as genre adjacent? Seems like a lot of mental gymnastic to justify its presence let along confidently assert that it *is* a pop-punk song.

At the end of the day the crux of the argument are two articles that are probably citing each other and only mention it off-handedly in the first place. The History section should cover notable bands/movements that have had a tangible impact on the genre, APT has not and will not have an impact, because nobody save this page considers it to be part of the genre. It’s only included because of dogged determination to take what is a lazily written source as infallible evidence.

At the very least the formatting should be applied in the same manner as is done for artists who's music is not pop-punk but takes inspiration from the genre 2607:F010:2E9:11:44E3:DE74:C4E7:3114 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/poppunkers/s/VoRZA2DE0L 2607:F010:2E9:11:44E3:DE74:C4E7:3114 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should be that the single "has been referred to as pop-punk" and then cite those sources. For what this is worth, RateYourMusic users do not even vote pop-punk as a secondary genre for the single. Chris9086 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I definitely think that could work, the other possibility I was considering was condensing the last two sentences of that paragraph into something along the lines of The influence of pop punk was embraced by pop musicians on songs such as Rodrigo's "Bad Idea Right?" (2023) and Bruno Mars and Rosé's "Apt." (2024), which both saw widespread streaming and chart success. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

With no opposition given for four months, I've implemented the above change in hopes that this is more agreeable. mftp dan ^oops 02:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Easycore

I would argue that the section, "New Found Glory's self-titled and Stick and Stones albums and Sum 41's song "Fat Lip" were some of the earliest and most influential released in the genre." is wrong, or at least not completely accurate. I agree that those albums were influential to EZ, if anything, Catalyst was more influential than those two albums - you can definitely hear it at the end of All Downhill from Here. Fat Lip, if anything, I would more lump in with Zebrahead than EZ, and I don't really agree that it was an influence. Fat Lip and NFG's two albums are most definitely not part of the easycore genre, I mean if you listen to something like Can't Bear This Party the difference shows. It's almost like comparing The Get Up Kids to modern midwest emo. The difference is noticeable and definitely not the same genre. Ev0308 (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Revert to say that pop-punk is a fusion genre

User:Issan Sumisu, in the edit summary for your revert, you wrote: "the majority of sources call it that".

I typed both terms in Wikipedia:WRS and the only result I got was one that talked about this very Wikipedia article: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=007734830908295939403:galkqgoksq0#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22pop%20punk%22%20%22fusion%20genre%22 .

I then used the first of the search engines for reliable sources listed in WP:RSSE and got the same one result: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=1552558935d0e4c8a#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22pop%20punk%22%20%22fusion%20genre%22&gsc.sort=

I then used the second of the reliable sources search engines listed there and I got exactly the same: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=f4364aeb58c3d4902#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22pop%20punk%22%20%22fusion%20genre%22&gsc.sort=

With all three search engines I only got one result that talks about this Wikipedia article. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I continue.

When searching for both terms in Google Books, the first result is a book by publisher PediaPress with content generated from Wikipedia. Try yourself typing "pop punk" "fusion genre" -wikipedia in books.google.com . Below that result there is only other result that would count towards what you said: Historical Dictionary of Popular Music, published in 2017. Looks like meager results.

Searching the same terms in Google News returns nothing of value. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are some from books I had already had on hand (I tried attaching public ebooks where I could:

Historical Dictionary of Popular Music (The Globe Pequot Publishing Group) page 55: "[Blink 182] is crediting the fusion genre of pop-punk, a radio friendly style that embraces the raw energy of punk the catchy melody hooks of pop."

Exploring Creativity: Evaluative Practices in Innovation, Design, and the Arts (Cambridge University Press) page 48: "From an ecological perspective, if one were to map two music genres, pop and punk, the blending of these genres (pop punk) exists at the borderlands of these two genres." (Brackets not mine)

Smart Graphics: 10th International Symposium, SG 2009, Salamanca, Spain, Mai 28-30, 2009, Proceedings (Springer publishing) page 61: Figure 2, which visualises genre clusters shows pop-punk at the intersection of pop and punk.

I'm honestly quite confused by your edit, because what can pop punk possibly be other than a fusion genre? It fuses pop and punk. Every source I've searched describes the characteristics of the genre as a fusion of pop and punk, even if some don't overtly use the word "fusion genre". Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The only one of the books you cited that uses the term "fusion genre" is the one that I had already mentioned.

The term "fusion" has a very definite use in music, it's not a term used liberally when talking about music. You can use any other synonym ("combination" "blend of this and that"), but "fusion" or "fusion genre" has definite connotations in music: it's applied when genres that are much more far apart are blended, like flamenco and blues, or jazz and rock.

No matter how much some might think that pop and punk are far away from each other, they're not really "that much" far away from each other. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for this "very definite use in music", because the current definitions laid out by Wikipedia on fusion genre is "in the intersection of two or more genres, sharing characteristics of each parent genre, and therefore belong to each of them at the same time", and R. Anderson Sutton's definition as laid out in "Fusion" and Questions of Korean Cultural Identity in Music is "whatever styles and genres [that are] subsumed under this broad rubric [that] involves mixture- intentional and perceptible mixture." (which is heavily cited on this topic). I've never heard a definition of a fusion genre that strays from these lines. Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There are many, but it would take me a while to gather them. A first one (not the better one) would be The Oxford Companion to Popular Music (1991), page 211, entry about the term "fusion": https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont0000gamm/page/211/mode/1up . AwerDiWeGo (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That source doesn't back up what your saying though. It defines a fusion as "an amalgamation of two styles of music". Just because it then goes onto only list macrogenres, doesn't mean the definition solely applies to macrogenres. Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said, that was not the better source. It takes time to gather sources. But all of them combined (once gathered) point to the fact that the use of the term "fusion genre" for things like this is not the best choice of words.

A second source, The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (1995), page 363, entry about "Fusion": https://archive.org/details/newrollingstonee00patr/page/363/mode/1up .

Quote: "But most bands categorized as fusion groups derive from jazz-rock fusion, pioneered by jazz trumpeter Miles Davis..."

My comment: The above is a view from the Anglosphere; elsewhere in the world the word "fusion" is used more broadly (but not "that much" more broadly as to consider pop punk (or pop rock!) a fusion genre). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It took me a while to be able to see the Figure 2 of page 61 of the Smart Graphics: 10th International Symposium that you cited, but I finally have it on my screen.

We humans let us be fooled by words that we ourselves make up. Rock is a fusion genre. Pop is a fusion genre. Why doesn't Wikipedia define them as fusion genres? Because they are designated with only one word. Yes, the answer is as crazy as that. Why does Wikipedia define pop-rock as a fusion genre? Because it is a term made of two words. Yes, as crazy as that. But this vocabulary is constructed by us humans and it could have been constructed differently (obviously, as there are more languages beyond English and they have different semantics or vocabularies) (English is not my native language, so I'm sorry if I don't explain things well).

So let's see that Figure 2 of the Smart Graphics Symposium. You saw "pop punk" between "pop" and "punk". But the truth is that, musically, "punk" is as much a made-up word as "pop-punk" is a made up term. Why do we decide that one comes before and is defined by one word and the other comes afterwards as "a fusion genre" defined by two words? It's half convention and half arbitrariness.

So, in that Figure 2, you saw "pop-punk" between "pop" and "punk". But you know what? I'm also seeing "pop" between "indie" and "ska". Would we say that pop is then a fusion genre that blends indie and ska because it is at the intersection between indie and ska? The answer is no. Well, the same goes for the reasoning that because in that figure "pop-punk" is between "pop" and "punk", then we can call it a fusion genre of both.

Anyway, the above reasoning is not my only objection to the use of fusion genre in this article. I have already written the other reason for my objection above.

And let me repeat this: Rock is a fusion genre as much as pop-punk or pop-rock, but Wikipedia doesn't say so. Why? Because-rock-is-just-one-word. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that AllMusic has an article titled "Fusion": https://www.allmusic.com/style/fusion-ma0000002607

They probably have the same text in some of their books published in print before going online. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Another book, The Da Capo Companion to 20th-Century Popular Music (1995), section titled "Glossary of Styles and Terms" at the beginning of the book, there's an entry for the term 'fusion', which I quote: "Fusion – attempts to merge jazz with other musical styles, notably Asian and classical; see John McLaughlin, Narada Michael Walden." https://archive.org/details/dacapocompaniont0000hard/page/n15/mode/1up - AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

One more book, The Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular Music, pages 445–446, entry on "Fusion": https://archive.org/details/penguinencyclope0000unse_f4h9/page/445/mode/1up - AwerDiWeGo (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

One more source. Grove Music Online (2003). Entry for the term Fusion: "A term which came to be substituted for Jazz-rock (jazz) from the mid-1970s and which is applied predominantly to that style, but which has also been more generally applied after that period to closely related syntheses of jazz and soul music, jazz and pop, jazz and funk, jazz and light music, and jazz and folk music." https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.J160600 - AwerDiWeGo (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I totally see where you're coming from with this but, are most of these sources not using "fusion" as a shorthand for jazz fusion, rather than defining "fusion genre"? I don't see any of these sources using the phrase "fusion genre", just "fusion". Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

They're general handbooks about popular music and they define the term "fusion" within the general context of popular music (well, I think one of the books is about rock and roll).

Regarding your second comment, the thing is there are many words we can choose to talk about things. It's reasonable to avoid using a term, "fusion genre", that is only used by two reliable sources among hundreds of reliable sources that avoid using the term "fusion genre" for things like this. They might use it somehow "this is a fusion of this and that" but not prominently in the first sentence, the defining sentence of an important reference text. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In Spain we mainly use the term "fusión" (always translated to English as "fusion", including when Wikipedia cites sources in Spanish) when genres from Spain and Latin America are combined with genres from the Anglosphere. For instance, flamenco and blues, salsa and disco, tango and rock, rumba and funk, rumba flamenca and punk, etc. But, as you have seen (or suffered) from my rants here, some of us react with surprise if we see "pop rock" or "garage punk" being labeled as a fusion genre. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Pop rock isn't a fusion genre, but garage punk definitely is, at least what came forth in the 2000s with artists like Ty Segall and Coachwhips. Though it was originally coined by Lenny Kaye in 1971 as just another word for garage rock. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)