Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2245d1629444628

Jump to content

Talk:Hyperpop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Aradicus in topic Microgenre

Hyperpop in pop culture

[edit]

I realize the article already has a section for "Popularity" of Hyperpop, but there's quite a lack of recent Hyperpop coverage in popular culture in the Wiki article. For example, we have a few sources to cite about popular Hyperpop artists breaking into mainstream popular culture, like ericdoa[1] and Laura Les[2] both being featured in the TV Show Euphoria, which averages 16.3 million viewers in current episodes[3] (2022). Additionally, I think we could site the Lollapalooza 2022 lineup[4] featuring 6 "Hyperpop adjacent" artists (Charli XCX, 100 Gecs, Midwxst, ericdoa, Underscores, Prentiss, Glaive). TrumanBrown

Hyperpop umbrella of genres

[edit]

I see that Digicore genre simply redirects to Hyperpop, and that the article simply says that Hyperpop is also known as digicore. I think it would be helpful to explain how the genres are either different or list popular artists that are commonly categorized under the umbrella of genres. Here are some sources I am thinking about adding.
Digicore artists and description[5]
Glitchcore artists and description[6]
Robloxcore artists and description[7]
TrumanBrown

References

Artists that Classify as Hyperpop

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I like Kim Petras, but I don't think one could argue that she makes hyperpop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaddman (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that artists such as osquinn should be added to this article. She *is* a giant in the hyperpop community. Hyperpop (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Any sources for these claims? Kim Petras is sourced as being called a hyperpop artist.Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'll be honest and say that I don't have any sources, and a quick Google search shows a handful of articles that indeed call Kim Petras a hyperpop artist. I was going to make a long write-up about how Kim Petras actually makes bedroom pop/electropop and including her as a hyperpop artist dilutes the term's meaning too much, but I realize that my analysis is meaningless without anything to back it up. All I'll say is listen to Kim Petras, then listen to any other hyperpop artist, and you'll get what I mean.Themaddman (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Kim Petras makes electropop, not hyperpop. Artists such as osquinn, glaive, ericdoa should be added. Benarnold98 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Emo?!

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why does it list Emo in genres Hyperpop is derived from? Emo is a type of Punk music, and Hyperpop is Experimental, Dance-Pop derived music. I don't see any similarity. Do they mean Emo Rap? If so, it should link to that article, not to the article on Emo, the rock genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think they're referring to Digicore, which is mostly emo rap-adjacent. However, there are also artists like 100 Gecs who incorporate ska and nu-metal influences, so it wouldn't be surprising. Ceo of wimbus (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is a lot of emo in Hyperpop. Lots of Dylan Brady's production is quite emo inspired, e.g. Lil Aaron - Drugs, 100 Gecs - Stupid Horse.

Undue weight

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

User:Acousmana has insisted on including information in the lead that is reflected in one (1) source, and given it the same weight as information that is reflected in 5+ sources. That’s bad and misleading. There’s no consensus that hyperpop began with nu rave band Test Icicles or Hudson Mohawke, but virtually every source names PC Music as an originary hub of the scene and many of its pioneering artists. Explain yourself. Kkollaps (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

thanks for your input on this, the main concern - with respect to origin of the term/style/acts associated with it etc. - is that we try and communicate the nuanced picture painted by the sources rather than appear to promote a single collective/label and it's founder. We also need to be sure we are not just uncritically regurgitating music PR. If you are happy to wait, I'll get back to this in the next couple of days re:what various sources state about, origins, influences, current trends etc. Acousmana 20:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I should think the main concern is to adequately summarize the available published sources on the subject, not to unduly weigh a claim briefly thrown out by one source as heavily as a consistent motif discussed at length by the overwhelming majority of the sources. Kkollaps (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Refs, in terms of term/genre origin, key influences, associated artists - other than Cook - etc. The lead offers a skewed summary. Acousmana 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • I support Acousmana's changes. The lead's function is to provide a concise summary of the body, and the body should include a balance of significant viewpoints. There is no source that explicitly contradicts the claims in question. ili (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead mentioned several artists invoked only by one (1) source in the same capacity as an artist/label invoked by 6+ sources. That’s not a "balance" that’s undue weight.Kkollaps (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Imagine a scenario where we had 20+ sources stating that "hyperpop" was a term invented by PC Music. Then we have one source pointing out that a very notable individual was using the term 5 years earlier. That's not undue weight if we note the one source that acknowledges the earlier artist. Same concept applies here. ili (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
That analogy doesn’t work. We’re not talking about a concrete historical usage of a term, we’re talking about a vague confluence of musical sensibilities. If some said Scritti Politti arguably pioneered a similar approach to hyperpop in 1985 (true imo), it would nonetheless be misleading to claim the genre originated with them, in the lead with zero clarification no less. The overwhelming majority of sources link the genre’s beginnings to PC Music-affiliated artists.
Also want to clarify the quote in question here, which is far from unequivocal: "If you wanted to go further back, then bands like Test Icicles (Blood Orange’s early band) or other outliers of the much-maligned “nu rave” scene in London might fit a similar bill". Come on. Kkollaps (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
I definitely agree with @Acousmana: on this one, and support his changes. The sources speak for themselves. And the fact that these artists were quoted by A.G. Cook as direct influences on the genre should be enough to warrant their inclusion. Benarnold98 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
"The sources speak for themselves." What? You mean the one source? There's one source for each of these inclusions. The source for "nu rave" says "If you wanted to go further back, then bands like Test Icicles or other outliers of the much-maligned “nu rave” scene in London might fit a similar bill"". That speaks for itself—by naming this connection as tentative and ambiguous. The Soundcloud source states that the name originated from the scene, not that the sound did. Influences are not synonymous with the origin of a genre. AG has also named Conlon Nancarrow and Scritti Politti as influences, but nobody's claiming they're the inventors of the genre. Kkollaps (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
If there are too many confluences to name, then I would support a line that simply states something like "most accounts usually trace hyperpop to PC Music", but as it stands right now, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The lead is not terribly long at the moment, and given the article length, it could be expanded to double or thrice its current size. So I don't see why there should be an issue with covering all the referenced influences from the body.ili (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sources under question

[edit]

I don't understand the same lead weight being given to artists vaguely invoked by one source as possibly similar to PC Music ("might fit a similar bill" or "reminiscent of" or "contemporaries"). This isn't sufficient critical consensus to guarantee them the same level of weight as that given to PC, who have an overwhelming plurality of sources naming them as central to the origin (either as pioneers or influences or associates of pioneers). I'm not sure what vendetta you people have against PC/Cook, but the current article is simply cherry-picking and unreflective of the sources.

And just to make the tentative qualities of these quotes absolutely clear:

  • The sole passage used to support the inclusion of Nu-Rave in the lead as an origin point: "To some, the ground covered by hyperpop won’t seem all that new [...] Test Icicles or other outliers of the much-maligned “nu rave” scene in London might fit a similar bill" Acousmana's lead and body paragraph is simply a willful misreading of what the text says.
Note: User:Solidest (here) and User:ILIL (here) made this objection as well. Not sure how any honest reading of that passage could produce another intepretation.
  • The sole sentence used to support the inclusion of Nightcore in the lead: "The term “hyperpop” first originated in the trenches of SoundCloud’s nightcore scene (a style of pitch-shifted pop remix that’s often paired with Anime cover art)." Seems to explicitly define Nightcore as a distinct remix genre and says nothing about its musical influence on hyperpop. It's only talking about the term itself.
  • The sole sentence used to support the privileging of Rustie/Hudson Mohawke first in the lead as origin points (not influences)—they are each mentioned exactly once in the article, while PC/Sophie/Cook are both mentioned 5+ times and discussed at length: "Even then, the sounds PC Music were putting out had contemporaries in the likes of Rustie and Hudson Mohawke...whose fluoro, trance-edged smooshes of dance and hip-hop are reminiscent of a lot of hyperpop today" Describing them as "contemporaries" of PC Music does not establish them as a central focal point for the genre's development.

Meanwhile, there are 7+ sources in the body describing PC/Cook as a central locus of the genre in one way or another. These things aren't equivalent. Kkollaps (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply


Guess why he doesn't mention Nancarrow or Scritti Politti here? Because he is talking specifically about music directly related to "hyperpop."
There is, once again, no indication of musical influence here. It’s a repurposed term. Kkollaps (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
aside from the many nods to other artist and genres (many more in the sources above) how many mentions of Rustie and Hudson Mohawke are you counting? feel free to add the citations and improve the article. Acousmana 11:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Every single one of these mentions describes them as influences?! I feel like I’m going mad! Based on this reasoning, that lead sentence should also include K-pop, J-pop, grime, Gorillaz, Daft Punk, Pet Shop Boys, and Kraftwerk as origin points! What is the reasoning here!?? An influence is not the same as a originating scene/locus!!!!! Kkollaps (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
there is no year zero where a genre called "hyperpop" appeared fully formed out of a void, per Cook, what we are dealing with is a "continuum" and it's clear from the sources that acts like Hudson Mohawke were more than simply influential - "Even then, the sounds PC Music were putting out had contemporaries in the likes of Rustie and Hudson Mohawke". More generally, the term is itself not new and has been used to describe exaggeration in pop music going back decades, but that's a separate issue. Acousmana 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately for you, Cook is not a published journalist, critic, or historian, so his opinion indicates no professional consensus nor any conclusive commentary, especially since he doesn’t seem to be commenting on the genre as a whole, but only on his own work. Each artist will see themselves as part of a particular "continuum" of their unique influences. That doesn’t make their references historically significant in the professional literature. Kkollaps (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cook is a WP:PRIMARY on the topic of PC Music and "hyperpop" but the source of the statement re:continuum is secondary (Mixmag).
  • Over the last few years, PC Music sounds and styles have been increasingly infiltrating the mainstream: from label affiliate SOPHIE collaborating with Madonna, her single ‘Lemonde’ soundtracking a McDonald’s advert and Danny L Harle teaming up with Carly Rae Jepsen to the more recent explosion of 100 gecs, ‘hyperpop’ and the post-PC Music generation. Understandably, Alex sees it as a “victory - for the collective to get to a point where it’s understood”. He’s quick to downplay his impact, though, describing it as a continuum, with influences including Hudson Mohawke, Rustie, Uffie and Ed Banger going back to Gorillaz, Daft Punk and even Kraftwerk, referencing “how unbelievably mainstream and high concept genre-destroying that stuff was. There’s been plenty of things that we’ve also evolved from.”
Following your rationale, PC Music is also nothing more than an influence per "The PC Music sound is an undeniable influence on hyperpop, but the style also pulls heavily from rap of the cloud, emo and lo-fi trap variety, as well as flamboyant electronic genres like trance, dubstep and chiptune.". Maintaining ignorance of the sources provided to push a preferred narrative doesn't help the article. Acousmana 14:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
In The Independent article you listed: Apple by AG Cook, a long-time collaborator with XCX, and considered the “godfather” of the genre with his label PC Music. Pretty clear this lists PC Music and Cook as more than just an influence. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 16:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
source of "godfather" epithet (used in quotes by Independent writer) is Szabo, the Spotify hyperpop list editor (per Vice article), so POV ultimately, still just one of many influences. Acousmana 14:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, absolutely no consensus has been reached in agreement with your take here, which is still willfully bad. Kkollaps (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Newer artists/style that should be addressed

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hyperpop is starting to garner a roster of young, more underground artists, who are starting to become rather pivotal to this genre. The article doesn't mention any of these artists, and I think there should be at least a paragraph detailing these artists, whilst referencing their link to the underground hip hop community. I also believe artists such as Bladee should be credited for the genre's admission into underground hip hop; as his style has clearly been an inspiration for many of these artists. Some examples of artists I'm referring to are ericdoa, midwxst, blackwinterwells, glaive, d0llywood1, SEBii, p4rkr and aldn, all of whom have featured on the hyperpop spotify playlist.

is there evidence of coverage in reliable secondary sources? Acousmana 15:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, plenty. See the links below.
Benarnold98 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
A good rule of thumb is to generally wait for the artists to have pages before adding them, because if an artist isn't notabaly enough to have their own page then they definitely aren't notably enough to be mentioned on the page for the entire genre. I checked through your list and only Bladee seems to have a page. I don't think his inclusion would be too controversial. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
note too that Sparky & We Are The Guard are not WP:RS, they are unadulterated 'music PR' websites, Dummymag is not far behind, artist coverage in such sources is not an indication of wider notability. Acousmana 19:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes I guess that makes sense about those artists, r.e. notability. I do belive these artists have contributed to the genre however, essentially spurring a new wave of hyperpop, with Bladee being one of the prime influencers of this new style, in addition to the artists who are traditionally associated with influencing the genre, i.e. A.G. Cook, Charli XCX and SOPHIE. This new style is more hip-hop orientated than some traditional hyperpop, and the production takes heavy influence from Dylan Brady. Similarly, this style's vocals and general aesthetic take heavy influence from 100 Gecs, as well as the members of Drain Gang, most notably Bladee. An example of a notable song in this style is the hugely viral 'SugarCrash!' by ElyOtto. This style is also all over the Hyperpop spotify playlist, with multiple appearances from SEBii, blackwinterwells, ericdoa, midwxst, d0llywood1 and glaive to name a few. As this playlist is often associated with the origin of this genre, I believe these artists' abundance on the playlist indicate notability. I think a great addition to the article would be a paragraph explaining how the genre is starting to evolve, influenced mostly by 100 Gecs and Drain Gang, and is starting to gain traction in a more underground (and notably younger), hip-hop orientated scene. The artists don't necessarily have to be mentioned if not deemed notable enough, but I think maybe three examples of artists would better convey to the reader what type of music is being referred to. The song, 'SugarCrash!' could also be used an example. I am also very surprised that this song doesn't yet have its own article given its notoriety. It was absolutely huge on TikTok, with over 8.6 million videos where it was used as the sound[1], it has also garnered large streaming numbers, and gained a remix featuring Kim Petras and Curtis Waters. That certainly seems notable enough to warrant an article. I'd be grateful to hear feedback on my propositions. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Something else that I believe is worth noting is that there was an instance where the official Hyperpop spotify playlist was actually curated by Bladee with producer, Mechatok. This edition of the playlist is no longer active on Spotify, but there are a few active user-created playlists consisting of the songs they added to the playlist, such as this one. I believe the fact this playlist was curated by Bladee shows that he has a strong connection to the genre, so should definitely be mentioned on this article. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Spotify's guest playlist promotions functions as a promotion for an artist's album release; I would refrain from putting any more weight on the playlist in terms of defining its future development, since Spotify isn't a gatekeeper of the definition of the genre. If there's credible articles you can say that point to this shift in sound, that names those artists, then feel free to draft a change, but otherwise there shouldn't be changes based on original research (see: WP:OR). ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 20:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would also add, plays alone does not warrant an article for a song. See WP:NALBUMS ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
bottom line is without coverage in WP:RS it's simply not notable enough for inclusion, there has been an explosion of "hyperpop" acts in the US, anyone can make tracks and upload to soundcloud/youtube, promote on ticktock/discord/twitch etc. possibly leading to inclusion on a playlist, but that doesn't mean it's notable, this stuff is disposable music, it's churned out by the bucketloads, and is being massively hyped, how much of this work will stand the test of time? why we should probably note WP:RECENT too. Acousmana 09:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Hyperpop

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hyperpop's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Independent":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bubblegum Bass & Origins

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article generally seems to focus on developments after 2019 without much regard for the previous 5 years of activity.

Before the term 'Hyperpop' was popularized parts of this niche were often referred to as 'Bubblegum Bass'. Though I can't find the deleted page myself, it was also added to the wiki under that name back when it first became of note, though this was also briefly a redirect, this time toward Wonky. There appears to be no mention of this term in the article as it stands, though it is still occasionally still used (perhaps primarily on sites with user-generated tags). On Sophie's page the term redirects to UK Bass despite the poorly implemented section there having also been removed. As what amounts to a sub-sub-genre I don't think it's quite worthy of its own article, but I do believe it needs a mention and would be a good fit under the current umbrella of Hyperpop.

Further, the 'Origins' section opens right up on the topic of the name 'Hyperpop' without mention of the scene's close connections to contemporary developments in Wonky, Deconstructed club, UK bass, etc., plus the influence of the brief but intense output of (certain) Japanese netlabels in the early 2010s, especially in regard to release format. There's a more direct connection to PC Music and the netlabel scene via S. Whybray as JACK댄스. Regarding Hyperpop's history at large, one might also want to consider its brief passes with the mainstream via Bitch I'm Madonna, though they ultimately pushed the composition toward other contemporary hits, and the Sophie-influenced production of Vince Staple's Big Fish Theory. — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cleanup

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I think ItsAlwaysLupus' last revision was constructive; an infobox is just meant to summarise what's in the article and having that many links in it does not read well. E.g. the styles of hip hop, trap, emo rap, and cloud rap all come under 2010s hip hop anyway. They didn't remove genres that weren't already sourced in the body of the article.
I also noticed VariousDeliciousCheeses made some relevant points above but didn't get a response. 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:9853:DD8A:3BA4:FCFC (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the selection of stylistic origins is arbitrary (WP:CHERRYPICKING) and infringes Wikipedia policy regarding oversimplification and the failure to balance equally significant points of view. Worst of all, it also misrepresents sources, as it pipelinks "avant-garde" to "avant-pop", a genre that is never referenced in the article. ili (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Origins of the Spotify "hyperpop" playlist

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a line in the article that currently reads

Music associated with this scene received wider attention in August 2019 when Spotify renamed an existing playlist featuring artists such as Cook and 100 Gecs to "hyperpop".

The source linked is How Hyperpop, a Small Spotify Playlist, Grew Into a Big Deal, which seems to directly contradict the claim made in the article:

The Hyperpop playlist, which Spotify started in August 2019, began as a direct response to 100 gecs’ viral rise. “The fact that so many people were talking about this project inspired us to look deeper and see if there were other artists making music like this that we didn’t know about,” Lizzy Szabo, an editor at Spotify and the playlist’s lead curator, said in a phone interview. […] Szabo and her colleagues landed on the name after seeing it come up in metadata collected by Glenn McDonald, Spotify’s “data alchemist,” whose job is finding emerging sounds on the platform and classifying them into “microgenres.”

This seems to say that the playlist was created newly in 2019 and had the name "hyperpop" from the beginning.

Jarhill (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

HexD article

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Maybe the editors of this article would get interested in that the article for HexD got listed for deletion. I don't know much about either hyperpop or hexd but the gut feeling tells me that these two genres of what basically is glitched-out rehashed electronic post-trap something music should definitely be related, even to a larger extent. Bitcrush, glitches, glitched artworks, glitchcore, russian drain, "unorthodox mishmash of EDM genres", sigilkore, allusions to the late 2000s pop and alt subcultures - all that stuff is basically the same type of music made by the alt teens for TikTok and soundcloud through the early 2020s, amirite? The differences are too subtle for me to grasp. So maybe you could take care of that article too, cause it was created and seemingly abandoned by the author right after thatPDDisPDDat (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"abandoned"? It was only created on 9 March 2022‎! -Lopifalko (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
It seems that he didn't even participate in the AfD and made no improvements to the article since AfD nomination, so maybe he doesn't care about the article anymore. PDDisPDDat (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The article doesn't have a single WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. Presumably if the editor were able to find any, then they would have included them when they wrote the article, and without them there's nothing to support a claim of keeping at AfD. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think that's exactly the problem with the article. I've seen sources in the wild, I mean I've seen written specials dedicated to sigil/hexd, but the author seemingly didn't even care to rephrase everything he found in his own references, let alone adding or finding any new ones. Problem is I don't listen and neither have much interest in HexD, so I am not going to edit it. In short, I guess there are sources in the wild and the article is just a bit of, eh, low effort in the regard of finding and referencing those sources. It may be notable and significant, but presented in a way it's going to inevitably get deleted. So maybe someone who loves hyperpop will find some time for the hexd article, since I guess the two are related PDDisPDDat (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've keep the original article in my sandbox so that whenever I'll find a good source, I'll add to it. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think I might've fixed this slightly? Iluvlieu (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm making a hexd article currently at Draft:HexD if anyone wants to contribute. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should I get rid of the Novagang section of Digicore?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I feel like it shouldn't be there, even though that Novagang members have contributed a lot to Digicore/Robloxcore. Iluvlieu (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dubious

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sources in article corroborate divergent claims concerning the cultural_origins parameter in the infobox. The 'Origins' section suggests ties to the 2000s UK dubstep and Japanese electronic music scenes, but Complex calls hyperpop a descendent of SoundCloud’s ‘nightcore’ scene in the ‘00s

Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in this topic. @Acousmana: @VariousDeliciousCheeses: @Jarhill: Eferral (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

From my perspective, Complex is unfortunately referring to a specific element within hyperpop that nightcore influenced then stating the genre as the strongest origin of the sound. The following section in Origins which mentions Maltine is correct, as there was cross pollination via Jack댄스/NONSTOPPOP hosted by Simon Whybray who still works with A.G. Cook. Finding specific proof is difficult as Whybray has recently made an effort to exercise his right to be forgotten. Another netlabel that was influential on the precursor sound called bubblegum bass was Manicure Records, who served as an early intersection of the genres influential on what is now hyperpop (including nightcore). Here are is an article from 2014 with a further reading section that makes some contemporary connections & will require liberal use of archive.org. OK good luck — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article's coverage of hyperpop stops at 2021

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Think the title is self explanatory, but this article is missing a lot to the evolution of the genre. Specifically, artists such as Jane Remover and Underscores have been hugely influential in moving the sound towards rock in the last 3 years, but both of them are only mentioned once throughout the whole article. I'd also add Brakence and Quadeca here even though they're more loosely related. A "Post Hyperpop" or "legacy" section should be added. 131.123.51.75 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah this page is really off. I'll try to update it as much as I can, there used to be way too much talk of hyperpop influences and precursors in the origins section. Also it conflated bubblegum bass/PC Music with hyperpop, when hyperpop was a completely different thing. It also conflated digicore and glitchcore with hyperpop. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Cade Clair" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect Cade Clair has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 30 § Cade Clair until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between Digicore and Glitchcore?

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Digicore and glitchcore seem to be synonymous musically, with glitchcore being used as a term for the visual art surrounding digicore. A lot of the artists described as glitchcore are now subsumed under digicore, glitchcore seems to have been an early term for what would later become digicore. It doesn't seem to be it's own seperate genre. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

i always thought that glitchcore was just hyperpop with a lot of glitch effects to the music kinda like pressure by david shawty ig Yellowcalx4 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

GA review

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion
FAILED
Major sourcing issues and other problems, could get there with a good bit of good faith effort

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyperpop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Aradicus77 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Dizzycheekchewer (talk · contribs) 18:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'll review this article.

I'll start with some broadstrokes things I notice and will then do some citation spotchecking. I am too wordy by nature, so I apologize in advance.

  • First some general formatting/Criteria 1 notes. Not all of these are absolutely necessary for meeting the GA criteria, but they would all very much contribute to its improvement along those lines.
    • The lead, as is, is very long and not particularly targeted, per MOS: Lead. The second and third paragraphs especially have too much detail that goes beyond nutshell coverage. Really the second graph could be just the first sentence and the last sentence, with the remainder being reserved for the body of the article. Ditto with the third graph, which only really contributes its first sentence ("hyperpop started to decline") to the nutshell coverage of the subject. The second sentence there doesn't add much (a list of other contemporary microgenres without much stated connection to hyperpop) and the third sentence is a piece of trivia that would belong in the body.
    • I'd encourage you also to take a more authoritative tone throughout. The use of outside viewpoints to build the picture of your subject is ofc necessary, but you also need to have an encyclopedic style. So the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section begins with "According to" some person and a specific quote about what hyperpop is not. That sentence may be perfect as is for later in the section, but the graph is better suited with a more direct topic sentence that introduces the reader to the broad-strokes and then narrows down to quotes from music pundits or specific traits. There are a couple other instances where quotes are a bit over-used and/or graphs are front-loaded with overly specific bits, rather than a general summary of the viewpoints. Just in the Characteristics section, something like graph 2 is a better model, where it starts with "hyperpop has association with LGBTQ" then it goes into individual details.
    • There are also a lot of direct quotations, not all of which seem to meet MOS:Quote. Some—especially one-word quotes—read close to scare-quoting though I know that's not the intention at all. I would look through and consider what needs quoting and what can be just as easily paraphrased, with proper attribution. MOS: Quote is not absolutely necessary for GA qualification, but there could be individual instances that may cross the line, so I'd encourage a look through them all.
    • The section "Background" confuses me a little and seems to foretell and/or replicate the "origins" subsection of the History section. I don't know if it all fits there or if some aspects belong in "Characteristics" or even "Etymology," but the progression of sections as is doesn't quite mesh well to my eyes. It (and looking at the Talk page) leads me to think that this was at one point a somewhat unstable article and could use some holistic ironing, with the "background" section possibly being vestigial.
    • Lastly, avoid duplication anywhere but the lead. There are, for example, multiple references to Szabo and ENAO that reiterate the same basic points about them unnecessarily.
  • The citations generally seem in order and I will do some spotchecking, but a couple things
    • There's multiple references to student-run news orgs (I see at least The Ithacan and the NC radio one, but could be others). I would discourage the usage of those sources, as WP:RSSM only really considers them usable on a case-by-case basis and even then, mostly for specific campus-related events or individuals.
    • Ditto with a couple other sources, including VirtualHumans.com (which I can't find reference to on WP, but which seems to be clearly unreliable—no stated content policy, mostly written by one improperly attributed writer, and featuring a prominent link to a website that sells AI influencer tech—and Vice, which is yellow on WP's source scale but is probably usable, if necessary, here.
    • You almost certainly don't need as many explicit references to the authors of the articles you cite. The inline citation should suffice most of the time. This of course goes hand-in-hand with my early comment about quote overuse, as quotes do better with in-text attribution.
  • I don't have a strong feeling about it and it wouldn't affect GA value, but BritEng doesn't seem proper, especially when its a coinage by American Spotify employees and the American duo 100 gecs is considered the breakthrough act. It also doesn't seem to be followed throughout (I didn't do a deep dive on that basis, but "colorful" rather than "colourful" is used.)
  • The last section seems like it has value, but kind of works as a repository of other information that is a)not directly related to hyperpop and b) covered on its own pages. Right now it butts up against GA criteria for broad (but not out of scope) coverage. Could do well as a list/see also and/or with more roots back to hyperpop specifically.

Again, apologies for the length. I wanted to provide this preliminary view for you to provide some fixes. Feel free to comment when you've responded to them and I'll take another look and do a full proportional spotcheck of the citations. I don't think it's far off from GA qualification. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

PC Music is a british record label which is where hyperpop grew out of.
The background section pertains to what music writers have called pre-hyperpop but the actual origins of the genre start with Charli XCX in 2016. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Aradicus77
  • Yes I'm aware of PC Music and different British hyperpop artists. If you want to stick with the BritEng, it makes no difference to me, but the article a) says the term came from American Spotify ppl and b) associates 100 gecs with the explosion of hyperpop as a genre. If it were an article just about Charli/AG Cook/PC Music etc. BritEng would be obvious. Either way that was (explicitly) a very minor suggestion I had, not something worth discussing in detail. If you think the one is better, I would encourage you to make it consistent throughout though, again, it has little to no bearing on GA status.
  • Whether or not that's the case (the article currently traces it to "the early 2010s" with Vroom Vroom at the tail-end of its origins), having the two sections is redundant. If "pre-hyperpop" is a relevant, documented phrase or phase, then it would still belong either in the origins subsection or a more conclusive background section. If you want to start the history of hyperpop with its forerunners (pre-hyperpop or other inspirations) that's valid. If you want to start the history of hyperpop with its identification as such (with forerunners in the separate Background section), that's valid too. But having both a pre-history and then a history that starts with a pre-history muddles the section progression. Imagine someone skimming the article and getting bogged down with the less-than-legible chronology
That said, it's been nearly a week and there's been no visible effort to address the feedback—even the urgent and easy to fix problems like iffy sources (student-run news, AI website, heavy reliance on Vice) have been left untouched. And your response here has been to pick at relatively small critiques. I'm not here to attack the article or your efforts, I'm trying to help the article reach the GA standards. If you don't find value there, I don't know how much use this process can be.
Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think valid concerns is the student run news AI website and reliance on VICE but you will have to point these out to me (mainly the first 2) because I'm not sure which you are referring to as that. I could dial back the quotations as well but yeah I don't see the point of cutting down the quotations to the point that a lot of the context is gone or removing the background section which was the best solution to keeping all mentions of pre-2016 / PC Music / Charli XCX artists being referred to as hyperpop, unless you want it renamed to something better? I only called it "Background" because someone made a similar edit to Indie rock.Aradicus77 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
btw what I found less constructive was changing the lead because it was too specific. It feels most informative and outlines everything to know about the genre. Kieran-Press Reynolds has said the genre has become a "macrogenre". So it's equal for the lead to be as big as pages like Hip-hop or Rock music Aradicus77 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
For me not using an authorative tone, that has to do with the fact that I've been hounded last few months for it so now focus more on direct quotations since I have no clue what tone people would want to be on the article without being accused of original research or the like. Though I have now gone back to more bold paraphrasing due to complaints of over quoting. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate that you have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject and that you've put in a lot of work on the article so far, but it doesn't seem like you've properly opened yourself to the review process. I would strongly encourage you to review the good article criteria.
It's ultimately your responsibility as nominator to make sure the article meets the criteria (ideally before you submit). If you don't, I try to recommend changes to help you reach that standard. It doesn't really matter if something I flag is something you contributed or something that a previous editor contributed, it's all part of the article. And I tried to give details (I, for example, explicitly pointed out multiple iffy sources, but they still remain), but it's not necessarily something where I give you line-by-line instructions.
Either way, it's still not far off, but it's not there now. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Aradicus77 Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've given a lot of time and space to this review, but unfortunately reviewer has been unresponsive and combative about recommended fixes. There are currently iffy sources used and issues with the structure and content. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This might be useful to run as a double DYK hook with Kim Petras, so I'll take a look at this myself in the next couple of days. I'll offer a preliminary comment that Vice is listed at WP:NPPSG as "more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics", so is probably fine here.--Launchballer 07:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dariacore description

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This probably wouldnt be a nesecaryy or allowed edit, but I want to say that most dariacore tracks are more than just high pithced samples, a common factor for all of them is large (as in complex but also filling up stereo width) chords and pads, which you will find in most Dariacore songs. Another is using a tonal snare, or a snare with one or multiple emphasized pitches inside. Is there anyway i could get this on the article without a source? Like an interview with dariacore creators or making my own article? FoxyOnFireNew (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, Dariacore is now commonly referred to as hyperflip (term created by Xaev) for the new style of daricore, like whats happening in Japan and lost frog productiosn FoxyOnFireNew (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
See Dariacore. The description here is very old it probs should be removed entirely as most of the genres have their own pages now Aradicus (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Microgenre

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yeah I've always had an issue with the term microgenre on this page. It seems maybe the style emerged as one? But it's far too vast now to be considered a microgenre Aradicus (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyperpop&oldid=1349378868"