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)


User:ilovetopaint—re: all the annoying little [incomplete short citation] type notes you keep adding...would you mind simply helping to correct them rather than littering the page with those notifications and then leaving it be? You're obviously more concerned with the technical aspects of Wiki, so I'd assume you know how to do that, and it'd be a help.

More generally, I wonder if your time might be more appropriately spent doing constructive additions to pages you've stripped rather than quibbling over citation etiquette on otherwise solid pages like this one. I mean, it's been several months since you completely stripped the experimental rock page because much of it was unsourced (despite the fact that much of the info was basically germane, useful, and could likely have been backed up by sources had the time been taken), and then you predictably built up the 1960-70s section while leaving everything from the 1980s to the present day blank! I understand you're obsessive about adhering to Wikipedia source guidelines (to the detriment of its use as an information source, might I suggest, such that the pages you edit heavily tend to read more like college research papers than encyclopedias, with subtle narratives and unifying themes running through them that have more to do with your interpretation than the topics objectively would suggest—the art pop page is an exception, largely because of my persistence in balancing things out), but you seem to be forgetting that Wiki is an info source that is actually used by people to learn about things, and such editing habits skew things toward the editors' tastes while giving readers an entirely inaccurate picture of the given topic. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous Reynolds books in the bibliography; only you know which citation which is referring to. To use your words: "you seem to be forgetting that Wiki is an info source that is actually used by people to learn about things"; I'm sure some people would like to know where exactly Reynolds made these claims. I'm not particularly one of them, but since you sometimes combine material to advance a position (WP:SYNTH), I'm curious to see how much of this article actually checks out with the sources. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The pages are typically cited in those "incomplete citations" (and besides, the book is partially available on Google Books), so I'm not sure why it'd be difficult to fix these. Not sure what "only you know which citation which is referring to" has to do with anything, as I've in most cases cited the pages.

re: experimental rock

  • If you think there were significant developments in "experimental rock" or "avant-rock" since the 1970s, then what were they? I recall giving you Bill Martin's Avant-Rock book. Could you not find anything yourself? I skimmed through it and found virtually nothing.
Is this some sort of joke, User:ilovetopaint? A whole half of the book—from page 107 onwards, beginning with the chapter "The transition to post-rock," is about developments of the post-1970s (and touches on virtually every "style" from the original, unsourced version of the experimental rock page): no wave, alt-indie scenes, noise music, post-rock, math rock, incredibly obvious bands like Sonic Youth (who are on the cover!), Radiohead, and Stereolab, plus sections on whole swathes of black music you've entirely ignored—P-Funk, Fela Kuti, DJ culture. On top of that, much of its writing on the 1970s has nothing to do with progressive rock, which you've used as the title for the entire 1970s section of the page (by the way, the prog rock page is littered with citational problems, maybe get on that too)—his writing on the post-punk/new wave stuff, and an entire chapter devoted to Eno, are again completely screened out of this article. It's a book called "Avant-Rock" and somehow you've left out the majority of its contents. Convenient. Of course, we can be sure there's an entire paragraph devoted to Zappa.
Here's some more incredibly obvious bits on post-rock as experimental rock—something concrete you can get started on
Here are some other sources with plenty of relevant connections and information...just a google away.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not particularly willing to take the time to make these additions, and for that reason I didn't take it upon myself to do the deleting in the first place, as you did. So it looks like you have some reading to do.
Martin goes through a laundry list of artists and scenes, but from what I remember, I couldn't find a single thing worth noting about them with regards to the broader subject. What aspects of avant/experimental rock did people like Haino, Faust, Sonic Youth, Fela Kuti, Radiohead, P-Funk pioneer or promulgate? Were they introducing new developments to experimental rock? Or were they just incorporating experimentalism into their individual brands of noise rock, krautrock, indie rock, afrobeat, alt-rock, and p-funk? Because if it's the latter...????
This is my modus operandi:
Martin: "The Velvet Underground's groundbreaking Experimental Rock music became a part of every rock band who followed in their wake, and they remain one of the most important forefathers of the Experimental Rock genre."
Me: "Wow, that sounds pretty important to Experimental Rock!"
Martin: "Sonic Youth played experimental rock 25 years after all of the genre's principles were established by its most internationally spread, culturally significant acts. Sonic Youth were part of the alt-indie scene."
Me: "...Okay? Anything else?"
Maybe there is something a little more substantial in that MTO source. Thanks for that.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I've problems with your notions of "significance". First: Were they introducing new developments to experimental rock? It's a page about experimental rock, not "the origins and essential innovations of experimental rock"—being significant to the topic is not equivalent to being significant to the development or inception of the genre. Arguably, Sonic Youth and Radiohead did nothing conceptually new or innovative, but they've nonetheless defined "experimental rock" for the last 3 decades, and clearly aren't treated by writers as simple repetitions of the VU or Zappa or is this not significant enough for explication in the article? Second: Or were they just incorporating experimentalism into their individual brands of noise rock, krautrock... again, a book called Avant-Rock spends half its length talking about these things, why would they not be significant to the topic? Those styles are clearly seen as subsections of "experimental rock" in other sources, and their in-depth inclusion in Martin's book communicates the same. Third: you didn't really engage with the fact that "post-rock" and "krautrock" are both explicitly and implicitly described by sources as distinct sectors (stylistically, historically, regionally) of experimental rock yet are basically absent from the article—one sentence each, no further explanations of examples, no inclusion of significant artists or works, etc. Fourth: Meanwhile, "progressive rock" isn't convincingly equated with experimental rock anywhere in the article—there's a vague temporal relation and some vague associations (no less vague than the connections I'd have you make to the other genres discussed here) and yet it's used as the title to the article's largest section and "post-progressive" takes up the majority of the 1980s-present section because....well, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure why either of these sentences are in the article—what do they have to do directly with "experimental rock"?:

Martin believes: "almost everything that is interesting and creative in rock music that comes after about 1970 is influenced one way or another by progressive rock".[29] Specific influences on rock musicians were: improvement in musicianship, broad eclecticism, utopianism, romanticism, and a commitment to experimentation.[29]

According to Paul Hegarty and Martin Halliwell: "Post-progressive identifies progressive rock that stems from sources other than progressive rock.

You're demanding a picture of "significance" which basically amounts to "did they create it? no? can it be related to progressive music? no? then who cares? I don't! Next. "GentleCollapse16 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I really want to emphasize this point: being significant to the topic is not equivalent to being significant to the development or inception of the genre. Either the history section of the article becomes a proper history, which includes equal attention to any given decade's big players or significant scenes (irrespective of whether a critic thinks they invented the wheel or not, and clearly most of the acts listed in the book have been associated with the term and garnered plenty of critical ink regardless), or it gets turned into an "origins" section and drops the pretense of history altogether. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "... with subtle narratives and unifying themes running through them that have more to do with your interpretation than the topics objectively would suggest"
    Basically every Wikipedia article ever, including this one. Which isn't a bad thing, as long as you aren't allocating a disproportionate amount of space to authors who aren't actually discussing the main topic (SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition).
  • Checking what Experimental rock used to look like, I can see why you are perturbed. 90% of it consisted of namedropping people like Keiji Haino, Swans, Acid Mothers Temple, Sigur Ros, et al, and most of it looked like an adaptation of some 20-year-old kid's Wordpress blog. lol. When I go to Wikipedia, I don't want to read what some kid has to say. Even if it's true, I really don't care. I want to know what published writers say about it. And it's more likely that somebody will publish something new and substantial on the topic when there isn't already a comprehensive Wikipedia article on it.
Our difference is between my pragmatism—Wikipedia is a scruffy knowledge source (not a professional academic encyclopedia), far from perfect, which normal people use to get a basic handle on subjects—and your idealism: Wikipedia must become a perfect reflection of professional sources (won't even go into how arbitrary being "published" is), and if it's not perfect is must go, to hell with people who just want a useful, general idea about a subject. If you're so interested in citational integrity, perhaps go get a real job at an encyclopedia, because unfortunately Wikipedia isn't getting 100% cited by credible sources any time soon. Better to help build and reinforce knowledge than delete all of it and content yourself with what you felt like adding.
Wikipedia is not anybody's research blog or artist-recommendations list. It is an aggregation of professional sources presented as an accessible, pocket encyclopedia. The only thing I can ask you to do is provide high-quality sources without misleading the reader (that includes myself) or injecting unreasonable "narratives" (as you've called it).
No one's suggested as much. Once again, Martin's book (which remains the most explicit/lengthy source on "avant-rock" we have right now) spends half its time on a supposed "laundry list" which you've dismissed on the grounds that their contents don't seem significant to the fundamental developments of the genre (again, why "developments" is your litmus test is beyond me).GentleCollapse16 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone really wants to learn about a subject, they will go beyond Wikipedia. This is not the only information resource on the internet.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I can demonstrate with Sunshine pop. Shortly after I nuked most of it and added some sources, somebody actually wrote about it for once, and I was finally able to add new info that I wanted in the article. This is how we improve coverage.
So you fancy yourself an information activist, ensuring that subjects get coverage so long as they're absent from Wikipedia, eh? Dear me.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • College research paper? I can only guess that you're referring to WP:INTEXT. If so, I would like to see how you'd paraphrase a sentence like "the Velvet Underground were a groundbreaking group" in objective terms.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)