From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A rock music movement?[edit]

I have to question the opening line that asserts this was a rock music movement. Simon Reynolds asserts that the movement was created by acts that disagreed with Punk Rock's back to basics style. John Lydon and others used to assert that they were post rock and criticized "rockists". The movement as it broadened did encompass rock and that early criticism was heard less and less often as time wore on. But I do think the opening line should be reexamined.Edkollin (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim that New Romanticism is a directive of Post Punk in infobox[edit]

The two genres were complete opposite reaction to punk. New Romantic was dress up and synthpop . Post Punk was antipop and with the exception of the goths dressed down. And the goths played music was downbeat New Romanticism was positive. Edkollin (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since in three weeks no arguments have been made for this I am deleting it. Edkollin (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I'd just like to say that the connection probably was made through mostly earlier New Romantic-labeled acts; e.g Japan, Adam & the Ants, Classix Nouveaux, early Ultravox, Gary Numan/Tubeway Army, John Foxx, early Human League, Soft Cell, The Associates, B-Movie, China Crisis and Visage--who were "darker" and very post-punk affiliated. In fact I'm not sure I would simplify all of New Romanticism as upbeat synthpop behind a heading of high fashion. That may have became the case by 1984 or 85 or so when NRs and synthpop music went more commercialized. The earlier years of New Romanticism, however, consisted of more avant-garde musical touches, images and lyrics that were far more somber, occasional political themes, often cerebral or surreal lyrics, or even somewhat punky energy (Adam & the Ants, early U-Vox and TW Army). Plus, some of the acts early on retained plenty of guitar-orientation. Even Duran Duran on their debut album was on the post-punk side, dark at times with plenty of guitar/bass alongside the keyboards (they've even come to be praised for their bass work over the years). Another point is that New Romantics weren't just glamorous fashionistas but some acts like Gary Numan lended instead toward a more dark image inspired by dystopian sci-fi. Both of these NR themes however, did derive from the singular source of New Romantic godfather David Bowie (who influenced post-punk and Goth as well). Even later on as NRism became more superficial and Pop, the songs were not always that upbeat (well, they could sound upbeat but not actually have the most happy lyricals-e.g. Take On Me, Poison Arrow, Do You Really Want to Hurt Me). Theburning25 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


I believe that the names of the Berlin Trilogy albums by David Bowie and the The Idiot by Iggy Pop should be mentioned as a major influence on post-punk as it really was the case especially in the latter case.--Milosppf (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to effectively source such an assertion. If you could find maybe a couple of references to noted post punk artists mentioning the albums in interviews it would certainly help. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If you check The Idiot Wikipedia article in the legacy and covers sections you might find quite a few remarks on the album and an abundance of cover versions of the songs from the album by post-punk acts.--Milosppf (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of New Music section[edit]

That section was merged in from another article. It was the incorrect thing to do on several fronts. The very reliable sources described New Music both as a separate entity and important part of 1980s music scene. Another words it was easily notable enough for its own Wikipedia article and never should have been deleted for whatever purpose. The reliable sources never said new music was post punk music. It said a lot of it came from post punk. That is not the same as being a sub genre or part of post punk music. The reliable sources also were clear that plenty of New Music came from areas that were not post punk. New Music was a pop music post punk was anti that.

While the merging of the articles was the incorrect thing to do as a lot of it did come from post punk it so it should have a place in this article

The New Music material has been deleted in this article and as many links as I can remember changed to the reconstituted New Music Article. I will add to the See also section of this article the reconstituted New Music article. I will wait to see if an attempt is made to merge the newly reconstituted New Music article into this article without notice or consensus. If no new merger attempts are made I will add new music as a sub section that will look similar to the post punk revival sub section. Edkollin (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


I have found post punk to have a rather dark sound. Does anyone else notice this? AmericanLeMans (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "dark" music (punk-emanated) of the early 80s did fall into the post-punk genre, but post-punk certainly doesn't have to sound dark as a matter of requirement. I present Gang of Four, Talking Heads, Josef K, The Fall, Wire and The Feelies as proof of this. Theburning25 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Diverse Characteristics[edit]

I'm actually a little surprised their isn't a characteristics section for this article. Surely because post-punk is both a eclectic and diverse sound it would be important to try and highlight aesthetics within in? Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. At the time, in terms of genre, it was more literally constrained/defined by genus (approach, ethos, production, etc.), than by resulting style(s). Subsequently, some revivers/followers/fans have (variously) cherry-picked post-punk to create their, more stylistically constrained, conception of 'post-punk'. Styles (and influences) of the post-punk genus are not adequately described – nor, perhaps, is the evolution of retrospective post-punk boundaries/definitions. – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Post-punk#1980s has a diversity assertion, pitched at 1982 (where its been tagged with an unelaborated 'why?'). This would be an early point where an analysis might be made (from genre of relevant prior albums) – however, a few years later would be more representative (as some of the earlier 'derivative forms' remained incubated/fluid within the post-punk scene for several more years). – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Industrial music[edit]

This has to stop. There is only one INCOMPLETE reference in the article. I assume it belongs to the book The Sex Revolts: Gender, Rebellion, and Rock 'n' Roll? The book doesn't even explain why Reynolds calls Industrial music a 'post-punk' genre. It looks more like the arbitrary assumption of the author. No primary sources, no footnotes... nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • It never stops. Even a partial reference is an improvement over most music edits. The editor is always right is assumption with music articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some new references. But again... None of these sources seem to explain why Industrial music is considered a "Post-punk genre". Mick Middles took it obviously from Reynolds. And Reynolds is copying his own mistakes from book to book? Aren't there any other publications? He seems to be the only author who calls Industrial bands 'Post-punk'. And that cannot be the mainstay of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

oxford comma[edit]

Because there is a lot of information fit into a compact lead and several sequential clauses, it seems like a helpful idea to include commas to clarify these differing clauses and ensure a clearer communication of the content. Do you have a compelling reason for removing them? The WP:COMMA guideline doesn't favor either, but simply instructs us to use whichever is more clear while remaining consistent. User:K999 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a journalist and publicist, so I use AP Stylebook, not MLA. AP is the standard across the internet for journalism. In my personal view, it's better, and Oxford commas are archaic and pretentious, but that's not relevant. What is relevant is that WP:COMMA does indeed favor consistency, and on Wikipedia, is is generally considered that if there are competing styles that are both valid, you stick with what the article began with. Your use of Oxfords renders the dozens of other usages in the article inconsistent, so you should therefore respect the article's prior style and keep it consistent. If newspapers and news sites can manage phrasing and clauses without Oxfords, i think it's reasonable to assume you can as well.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Greg Fasolino, question about the removal of multipled wikipedia links in the article: is that a wikipedia guideline—only one link per thing per page—or just a case-by-case decision? I assumed subjects in the body of the article that may only have been mentioned briefly in the lead warranted another link in a more informational context. I'm thinking specifically about those discussed in the body without links, due to their being mentioned in the lead—that seemed a bit lacking to me. Just wondering. Perhaps it'd be better to remove the specifics from the lead? etc. User:K999 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, they should be used sparingly and mostly that means once per article. Many editors here don't count the lead in that. I do but I recognize others do not, so if you want to add back a second link for the items in the lead, I will not revert it. They definitely should not be linked twice in the body, though (as a number of these I culled down were). Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)