Talk:New wave music/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Article is well informed and well intentioned but reads like a press release for the bands that are featured —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics - Copyright violation?

There are some lyrics to entire songs reprinted in this article. Is this a copyright violation? Alanraywiki (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Some tit keeps deleting the whole article and replacing it with an unencyclopedic, unsourced, inaccurate essay filled with copyvio. I'm reverting it again. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Shaar Murray - Undue weight

I deleted his paragraph and summarized it and another editor reverted it. While his analysis is article worthy I do not see the reason for putting the whole paragraph in the article when his analysis can be summarized. I fail to see why this particular analysis is so important that it is the gets the only analysis to get a whole paragraph in the article. Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

His analysis is not simply all about haircuts, as your edit comment suggested. It summarises many of the leading exponents of New Wave - in a way which is infinitely more readable than a long list - and indicates, in each case, why they were not deemed "punk". Therefore it is a useful passage in that it defines New Wave by reference to what it was not, as well as outlining the main suspects.
If you are concerned that the entry is too long, go and find some other analysis, possibly from your Reynolds book, and add it to the article. You don't improve the page by deleting cited material by respected writers just because you don't like it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If you do think my attempted prose does not adequately summarize his paragraph you could rewrite it. But I wrote that summary as a attempt at compromise. Since this is not happening I find no need for a summary at all as the sentence preceding it is all that needs to be written about his analysis. I will in no way go to Reynolds book (whom I was using to argue unrelated issues) and lift paragraphs I feel are representative. If everybody lifted paragraphs from respected writers this article will become the exact opposite of what you are attempting. It would be completely unreadable. While I understand you are not advocating that everybody just lift paragraphs I have seen to many articles where this type of thing got out of control. A better approach will be to say Charles Murray said this Reynolds said this etc. If the reader wants further detail he or she could follow the link. This is especially true for a section named Overview. Edkollin (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-punk, Synthpop and in between

Much of the confusion about what New Wave is and isn't comes from the original use of the term for the post-punk acts of the late 1970s and the later use up to the late 1980s for synthpop bands.

Still, the two are related - synthpop acts such as New Order grew out of the post-punk bands of the 1970s (in their case, from Joy Division), and both genres are related vocally and stylistically.

Most New Wave bands in the 1980s used both post-punk guitars and New Romantic synths, so while the original and extended definitions of New Wave were applied to originally unrelated styles of music, they are still related by association.

Many New Wave acts could be described as alternative rock tinged with the sound of electronic keyboards and drum machines, some acts like The Human League use almost exclusively electronic instruments.

I deleted the above from the article as this is a can of worms that needs a discussion. And it is uncited. I would relabel the section something along the lines of "Multiple Genre definitions". I would just say that several bands deemed New Wave have also been commonly described by other genres such as post punk and alternative rock. Synthpop acts as discussed time and time again above are far from universally recognized as New Wave. So any material about synthpop should be relegated to the U.S. definition section. I do not think the Human League would be the most prominent example. The Cure,Siouxsie And The Banshees are be better choices. Depeche Mode would be a better example of a sythnpop/Alternative multi definition act. New Order are a fine example of not only synthpop/New Wave/Alternative but also techno. I still have doubts as to the necessity of this. There are so many twists and turns to get it really correct might make it unreadable Edkollin (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dark Wave??

I can remember groups like Siouxsie & the Banshees & the The Cure being referred to by fans as "Dark Wave" along with other similar dark post punk acts. The fans also called themselves "Dark Wavers" which is something I have also noticed still being used with newer fans today whilst clicking on YouTube. There is also electro-dark wave. Metalosaurus (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We have Dark Wave listed in the article in the Parallel movements section. Edkollin (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Definition of New Wave in the United States section

After much hemming and hawing the section was added. The section has been modified somewhat which presumes consensus. A few days ago the section was deleted without it going to the talk page. I feel major section deletions should go to the talk page first. That being said just because a section was allowed in year ago does not mean it has to be here forever. There are different editors now etc. Also it could be that a lot of people hate the section but are afraid to say anything. With that in mind it is time to revisit this topic. Edkollin (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible relevant cite[1] Edkollin (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As for me the way it was was ok. The article did not claim the U.S definition is different from elsewhere just that it is different from the original. I have looked at a lot of material on the subject. For the most U.S. articles use the broader definition and I have yet to see a U.K. cite use the broader definition. I have yet to find one that uses the specific words" "The U.S. is different" . Call it original research if you must but if one wants to be picky about then we must gut most of the movie and television show articles. They seem to be written by people who have watched the movie and wrote down the plot. They are Original Research in the loosest definition and they are unlike us uncited. However they are rarely if ever challenged on these grounds because it is understood that this is the only way to be able to write get plot themes (unless you break in and physically steal them). Using a reliable U.S cites defining New Wave broadly was acceptable in this context in my view. I do think the listing of groups that would not fit original definition is a tough read that should be either rewritten, shortened or disposed of.

The St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture goes into detailed discussions of the multiple definitions of new wave. This would be a model for a complete rewrite and renaming of the said section to something like "New Wave Reception in the United States". I do find it American centric and overly simplistic in its claim that the "subgenres" were named just as a reaction against the New Wave definition becoming catch all phrase. I do find its discussion of Brat Pat movies and how the indie spirit of New Wave article lad to grunge article worthy.

This talk page desperately needs more participation. Without it people are getting frustrated and acting unilaterally or acting based on guessing what might be acceptable to other editors. It has been made clear to me that no way no how will this section be allowed to stay with the citing as is. This is not a matter of debate and the editor is unwilling to make suggestions. This is terrible form by a veteran editor who should know better but he has a right to do it. So without your participation this article the section will be deleted and this article will not have no information on MTV era groups. Please say so if you agree the the section as is is basically acceptable. Please say if you agree that MTV era synthpop groups never should have been in the article in the first place. Please suggest a rewrite if that is what you favor. Just participate please Edkollin (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As the understanding of the term 'new wave' is so very different in the UK and US I would not like to see the separate section on the American usage deleted. Ideally i'd like to see a section detailing the US definition (in all its, to us Brits, meaninglessness) and a section reiterating the UK usage. As so many internet music resources are American dominated the original (and correct) British usage will get forgotten over time unless places like Wikipedia clearly state its separate meaning in the UK. You should see what 80s acts get tagged 'new wave' on sites like! You don't know whether to laugh or cry. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not not British but I would look at British or British version of encyclopedias, books, internet sites ,Definitions in the archives of The Times,BBC, Guardian and of course NME, Melody Maker etc. Of course you will run into the same dispute I am having with the U.S. definition they will not explicitly say "This is the British definition" "This is different from the U,S. definition". I could not agree more that the the original and current British usage should not be lost and in fact should more widely known. Many U.S. New Wave fans are British fans by nature and would very interested in this knowledge. Edkollin (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
While looking for "New Wave of new wave cite" to expand the revival section I ran into a Encyclopaedia Contemporary of British Culture that said the term fell into disuse because it became to catchall. I added a sentence based on that right before the U.S. section. While this is a start towered your objective we still need to find citing that explicitly says Synthpop,New Romantic etc are considered wholly separate genres in the U.K. Unfortunately google books did not publish the whole encylipedia. It did describe new romantic as a genre but the synthpop article was not printed. Edkollin (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New Wave Revivals and New Wave Fashion Sections

A majority of the Revivals section and the entire Fashion section have been uncited for a very long time. Unless this is changed in a reasonable amount of time I see no reason not to delete the uncited material. Edkollin (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

Way more then a resonable amount of time has passed so I fulfilled my promise. The material is basically accurate it just needs citing which seemed like it was not going to happen without radical action. Edkollin (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre modified Mostly Uncited New Wave revivals section

In the early 1990s, the British music weekly NME grouped together a number of guitar-based bands under the unwieldy banner New Wave of New Wave. These groups, including S*M*A*S*H, These Animal Men, Elastica and Echobelly, drew on the aesthetics of 1970s New Wave, including spiky guitars, tight-fitting suits and skinny ties.

During the 1990's United States the acts No Doubt[1],The Rentals and The Faint were described as New Wave.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the electroclash scene in Brooklyn and London at clubs like Nag Nag Nag revived the synth-pop aesthetic for kids born in the 1980s. Many other indie rock bands re-popularized New Wave sounds as part of the post-punk revival movement with varying success, most popularly Franz Ferdinand, The Killers, The Bravery and New Orleans' Mute Math. Other bands/artists who have brought back New Wave music in the new decade have been the Epoxies, Panthére, The Aquabats!, TheStart, Ladyhawke, The Sounds, Santogold, Lights, Vernian Process, The Ting Tings[2][3] and Gwen Stefani[4][5]

Deleted New Wave fashion section

New Wave fashions were a conscious reaction to the hippie styles of the 1960s, which had spilled over into the mainstream by the late 1970s. Thus, flares and long hair for men were replaced by more body-conscious clothing and shorter, often spiky, hairstyles. The tight-fitting suits and thin ties worn by Blondie on the cover of their album Parallel Lines epitomise the New Wave look, which harks back to the rock and roll styles of the pre-hippie era.

Another aspect was a desire to embrace contemporary synthetic materials as simultaneously a protest against and celebration of plastic. This involved the use of spandex, bright colors (such as fluorescents), and mass-produced, tawdry jewelry and ornaments, typified by the dayglo aesthetic of the band X-Ray Spex. As a fashion movement, then, New Wave was both a post-modern belief in creative pastiche and a continuation of Pop Art’s satire of and fascination with manufacturing. An important offshoot of new wave fashion was the New Romantic movement, which emphasized androgyny and extensive use of synthetic-looking cosmetics for both genders.

Proposed New Wave Reception in the United States section

This would replace the definition of in the United States Section. This is intended to give a broader perspective. The idea is to start to deal with subjects that have been discussed above but that the existing section is too narrow to handle such as the "Punk Roots" ,effect on U.S. music and Pop Culture and the objection by some that the existing section is based on original research

If there are no objections within two weeks or so I intend to replace the existing section with this. Edkollin (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Edkollin (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

During the late 1970's Arena Rock and Disco dominated the American charts. The indie spirit of British Punk Rock appealed to those American youth opposed to mainstream rock's excesses. Around 1979 acts associated with punk and acts that mixed punk with other genres began to make chart appearences. The Cars,The Talking Heads,Blondie The Pretenders,The Clash,The Police and The Knack were groups that fit this description. The release during this period of Gary Numan's album The Pleasure Principle would be the pop chart breakthrough for gender bending,synthpop acts with a cool detached stage presence. [6] New Wave music scenes developed in Ohio [6] and Athens, Georgia[7]

The arrival of MTV in the early 1980's would usher in New Wave's most successful era and one of the most democratic periods in American Pop history. British artists unlike many of there American counterparts had learned how to use video early on.[6][8] Several British acts signed to independent labels were able to outspend and out chart American artists that were signed with major labels. Journalists labeled this phenomenon a "Second British Invasion"[9][8]

The music had strayed far from New Wave's punk roots. Stating in this period and continuing until around 1988, the term "New Wave" was used in America to describe nearly every new pop or pop rock artist that largely used synthesizers or whom did not have long hair. New Wave is still used today to describe these acts.[10] Fans and artists would rebel against this catchall definition by inventing dozens of genre names. Synthpop became the broadest of these so called sub genres with Ultravox, Orchestral Manoevers in the Dark, Depeche Mode, Human League, Howard Jones,A-ha, New Order, Soft Cell, and The Pet Shop Boys seeing time in the spotlight. The period saw a number of one hit wonders. "New Wave" soundtracks were used in Brat Pack films such as Valley Girl, Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club. [6] Critics would describe the MTV acts as shallow or vapid [8][6] but the musics danceability and the quirky fashion sense associated with New Wave appealed to audiences.[6]

The use of synthesizers by New Wave acts influenced the development of the House music in Chicago and Techno in Detroit. New Wave’s indie spirit would be crucial to the development college rock and Grunge/Alternative Rock in the latter half of the 1980's and 1990's.[6]


New Wave isn't a Rock genre

New Wave was only a vague term (umbrella term) that described different musical developments of the mid-1970s. Mostly Punk-related stuff (Talking Heads), Synthie-Wave (John Foxx, Depeche Mode), Post-Industrial music (Cabaret Voltaire), 2-Tone-Ska (The Specials, Madness), Post-Punk and Goth music (Joy Division, The Sisters of Mercy). All these bands were described and marketed as New Wave. --Chontamenti (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, in the UK Madness, Depeche Mode and Sisters of Mercy were never called 'new wave'...only in America were these UK acts called that. Madness was 'pop','ska' or '2 tone', Depeche Mode were 'synth pop' and the Sisters of Mercy were 'Goth'. The US usage of the term stretches it to almost meaningless, covering a host of very obviously separate genres. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I had tried to change to the lead sentence from saying it was a “rock music genre” to a "rock and pop music genre” and was reverted. I had a British encyclopedia reference that called it pop not rock. The reverter made the completely incorrect claim that rock is a sub genre of pop. There are many rock bands that have a large element of pop music. However a large portion if not a majority of rock music is not pop music. One of the main elements in of the change from Rock and Roll to Rock during the 1960’s was the addition of non pop elements. The traditional or British definition section of the article mentions pop several times and there are three in our New Wave Styles section with pop in the name compared to one with rock. Rock should not be dropped from the lead sentence though. In 1977 as discussed in the article New Wave was synonymous with punk rock. The Mod bands like The Jam took after The Who one of the great rock bands, Power Pop bands like The Records and The Knack a major sub genre of New Wave in the 1978-1979 period could easily be described as rock. A Google search of “New Wave Rock” will result in many hits.
A lead sentence should reflect what is in the article below. Just calling it a “Rock” genre fails at this basic function as would taking out the word completely. Edkollin (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is in fact a rock genre. It was born first and foremost of out of punk music, which is rock. Not describing it as "pop" within the first sentence of the article is not necessarily a denial of it's pop ties, for God's sake. That's what the REST OF THE ARTICLE is there for (where as one of you even mentions, the term pop is used numerous times). Who's fault is it really if someone supposedly wanting to learn about the music doesn't bother reading beyond the first sentence? Such a trivial complaint.

Btw, you'll notice on the articles for Jangle Pop, Indie Pop and Dream Pop that they are described in the opening sentences merely as genres of Alternative rock, with no mention of pop. OMG, isn't that SO MISLEADING, what with the word POP being right in the genre title???!!!1 What are the pwoor readers supposed to believe then, based on the horrible deception of that one sentence?? Heck, punk rock itself and even metal both contain poppy subgenres, yet neither of their articles open with the "and pop" descriptive specification. SOO unencyclopedic! Christ. *eyeroll* (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike punk rock which has pop elements but is primarily a rock music genre New Wave is a mixture. When people started distinguishing New Wave from punk it was primarily because of the much larger pop element. To ignore this IS MISLEADING. So what you are saying is we could write that New Wave is a disco or a bubblegum genre because it does not matter because people are going to read the rest of the article anyway. This sounds like fun Praise be Allah Edkollin (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A disco or bubblegum genre, lol, yeah right. Talk about apples and oranges? No one in their right mind would buy New Wave being a subgenre of children's music or of a funk/soul subgenre. Anyone who's heard even one real New Wave band should immediately know that it's impossible. New Wave being a rock genre, on the other hand, is not (mainly since it is one). Even as the style evolved past being an alternate term for punk, NW was meant to describe bands with poppy or artsy takes on the music. Pop is a common aspect of song arrangement, but some bands considered to be New Wave actually contained minimal to no elements of pop music, and were categorized as such because they weren't stripped down or "aggressive" enough to be straight punk. Are they to be disregarded, so that bands like Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Culture Club and Bananarama are instead emphasized as the "epitome" of the sound? *eyerollx2*. Or maybe Cyndi Lauper, Prince, Wham! or Stacy Q? Ugh. If most Americans had any clue about the roots of New Wave, these names would have never, EVER been tagged as such. A genre doesn't just change up completely like can evolve, but not eliminate it's most important founding aspects.

No, it is not in fact misleading people to leave the word pop out of one sentence (certainly no more than the loads of actually misleading crap, actually postedd in the article). I re-iterate, reading more of the article should easily solve that (non)-problem. (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I knew you do not believe we should write it as disco and bubblegum (although the late Joey Ramone/Levine might have disagreed about the bubblegum part LOL) I was just showing you the logical conclusion where your who cares because people are going to read the rest of the article anywhere logically leads to. I know that some New Wave groups have little or no pop element. Some New Wave groups have little or no rock elements and I am not advocating not using "rock" in the first line because of this. I do not think the 78-80 arty/pop version of New Wave is "disregarded" in this article. 90% or so of the Overview discusses this. "A genre doesn't just change up completely like can evolve, but not eliminate it's most important founding aspects." There are always exceptions to rules and because of the US this is one of them. There are many good arguments as to why this should not have occurred but it did. We have to write this article about what actually happened not what should have happened. That being said I would very much like to more emphasis put on the fact that that pretty much nobody in the UK thinks that "Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Culture Club and Bananarama" are New Wave acts. The problem I have run into is WP:SYNTHESIS. Reliable British sourced material will not say that Culture Club is not New Wave. I also have no problem with the current lead put in by another editor that the New Wave is a genre of Music. Edkollin (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary Section

I reverted some of the recent changes and rewrote it a bit. The statement that punk rock was anti pop movement is largely incorrect. Punk Rock was based on hooks. Punk was a reaction against the rock music and culture that evolved after Sgt. Pepper in general and Progressive Rock in particular. The section implied that 1980's "haircut" bands were described as New Wave universally. As we have noted in these talk pages over and over and over again in the U.K. they most certainly do not feel this way. I rewrote this a a US phenomenon. The catch all definition probably applies outside of the US but the article contains no sourcing for this so we can't write it in. The summary probably still needs some shortening and reworking but it is in my view improved. Edkollin (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for consistency regarding capitalization and spacing

This discussion section is meant to include matters concerning New Wave and all its implied derivatives, as well as dark wave, no wave, ethereal wave and cold wave.

Where Wikipedia seems to have become increasingly definite in the way many genres are preferred to be written, nothing seems more fragmented than "wave" genres. I would like to call for an educated decision on the best standard usage for Wikipedia concerning the following genres where spacing and capitalization remain enigmatic at best. It is fair that, like other genres such as drum and bass, numerous instances of the word are accepted. However, revising the generally fragmented use of these words across Wikipedia to become more consistent is beneficial to understanding their use.

New Wave most frequently appears with a capitalized N and W as though it is titular. Clarification on why this is would be useful. Dark wave perhaps more than half of the time has a lower case w. It is quite unclear why this distinction between the two genres should exist. Often within one article multiple usages make appearances. Favorable changes have occurred for other genres, such as neofolk and neoclassical, which sporadically contained dashes across much of Wikipedia and post-rock where a space instead of a dash was formerly a common issue.

If any "wave" genre adhered to typical standards, then in conversation they all would be fully lowercase excepting where grammar or the beginning of an information field dictates the first letter be capitalized. By standards I mean typical grammar usage and Wikipedia's own MUSTARD guidelines.

Spacing is also of concern. Because New Wave is essentially the original example we have to work with, I believe dark wave should typically follow suit by having a space, with darkwave representing a purely optional and secondary spelling. A possible reason for the space in New Wave, as well as the capitalization is to prevent confusion over the adjacent w's or the accidental loss of one. It seems unlikely many people would spell ethereal wave as one word due to its sheer length and implied diction. For these reasons, I believe darkwave should be considered the less favorable spelling of this genre. Whether or not it should be capitalized is more difficult to determine. It is my opinion that it and really New Wave should be no different than normal genres.

In summary of my own opinion, I am proposing New Wave remain capitalized but cease appearing intermittently as New wave, while all other "wave" genres are treated as are regular genres, to typical casing. I believe this matter best resolved with discussion and not survey. --Pixel Eater (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New Wave did not come into existence when the term "New Wave" did

The description "New Wave" applies retroactively to all bands of the New Wave style, so the article is incorrect when saying New Wave came into existence in the late 1970s. It is also contradictory, because it names bands, such as Talking Heads, who were playing this kind of music earlier than that. The Modern Lovers, Devo, and other bands were playing New Wave music in the early 1970s. We must place the beginning of New Wave, therefore, earlier. --Donbodo (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly place the roots of the music in the early 1970s or earlier, but the term didn't become current until the late 1970s (I'll accept late 1976, as you've provided a ref for that). I don't accept - and it's my opinion against yours, until we can point to authoritative refs - that the music played by Talking Heads and Devo in the early 1970s was "New Wave", as to me "New Wave" specifically means music that came after, and was influenced by, the punk music movement of the mid-1970s. No question, that is what it means in the UK - it was the more sophisticated music that came after bands like the Sex Pistols and the Clash. Whether it has slightly different connotations in the US, I don't know. But there is no way, in my opinion, that the Modern Lovers can be included as "New Wave" in any sense - the music they played in the mid/late 70s had nothing in common, stylistically, with the other bands mentioned, and neither did the (quite different) music they played in the early 1970s which predated not only the Sex Pistols but Patti Smith, Ramones, Television etc. by several years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably the Modern Lovers would come under would come under the punk or proto punk label. For the 1976-1980 period the US and UK definitions were pretty much the same, the big difference started in the New Romantic, Synthpop period. We have reliable sources for the claims written in the article. If reliability sourced claims can be produced for the new wave music existed before 1976 claim the article can be revised to say the point is disputed. I would not have trouble with a rewriting that said although the term came into use in 1976 some of the acts such as Devo and Nick Lowe started their careers beforehand. Reliable sources do exist for this. Edkollin (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My point is that New Wave music was not born on the day that someone decided to call it "New Wave." It was already there, without an agreed-upon name. As you know, the terms "punk" and "new wave" were used differently by different commentators in the early years, so simply because a term was used, this does not mean it is used the way that we would use it today, looking back on it. However, it is clear that there were bands playing at CBGB and Max's that might have been called many things back in those day, including "punk," but which would not be considered "punk" by the definition we use today. What do we call the music of these bands? If what they played is similar, if not identical, to the "New Wave" that we know later, then they should be called "New Wave" (and, in fact, they are). Bands like the Ramones were called "New Wave" at times. Does that make them New Wave according to our modern definition? No.--Donbodo (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Re the Hilly Kristal quote you (Donbodo) added - did he say those words in 1974, or was he recalling 1974 as the birth of "new wave" from a later date? It's not clear, and it would help this discussion to know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
He said this in 1986, looking back on it, which I think makes the argument even stronger.--Donbodo (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So he was probably looking at it in retrospect and he was probably referring to the synonymous with punk definition. While Kristal was an obvious great source for what went on at CBGB's was he as good a music genre source as a music journalist?
I have been going through genre articles, and for the most they use the form the genre evolved or developed between so and so years and was recognized at a later year. Edkollin (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That is what I have been trying to say: the form developed before it came to be recognized. And there is no reason to believe that Kristal would be using the name "new wave" in the 1976 sense, when he was speaking in 1986 and speaking about 1974. If he expected his 1986 audience to understand him, he would use current terminology.--Donbodo (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a variation between the UK and US understandings of the term "New Wave". The British view (and hence my view) is what is set out here - "New Wave was a catch-all term for the music that directly followed punk rock; often, the term encompassed punk itself, as well. In retrospect, it became clear that the music following punk could be divided, more or less, into two categories -- post-punk and new wave. Where post-punk was arty, difficult, and challenging, new wave was pop music, pure and simple. It retained the fresh vigor and irreverence of punk music, as well as a fascination with electronics, style, and art. Therefore, there was a lot of stylistic diversity to new wave..." That seems to be different from Donbodo's position, which is that "New Wave" includes "punk" and can be dated back to the early 1970s. I don't think there's too much of a problem in this article, so long as these variations in definition are set out clearly, with refs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify my position. I do not believe that "New Wave" includes "punk." I believe that the underground music of the time (particularly of the New York scene) included both "New Wave" and "punk." They were two subsets of the same scene. "Punk" was harder, faster, and amateur, and unsophisticated--not difficult or challenging at all. It was anti-art. "New Wave" was more arty and sophisticated, oftentimes (but not necessarily) including keyboards, which punk never did. I would go so far as to say that in the UK pub rock scene a similar phenomenon happened (based on what Caroline Coon wrote in Melody Maker at the time), but I know less about it. I do know, however, that the Jam was playing new wave music before 1976.--Donbodo (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New Wave can in fact include punk, and does very often. Just because you may not like the fact doesn't change history. I'm tired of this nonsense (is it elitism, or what?). You can't just rewrite history to fit whatever you want to be. You'll see within the wiki article, and you'll see almost anywhere else you read up on the topic--that New Wave's roots are linked in punk. It didn't develop before punk, and it didn't develop entirely separate from it. And yes, punk music could include keyboards. From the practically (or near) very beginning, punk could exist in branched out variations. Glammy bands, poppy/powerpop bands, avant-garde bands...they could all be and were called punk. Your problem seems to be typical of many (who object to seeing New Wave and Punk tied closely together), you pigeonhold punk to one strict musical approach. LOL your comment about The Jam. So much for what you "do know, however". (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between US "new wave" and pub rock - in fact, in some ways they were opposites. Pub rock in the UK was a "back to basics" movement, straightforward bands, with an anti-fashion style, in small pubs and clubs, reacting against the increasingly "arty" "progressive" music scene of bands like ELP, Yes and Genesis. As I understand "new wave" in the US (by your definition), it was the opposite in that it was self-consciously arty, with poetry like Patti Smith, use of synthesisers like Suicide, radical new guitar styles like Television, setting new fashion styles and so on. They all came together in the mid - late 70s. Where did you get the idea that the Jam played "new wave"? - before 1977 or so what they played was rock & roll, or pub rock - "covers of early American rock and roll songs by the likes of Chuck Berry and Little Richard." Not, by any stretch of the imagination, "new wave" in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I say that about the Jam because they were already wearing short hair and skinny ties. They were doing a mod revival, and that was associated with new wave music. But perhaps you are right that the music itself wasn't quite there yet. Didn't Roxy Music turn from glam to new wave with their 1975 album Siren? Listen to "Love is the Drug" and tell me that that isn't new wave. I agree that New Wave was artier in the U.S. (and by "arty" I mean experimental), but it was still a rebellion against progressive rock. Songs were short. No solos. Guitar sounds were skinny instead of fat. It was just as reactionary as punk, but whereas punk played simply three-chord songs, new wave tried to experiment more. It may have been about showing off lyrical talent, perhaps, but certainly not musical talent.--Donbodo (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we are getting there. Music "that is not quite there yet" is proto or developing new wave not new wave itself. As for Hilly Kristol he is so associated with late 1970's new wave even though it was 1986 he theoretically could still have been talking about the older definition. As for the US definition as it is laid out in the article and discussions on the talk page it means any pop or rock music from the late 1970’s through sometime in the middle to late 1980’s that was not post disco dance, music or heavy metal or progressive rock in general and MTV synthpop and John Hughes movie soundtrack type groups in particular. 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I will concede that the Jam prior to 1976 could be called "proto-new wave," but I disagree with the "anything-but" categorization of new wave. There came to be a wide variety of new wave acts, but not as varied as you make it out to be. Considering that new wave emerged in the UK in 1976 and probably earlier in the US, would you mind if we changed the first line of this article to say "mid-1970s" instead of "late 1970s"?--Donbodo (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion for the introduction is something like:

New Wave is a genre in rock music that emerged in the mid to late 1970s. The term was initially applied to punk rock in the USA, but soon moved to define a different crop of artists than those associated with punk. By 1978 (or 1977?) New Wave, in both the UK and US, had emerged as a genre in its own right, incorporating aspects of electronic and experimental music, mod subculture, and disco and 1960's pop music, as well as much of the original punk rock sound and ethos such as an emphasis on short and punchy songs. During the 1980s in the United States, New Wave became a catch-all term that applied to new music acts in general and synthpop and British acts in particular. The 1990s and 2000s have seen revivals, and a number of acts that have been influenced by a variety of New Wave styles.

--Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Remember that an authoritative source (Joynson) puts the beginning of English New Wave in 1976. Also, keep in mind that Joynson also said that in 1976-77, the terms "punk" and "new wave" were interchangeable in the UK. (This is a statement that is in the current version of the Wikipedia article.) That means, not only that punk bands were sometimes called "new wave," but also that new wave bands were sometimes called "punk." So it is clear that he thinks new wave bands existed in 1976-77. In the US, the terms were also interchangeable in the period 1974-77, so while it is true that punk bands were called "new wave," the word "punk" was also used. So how about this:

New Wave is a genre in rock music that emerged in the mid to late 1970s alongside punk. The term was sometimes applied to punk rock, but soon moved to apply specifically to a different crop of artists than those associated with punk. By 1977 New Wave, in both the UK and US, had emerged as a genre in its own right, incorporating aspects of electronic and experimental music, mod subculture, and disco and 1960's pop music, as well as much of the original punk rock sound and ethos such as an emphasis on short and punchy songs. During the 1980s in the United States, New Wave became a catch-all term that applied to new music acts in general and synthpop and British acts in particular. The 1990s and 2000s have seen revivals, and a number of acts that have been influenced by a variety of New Wave styles.

Ed, what do you think?--Donbodo (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
After writing and rewriting I do not think we need to go date crazy, this is a summary section after all leave all of that to the detail. I think we need to develop a "roots of New Wave" paragraph before we claim pre 1976 in the header. I don't agree with the different crop of artists statement as many groups were described as both punk and new wave. I am a long term advocate of saying new wave is a pop music genre as well as a rock music genre as there are plenty of reliable sources to back that up.

New Wave is a genre of rock and pop music that emerged in in the middle to late 1970s alongside punk rock. The term at first generally was synonymous with punk rock before being considered a genre in its own right that incorporated aspects of electronic and experimental music, mod subculture, and disco and 1960's pop music, as well as much of the original punk rock sound and ethos such as an emphasis on short and punchy songs. In the 1980s in the United States New Wave became a catch-all term that applied to new music acts in general and synthpop and British acts in particular. The 1990s and 2000s have seen revivals, and a number of acts that have been influenced by a variety of New Wave styles.

Edkollin (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a genre, never a genre. Only a marketing term. New Wave INCLUDED Punk Rock. This is a FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
We have numerous sources that does say it is a genre. You have none, so at this point your comment is completely useless for this article. And something can be a marketing term and a genre, it happens all the time. So find some sources to back your claim up. I see you are using a Berlin IP address and this article desperately needs non US,UK sourcing. Edkollin (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Logic against sources. Sounds Depeche Mode like Joy Division? Sounds Joy Division like Madness? No, because they played music of different genres. But all the bands were a part of the "new wave". New Wave is nothing more than a term for a contemporary phenomenon in Rock music, a new wave against Progressive Rock, against the artificial Rock music of the 1970s and against the Flower Power Hippie culture. It was music for the people, but it was never a genre term. What a kind of genre? Synthie genre? Rock genre? The only connection between the genres is the origin in Punk music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
But this talk page is supposed to be about discussing the article itself not the topic of the article. So my agreeing with you about the phenomena part (in America) is useless unless we find sources say it was a phenomena. Wikipedia is about verifiability not necessarily truth. Another words if starting tomorrow most major reliable sources called 50 cent New Wave that is what we have write. Why don't you take your theory and blog it, discuss it on a Facebook New Wave group page or submit it to a music publication? Edkollin (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Section Labeling

The last section has been changed from Post 1980s Influence and Revivals to 1990s lull, 2000s resurge. Even though the statement is accurate I disagree with the change. The original title better reflects what is written in that section While hinting at it, there is nothing in that section specifically saying there was a lull in the 1990s. Putting in that there was a lull seems to violate the WP:SYNTHESIS policy. What makes the section tricky is that reliable sources as noted in the section disagree as to what occurred, a revival or the continuation of the original movement.

The Overview label given to the second section actually better describes the first paragraph. A change was made that I reverted that said something like late 1970s to middle 1980s popularity. The problem I had with that is that is there is no discussion of popularity in that particular section. That section is discussing various definitions of New Wave so the title should reflect that. Edkollin (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Did change "resurge" to "resurgence" Edkollin (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Minneapolis Sound?

I think someone should write a tiny reference how New Wave inspired the Minneapolis sound. In many ways the Minneapolis Sound was an African-American version of New Wave, or at least an African-American form of music HEAVILY influenced by New Wave. I think this is important to note? VsanoJ (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you name any acts? Because frankly, this article has already veered way too far into the US side of things, whereas NW was 90% a British thing with British acts running the game. Only during the mid-1970s American acts were prominent, and yet again, for their singles rather than their whole careers. However, let's see if any of those acts you mean were notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete sentence on The Drums

"The Drums are leading a current trend in the United States Indie music scene that mines both the sounds and attitudes of the British New Wave Era.[2][3]".

This claim is backed up by a reliable source, the editor who wants to delete it believes the claim is misinformed. It very well might be, but that does not matter at all when deciding what goes in an article or what is deleted from an article. This is an encyclopedia and therefore decisions about deleting and adding material must not be based on what editors know to be true but what reliable sources say is true. This is a very basic Wikipedia policy. Mr. Andy Gill is a veteran music journalist writing for a non-tabloid publication and therefore is considered a Reliable source. It is a good thing that editors have strong opinions on a subjects, that shows they care but the proper place for expressing that opinion is a message board, blog, letters to the editor etc, just not here. What editor can do is show that most reliable sources disagree with Mr. Gill's conclusions, If that is the case the sentence would have to be taken out. In the case where reliable sources disagree we would write that there is disagreement as is done several times in the article.

In looking at the editors opinion I don't think he or she disagrees with the sentence as much as he or she thinks they do. The sentence does not claim The Drums are New Wave but are part of the "Indie Scene" being influence by British New Wave era acts. Post Punk in some circles are considered part of the New Wave Era indeed the article stats that many post punk acts were at first considered New Wave.

The Other source (Yale Daily News) is not being used to directly support the claim but to back it up. It notes that most Indie Acts interviewed by Pitchfork claim as influences various 1980's New Wave Acts therfore providing a backup of The Independents claim of a "trend" Edkollin (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem... this article is about New Wave, NOT about whomever is currently inspired by New Wave or does something that reminds new wave, and so on. Or else we'd be here until night comes naming names, the majority of whose would be rather oblivious to the general populace (as the Drums are, in fact). Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any set rule, but a lot of articles about genres or musicians describe their influence. The problem is more list creep, where the article is becoming what you feared because in my view everybody wants to see their favorite acts listed. The idea of listing groups is to give PROMINENT examples of New New Wave groups of the 2000's or New Wave influenced Indie rock groups of the 2010's. So maybe we can put a limit on the number of number of acts used as an examples. But I am not doing it unless their is some consensus for this. Edkollin (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So much noise for such a simple matter:[New Wave/Punk/Synthpop usage]

I have probed this voice several times in the past year and I notice an awful lot of wigglin' about two moot point: new wave origins, and new wave contents. My main puzzling would be: how many of you were really there at the time to account for yourself, rather than "researching" the matter? I was. Here's the story:

At the time, it was perceived as New wave was the "dignified" brother of punk, neither older nor younger, just more stylish and mannered. THAT WAS IT, very simple. AND, it contained New-Romanticism within itself, NOT the other way around. Punk was way more casual and brawling, whereas New Wave was more style-conscious and song-oriented. The roots were likely the same but the outcome rather different.

Also, New Wave was not a common word until well into 1977; I was reading music mags weekly and I did not see it printed until then. Prior usage of the term were certainly off-the-wall as there was no clear identity, in my humble opinion, until 3 major bands crystallized the new thing around them: Ultravox!, Devo, and Blondie; BUT HOWEVER, the American flag-carriers of New Wave (including Television, but their small commercial success made them less consequential) were soon largely overshadowed by the avalanche of British act formed between 1978 and 1982. Television, like I said, disappeared after Marquee Moon; Blondie were cute but way too zany to be cool, expecially in the UK; Devo, I think went out of business after 1980 or so. The British bands took the lead rather soon: Joy Division was among the leading squad, along with Ultravox and Tubeway Army; The Stranglers, Martha & The Muffins, Siouxie and Killing Joke were also running fast, dragging everyone along.

And at the time, it looked like EVERYONE was getting themselves "New-Wavized", even big older acts: Roxy Music did, Queen did, Genesis did; come on, even Bowie did! I wasn't particularly biased at the time, but I do remember clearly as a teenager that you really saw a change in the colours, the style and the sounds you'd experience in everybody life: Heck, even your neighborhood middle-aged barber would show up with a new smart Bryan Ferry-esque grey suit, slicked-back hair, playing Duran or Spandau on his stereo rather that older pop-rock or whatever.

And style: oh man! New Wave wasn't a music you'd play in just any clothing. No sir. It was VERY fashion-conscious, and VERY strict to boot. I think the band Japan started this trend, correct me if I'm wrong. Long hair and beards, unkempt/casual/mixed colors clothing were so passe' it wasn't even funny, and their wearers were emarginated like some Neanderthals. Like I said, you wanna know New Wave, look at a Devo video, listen to an Ultravox album, and dress like Spandau Ballet. That's all there was to it.

Also, Pop-rock tunes disappeared from the airwaves: it was synth-tunes all over, with a sprinkle of clown-rock. Oh yeah, some reggae too. Disco was dead, punk was never on radio, funk wasn't even born, and prog rock was buried

New Wave was way more about styling and synthesizing than it was about rockstar attitude and guitars: it was definitely synth-driven, to say the least. It was from new wave that synth pop was born, as well as, probably, a large chunk of techno. In fact, I think there was not a guitar in sight in Europe between 1979 and 1982, my word for it. Everyone's hands were on keyboards, drum-machines, electronics.

Punk had largely rottened-out by early 1978, and everyone was disowning it by then, but the impact of the New Wave era was, in my opinion, HUGE in modern culture in Europe (and maybe also the US) between 1979 and 1984, and I have seen the equal only in the early '90s with the grunge era.

And there resides the core of this style: heyday in 1979, 80 & 81, with 3 or 4 subgenres under its umbrella, decline in 1982/83, dissolved by 1984, when everybody was by now ditching the "tools" that branded New Wave (synths, dark/dynamic atmospheres, gloomy vocals, romantic looks and robotic moves) for white funk (Spandau, ABC and Duran), Pink-Floydian ouvertures (Ultravox, OMD and TearsForFears), anything goes and experiments (Gary Numan, Depeche and Human League) and so on.

Sadly, NW is a style largely forgotten, the name never came back on pop culture like many others did; it really lived a full 4 years and it exhausted all it had to give, probably. But heck, I wouldn't want to see even grunge come back, would you?

Here you go: first hand account. If you want I can show pictures to prove it. I'd like to read some opinions under here. Cheers.

Max Ventura (too lazy to login)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 
I was there but on "the other side of the pond". The American section is pretty accurate if not the whole story due to sourcing restrictions. From 1976 through most of 1978 Punk /New Wave was something we only read about it was NEVER on the radio. Saturday Night Live did have Costello, Devo. Radio was Top 40 which meant predominantly disco or rock. Rock stations played stuff from the late 1960's like the Beatles,Doors and then current acts like Foreigner,Boston,Kansas and in 1977 endless Fleetwood Mack. The first "New Wave" record played was the Cars debut album in late 1978. In 1979 a few "New Wave" bands made it to rock radio play lists such as the Police, The Clash and a few on Top 40 such as Blondie and the Knack. I was lucky to live in New York and we did have one New Wave station but that was highly unusual. They played the groups like Devo, Talking Heads, Wreckless Eric,Rockpile plus Power Pop groups such as The Knack, The Records and the Two Tone acts(The Specials were on TV last night). They were all considered "New Wave". And they all were considered very radical and "out there". To a point it was more important what they weren't which was Stoner rock then what they were. The article talks about the Abrams memo, that was huge. "New Wave" completely disappeared off of Rock radio and the New York New Wave station changed their format. The only place to hear "New Wave" was college radio and that was a few hours a day. College radio is where I first heard what we now call "post punk" acts now but then it was still New Wave. I was the only one at the time that I knew that who listened to that. The article and this talk page goes into MTV, Second British Invasion and how synthpop and anything new thing not metal and disco or rap were still considered New Wave. It was far from punk and early new wave but in my view since most Americans missed punk the MTV acts were literally a "new wave" and it was anti stoner rock. Other terms were applied but "New Wave" remained popular until "Alternative" became the new catch all term by 1990. I saw part of an article from a suburban New York newspaper (you have to pay for the whole article) that was a parents guide to your kids music from 1989 that mentions New Wave and Depeche Mode. Indeed Depeche Mode, The B-52's and The Cure had their biggest US hits at the end of the 80's. Only the the die hards wore "New Wave" fashion all day. It was mainly a nightclub thing. Edkollin (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Ed. In fact, I had forgot about The Cars and B-52s. Like Costello, they were from the first wave of proper new wave (excuse the pun). British NW quickly became very self-involved and overly serious, and sadly the happy, quirky Devo/B-52 antics were no longer deemed cool in the old continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. A few more thoughts. Of course you saw people with New Wave looks in bohemian, arty areas like Greenwich Village. And from 1982 on there was a suburban New York "New Wave" station that was heavy on British synthpop and novelty records. I think here being into New Wave was very much and attitude thing here. It was never about being "dignified". That station I mentioned slogan was for the first couple of years was "dare to be different". And that is what it was. We not into those prog rock guys that who think they are classical musicians in the realm of Bach. Sure its a bit weird and geeky but we are into what we are into and having fun doing it. Edkollin (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way The Cars are reunited and working on a new album with possible supporting tour[4]. Edkollin (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice and accurate rundown of the New Wave experience in the US, Edk. Clearly shows the genre had a decidedly quicker and smoother rise in the UK, because some of the stuff written about it by the above poster didn't strike me as too...familiar. It wasn't until after I finished reading it I went back and noticed it was coming from a British/European perspective. No way did New Wave have that impact here. I mean there was definitely competition to the genre, for instance. Theburning25 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A month late with this, but what has been completely forgotten was that technopop was the significantly more common name in the US for what has been called synthpop since the 1990's here and electropop on both sides of the pond in the last few years. Original research of 1980's NY Times, LA Times articles confirms this. Edkollin (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The different usage of the term in the UK and America mustn't be forgotten. 'New wave' as a name was dead in Britain by 1982. Synth pop was never called 'new wave' here from 1982 had its own 'synth pop'. To Americans everything from Thomas Dolby to Culture Club, Tears for Fears to the Thompson Twins were 'new wave'. In their native Britain such acts were never called 'new wave'. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Never specifically said it above, but we described two very different meanings. In the article it is also never specifically said because I have not found a reliable source that specifically says it. British sources used one meaning, US others. Best that I have been able to do until the magic sentence is reliably written was add "The term fell out of favour in the United Kingdom during the early 1980s because its usage had become too general" write the US section talking about catch all meaning from the 1980's as a whole and hope the readers figure it out. The differing meanings was the reason a separate section for the US was created. Edkollin (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


I wouldn't say 'new wave' lost currency in the UK because it became too general... it did so because it became so associated with a short period in the past and it didn't describe current trends. A New Romantic/synth pop band in 1982 onwards didn't really sound or look like new wave bands from the period 1978-1980. The UK during the early 80s had an incredibly fast moving music scene (unlike America at that time); fads, youth cults and fashions had a fast turn-over. 'New wave' as a term was a victim of this - it was seen as dated and out of time very quickly. In America it was used for ten years or more. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Americans wouldn't necessarily be off about The Thompson Twins if they were only talking about the band's circa '79-'81 early works. ;-) Theburning25 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Although few Brits, let alone Americans, knew there was a pre-'Hold Me Know' era version of the Thompson Twins. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the guy who started this section. I just wanted to smooth out a simple matter regarding "naming genres" and "research": like I said at the start of the top post, there is a HUGE difference between researching the facts today, 30-odd years on, and being there at the time and "perceiving" things first-handedly. When someone says that the term New Wave wasn't used again after 1982 he maybe refers to articles in NME or specialized press or "the IN crowd", but on the streets, in the schools, among teenagers, we'd use that term up until 1985 to define more or less anything, from Human League to Duran to Ultravox to Echo & Bunnymen to DAF to PIL to Berlin and whomever else had synths as their main instrument (or, at worst, reverb-laden, undistorted guitars), short-sided spiked- or cottoned-hairdos with lots of hairgel or hairspray, black overcoats and pointy shoes, stylish looks with somber colours, did not sport a tan and definitely did not sing about chicks and whiskey. More or less. Max Ventura, Italy.

You found a fault with Wikipedia's "rules" in that it relies on the mainstream press that can be out of touch with the street. But if you think their are edit wars today imagine the edit wars over what personal blog,Facebook post or message board is "reliable". And how would we measure what the street considered New Wave in 1985 when there were none of those tools to measure what people think. So until somebody comes up with a better idea the "reliable" sourcing rule seems like a necessary evil. Also I think a Wikipedia article written in 2010 should reflect what is commonly thought of as New Wave in 2010, although it could note what people thought of back then as the article does for New Wave as synonymous with Punk in 1977.
What did you call those groups after 1985?. Over here it was no one specific term New Wave was still used although less often after how "new" was it in 1987?, Alternative, Independent or Indie (that was really big in the UK), College Rock and Modern Rock. Edkollin (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


No mention of Krautrock as part of the background of New Wave. Wouldn't some people here agree that a lot of the use of synthesizers and rhythms in New Wave go back to bands like Neu! and Can? Consider Can's 1976 song "I Want More." Rlitwin (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem might that editors of this English language version tend to look at US and UK sourcing who might be biased or would not know of influences outside of those two countries and maybe Australia. Wikipedia acknowledges this bias and asks editors to have a WorldView. So find reliable sources preferably in English but even if they are in German that claims Krautrock as an influence for New Wave and add the claim to the article. Edkollin (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Krautrock was a big influence on post punk and synth rock, but not really on New Wave as far as I am aware. Is there some confusion here with the genres?--SabreBD (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been confusion with these genres since 1979. Edkollin (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you mentioned Can and Neu!, but I'll answer you with: Kraftwerk. It might seem boring, but really Can and Neu are largely unknown to the public, their work was never on the air or on any video, therefore it was not widely spread. I was aware of new music at the time, and I myself did not know them. We all di know Kraftwerk, though, who had influence on Numan, Ultravox, Foxx, and many more. But Can and Neu not, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
True that most fans did not know Can or Neu!, but that does not mean that actual musicians were not listening to them and being influenced by them. But I agree with Edkollin that what we say will be dependent on English language sources. Rlitwin (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was just thinking about the Krautrock issue, and contrary to what someone suggested, there's actually quite a case for Krautrock being a New Wave influence.

Gathering from what I can recall or have recently found, you have Ultravox, O.M.D., Gary Numan and Simple Minds all citing influence from Neu! (O.M.D. has a Neu! tribute song), and you have Japan and Simple Minds who cite Can. Tangerine Dream has even been cited by Alphaville, and then of course there's Daniel Miller/The Normal and Fad Gadget. I don't know if this is the stuff that constitutes the "synthrock" a poster above was referring to, but all these acts are heavily linked to New Wave (and we can't deny the part electronic pop development played in the genre). Also, as you may or may not know, Krautrock influence can be traced to early American New Wave, with it's often "artsy" vibe. The Talking Heads, for one, have been linked to Can and Kraftwerk influence, and Devo of course have quite a heavy Krautrock load coming in via Can, Neu!, Kraftwerk, T.D. and Faust. Even The Cars are on record having influence from Can and Kraftwerk. Then you have Suicide and Pere Ubu, with the former pretty influential to synthpop in their own right...and frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a band like Wall of Voodoo were influenced as well.

Then maybe add in several more "post-punk" acts with overlapping genre ties (New Order, Teardrop Explodes, etc), and the overall influence of Krautrock ends up falling over quite a wide range of the New Wave spectrum. From British and American bands, guitar and electronic bands, to New Romantics and "skinny tie" bands.

Well I'm just putting this out there as something for folks to consider. Don't really mind if a change isn't made, but I do think there is a strong argument. Theburning25 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I imagine there is reliable sourcing for all of this and it would be a good addition to the article. Unfortunately right now all I have time is article maintenance not major restructuring, additions, deletions etc. Just a reminder non English reliable sourcing is fine. Edkollin (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute re: Talking Heads

The other day I had some fun regarding the claim that the Talking Heads allegedly set "the template" for New Wave music. The point is that this assertion is a clear exaggeration. No one band deserves that type of exclusive credit, and the claim is demonstrably false. At most the TH's helped to establish "a template" for New Wave music, but not by themselves and this was not the only template that New Wave bands followed. In any event, if the claim is attributed to the music journalist Simon Reynolds, then the attribution of this claim should be explicit, ie, "according to Simon Reynolds", etc. Mr. Reynolds is certainly entitled to his opinion, and he is clearly a big Talking Heads fan (at one point even preparing liner notes for one of their albums). However his book tended to ignore other bands that were just as influential: the Clash, Blondie, the Jam. What remains is a skewed outlook. (Of course this genre tends to invite skewed outlooks, such as Clinton Heylin's). But regardless of whether this assertion can be attributed or not, it remains a dubious and ultimately very subjective claim that is unnecessary for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhaniha (talkcontribs) 05:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The form, "according to music critic Simon Reynolds TH set the template...", with a reference would have been fine, but given that this statement is debatable, for the sake of balance other claimants to significance would need to be given. I agree there is a problem with dragging a point from a biography of a band or individual which states their importance. It is more convincing if the claim comes from a broader work about the genre. Authors rarely right books that say, "this band was a moderately important influence on later music": no one is going to buy that, so they need to be treated with caution. It is probably easier to just delete the claim as you have done.--SabreBD (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"Having fun" was vandalism and was in my view a counter constructive way to raise a serious point. You should have said something in the edit summary or said "see talk page". I don't think it is our job without any evidence to decide that Simon Reynolds used that language to sell the book. Unless the language was used during the promotion of the book there is really no basis for that claim. While adding language saying Reynolds is the one making the claim is fine, deleting the the claim just because it is easier is wrong. There will be disagreements by reliable sources so the stating them in the article is the proper way of dealing with it. Edkollin (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you see it that way, but it is as you acknowledge a serious point. And it is in fact more serious than you acknowledge. Type "New Wave" into a search engine and this is the first thing that comes up. In that case a special effort should be made to separate verifiable fact from opinion. What Reynold's wrote is an opinion plain and simple that has no place in an encyclopedic entry on the subject. It isn't just easier to delete the claim. Rather doing so acknowledges that a supposedly factual article should not be a forum for boosterism and inflated claims by fans be they published or not. Regardless of whether you want to agree with his opinion as a fan, it remains an unverifiable, highly debatable claim by a single journalist of a band's supposed significance, and one that intentionally detracts from the legitimate contributions of others. Finally, it isn't "vandalism" to demand better standards. Rather the true issue is why an otherwise well done article presented such a blatant opportunity to do so.Alexhaniha (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism was not in demanding better standards, it was intentionally putting in uncited material. I just don't understand on what basis is it being decided that Reynolds saying the Talking Heads set the templete is opinion and boostrism, but him saying the New Wave sound of this era represented a break from the smooth-oriented blues and rock & roll sounds of late 1960s to mid 1970s rock music, the music had a twitchy, agitated feel to it. New Wave musicians often played choppy rhythm guitars with fast tempos. Keyboards were common as were stop-and-start song structures and melodies, that New Wave vocalists sounded high-pitched, geeky and suburban is fact. Either Reynolds is a reliable source or he is not. And I don't see anything but your opinion that intentionally or unintentionally he was engaging in boosterism or inflating claims. Outside of certain technical things like notes or instruments music and especially genre definitions are subjective, we are not talking hard cold facts like the law of gravity. And I just don't understand why putting his educated judgment or opinion is taking away from the contribution of others. There is nothing stopping any editor from putting in a differing judgment by another respected writer. Doing that will improve the article. Edkollin (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Reynold's cite anything beyond his own opinion or judgment? Opinion by a "respected journalist" is still just an opinion, not a fact. And unfortunately boosterism is a standard aspect of rock journalism: Heylin and Patti Smith, Savage and the Sex Pistols, Parsons and Tim Robinson, and yes, Reynolds. To say that we are allegedly not talking "hard cold facts" doesn't excuse substituting facts with a clear opinion. Whether you want to agree with that opinion is irrelevant; it's still just an opinion. But putting that aside, in judging whether it's an inflated claim, by all means explain how the TH's set "the template" for Blondie, the Clash, the Jam, Elvis Costello, Television, the B52s, Devo, the Cars, the Patti Smith Group, the Knack, the Smiths, etc.? How about Family Fodder? The Cure? Duran Duran? The disputed claim is not that the TH's shared representative musical elements with other New Wave bands (agreed), but that they set the template, ie, established the pattern, that other New Wave bands emulated and followed, and that before them no one else had done so. That is quite an extravagant claim, particularly for such a broad area of music. Maybe Reynolds is a "respected journalist", but it does nothing to alter the fact that such a claim is farcical. But I'm certainly open to edification.Alexhaniha (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All I have seen is a well put together argument of why you think what Reynolds has said is an opinion not a reasoned journalistic judgment. Another words this "dispute" is being wholly created by you not by other reliable sources. It is against Wikipedia policy for an editor take take things out of article based on one or several editors personal views. If you used a quote by a journalist from the British tabloid The Sun I would argue that because it has been established they don't fact check much and they have been successfully sued for slander so there is a good reason to doubt what has been written is reliable. The only argument I see is that it is known that rock journalists are boosters. That is not a legitimate argument against his journalistic integrity(And again if you can legitimately show he is not reliable all material based on work must be deleted). There are two problems here. Rightly or wrongly he has gotten respect in his field. And his judgments have become "conventional wisdom" by default. There has not been much reliable work on post punk era punk inspired music, particularly as genres. That there has not been much competing views and work is a big problem and as a fan of the music something I regret. But as a Wikipedia editor it is against policy for me to try and use Wikipedia as a vehicle to solve this problem. Wikipedia must print the reliable conventional wisdom. I think his view of post punk is inflated (Frankie Goes to Hollywood?)and I wonder if some of it involves fitting groups into his book. So my thinking is not that different then yours. But no way would I go into the post punk article and delete material where he was a source based on my "feeling". Edkollin (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It might have gotten lost in the arguments but I have no problem with adding the words "According to Simon Reynolds". It is our other esteemed editor who thinks that might open a can of worms of sorts. Edkollin (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors (we all are; that's the point of a public encyclopedia) it's our responsibility to ensure that entries are factual. I pointed out that the article wantonly included an opinion not identified as such, and more fundamentally, one that was highly questionable. You responded by saying that Reynolds is a "respected journalist", a response (irony aside given the state of rock journalism) that does nothing to show that his claim was anything more than a groundless opinion. I asked specifically for the evidence Reynolds cited and received no response. I asked you to show that this claim was not as inflated as it seems and is, asking you to demonstrate how the TH's "set the template" for a variety of bands within the genre, all of which are being slighted by this claim. You don't even try. In fact, you go far as to say that your thinking is not that different than mine. But now you add that Reynold's opinion, by default, is the "conventional wisdom." Yet this is actually even more damning. Conventional wisdom means that it is shared by others. Yet no other music historian or journalist that I have ever read, no other music publication for that matter, has ever made a similar claim. (In fact, I have read reviews of Reynold's book that also share my opinion on this specific point). There is no conventional wisdom by default. Rather there is the single opinion of a single writer in a field rife with poor standards. It would be nice if there were more books on the subject, but this does not magically elevate an isolated and unshared opinion into something that needs to be included in an encyclopedia entry. Lets just look at the sum total: (1) It is undoubtedly a statement of opinion; (2) It's an opinion even you acknowledge as flawed and can't defend, and (3) no other source can be cited that agrees with it. Against this background I truly strain to understand your final assertion that as a Wikipedia editor you allegedly have no right to resolve this issue. The issue was created by the inclusion of plainly unworthy information. If the editorial judgment that Wikipedia creates means anything, it is precisely that claims that simply do not meet the standards of an encyclopedia entry be weeded out. Either you will accept that responsibility or you wont.Alexhaniha (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Did not see the addendum before I posted my response. In my view the entire claim should not be in the article. If by some higher authority it has to be included, then it should be with the "according to" langugeAlexhaniha (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay at least we kind of agree agree on the "according to". But I not agreeing it is opinion but reasoned journalistic judgment until proven otherwise. You missed my whole point of my personally thinking along some of the same lines as you. The point is our personal opinions on the authors conclusions or motives or opinions are completely irrelevant to writing a Wikipedia article. I would be rich if I was paid for every-time I wrote material I disagreed with in Wikipedia. Reynolds can footnote that so and so act formed in 1976 and sold 2.000,000 copies but how would you expect Simon Reynolds or anybody to go about citing that the Talking Heads are set the template, or New Wave is the Pop version of punk or it "ended" in 1985. He could cite other music journalists but since the field "is rife with poor standards" it would be unreliable. I agreed that an an academic source would be better the music journalists but there are precious few of those (the academic source that is used in this article cites Reynolds on another matter). Reynolds is the person we are sourcing. This is not different then what is done with most genre articles. Music journalists from specialty music papers, who have written books, journalists from the "mainstream" media, so it seems some sort of consensus has developed to use somewhat not as reliable sources as those used for medical articles where its peer reviewed articles only. In the other direction movie plots never seem to be sourced so my guess is that either they were pilfered or based on editor viewing, pure original research. So standards in practice are best possible available. Not using music journalists as sources as sources because the field is "rife with poor standards" would mean cutting a lot of of the materials in these articles. Maybe you think that is something that should be done, there is a reliable sources discussion board for that type of thing.
"In fact, I have read reviews of Reynold's book that also share my opinion on this specific point". Without having seen these reviews this seems article worthy as hell. Edkollin (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can never use a music journalist as a source, merely that the information included in an encyclopedia entry should be more than an isolated, unsupported opinion. You have tried to rely on his position as a "respected journalist" to justify the inclusion of this opinion, but that is respectfully not a sufficient response for the reasons I have indicated. However, rather then waste further time, I did something insidious and went directly to the source. Now recall that the disputed claim was your statement, apparently attributed to Reynolds, that the Talking Heads alone supposedly "set the template" for New Wave. Yet here is what he actually wrote: "With some help from contemporaries such as XTC and the Cars, early Talking Heads set the template for New Wave." (p. 160). So, to spell it out, even Reynolds, your supposed source, did not claim that the TH's exclusively set the template for New Wave, but actually acknowledged that other bands in addition to the THs (the term "such as" is not limiting so he is citing XTC and the Cars as examples and not exhaustively) helped to set that template. If you must, by all means argue that the phrase "some help" means that he is giving the THs pride of place. In any event, no matter how you attempt to parse it, Reynolds never claimed that the THs alone "set the template" for New Wave. In light of this, I hope it has become clear that the claim in dispute, a claim Reynolds did not actually make, does not belong in this article. I will only add that I think you have done a nice job with this article and that maybe I did not contribute to the constructive resolution of this dispute by my initial antics. Live and learn.Alexhaniha (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the complements about my work on the article and the apology. I never wrote exclusively, but in this case as with others I do not like to plagiarize so while writing and trying to avoid exactly copying his words I inadvertently changed or implied a different meaning. Maybe a rewrite more then total deletion is in order?. Anyway as it it two to one against me policy dictates I can't add the material back. Edkollin (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Edkollin (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its all relative

Wow! All I can say after reading some of these comments is that you people have WAY too much time on your hands. The fact of the matter is that the term “New Wave” means different things to different people. I was 19 years old in 1979 and heavily into the music scene and to me it was groups like The Talking Heads, Devo, and the B-52’s which epitomized the New Wave movement in America. These were bands, which didn’t really fit into any previously established categories of rock music. Of course if you were an avid club-goer back then (between 79 and 83) as I was then in addition to the aforementioned groups you would have also heard a lot of Billy Idol, The Ramones, The Romantics, The Plimsoles, Adam Ant, Joe Jackson, The Cure, The Smiths, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Motels, X, Romeo Void, Oingo Boingo, The Divinyls, etc. Even back then though you could talk to ten different people and get ten different answers as to what constitutes a “New Wave” band. When we hear these terms we all assume that we are thinking of the same thing but in most cases we are not. I have had this same argument about the term “Heavy Metal”. Some people associate this term with the kind of classic Hard Rock tunes that you might have heard in the animated movie of the same name whereas I associate the term strictly with bands like Rat, Poison, Twisted Sister, etc. which I don’t particularly care for. I could never think of great bands like Led Zeppelin or Aerosmith or even AC/DC in the same category as lets say Poison. The fact of the matter is the meanings of these terms change over time and all that matters is what they mean now. And the current correct meaning is determined by what the majority of people assume it to be. Anyway I’m sure that Wikipedias history of the Term New Wave is very accurate. What it actually meant to individuals like myself who came of age during that period in time is not really relevant. I have to say it was a great time though. The god-awful Disco days that myself and other true Rock Music aficionados hated so much were finally at an end and we were on the cusp on a new renaissance in music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A different definition from a participent

"New Wave music is a blend of progressive rock music and disco, that's why I think new Wave and '80s music is making a comeback. It's dance music first of all, and I think people are attracted to that side of it and always will be" Ivan Doroschuk from Men Without Hats. [5]. Interesting in that in most definitions it was a reaction against progressive and punk is not mentioned at all. I wonder if we should can get it into articles an example of varied definitions? Edkollin (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New Wave cannot be considered as a genre or sub-genre at all really.It was blending of much more area's of music than just progressive rock (or art rock) & disco (or rhythmic contemporary - to give it a wider description). "As a genre, it incorporates much of the original punk rock sound and ethos, such as an emphasis on short and punchy songs" - disagree that it was a genre, it got away from much of punk rock ethos in many ways (thus dispute).Not all New Wave song's were short & punchy.No more or less than pop music generally that was about before Punk.Refute this connection with Punk.Most artist's retained their connection with Punk to keep an artificial credibility rather than musical compatibility generally--Scratchy7929 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally agree with you especially as you get into the 1980s the music gets less short and punchy the relationship with punk less direct or very vague. Most reliable sources don't agree and make a strong connection with punk and that is what we go by. Simon Reynolds while agreeing with varied influences notes practically all of the 80s "post punk" groups started in the punk era and retained it's mission if not sound. "Short and Punchy" quote was Reynolds who was discussing late 1970s acts so I took it out of lede which infered the whole genre Edkollin (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)