Talk:New wave music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon New wave music is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject New Wave music    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Wave music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Argentina[edit]

Dude, why do you keep asking a citation for Argentina? For the other regional scenes you don´t ask any. --Rivet138 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is extensive reliable sourced material of the U.S. and U.K scenes in the article. There is sentence long material for the Finland and Dutch scenes also backed by reliable sources. Some Wikipedia editors would require an additional cite for the Inbox and are in their rights to do so I don't personally flag these.
The Argentine issue is a totally different situation. The editor added new material to the Infobox. No reliably sourced material about the Argentine scene was added to the main article nor a reliable source for provided for the claim that Argentina had a scene. It is up to the editor adding material to find reliable sources for it. Other editors who discover the uncited materials have several options, do nothing leave it be, do your work and try and find a citation for the material, delete the material on the spot, or do what I did flag it by giving out a warning.WP:REFB Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Argentine Rock, when it talks about the “Argentine Invasion” has some citations that deal with the New Wave scene in this country. Wikipedia has articles in English of the following Argentine New Wave bands: Soda Stereo, Sumo, Virus, Los Abuelos de la Nada, Charly García (80s period), Miguel Mateos/ZAS, Los Twist. Additionally, Wikipedia has articles in Spanish of the following Argentine New Wave musicians: GIT, Daniel Melero (Los Encargados), Sissi Hansen, Richard Coleman (Fricción), Suéter.
The Argentine New Wave scene was related with the Spanish “La Movida”. Some bands of the latter toured with Argentine bands in Hispanic America and were responsible for the diffusion of the gender in the region, most notably in Chile (Los Prisioneros) and Mexico (Caifanes). Some bands like Olé Olé even shared Spanish and Argentine members. --Rivet138 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
These would be a positive additions to this article. Edkollin (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Apology to Rivet138 for reverting your changes to YOUR comments. Incorrectly thought you were reverting another editors comment. Edkollin (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Post-1980s revivals and influence - needs clean-up[edit]

  • 1) New Wave ended in the mid '80's - how can present music that is influenced by this period be termed 'new' wave when it's coming up to 40 year's old now.It was alway's a loose definition anyway, never really a genre.Synth pop, power pop, post/nu disco, art rock etc. are adequate enough to describe the genre area they are in & / or revival should be added, just as with garage rock revival, post-punk revival (although that's a confusing genre area as well, another broad area with alot of cross-over with New Wave AT THE TIME).
  • 2) This sentence seems a bit pointless really "While some journalists and fans regarded this as a revival, others argue that the phenomenon is a continuation of the original movements" - see above, especially bit in bold.Links don't really back up the arguement either.
  • 3) The Chillwave connection is a bit tenuous to say the least.
  • 4) Alot of the bands mentioned are already included in other genre revival pages that have a more obvious influence - all seems more to with marketing - include the bands in as many dubious genre areas as possible to get maximum exposure by fans of these bands.
  • 5) Aren't the majority of the band's mentioned adequately covered by a Modern Rock description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_rock. It may be a radio format term but it's more of an accurate description than calling them New Wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure about some of the details here, but I agree with the general sentiment. The revivals section has had so many fly-by additions that it has become fragmented. I have begun making an attempt to clean it up. In general I think it is legitimate to point out where critics have perceived New Wave influences. It remains an open question as to whether that constitutes a revival. This is quite a bit of work as the sources all need checking.--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I get your point about Revival.I was coming from a band by band revivalist point of view, rather than as a consolidated movement.New Wave was never a consolidated musical movement to begin with anyway - it was, vaguely, alternative 'pop'(or pop/rock) that sounded different or fresh, WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR TIME PERIOD.Isn't 'Revival' being used as way of putting a positive spin on 'Retro' sounding or influenced.Revival sounds positive, Retro sounds negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talkcontribs) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Revival" is a particular action, somebody is bring back something. "Retro" is a just a descriptor. "xx are New wave revivalists bringing back the retro sound of the 1980s". Nothing inherently positive or negative in them. Edkollin (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reorginization[edit]

I would like to reorganize the article. The overview section would be split up into discussions of the term and definitions with the U.S. British differences subsection going there. The other section would discuss the various sub genres and styles. The synthpop paragraph now in the U.S. section would move to the subgenres section. Early synthpop like Gary Numan certainly fit into New Wave in the U.K. The issue remains that New Romantic and later synthpop still is not. The book I having been using as a source has added important details and understanding of the various subgenres and U.S/U.K. differences its author is an American who views all late 1970s to mid 1980's synthpop as essential part of New Wave. Right now his book is the probably the only book length study since the 80's dedicated to New Wave, remember the Reynolds book important and influential as it is was about post punk. As it has been the article leaves the misleading impression that synthpop was only popular in U.S. Moving the synthpop paragraph may leave a misleading impression that New Romantic synthpop is considered New Wave in the U.K. Hopefully some of this is mitigated by the differences subsection and addition of material about Numan. Edkollin (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


New Wave musicNew wave musicMusic genres are not capitalised. Why is this an exception? Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support as per rationale. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - relevant sections in the archives are: Talk:New Wave music/Archive 1#Capitalization, and Talk:New Wave music/Archive 2#Request for consistency regarding capitalization and spacing. Neither of these really answer the question - why was this capitalised in the first place? I will probably support the change unless someone can explain it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'New Wave' is in title case[edit]

The music genre 'New Wave' has always been capitalized since the genre came into existence in the 1970s. Same goes with 'New Age' music. Hiddenstranger (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. That usage is antiquated and totally inconsistent with other genre spellings. Neither "new" nor "wave" are proper nouns, and per Wikipedia, "Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper noun such as the name of a place. For example:
Incorrect: They are a Psychedelic Rock band.
Correct: They are a psychedelic rock band."
What is the difference between "a Psychedelic Rock band" and "a New Wave band"? I see none. The capitalization (as with New Age/new age) looks outdated.
As for your assertion that it has always been so, I can attest that is not the case. I began working as a music journalist in 1984, writing and editing for such publications (well known for covering new wave music) as "Creem", "Spin", "Reflex," and the New Music Seminar's "Rockpool" newsletter. I also am responsible for dozens of entries in several volumes of one of the primary book sources for this music style, the "Trouser Press Guide to New Wave Records". This doesn't make me any kind of higher-than-thou authority, but the fact that the term was spelled "new wave" (lowercase) in various publications confirms my claim that the term was already being lowercased in the 1980s in relevant sources, and that your preference for capitalization is by no means universal.
Here's a few quick sources to back me up:
http://www.britannica.com/
new wave, category of popular music spanning the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Taking its name from the French New Wave cinema of the late 1950s, this catchall classification was defined in opposition to punk (which was generally more raw, rough edged, and political) and to mainstream “corporate” rock (which many new wave upstarts considered complacent and creatively stagnant). The basic principle behind new wave was the same as that of punk—anyone can start a band—but new wave artists, influenced by the lighter side of 1960s pop music and 1950s fashion, were more commercially viable than their abrasive counterparts.
http://www.trouserpress.com/faq.php
"Trouser Press was a New York-based rock music magazine that specialized in a number of genres — British Invasion history, new wave, progressive and independent-label releases — during its existence, which was from 1974 to 1984. In 1983, the editors of the magazine authored the first of a series of record guides."
http://www.allmusic.com/style/new-wave-ma0000002750
The book used as a source here also does not capitalize it:
Are We Not New Wave?: Modern Pop at the Turn of the 1980s By Theo Cateforis
http://books.google.com/books?id=-MVrM3zKrHQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Are+We+Not+New+Wave?:+Modern+Pop+at+the+Turn+of+the+1980s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7AI2UfiOAsio0AGSo4HABA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Are%20We%20Not%20New%20Wave%3F%3A%20Modern%20Pop%20at%20the%20Turn%20of%20the%201980s&f=false
I think before this incongruous capitalization is enshrined, we need to have a more detailed (or at least get other opinions here) debate.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It matters not one bit whether it's been capitalised since its conception. What matters is Wikipedia's rules, which clearly state that genres are not capitalised. It only makes sense; they are not common nouns. There is no reason why new wave should be an exception to this rule; it is a genre like every other. Lachlan Foley 08:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"...unless the genre name contains a proper noun..." which New Wave is. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the exact quote is: "Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper noun such as the name of a place. "New wave" is not a proper noun in the sense of referring to a specific place, or specific group of people. It's a general catch-all term for a very nonspecific and widely applied music genre that few people can agree on the parameters of, no different than "punk," "psychedelia," "reggae," "hip hop", "heavy metal" or any other similar title. There is no specific bunch of specific people who were an actual "new wave"; it's just a genre and by Wiki's rules, not capped.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, wrong again. The "such as" bit is an example, not that it must be a place. NW is a proper noun. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In what sense? You're just repeating a belief of yours without explaining it or making any kind of detailed arguments (as I did above and below). A proper noun has to refer to a specific person or persons, place or places, etc. Whatever "new wave" was in 1977, by the '80s it had become a genre name noun as well as adjective referring to music or fashions referencing that genre. If one can speak of "new wave" as a common music adjective, and it is. One can normally see a review or article saying something like: The album by Jane Doe Experience showcased many styles, from the metal "Song X" and danceable "Song Y," to the new wave "Song Number One". In this sense it is not a proper noun. If I say, "So and so has a new wave haircut," it's not referring to a proper noun. Who is the person or persons that make new wave a proper noun, please.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Lachlan Foley. What makes new wave so absolutely unique that it requires an exception like this to the accepted capitalization style? Many other genres (of music and also cinema, literature etc.) also were once capitalized for whatever reason...in some older references and publications one can find Punk or Gothic Rock capitalized, or Rock 'n' Roll for that matter. Hiddenstranger, you have not responded to my cited sources and logical argument, but I should also note that the burden of proof falls upon YOU, as your changes went against Wikipedia rules. I again respectfully ask for a debate before I make changes in accordance with those rules. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment -- The Rename discussion above was correctly closed "New Wave" is a proper name and correctly categorised, just as we do not refer to Lachlan foley. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)::
If the rename discussion was correctly closed it should be new wave.--SabreBD (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because others discussed it before and "closed" it doesn't mean it isn't open for revision. Wikipedia is always changing, Peter. It is not a proper name in the sense you are describing, any more than hip hop, jazz fusion, heavy metal, ska, ragtime, punk, salsa, big band, or any other genre name. You say "we do not refer to Lachlan foley" but, we also do not refer to Hip hop, Jazz fusion, Heavy metal, Ska, Ragtime, Punk, Salsa, Big band... The only caps in genre names are for actual proper names: Delta blues, Two Tone, Dixieland, British Invasion, Celtic folk, etc. Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DEVO[edit]

While they are mentioned in the article, I believe DEVO should be given more prominence and probably a photo. They are not only the ultimate personification of what is now understood to be "New Wave", but they are arguably its true originators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.153.139 22:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenation[edit]

In the UK, there are never hyphens used in the term "New wave music". It's simply incorrect. Changing the article title was unjustified (and undiscussed), but I'll hold back from reverting that change until there's been some more discussion. I'll take them out of the lead, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I've never seen "new wave" hyphenated. Incorrect and doesn't look right at all - just keep it as "New wave music"! – Hiddenstranger (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This book published in the UK by Cambridge Univ. Press and written by British musicologist Allan F. Moore uses the hyphenated form when in the context of an adjective, and non-hyphenated when used as a noun, just as in normal English grammar used also in America. Here's another British book that does it that way. And another. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Presumably this was done because it was assumed that this was an adjective. It is a noun.--SabreBD (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
A feature of English is the use of nouns in the role of adjectives—they are called noun adjuncts, and when they are compound modifiers they are typically hyphenated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
When used before "music", this compound noun is taking on the role of adjective; that's what the hyphen signals. See Hyphen#Compound modifiers and MOS:HYPHEN. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
All of these forms are common in books. A common style is to use caps to get the two words to hang together, but that is not WP's style, per MOS:CAPS; the hyphen is often omitted when in specialist contexts where people are sufficiently familiar with the term, but to aid the general reader, WP style is usually to not omit hyphens that help the reader parse the meaning correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
What academic grammarians might think is of no relevance. We go with common use. Patently, as shown by your diagram, common use is that the term is not hyphenated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is and has never been a hyphen in new wave, and it has never been written that way in any music magazine or actual book on new wave. By the same token, you will never see "heavy-metal music," or "roots-reggae music," or "jazz-fusion music" or "hardcore-punk music" etc etc. "New" is not modifying wave. "New wave" is one noun unto itself. The only time hyphens are used in genre names is if the original term has one, at least sometimes (i.e., "post-punk" or "trip-hop").Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle is correct. Listen to the Brit on this one. I have a great deal of respect for Dicklyon, but it is "New Wave" or "new wave". Ungrammatical, makes no sense, but it has its origins in esoteric youth culture, and esoteric youth cultures get to make up their own rules and disrespect all of ours. That's just how it works.
"New Wave" means you worship Bowie and Eno and Cabaret Voltaire
"new wave" means you are American and think Talking Heads and Devo are new wave
"new-wave" means you must be an Eagles fan. Meaning, you are old and irrelevant and do not understand our ways.
New Wave/new wave is some nebulous region between synthpop and post punk, probably best defined as everything 80s hardcore despised.
In other words, WHATEVER. But no, it will never, never, never be "new-wave."--Atlantictire (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)