Talk:No wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Punk music (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of punk rock 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon No wave 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Industrial (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Current no wave[edit]

What about modern forms of no wave? Bands like Blonde Redhead, Deerhoof, Numbers, Tamion 12 Inch, would they be considered current versions of no wave? Some info on current music/bands should be added maybe. - Milk 08:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to talk about contemporary bands influenced by No Wave. If there was any post-1980 band that sounded anything at all like the original No Wave bands it was God Is My Co-Pilot, who denied repeatedly that what they were doing was No Wave.

Rosquet 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok I admit im not that popular with the offshoot, but as far as I understand it at least the term is much newer than implied in this article. I never even heard the term until the mid 80's and I swear it only became really popular a few years back when new wave influenced stuff was the hip scene. --69.58.167.121 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia relies less on individuals lack of knowledge and more on sources such as AMG ([1]). The No New York compilation was released in 1978, how much earlier do you need? Hyacinth 22:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason that it doesn't discuss modern no wave is because there's no such thing. It was pretty much dead by 1983. The musicians live on in other bands, the influences are still heard, but the genre is over. Call them whatevere you want, except for no wave.

Insofar as No Wave is really a retrospective classification (like Northern Soul), completely subjective and originating in the perspective of fans and critics, any band from any current scene is perfectly at liberty to attach itself (or be attached) to the label No Wave.
Compare the recent neologism nae wave (derived from the Scots dialect variant nae for Standard English no), self-applied by bands Divorce and Ultimate Thrush (NME, October 2009), bands with more in common attitudinally than musically.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Film[edit]

The other thing that needs to be in this article is no wave film, such as the work by Amos Poe- like "The Foreigner".

I'm not at all sure no wave film should be mentioned here. I mean, yes they share a similar name, time/place, and John Lurie, but were they really that related? Can anyone who is knowledgable confirm or deny? - Bert 171.159.64.10 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lydia Lunch toured as a speaker with a travelling exhibition with what I think were No Wave films. The exhibition was organised by the Whitney Museum which has No Wave films in it's collection.

There was a record called Beth B and Scott B's Vortex which had Lurie and Lunch and Adele Bertei. One track was the theme from Black Box. They created a kind of B Grade suspense soundtrack with samples from a No Wave film.

Also "Lucy Hamilton" was one of the members of MARS and she did the film soundtrack "The Drowning Of Lucy Hamilton" with Lydia Lunch.

The magazine Art News had a feature article on the No Wave scene around 1980. The RE-Search series of books and the magazine Forced Exposure were switched onto No Wave. Try looking up Kristian Hoffman (Tad Among) on the net, he played with James White and the Blacks. Barnaby Walsh 09:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

No wave?[edit]

I'm frankly puzzled by the listing of certain bands as "No Wave" (inasmuch that such categories may be useful or not), Material (band) in particular (also not sure why it was piped to the top of Category:No Wave). Suicide (band) precedes both punk rock and no wave by several years (1971, IIRC without going and fetching an old cassette); I have seen them lumped in with punk but never no wave. No wave was also very specific to New York City in the late 1970s; The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia suggests "by the Eighties, no wave was dying, and in fact it seemed to have its short lifespan built in from its inception." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone had added ESG and Liquid Liquid following an earlier removal, and I have removed them again. I can't imagine anyone describing those two bands the way that AMG describes No Wave, "harsh, abrasive, and aggressively confrontational." I think perhaps that some editors are equating No Wave with downtown NYC bands that weren't explicity punk. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You'd better read the sources you cite before you start quoting them. AMG says that ESG wasn't No Wave by design, but the sound was. They also cite ESG as influencing other No Wave bands. Harsh and abrasive "Moody", confrontational "Erase You". If it walks and quacks like a duck what is it? No wave! --spiderleggreen

You're right, I didn't read the ESG entry at AMG, just the one for No Wave. However, one could make the same claims about Ornette Coleman (recalling what I'd read in Lester Bangs' Psychotic Reactions), but I wouldn't list him under No Wave, either. I could see listing either of them under "Influences", or some such. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The reasons that ESG and Liquid Liquid could both be considered No Wave is obviosuly because they fall into that 78-82 downtown New York category, both were on 99 Records which was known for hosting other no wave musicians, and also...their sounds. No Wave doesn't have to be abrasive and confrontational, that's just one particular brand of no wave. Would you call Lizzy Mercier Descloux abrasive and confrontational? And what about "Queen of Siam" by Lydia Lunch, that's a very important no wave record that I wouldn't consider abrasive or confrontational. The point is that ESG and Liquid Liquid made up the dancier part of the scene that no wave revolved around. I guess that it could be argued that ESG were not no wave because they lacked any type of punk influence, which I consider a preqrequisite, even though other no wave musicians said they hated punk (but let's be honest, it was influenced by punk). But that would be nitpicking against ESG. As for Material, they made up the whole nu-funk/jazz part of no wave. It almost seemed like a separate branch. Musicians like Bill Laswell, Fred Frisell, Michael Beinhorn, Fred Maher et. al. had these incestuous bands that more or less made the same music under different names. It wasn't the greatest no wave, but Material did have some good songs. Suicide I feel could also be considered no wave. Again, to say that they shouldn't be considered as such is nitpicking due to the fact that they preceded the generally considered time constraints of no wave. They were super-creative, had a completely different sound, were a performance art act, avant-garde. They were signed to ZE records. They were on the NY No Wave compilation. They played with bands like The Contortions. "If it walks and quacks like a duck, what is it? No wave!" the preceding comment is by 128.205.167.6 - 14:08, 20 March 2006: Please sign your posts!

By this rationale the term No Wave becomes a useless umbrella, as it would seem to include any musicians working in downtown New York who weren't explicitly punk rock. Why not throw in Lou Reed, John Cale, Talking Heads, or Ornette Coleman? If there is no particular No Wave sound then the "quacks like a duck" analogy is pretty hard to apply. Either "No Wave" describes a specific style of music, or it refers to the entire NYC scene that was peripheral to punk rock. I've always read that it was the former, but if it's the latter then it would be very hard to decide whi isn't No Wave. Looking at it from another way, given the danceable aspect of some of these bands, would you add them to the Disco article? (I wouldn't.) They produced dance music in Manhattan during the late 1970s, and if it quacks like a duck... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no specific sound to no wave. However there are multiple sounds to no wave. They blend free jazz, punk, modern classical, dance, and noise. Every band that I consider no wave blends those sounds together. That's the first aspect. The second aspect is that it must fit in the new york 78-82 (roughly) category. But ALSO must be part of the SCENE. That's waht it was. A scene of bands that played together. ESG, Liquid Liquid, Suicide, and Material didn't necessarily play together, but played at the same venues (Max's, Kitchen et. al.) and had the same friends, and played with the more obvious no wavers (DNA, Contortions). Since it's sometimes difficult to distinguish who was really friends and who played shows together, it's sometimes more simple to just go by the general guidelines that underground new york from that time period could be considered no wave. So Ornette? No...he revolutionized free jazz, but didn't really experiment with other styles of music. Velvet Underground...completely predated no wave. Although I have seen interviews (ugh, no source, sorry) that said Cale was close with the NYC underground from that period. Talking Heads...too damn popular, not experimental enough. So I concede a little bit. No wave isn't soundless, it's more of an omnisound.--128.205.167.6 22:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. No. I wouldn't add Liquid Liquid and ESG to the disco article. There's a difference between disco and dance music.--128.205.167.6 22:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


In response to User 128.205.167.6 & spiderleggreen: I have to largely agree and partially disagree with Gyrofrog. It makes no objective sense to include dance and pre/post punk bands like ESG, Liquid Liquid, the Bush Tetras, Suicide, or even later no-wave artist's music, like 8-eyed spy, and post-Contortions James Chance, in the list of no-wave bands. Much of this music was contemporary both in time and place, and occassionally "no-wave" bands shared members with non no-wave new york bands, but to present this as criterion for a no-wave band is ridiculous. Robert Smith played with Siouxie and copied her makeup - does this therefore cause the Banshees to also be an overtly melodic pop group with a penchant for windchimes? The arguments for inclusion of the new york dance bands as no-wave seem to center on little more than association, which is equally silly. I'm sure I don't need to explain how sharing a label does not necessarily predict or define anything about the bands on that label. I personally don't think queen of siam was VERY important as a no-wave record, any more than I see Daydream Nation, or the Ascention, as one.

You know, the Birthday Party were around from 78-82, Lydia Lunch performed with them, and they were certainly "harsh, abrasive, and aggressively confrontational." Why should they be discluded simply becuase they're not from New York? FOR THE SAME REASON THE BEASTIE BOYS, ESG, AND SUICIDE SHOULD BE. I personally don't buy falling back on AMG any more than I do falling back on Pitchfork for a definitive account. How about someone like Richard Edson, drummer in both Konk (a NYC dance band of the time, in a vein similar to Liquid Liquid and ESG) and the earliest incarnation of Sonic Youth, a band pretty easily included as no-wave for the earlier work. He writes the following in the liner notes of the 1981 self titled, 2006 re-issued Sonic Youth EP: "Konk, which was started before Sonic Youth. . . was a funky-groovelectric-Afro-Latin dance and party band like our brother and sister bands - Liquid Liquid, ESG, Kid Creole and the Coconuts, and Material in New York . . . Now Konk was certainly not hip-hop or go-go, though we were, I liked to think, drawing on similar rhythmic and party-oriented ideas that had nothing to do with Sonic Youth.

"Of course there is no specific sound to no wave." Then why try to categorize it as a genre? No wave, a genre that is only a genre by categorical hindsight (like film noir) was isolated, short lived, "small," and necessarily very specific. Look at the bands on no new york and others like theoretical girls and early sonic youth - while there's variation in style and background for sure, I think it'd be difficult to claim those bands did not sound specifically similar in a number of important ways - ways bands like suicide, bush tetras, and esg certainly did not sound. Gyrofrog raised clearly relevant points about ornettee and the velvets that were equally clearly not understood - by turning the definition into one of association and not of specific criteria, you eliminate any real referential relevance or potency the definition may have held. Please don't confused "no-wave" with "good" as seems to be happening - all of the bands we're talking about are fantastic, but easily and definably not the same.

"If it walks and quacks like a duck what is it?" The answer? Not necessarily a duck! The funny thing about this phrase is it contains within its logic the site of its own refusal, contradiction, paradox, etc. What I mean by this is that if the phrase actually meant what it is supposed to, it would say "If it is a duck, it is a duck;" instead, it's a classic MacGuffin/object petit a. So, obviously, I don't buy that argument. I'm removing ESG, Liquid Liquid, Suicide, Bush Tetras, 8-Eyed Spy, and James White and the Blacks. A lot of the others I either know nothing about, or are debatable, so I won't touch them - I suggest a separate "See Also" category where a lot of the bands we're talking about might be sorted and linked. Maybe this is something we can agree on?

And finally: "There's a difference between disco and dance music." Please re-read that, and think about it for a little while.-- Chris


quite frankly, your argument is so scattered i don't know where to begin. I have thought about my phrase, and i stand by it. Just because you can dance to it doesn't make it disco. Tell me if you would call Average White Band, The Fire Engines, and Fatboy Slim disco. Three completely different genres, all with goals to make people dance, none of which could really be categorized as disco. I wanna say that you make many valid arguments from what i could understand, so I'm not just trying to be argumentative here. I think a lot of it boils down to difference in opinion. You wouldn't call Queen of Siam an important no wave record, where as I would. YOu would call Daydream Nation an important no wave record, wheras I wouldn't even classify it as no wave. I think we need to take what is communaly agreed upon as no wave. First off, I refuse to believe that no wave is anything outside of New York. You misspoke when you said that no wave is a categorical hindsight. I believe it was Lydia (correct me if I'm wrong) that coined the phrase back in 78 in the Voice. The record was called No New York for a reason. No wave was most definately a scene, and not one that reached beyond NYC. People seem to think that any kind of artsy punk from the late 70s is no wave. But there is clearly some kind of difference. Second, I COMPLETELY agree taht we shouldnt go by AMG's standards. They're close, but not perfect on a lot of genres, but their mistakes are often enough with no wave to disregard them. Third, this whole "abrasive and confrontational" thing came out of nowhere. I stand by my original argument that Lizzy Mercier Descloux is really neither but I strongly consider her no wave. My concession is that I could see why many would disagree about ESG and Material, so kick them. Suicide I could also see, but I really feel strongly about them as being a no wave band. Bush Tetras were so imbedded in teh no wave scene that they should stay. Pat Place was clearly a fixture in film and sound in new york no wave as was producer don christensen. and 8 eyed spy I feel very strongly about as no wave. as i conceded before that no wave doesnt necessarily not have a sound (rather an omnisound), 8es had the jazz, punk, noise, and dance influences strong enough to classify them as such. Liquid Liquid had punk influence, noise roots (see Liquid Idiot), clear dance roots and were good friends with all those no wavers. James White and the Blacks were a no wave band. there should be no argument about that...Off White was made witht eh same band as The Contortions who were on No New York. As for your Konk reference, I didn't understand where you were going with that. Your Souxsie/Cure analogy was understood, but lame at best. 209.222.250.42 05:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


See, I think a lot of the things you said I have said myself, but I draw different conclusions from. Of course if you can dance to something it isn't necessarily disco - this is why the 'walks like a duck' bit makes no sense (if it's danceable and shares similar traits to disco, it doesn't mean it's disco). What i meant was disco IS dance music (you separated the two), but dance music is not ONLY disco. Anyway, after thinking about it, i do think the bush tetras might belong. Sonically it's iffy, but MAYBE it's enough for me not to argue it now. Further, i said Daydream Nation is specifically NOT a no wave record - you're right, it's absolutely not no wave music, in the same way that 8 eyed spy's stuff or queen of siam aren't. Same artist, different style. I agree that people seem to think a lot of post punk (or pre-punk, in suicide's case) is no wave, which is why i wrote something to begin with, as i felt that's what was happening here in particular. but suicide was A) earlier, B) metered, and C) largely consonant (if not melodic!), so it's difficult for me to see how they qualify. The "abrasive" quote came from another user above. I was responding to how silly that was as a criteria. The Edson quote about konk illustrates that someone in both a (then) no-wave band and a disco-punk band saw very clearly no similiarities between his dance band (and other dance bands he names as 'bretheren'), and music that sonic youth was making. I don't think james white and the blacks are no wave... it's clearly different music, it's described as more "disco" in the liner notes of the box set, and the whole point of different incarnations was to make different music, as far as i can tell. making different music with the same poeple (liquid liquid vs. liquid idiot, james white and the blacks vs. the contortions) still means you're specifically making different music! categorically not no wave! There are lots of things influenced by jazz, punk, noise, and dance music (like most shoegaze), but that obviously doesn't make it no wave. And of COURSE the siouxie/cure example was lame... that was the idea... the point it illustrated was lame! --- Chris

It seems that we're straying from the point of the discussion section and attacking/defending our beliefs, which is ultimately pointless. We've agreed that Bush Tetras are no wave. Suicide, James White and the Blacks, and 8 Eyed Spy seem to be up in the air. Perhaps there should be a list of "loosely considered no wave bands". yes yes? although, it would be hypocritical to have a quote from RIUASA calling Suicide a no wave band, only to shun them. --209.222.245.244 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghostyard[edit]

Can someone tell me who Ghostyard is? I've never heard of them, and I doubt their no wave status. Also, just a question of curiosity, who did Tomek Laprecht play for?--128.205.167.6 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of them either, allmusic.com has nothing by that name, and a google search for "ghostyard music" just turns up this page. I'm guessing either VERY obscure, or someone just added their own band. I've removed pending any verification of existence. 171.159.64.10 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it again, pending verification and/or establishment of notability. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The editor who added "Ghostyard" contacted me privately (I requested that he discuss the issue here). I don't think the issue is whether the band existed, but whether the band is sufficiently notable to be listed as a proponent of No Wave. In the editor's own words, the band was "obscure," so I am not sure that listing Ghostyard helps any readers who know nothing about No Wave. He did provide a URL about the band, from which sound samples are available: http://www.frankdunn.net/music.html -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Artists[edit]

Amusing. Looks like I was doubly correct on Ghostyard - both extremely obscure AND added by former member. But I think there's a bigger issue. The artist list is currently a total mess, and needs to be reworked, alphabetized, etc. (Plus I don't think we need James Chance, James White, and the Contortions as three separate listings....) To improve the article, maybe we could have a vote on the criteria for listing bands. I see three options: A) include any band verifiably in the genre (in which case Ghostyard stays), B) include only notable bands (in which case much of the list should be pruned), C) as a middle road include any obscure band that has commercially released recordings, and these even if only on compilations and/or now out of print. What I would like to see is a listing that could help someone with limited familiarity with the genre who would like to know more, e.g. "hey, this Teenage Jesus album my friend lent me is cool, what other bands like this can I check out?", which I see as my Option C. Any support for editing using this criteria? -Bert 171.159.64.10 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote option B. The No New York bands. Branca's bands. Maybe Rosa Yemen, Suicide, Lizzy Mercier Descloux and a couple others.--128.205.167.6 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

this article is completely NOT comprehensive. and there should DEFINITELY be a differentiation between neo-no wave/or no-wave riff-off acts like die monitrr bats and more classic acts like Mars, Rhys Chatham, etc. in the listing.

AGREED. I'm gonna revamp this soon, and to end all the bickering about what is and is not no wave, I'm going to create citations. --128.205.122.73 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since it's been over a month, and nothing has been resolved, I went ahead and changed the list. I can't say it's much of an improvement, but it's a start. We can always narrow it down more- I just didn't want to strip it all the way down without any discussion. I'm all for option c: ideally, there should be a strong 10-12 artists/bands . There's no need to list each and every band vaguely associated with no wave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuckieRotten (talkcontribs) 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Ugh, I am sorry to see that this list still contains people who were nowhere to be found on the no wave circuit. Who on earth is Rosa Yemen / Lizzy Mercier Whatever? I looked her up and even her own Wikipedia entry hangs by a slim thread to this scene. This entry should not be abused by people trying to capitalize on something they had no part in creating. Someone who was really playing those clubs should create the list. I was there, I saw T-Girls, Mars, DNA, Liquid Liquid, Ping Pong, Bush Tetras, Contortions, Lydia, Branca, Y-Pants, Chinese Forehead, all bona-fide no-wave. But I've never even heard of Rosa/Lizzy or Circle X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticranger (talkcontribs) 19:51, 13 April 2010

I've added {{List fact}} to the list entries in question. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I say remove them altogether. These lists too easily get out of control, with repetition and additions that are irrelevant. If a band or musician is truly notable, they should be discussed in the article text. A list communicates almost nothing. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Rosa Yemen and Lizzy Mercier Descloux had releases on Ze Records but were from France, not New York, hence the confusion. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now this list is down to just 9 bands and there are some obvious gaping holes—e.g.: no Contortions?!? Clearly each artist needs an individual reference link to avoid contention. I did like it when there was a list of post-No Wave bands (Sonic Youth, Swans, etc) as a handy ref point for folks wanting more info on similar music. There was also a movement of bands in Chicago in the 1990s that self-identified as a new generation of No Wave musicians and they deserve mention and possibly their own article. Again, citations are the key to settling disputes. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in NYC at this time you had 3 scenes, new wave (the surfish retro-modern stuff, mostly non local), punk-funk (Material, Frith, Zorn and their endless couplings) and the music that was obviously more of an art thing. The latter were generally considered no wave. Anyone who saw Liquid Liquid live at that time wasn't thinking simply "oh boy let's dance", it was a stark and primitivistic sound. AND another experimental band lost here is Information who played quite a bit and used fast morse-code like exchanges between instruments. User:Arcticranger —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:No new york.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:No new york.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regional scenes[edit]

The new infobox indicates No Wave was largely worldwide, then goes on to list local scenes. If there has been little other agreement on this discussion page, one thing that I thought we'd established is that No Wave was distinctly a New York City phenomenon (the Lower East Side of Manhattan, to be even more precise). I will cite a source if I have time later on. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AGREED! --209.222.250.93 07:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svgDone. I've changed it to NYC and cited a reference. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I think there were bands in nearby cities, even if it's clearly New York in origin. The Stick Men are almost universally considered a No Wave band (both self-professed and recognized by others), but they were in Philadelphia. Most local New York bands also do gigs in Philly and Boston and to expect there was no scene in nearby cities is unrealistic. There should probably be some acknowledgment of this even if it's still predominantly a local scene. Frogacuda (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kill your idols documentary[edit]

The internal links are wrong, i would had liked to change them but i didn't find any wikipedia article about it. I think they should link to /Kill_Your_Idols_(documentary) (which does not exist but perhaps it will encorage someone to write it)

(i don't know if this kind of messages goes in the discussion page, if not, please let me know) --Sirpupu (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

i am suspicious of no wave. a reference for it being art or serious music. pls!!! i'm not saying that no wave-rs aren't creative, but i wonder if they are really art. please enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.44.124 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC) wait, by serious i don't mean "no sense of humour"!

Capitalization[edit]

You can tell the same person edited this article and the "New Wave" article because of the similar usage of capitalization and italics. Why is the term "no wave" capitalized throughout the article? I see absolutely no reason for that. It's like writing an article about rock or soul and capitalizing those words every time.--Josta59 (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Reynolds quote[edit]

It strikes me as confused, irrelevant and insubstantial. In other words, it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of no wave, plus cites Suicide, not a part of the scene. Anyone else think it should go? Cloonmore (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JAAbookCD.jpeg[edit]

The image Image:JAAbookCD.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Dog Eat Dog link[edit]

Is the mentioned band "Dog Eat Dog" the same that the link links to? They might have the same name, but I'm not sure if the members of crossover-band Dog Eat Dog were even born back in 1981.. --91.55.252.197 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot image use policy[edit]

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of standards for capitalization and spacing[edit]

Please see talk:New Wave music for a discussion which includes no wave and proposed standards for composing its name in articles. --Pixel Eater (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal edit summaries[edit]

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do not personally address articles or talk page edit summaries to editors of articles or talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Edit summaries on articles and talk pages should be used to facilitate editing and discussion by indicating the edit that was made. For instance, you could make a spelling change in an article, adjusting "teh" to "the", and describing this edit in the edit summary as, "one spelling correction" or "teh-->the". This will make it easy for people looking through the edit history to tell what changes where made when, what kind of changes, and how big the changes where, making it easier to address issues, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issues or disputes and improve articles. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to put this message here? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New York is a state, New York City, NYC, is of course a city[edit]

The city is often referred to as New York City or the City of New York, to distinguish it from the state of New York, of which it is a part.

No Wave was a short-lived but influential underground music, film, performance art, video, and contemporary art scene that had its beginnings during the mid-1970s in New York.

New York, huh? As in Buffalo? Binghamton? Poughkeepsie? It's big place. Reaches all the way up to Canada, and shares a border with 3 states on its eastern border alone (CT,MA,VT)

I know in general people tend to use "New York" as a shorthand for Manhattan (maybe because it's New York county? Who outside on NYC knows THAT? Pretty obscure,most people know the borough names not the county names). Whatever the case may be its sloppy and ambiguous and casual, and an encyclopedia should be a little more precise.

By the way if anybody cares, New York State predates New York City by several years. The first settlement was near Albany, BEFORE NYC was settled so if any place has a first claim to the name its NYS' capitol city.

I have a feeling that the post-911 media blitz of news streaming about NYC has has something to do with this casual shorthand use of "New York" to mean the city and not the state. Inaccurate and.....kind of annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.176.112 (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"I know in general people tend to use 'New York' as a shorthand for Manhattan..." If you wish to fix such occurrences in this article, feel free to do so. Note that the album central to this subject is itself titled No New York. But since the usage is more widespread (e.g. Annie Hall) than in this single Wikipedia article, I don't think that this talk page is the place to try and fix that in general (perhaps that's not what you intended, but that's how it read). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of term[edit]

I'm almost certain that the term "no wave" predates 1981 and that Diego Cortez is not the originator. Bernard Gendron's book Between Montmartre and the Mudd Club has a well researched section on the the term "no wave" and basically comes to the conclusion that it was partially named after an off-the-cuff remark from Lydia Lunch and partially after the zine No by Roy Trakin. 74.62.156.202 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You can cite that source and add it to the page, updating the information and making a better article. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree.Valueyou (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge No Wave Cinema.[edit]

I suggest that the No Wave Cinema article be merged here. That article is, at least currently, very short, and the cinema subsection of this article is nearly nonexistent. There is simply no reason for cinema to have its own, separate article when it has so little content. As this article is rather short anyway, and No Wave was a wide and variegated phenomena, it is better that it all be discussed in one place. This merger is suggested as a step in a general improvement of this article. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree. If you have are a film student or have ever taken a film course, No Wave Cinema is the one of the most significant movements in experimental film to come out in the last forty years. It should remain its own article, and be improved upon and expanded. Cooltobekind (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Music[edit]

I feel that tyhe page should be called "No Wave Music" as No Wave was not just music — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.177.154 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That comment is self-contradictory. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming the original comment meant dedicating this article to the music, perhaps because there is a separate article for No Wave Cinema. I would agree that any details about films could and should be added to the latter article. Anything else regarding No Wave, though, I think is suitable for this article (assuming WP:NOR, WP:V etc. all apply). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the film article should be merged here, since it has very little content. Until this article is expanded, we might as well cover all aspects of the No Wave scene in one place. Especially since there was so much overlap within the scene, with various artists collaborating on multiple projects. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the film article should be merged here at this page. Many of the filmmakers overlapped into musical groups. This would adhere to the definitive book on the subject to date: Masters, Marc. "No Wave". London: Black Dog Publishing, 2007. See [2]. I could do a re-write of the page based on the book. Valueyou (talk) 13:40, 18 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)



No WaveNo wave – Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Musical_and_literary_genres, 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Weak oppose, various sources always render it as "No Wave" (capital letters). For example No Wave by Marc Masters and The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll both use the term "No Wave" within their respective texts – not "No wave," nor "no wave". On the other hand No Wave at AllMusic (mostly) does not, and a New York Times article about Masters' book also uses lowercase (other than when referring to the book's title). Of these, the (original) Rolling Stone Encyclopedia (1983) is closest to the actual time period, and was published not long after the movement dissolved – for what that's worth. Presumably, the capitalization was influenced by French New Wave or Nouvelle Vague, which is also usually capitalized (even when it appears without the "French" qualifier). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The capitalisation should be included when the words concerned are not used in their normal meaning - it implies it is a name and not descriptive English words. If it is not capitalised, then the meaning of the phrase should be obvious from the words. Imc (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have never seen "new wave" and always see "New Wave" in reference to both the cinema and the music. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Suppport – as Gyrofrog notes, many sources do use lower case, verifying that caps are not necessary here. Per MOS:CAPS, that means WP should use lowercase. The caps use that Imc proposes, ("apitalisation should be included when the words concerned are not used in their normal meaning - it implies it is a name and not descriptive English words") is not among the uses for which WP's MOS recommends capitalization. It is "unnecessary" and therefore not what we do per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – as per Dicklyon (but with only two ps Face-smile.svg). Note also that, contrary to Imc's contention, the term is not a proper noun. In response to Koavf's point:
Majority ≠ right This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake.

.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Response Language is made by speakers and writers of that language, so if everyone capitalizes "Mobile, Alabama" and "Spanish language" then that is right. This is purely a matter of convention, not ethics or truth so it's precisely the majority that determines right-ness. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not that simple. Different styles use capitalization for different purposes, and in different amounts. WP style is to use less, only when necessary, to signify proper names; see MOS:CAPS. That doesn't make one case right and one wrong; but one way is preferred in WP, as in certain other sources. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this as an issue of standardization. There is nothing special about this genre that would necessitate capitalizing it over all the other hundreds of genres that are not capitalized. —Torchiest talkedits 00:14, 10 March 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.