Talk:List of new wave artists

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indexes

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles

There is no consensus for whether early alternative rock or post-punk are subgenres of new wave and thus whether acts associated with these genres belong on this list. There is also no consensus if first-wave punk rock acts circa 1976–1978 belong on this list nor sourcing criteria and level of notoriety needed for list inclusion. - See talk pages

More Additions

Is there a reason, Depeche Mode, and Erasure are not here? did i miss something? added them. Negative1 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC) I tried to add Boys Brigade, The Box, 8 Seconds, Handsome Furs, and U2 last night, with references to wikipedia itself, but someone deleted them anyway. I would appreciate serious consideration of these music acts for insertion in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7063:1400:3D8A:6BA:697:F328 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting names

I am sorry but I really have to do this. Arcadia, B.A.D. and some others are gone from this list: they were NOT in the new Wave scene, simply because they all started in or after 1984, which is the year the New Wave movement unanimously and finally vapourized, having endured at least 2 years of disbanding already. In the case of Arcadia, furthermore, it's even silly to name them as a separate entity from Duran (which, incidentally, WERE righteously New Wave). -Max, Italy.

PLEASE ADD COWBOYS INTERNATIONAL. THEY ARE DEFINITELY NEW WAVE. STEVE-LOS ANGELES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.53.19 (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U2

hi.. just wondering if most people consider 80's U2 as New Wave? I was kind of thrown off by not seeing U2 on the list.. seems like a song like 'New Year's Day' is classic New Wave. (I posted this some time months ago.. just made an account today. --Pulseczar 16:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

U2 is post-punk, not New Wave. The genres overlap a bit, so there's some confusion for those unfamiliar with the terms. WesleyDodds 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U2 of course should be on the list, they had pure new wave albums (e.g. War and Unforgettable Fire, maybe even Zooropa can be considered also new wave). I added them under U... But J.M.Jarre shouldn't be under new wave, he is - New AGE (like Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schultze, Kitaro, Vangelis, Mark Shrieve etc.) It's however not New WAVE, althought new wave was mostly synth-based (electronic), as we know. ---Sorry, no, JM Jarre was NOT new age , as NA initiated in the late 1980s when Jarre was already at the end of his heyday. He, like the others you mentioned BUT Kitaro, properly belongs to Elecronic Music.

The thing is that New Wave is best described as a era than as a genre or movement. It spanned different genres: synthpop, rock, ska, reggae, EBM, R&B you name it. It spanned different movements: late punk / early Goth, new romantic, art rock. U2 were New Wave era whose genre was pretty standard rock (rather rare at the time). Tangerine Dream belong there as well because they were part of the era, their genre was "cosmic rock" a variation on progressive rock. The early Goth bands, Siouxsie & The Banshees, Bauhaus, The Sisters of Mercy should also be listed they were New Wave era and had basically the same general fan base initially as the rest of New Wave. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, does anyone know how to make columns? (like here on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Classical_era_composers). Maybe having columns would be a good idea. I actually like this classification under letter groups, just much better would be with columns by my opinion.

greetings, Ndru01

At the time U2 was definitely regarded as New Wave with songs as "I Will Follow", "New Years Day", and everything from the "The Unforgetable Fire" album. I was a DJ at the time and played them side by side with Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet. Never heard them being referred to as Post punk, have to say --Bigar 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were certainly referred to as post-punk at the time, and the Simon Reynolds book Rip it Up and Start Again, among other sources, certainly classify them as post-punk. The main issue is that "post-punk" was predominantly used in Britain and only now has come into regular use in America when discussing genres. But yes, U2 is post-punk, not New Wave. WesleyDodds 10:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember U2 was considered New Wave in the early to mid 80's, so was REM for that matter. They were considered the more rock oriented side of the New Wave spectrum(not all New Wave was synth based) along with groups like The Alarm, The Call, Big Country, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.129.187 (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that also. And the Smiths were the same way. But now the Smiths and REM are considered by most sourcing as a reaction against the synthpop domination and thus the beginning of alternative rock. Alternative/College Rock was another name for New Wave and/or a wing of it, now New Wave part of "Classic Alternative". Go figure. Edkollin (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reply that U2 were NOT considered a New Wave band back in the day; I was there, I can vouch for that, but reading your replies, I can let that go; maybe in some circles they were. However, back where I came from, they were well-respected, yes, but new wave? no sir. For us, they were WAY too rock and WAY too un-fashionably attired. Remember that New Wave was strongly connected with looks. I have to disagree with both REM and Smihs, tho': REM were at first associated with lefty, social-conscious movements (and those had very little in common with NW); further, they were Americans, and NW was mostly an European thing associated with British acts (I am not talking out of country pride- I'm Italian): American New Wave is TOTALLY another thing and the fan base was hugely different. In the case of the Smiths, they were just too late for New Wave. The initiated around late 1984, when NW was already disintegrated.

Bunnymen/Julian Cope/Jesus and Mary Chain

Why should these acts not be classified as New Wave? The Bunnymen started off as post-punk, but even if you don't consider post-punk to be a sub-genre of New Wave, their mid-80s material had definitely moved away from the original post-punk sound. And if Julian Cope isn't New Wave then it makes no sense to include The Teardrop Explodes in the list- they were post-punk, much like the Bunnymen, Cope's solo stuff moved away from that and was unmistakably New Wave.

And if the Jesus and Mary Chain aren't New Wave... then what the heck are they? I'm not trying to start an argument, I just don't see why these artists should not be included in the list, so I'm adding them back until someone can present a convincing counter-argument. User:Mosquitor

While Cope and the Bunnymen are arguable, the Mary Chain are definitely not New Wave. The buzzsaw wall of distortion they employed on their early releases has nothing to do with the genre, and they emerged from the British indie scene which really had nothing to do with and was opposed to New Wave. They're an alternative rock band. WesleyDodds 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept your points about the Jesus and Mary Chain; it may be necessary to include links on the page to genres such as alternative rock and indie rock which can be easily confused with New Wave. Though provided that the Bunnymen and Julian Cope are cited frequently in articles about New Wave music, I feel it is at least necessary that these two acts remain listed here. Mosquitor 11:14, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

The Bunnymen are an interesting situation. Certainly they were post-punk, but their later material is comparable to R.E.M., which is what gets them classified as alternative rock as well. I don't see too many people calling them New Wave nowadays, although people who listened to the genre in the 80s probably considered them as such even if they weren't technically part of the genre. I mena, they were on a few John Hughes soundtracks.

I really don't see New Wave becoming confused with alt-rock too often, unless we're talking about shoddly-compiled 80's alternative comps or "classic alternative" radio stations that play Nirvana next to Oingo Boingo (there's a reason for this, but that's a story for another time). New Wave is more confused with post-punk, since they existed at the same time and unless you were paying attention they could be confused as being the same thing. WesleyDodds 02:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it New Wave was exactly that: A wave that swept over the musical landscape and merged many genres, including the much cited Post-Punk. I don't get all these little sub divisions that are made. U2: New Wave - yes, Echo and the Bunnymen - yes, Jesus and the Mary Chain - No, they're more related to (hard) rock than to New Wave. --Bigar 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah , very loose-y i agree with u2 and echo and the bunnymen(mainly because their sound are not fixed between one genre, really).but jesus and mary chain(or smiths) no, that was already another thing(not "post-punk" too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.251.221 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Live Aid , confusion about them bieng New Wave ended. They are in my view are best described as Classic Rock for their bombastic sound, rock god persona, filling stadiums etc. Edkollin (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even believe there's a debate about Echo and the Bunnymen. They were definitely New Wave after their first couple of albums, and even their early, darker material isn't that far removed from New Wave (if you're of the mindset that it's more of an umbrella term for music styles born early on in the wake of punk, mixed with other influences, than it is a style or a sound). I definitely see them categorized as New Wave quite often where they're also categorized as anything else. JAMC have a somewhat New Wave vibe on their less noisy 80s songs, but it probably isn't fitting as their genre(though they're not "totally opposite" to the genre the way have insisted, and certainly aren't part of hard rock music by any means). Teardrop Explodes was equal parts Post-punk/New Wave, Julian Cope solo was probably more straight Alternative/Indie Rock, with New Wave influences early on. U2 is equal parts Post-punk/New Wave to me on their first few albums, but again, it's my impression that the genres aren't really that opposed, outside of more aggressive goth rock music, or more heavily punk-leaning, experimental rock bands (mostly American: Big Black, Flipper, Sonic Youth, Minutemen, Wipers-all of whom are arguably more alternative rock anyway). Theburning25 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is ALWAYS a debate about what New Wave is. Or as the main New Wave Music article states "The term "New Wave" itself has been a source of much confusion and controversy." Edkollin (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean literally that debating shouldn't be an option, I guess I was just exaggerating to make my point regarding Echo & the Bunnymen's usually heavily confirmed New Wave status. But it's true, New Wave is a confusing/controversial enough term that debate can be generated regarding almost any artist...I guess I was just surprised to see E&tB debated in a similar vein alongside JAMC. Theburning25 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Smiths

Considerd new wave back then, alt/rock now worth a mention IMO blu_sonic

They seem to only considered New Wave in America, possibly because New Wave stations like KROQ would play them. But even at the time, they were a reaction to New Wave, most notably in that they focused on guitar-driven music instead of synths (yes, I know New Wave isn't exclusively synth-driven, but that was the feeling at the time). WesleyDodds 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REM, Violent Femmes, same deal Edkollin (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, anyone who thought that New Wave music was exclusively synth-driven simply wasn't very intelligent. I mean that's gotta be one of the WORST music misunderstandings ever. There were LOADS of late 70s and early 80s guitar-driven power pop and college rock bands that were categorized under New Wave at the time, and who continue to be. A band like the Smiths, whether "opposed" to New Wave or not, arguably happened in the first place BECAUSE of the New Wave/Post-punk movement (which alongside punk spawned the indie/alternative rock movement). Maybe it isn't their genre, but the genre is an influence on them and other bands like them for sure. Theburning25 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave hits

Do we really need to list certain bands' best-known songs? WesleyDodds 06:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping there would be a colberation to fill the hit songs of each band/singer - such as it has already been done to the disco hit songs.--Acidburn24m 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion this would be done better by starting a separate article for key songs of the New Wave scene, listed by artist. Mosquitor 22.57, 21 June 2006 (GMT)

I can see where the listing of songs works for the list of disco artists, since you have a number of artists simply dabbling in the style for a single or two, but I don't think it's really necessary for this page. Actually, I don't think it's necessary at all, but that's what I see. WesleyDodds 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquitor is right - in my opinion this might be done even better by creating a separate article for key songs of the New Wave scene, listed by artist. are there any more people in favor of this idea? --Acidburn24m 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one objected I created a seprate article for Key songs of the New Wave scene. --Acidburn24m 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Wham! new wave?

I was just wondering, should Wham! be considered a new wave group? A lot of people think they were new wave. I notice on this list that Duran Duran and Culture Club are considered new wave, so it really seems that Wham! should be considered new wave as well, since all three groups had similar images and appealed to largely the same fans.

After discussing it with a few knowledgable people, I've come to the conclusion that Wham! can indeed be classified as new wave. So if no one objects, I'm going to add them to the list.

RE: Wham! was considered a Pop group of the 80's, not so much New Wave. The New Wave sound was noted for having a very unique sound that wasn't as mainstream as the Pop sound of Wham! and Duran Duran. Although some of their songs were borderline, if you listen to songs like "Words" by Missing Persons or "Sex (I'm a..) and "Riding on the Metro" by Berlin you will hear the distinctive difference in the musical sound that New Wave was known for, although some may say that these groups were a little more punk, they were at one point shared the New Wave sound. Other notable groups that you could refer to would be OMD and New Order. They were mid 80's New Wave around 1985. [User: seattlegirl1971, May 24, 2008]

Is Nirvana New Wave?

I know that including them might seem odd because they don't really sound like any other New Wave bands, but Nirvana said themselves that they were a New Wave band. Just wondering what others thought.

SavagePine 11:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard them described this way. Their notable for exploding the popularity of grunge rock. Edkollin (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many early grunge bands considered themselves a form of new wave, Nirvana did too. However someone coined the term grunge to distinguish the sounds and the genres have been split ever since. Even though Cobain himself hated the term "Grunge" and wore a tee shirt that said "Grunge is Dead" Nirvana is a Grunge band. I don't feel they should be considered a New Wave band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.90.77 (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting if you could find citations for early grunge acts considering themselves a form of New Wave. I have found these two NYT articles from the era describing some of The Pixies work as "New Wave" [1][2] Edkollin (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it came out in the 80's doesn't mean it was New Wave

There are a LOT of bands on the list that just don't belong. For example, Kim Wilde was actually on the list and she was a pop singer. I am cleaning up the list a bit but it is going to need a lot of work.Crescentia 05:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As a syth driven musician with heavy MTV rotation Kim Wilde was described as such and with fit the US definition Edkollin (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2009

(UTC) Kim Wilde's "Kids In America" is a New Wave anthem and has a definitive synth-pop sound. "Cheqeured Love" while not as popular, is also the same. It makes no difference in New Wave if an artist made the Top 40 or was only played on college stations or clubs, the New Wave genre spanned the whole gamut of popularity and "success". If anything, New Wave was a extremely ecclectic movement. I think a lot of people nowadays are under the impression that New Wave was all a dark, underground, indie thing. It wasn't. It could be as pop-as-you please, or not.

Proposal for list title change

I propose changing the name of the list from List of New Wave Bands and Artists to List of New Wave Bands and Artists (U.S. Definition) . There U.S. definition section in the main article. A lot a the bands here would fit under that broad definition but not under the tighter definition described in the summary section Edkollin 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not change title but did rewrite description to explain this Edkollin (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jackson, New Wave?

I don't ever remembering Joe Jackson performing anything that would be considered New Wave music. Is he really accurate for this category? [seattlegirl1971, May 24, 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlegirl1971 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a number of sources that described the 1979 version of him as New Wave Edkollin (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from the late 1970's to the mid 1980's his music falls under New Wave, one example is his 1982 hit 'Steppin' Out'. Hiddenstranger (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop removing bands just because you don't agree !

Hello everyone !

I've noticed that some people kept removing some bands' names from the list on the mere grounds that THEY didn't feel those bands should make part of it and I've had to add Joy Division for the third time just now. About this particular instance, I would just like to say that wherever you'll be looking for information about the band, they'll be referred to as "Post-punk" (at least) which is the basis of "New Wave" and ever so often as New Wave. Even in the Wiki article about New Wave music, they're described as pioneers of the genre. I use this list as a professionnal tool (I'm a DJ specialized in music from the eighties and New Wave music in particular) and I expect it to reflect the huge variety of movements that the New Wave movement would cover so I can discover new bands and expand my set lists with underrated or forgotten acts. For this reason, I've never removed bands which I thought had nothing to do in the list (Baltimora, for example or The Clash or The Smiths or Modern Talking...) and I think that unless they're bands which REALLY have nothing to do with the New Wave era and spirit (The Nirvana debate), they should not be removed from the list just because you're in the mood of doing so. I guess some people want to use this list for research too and they're clever enough to decide whether this band or another fits their description of New Wave music or not. Please don't mess with other people's contributions when they make sense.

Thank you very much!

CouchJarvis (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say if it's based on tastes or opinons, but I have removed a couple bands basing my decision on time issues: some bands in the list just were way too late for falling into the greater New Wave genre, even if we culd stretch it! I think that we all agree NW was dissolved by the end of 1984, and some of the bands I removed weren't even on the map come 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.189.226.172 (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we think New Wave "desovled" is irrelevent only what reliable sources say counts as far as ANY Wikipedia article is concerned. When New Wave "disolved" the most common year I have seen by US reliable sources is 1986 but it is all over the map. I have seen Pet Shop Boys who started in '86 labled New Wave (that designation would be laughed at in the UK) as well as When in Rome's "The Promise" from 1988. This confusion makes it hell to edit this article. Edkollin (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

This section is for discussion of the proposal to convert the list in this article to a category. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, the article doesn't have any advantage over a category, so I'd support the conversion into a category. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what advantage would there be to making it a category? They have some disadvantages, in my opinion: it's a little more awkward to add an entry, and it requires that every entry in the list have it's own wikipedia page. -- Doom (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that didn't come out of the 80's means that it can't be New Wave, only Nu New Wave

Let's discuss this point. So far, I will remove any band that didn't start in the 70's or 80's from this list, ok? Skraelinger 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now dispute the CLEAR summary on top describing this list as late 1970's and 1980's editors insist on adding 21st century acts and I keep on removing them. If you want these acts in this list PLEASE come to a consensus for doing so. If a consensus is reached I would be happy to abide by it. However I would disagree with it. I think post 1980's post punk revival or new new wave acts should have their own separate list. This list is overly inclusive as is. Edkollin (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For once, Edkollin, we seem to agree on some point with no arguments needed : I also think the list should exclusively focuss on bands and artists from the actual New Wave era and that the other ones should have their own New Wave Revival or Nu new Wave Bands list. CouchJarvis (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stranglers and other first wave punk acts and the "New Wave" label in reliable sourcing

If you look at allmusic and many British reliable sources you will see the words "New Wave" listed under styles for first wave punk groups like The Sex Pistols, The Ramones and The Stranglers. The main reason for this as noted in the main article is that for a period of time the two terms were considered synonymous. This has not been the case for the most part since 1978. There were groups like Blondie and The Talking Heads that were known as punk at first and then became primarily known as New Wave later on. There are groups like like first wave punk groups like The Clash and The Stranglers that arguably had significant New Wave periods later on.

Until now first wave punk groups like the Sex Pistols and The Ramomes have not been added to this list. Like Post 1980's acts we should not start adding groups primarily associated with first wave punk unless a consensus develops to do so.

Another reason an act in allmusic may have "New Wave" listed is because a group had a song or an album that had a new wave influence. Unless a group was primarily New Wave or at least a significant part of the groups history (meaning not just releasing New Wave material but having some sort of impact with it) it should not go on this list. Laugh all you want, but when the most recent Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus albums came out they had positive reviews and their new wave influence was noted by several reviewers in reliable publications. Do they belong on a New Wave or a New Wave revival list?

As for the Stranglers you may find material because although primarily known as as first wave act they were far from a by the book punk rock act. The words "New Wave" are never written in the Stranglers allmusic bio article so I can't see that as a reference. The BBC material I looked at talked about the being part of the "New Wave Explosion" which seems to be referring to the punk rock music explosion in Great Britain of 1976-1977. Edkollin (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry edkollin, but I just can't agree with you on that matter. First, as far as allmusic is concerned, they clearly show that The Stranglers illustrated themselves in "Punk/New Wave" (which is what you're telling us, right now) but also as plain "New Wave" (look inside the "Styles" section.) I'm sorry but as I told you in private mails, you can't use allmusic as a reference to remove bands from the list (like you did, with "Double", on October 11th 2009) counting on the website's notability to give no further explanation about your motivations and then not accept that some people will use the same references to include bands into the list. Whether you agree or not with The Stranglers being New Wave, you can't tell me that you're not concerned "with what is true but what is verifiable" or of the importance of using reliable sources "even if [you, yourself] don't always agree with them" and then remove a band just because you have a theory that the usually unquestionable, undisputable references you use don't exactly mean what they write seems to imply (and both allmusic and NME are references you repeatedly directed me to.)

As for the "significant part of the group's history" theory, I'm sorry but many artists are not exclusively New Wave in this list(or not at all, if you ask me) : Robert Palmer, The Clash, The Smiths, Alice Cooper, Modern Talking, The Jesus and Mary Chain...are numerous examples of it. But anyway, if "at some point in their career" (as stated by the article's opening text) they were New Wave, as acknowledged by several critics, you can't remove The Stranglers and let those other acts be. Without saying that from 1983 to 1990, The Stranglers have produced several real acknowledged New Wave tunes (from "European Female" to "96 tears", from "Big in America" to "Always the Sun", etc, etc...) Just like Echo and the Bunnymen or Devo, you can start as a post-punk band and start developing a New Wave sound. And seven years is a significant enough part of a group's history to me.

As for The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus, well, they sure are not my cup of tea but I think the argument doesn't belong in this debate because most "revival bands and artists" (The Killers, Ladytron, No Doubt...) are automatically removed from the list anyway. If they had to be included into the list because the reputable references we use described them as such and revival bands were accepted, I guess I'd make my possible to avoid seeing it but I would let them be a part of the list : after all, Modern Talking has been a part of the list, and I think they suck and their sound is closer to "Living in a Box" than New Wave but it's never stopped me from sleeping at night.

So, I suggest a consensus, here : should The Stranglers be removed from the list or not ? But, for once, edkollin, I'd like them to remain a part of the list until other people have joined the debate and told us what they think about the topic and not see it automatically removed by you because I'd like to think this page is not exclusively yours (even though I respect your culture about this precise field and probable pure intentions for genuineness.) CouchJarvis (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus is very relevant to the point I am making but if you insist on sticking to era in question would you put The Clash in a a rap artists list?. After all they a couple of hip hop hits off of the Sandinista album. Do Billy Joel and Linda Ronstadt belong on this list because they had New Wave styled albums?The Death of New Wave Theo Cateforis Assistant Professor of Music History and Cultures in the Department of Art and Music Histories at Syracuse University 2009.

"I'm sorry but many artists are not exclusively New Wave in this list(or not at all, if you ask me) : Robert Palmer, The Clash, The Smiths, Alice Cooper, Modern Talking, The Jesus and Mary Chain...are numerous examples of it". I agree for the most part they should not be on list and if you want to delete them go ahead. Probably 50% of the acts on list do not belong. In our personal discussions we mentioned lack of time due to out real lives. This means prioritization. If something has been on here a long time be it an individual group or alternative acts in general by Wikipedia policy it is defacto consensus. Putting in a new wrinkle such as a first wave punk band if left unchallenged creates a new defacto consensus. That is what I am attempting to prevent be it first wave punk or fansites being acceptable citations.

With allmusic I will try to explain this one more time. If "New Wave" is listed as a style it does not necessarily mean that allmusic agrees that the group is primarily a New Wave act. They may be think the group has a new wave influence or put out a new wave album or in the case of first wave punk acts since first wave punk rock acts were widely described as New Wave in 1976 and 1977 they are acknowledging this. I do not use allmusic a cite just because they list a group as New Wave in the styles section. They have to describe an act as New Wave IN THE ARTICLE or at least describe and act as as a major subgenre of New Wave such as synthpop in the article before I will use it as a source.

The NME article uses the Wikipedia article as a source. Using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed.

According to Wikipedia policy I have a right to delete anything in Wikipedia because of lack of citations. I have not deleted some that deserve to because of the prioritization, existing defacto consensus and just trying to bend over backwards. It is up to the person who wants to add material to find the proof not me.

Every day there are new additions by differing editors some good most questionable. For the most part (not you) requests for consensus have gone unanswered, requests to slow down (you) have gone unanswered. Right now I am beginning to come to two conclusions. They are my guesses so take them with the proverbial grain of salt. One is that I am being taken advantage of. Two that the defeacto consensus for almost anything goes is the partially a result of editors becoming so frustrated they just gave up Edkollin (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, adding new material to a section/article or whatever that is in discussion/dispute may create a fait accompli. While finding a one reliable source for a group is a great start it does not AUTOMATICALLY mean the group belongs on the list. Edkollin (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, edkollin : many tricky issues in all of this. I guess this is all a matter of subjectivity : you don't consider acts such as The Stranglers are relevant enough as far as New Wave is concerned to be part of the list. You have your reasons for this and, to some extent, I understand them. Then again, I consider they do belong here : I have my reasons for this too (every time I've typed the stranglers new wave in the google search bar, I've come across numerous sites claiming they were a punk band that went new wave) and, to some extent, I think they're valuable.

Your question about The Clash, Billy Joel and Linda Ronstadt is interesting and after reading the very good article you put the link of, I'd like to answer. If I don't feel worthy of stating a position as to the presence of The Clash in a rap list (simply because my knowledge of and interest in rap music and its codes are "limited"), I consider that Billy Joel's and Linda Ronstadt's presence in the list would not be such a bad or stupid idea. After all, I asked you about your opinion when it came to Robert Palmer and we both agreed about it. Palmer is made mention of in the article you linked and compared to Joel and Rondstadt. So, why shouldn't they ? Of course, the best thing would be to precise WHEN they made New Wave music. What I mean is artists like them have had a New Wave period. Should Michael Jackson or Kool and the Gand be included in the list, there would be no debate : they simply never ever were considered new wave but Billy Joel has sometimes been considered a new wave artist (like Pat Benatar, for instance.) Why shouldn't they be mentionned when artists like Robert Palmer or Joe Jackson, for example, whose legitimacy as New Wave artists is often disputed (not by me) could be listed here ? I just feel this list should not stick to a strict definition of a certain kind of New Wave but really reflect the huge variety of genres, sounds and bands that the New Wave genre encompassed as considered by a majority of people.

The consensus is the only valid and "democratic" solution for this kind of matter, I reckon. Unfortunately, just like you pointed out, not many editors seem to feel concerned with it (I'm not blaming them, let it be written down and remembered). So, what I suggest for bands that generate energy-wasting debates (The Stranglers, The Jesus and Mary Chain...) is to add a text close to their names highlighting their tendency to be sources of disagreement between editors (as you did for The Stranglers) and see if anyone - apart from us - reacts : should they react and bring arguments to the debate, we'll just submit to the majority's opinion, shouldn't they, maybe we (You and I, that is) should have a special list created for those bands with a link to it created on this page (something like "Bands associated with New Wave whose presence in the New Wave bands and artists list has already nearly brought some editors to the point of nuclear world war..." Just joking ! ^^ A catchier, more convenient title would be great !) Simply, there would be two lists : one with bands/artists whose belonging to the New Wave movement is irrefutable and a b-list with bands/artists whose belonging to the New Wave movement is regularly pointed out but disputed.

Last but not least, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not taking advantage of you or disrespecting you in any way: you're a fierce opponent and there are things I reproach to you (as you do me) but I kind of respect you and your passion for the musical genre. Music is a form of art, tastes in art go along with subjectivity, subjectivity with vehemence which often leads to endless battles... Our bad!!! I guess we're kind of similar at the end of the day. So, let's try and work together rather than fight each other and find solutions that we'll both find satisfying. Alright by you ? CouchJarvis (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me make one thing clear. Whether I agree that an artist belongs on this list has nothing to with my personal feelings about weather they are "New Wave" but is about sourcing and following Wikipidia policies. My Personal Point of view about The Stranglers is they are kind of New Wave (experimental punk? and all that).

While disrespect was kind of a strong word what I have seen here and elsewhere where I or another editor give an inch and they have taken a mile. In the end it not about disrespecting me so much but disrespecting the whole project. Wikipedia policy is set up to be cautious. And that means to prevent 20 questionable groups from being on the list sometimes one very deserving group can not be on. What we have here is that everybody's personal group is listed and that is not what it is supposed be. And that is because we all have let it happen (too busy, don't care or whatever) We have blogs for personal opinion, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia

Good suggestions. I would add If we absouloutly have to add a new act we must cite it

Speaking of subjective, check out the cites I added today in the Is Nirvana New Wave? discussion Edkollin (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. ;-) Funny, you should find these articles about The Pixies because I've always felt their sound had something "New Wavish" to it (in the way The Smith's sound also does, if you know what I mean.) Nevertheless, Nirvana being new wave really seems far-fetched to me and I just can't understand how (then again, Cuddly Toys have been described as being new wave everywhere I've looked and I've always thought they sounded much more "glam rock") So...

As for The Stranglers, I'm taking a look at my own copy of Guinness British Hit singles (12th edition) and they're described as the"Most commercially successful an long-lasting group to emerge from the punk/new wave scene." In opposition, The Clash, here, are said to be the "Leading lights of the punk-rock explosion". So, this is why I feel compelled to have them be a part of the list : this continuous mention of "new wave" when it comes to them.

Anyway, glad you liked the suggestions. ^^CouchJarvis (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as that "punk/new wave" scene that as I've said tends to describe first wave punk. As for The Clash my own POV even though they are the second most important first wave punk band behind The Sex Pistols their hugely successful albums "London Calling" and "Combat Rock" were "New Wave" and were a "significant" part of their career Edkollin (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, an actual DEBATE on whether The Stranglers are New Wave? I mean is this a joke? Because I don't see how it gets MORE New Wave than The Stranglers. What exactly is your argument, again? I'm only seeing, that they were "First Wave Punk". That's it? You really think that one negates the other, or something? Reread the main article. And also search some sources about the band, there exist of PLENTY examples calling them New Wave (yea I looked). The band played an "avant-garde" sort of interpretation of punk that caused many people to question their ties to the genre(punk, that is), so um, draw conclusions. This is silly to question.

And mentioning Miley Cyrus and the Jonas brothers? Wow, they're relevant to this topic all right, about as relevant as my foot is. I cannot figure what you're trying to accomplish around here. I'm seeing a bunch of pointless nitpicking..."New Wave is not a rock genre, it's just as bubblegum influenced"! "The Stranglers are not New Wave, they're too punk, The Jonas Brothers have as much of a claim as they do!" (Oh and their recent album reviews, contrary to what you say, were NOT very positive) Jeez, knock that off already. Bubblegum pop has NOTHING to do with New Wave. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really read the whole debate?. If you did you did not read between the lines. It is not about The Stranglers per se or Miley per se it is what should be included in this list. Right now if somebody thinks an act is New wave it is list eligible. I find it abhorrent apparently most editors here don't. I think the list should be reduced greatly but where does one draw the line?

Editors have used a a vague "New Wave" reference in an article to justify additions to the list. This is to inclusive in my apparently very minority view. I included Miley and The Jonas Brothers for these reasons. In my view they should be no way should they be on the list. Most editors would probably agree with that. Here's some reviews in reliable publications describing them as New Wave of some sort SO THE QUESTION IS RELEVEANT[3][4][5][6] If you take using somebody using a "New wave influence" mention as reason for list inclusion then it logically follows you must add Miley and Jonas Bro's. I am trying to show how ridiculous using some vague New Wave influence as a reason for article inclusion is.

Should Synthpop and New Romantic acts be on the list?. In the UK they are not considered New Wave in the US they are. Since the US is a big place and more importantly since reliable sources there do reference these acts as "New Wave" these acts should be on the list leaving the current note on top. Maybe the list can be split off into US and UK versions but this seems awkward.

What about 1980s Alternative/Indie acts?. The Smiths/Jesus and Mary Chain/Pixies etc. No way are they New Wave in the UK. In the US they are usually not. But it as shown above in the US these type acts have been described as New Wave in reliable publications and and they are bieng described that way more frequently in the last few years. I would say they should not be on list as most reliable sources describe these acts as not New wave and describe them as a significant break from New wave.

What about 1990s and the 2000s Post Punk Revival/New New Wave etc. Reliable sources disagree on whether it is a continuation of New Wave or a revival. Since this list is out of control adding another category is a bad idea but if a miracle occurs and this list gets under control may I might change my opinion.

What about first wave Punk acts like the Ramones and Sex Pistols? My view is no. New Wave and punk rock have were viewed as synonymous for two years and distinct genres for the last 31 years.

We can debate whether The Stranglers and others belong to a allowable category later. Without basic agreement on these and other questions and by not allowing comments all that will happen is an edit war over every addition and deletion as was happening here, and is happening on the Alternative Rock list. Edkollin (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as long as it may be sourced...

...Joy Division isn't New Wave. Why do I say this? Because there seems a contradiction between the page of the band (and its related album and songs articles, by which they were Post-Punk, not New Wave). Guess those terms have been (mistakenly) used interchangeably in the past and stuff, but this is nothing more than an error...

...and this is not only a Joy Division issue, there are Post-Punk bands that do not belong here, and have been called at times "New Wave" just cos of the erroneous exchange between the terms "Post-Punk" and "New Wave", examples include:

A Certain Ratio (another Factory Records band)
The Cure (kinda tough case anyway, they've never always been fully new wave... and they've never always been fully post-punk... or either. a sidenote should help with this)
The Comsat Angels
Eyeless in Gaza (could this one be removed since it's not sourced?)
Magazine (same as EIG)
Orange Juice (they actually were the inspiration of stuff like Franz Ferdinand during the last decade)
The Psychedelic Furs (first two albums, usually the most recognized ones, are not new wave, although from the third one they're considered as such. could use the same thing as the cure may do)
Suicide (Pre-dated punk by a little, part of what they call "synthpunk" too)
The Teardrop Explodes (Post-punk with neo-psychedelia... they were pretty much related with Echo and the Bunnymen too)
The Sound (No source as some cases above...)
Wah! (albeit sourced, same case as Teardrop Explodes)
Wire (One of the most influential Post-Punk/Art Punk groups, started off as Punk Rock, started evolving dramatically... ehm, no source either)

I'm pretty sure I might be missing something, but I'm too tired to tell... --186.87.18.30 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Alt Rock/College Rock and Synthpop/New Romantic acts that people don't consider new wave listed also. Until a consensus is reached to delete a certain category of artists as a group I feel it is foolish to go act by act trying to figure out what they were and now are considered when there is no consensuses on what is New Wave. I have asked people for 2 years to find a consensus and put the consensus warning on top of the article but have gotten nowhere and thus I have given up on ever finding a consensus for deleting as category of artists. I am against deleting reliably sourced anytime even if I disagree with what the source says at this point as with the case of Joy Division (Simon Reynolds is reliable). As for sourcing I have a life and don’t have time to see if there is a reliable sourcing for every non sourced group. I just make sure new additions are eventually sourced. I give a warning for a month or and if no citation is produced I delete it. On other lists people think it is ok to add to a list A. I something is called “New Wave” in the groups article. B If it is reliably sourced as “New Wave” in the groups article. Other editors have written they pretty much want anything added obscure or not to list articles because they view these lists as the equivalent of trivial pursuit.

Here are my views and some reasons why

Should Synthpop and New Romantic acts be on the list?. In the UK they are not considered New Wave in the US they are. Since the US is a big place and more importantly since reliable sources there do reference these acts as "New Wave" these acts should be on the list leaving the current note on top. Maybe the list can be split off into US and UK versions but this seems awkward.

What about 1980s Alternative/Indie acts?. The Smiths/Jesus and Mary Chain/Pixies etc. No way are they New Wave in the UK. In the US they are usually not. But it as shown above in the US these type acts have been described as New Wave in reliable publications and and they are being described that way more frequently in the last few years. I would say they should not be on list as most reliable sources describe these acts as not New wave and describe them as a significant break from New wave.

Post Punk – Same as Alt Rock/Indie

What about 1990s and the 2000s-2010s Post Punk Revival/New New Wave etc. Reliable sources disagree on whether it is a continuation of New Wave or a revival. Since this list is out of control adding another category is a bad idea but if a miracle occurs and this list gets under control may I might change my opinion.

First wave Punk acts like the Ramones and Sex Pistols? My view is no. New Wave and punk rock have were viewed as synonymous for two years and distinct genres for the last 32 years.

Cheers Edkollin (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree emphatically, and intensely. It's not even funny how much I do. Try not to take it too personally though.

First, is your issue here actually about "sources" like your title says, or your preferences? You're using the "sources" case to argue against Joy Division, and yet others on your list such as The Cure, Psych Furs, Teardrop...ARE pretty clearly sourced despite your continued objection. ??

What is your definition of New Wave? Of post-punk even? I mean you've offered a strong opinion but no explanatory background for it. Just saying "this can't be this" doesn't cut it. Surely you're familiar that the reason for all the "erroneous" interchangeable usage of the two labels has to do with strong linkage between bands and scenes and their shared musical lineage? It doesn't mean that every band that is one is automatically the other, no, but it is going to allow for QUITE a bit of overlap/crossover, on the end of post-punk especially since it came second and took over musically in an area New Wave was already covering. (I guess a reasonable comparison might be like Alternative and Indie Rock's relationship)

All of those bands are on the list because they've had a documented New Wave connection at some point in time. Many might indeed be more of something else, one "something else" being post-punk, but then if you look at Wiki's post-punk list you WILL find these bands listed there as well. So as long their other genres are still acknowledged somewhere, is it really so huge a deal if these bands also get a New Wave mention? I'm actually rather thrown back by the whole "they're too post-punk to be New Wave" fuss made with many bands. The line is so blurry in general, yet one would think it's like jazz artists being mistaken for metal. Here's some band by band feedback to your objections:

A Certain Ratio (another Factory Records band)

Well New Wave is assumed to be danceable, so this band's tie probably comes from their danceability factor, maybe there being a Talking Heads-reminisce in it with the whole dance-funk-tribal-punk thing. I have no problem with it.

The Cure (kinda tough case anyway, they've never always been fully new wave... and they've never always been fully post-punk... or either. a sidenote should help with this)

Denying The Cure is ridiculous not just in a documentation sense, but in the fact that an overwhelming amount (typically assumed) New Wave criteria are applicable: Time-line, chart success, staples of "sound" such as poppy hooks, romantic lyrics, some danceability here and there (and even synths). Not fully New Wave, no, but New Wave was a relatively short movement, and there few examples of any bands who managed a lengthy career of only playing "New Wave Music". That's not what the list is looking for.

The Comsat Angels

Maybe you're not familiar with their mid-period works where their sound made an extreme shift towards a more stereotypically commerical New Wave one. Those mid-period albums wouldn't have sounded at all out of place on a radio playlist themed on New Romantic pop.

Eyeless in Gaza (could this one be removed since it's not sourced?)

IDK about this one myself. I heard a couple of albums of theirs a while back which I'd simply describe as avant-garde. My guess is that they evolved into more commercial territory later on that was enough to earn them New Wave credentials.

Magazine (same as EIG)

Later albums had an increased synth/keyboard emphasis more in line with New Wave, which was most likely a preemption into the music direction Howard Devoto moved toward with his solo career (more commercial, borderline New Romantic, synthy stuff). Allmusic can be looked to for a source listing them as New Wave. I think they qualify.

Orange Juice (they actually were the inspiration of stuff like Franz Ferdinand during the last decade)

And FF along with post-punk revivalists are heavily influenced by New Wave, meaning your note is hardly an argument. OJ had a rather poppy and disco/dance influenced sound compatible enough with New Wave.

The Psychedelic Furs (first two albums, usually the most recognized ones, are not new wave, although from the third one they're considered as such. could use the same thing as the cure may do)

Psychedelic Furs, surely you jest? They are arguably more NW than post-punk even--and yes, they were New Wave from the very first album, I have NEVER seen this questioned. Their sound was always well in line with any known, established criteria--the pop hooks, high dance-factor, MTV-friendliness, romantic songs, inclusion on "Brat Pack" movie soundtracks even. They actually epitomize New Wave.

I agree wholeheartedly. Max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.189.226.172 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide (Pre-dated punk by a little, part of what they call "synthpunk" too)

This one can be a tough going on a limited, more specifically sound-based idea of New Wave. But in the far more historically diverse reality of this term, this band actually has a strong case. The roots of the term actually lie in the 70s CBGB's scene, where it is suggested that the term was coined either as an alternative term for "punk" to describe the new music, or as one conceived more specifically for the New York bands that sounded too "arty" or diverse to be strictly punk (soon thereafter used on British bands with a similar vibe). Suicide was part of that scene and easily fit the criteria of the latter suggestion.

The Teardrop Explodes (Post-punk with neo-psychedelia... they were pretty much related with Echo and the Bunnymen too)

Both Teardrop and the Bunnymen have cases for New Wave, but Teardrop does possibly moreso. Don't think I've seen this one questioned either. They fit the New Wave timeline and were far from too "dark" (stereotypical idea of post-punk) or pop-unfriendly to fit in with New Wave. Not at all. Stating they are post-punk doesn't negate that.

The Sound (No source as some cases above...)

Again, you yourself are begging that bands be removed who have sources up the wazoo for their New Wave ties, and yet with other bands sources suddenly become important. *Shrugs* Anyway, I don't have a problem with this one either. Later albums featured more accessible/poppy songs. New Wave included many underground bands, and many well-known (i.e. verifiable) uses of the term have included bands that sound like this one.

Wah! (albeit sourced, same case as Teardrop Explodes)

Never heard them, but even you stated they are sourced, which now for some reason doesn't matter again. If they sound like Teardrop, then yeah, I say they're New Wave.

Wire (One of the most influential Post-Punk/Art Punk groups, started off as Punk Rock, started evolving dramatically... ehm, no source either)

Many "art punk" groups have been called New Wave, so again, this isn't argument. The band itself made a comeback in the mid-80s with very synth/dance oriented, New Order-esque sounds that can easily be considered New Wave influenced at least. I also imagine they, like the other bands here, would have been called New Wave in the US. You see, the distinction of "post-punk" never materialized in the US--it was either Punk, or New Wave for "punky" but not too punk bands, that is until "College Rock" appeared some time into the decade. The term was incredibly expansive in the US, covering more complex underground bands and extending even to mainstream pop. This fact is covered in the NW article which I'm thinking you should have read before posting. It probably would have helped. Myself, I've been FAR more concerned with acts such as Mr. Mister, Cyndi Lauper, Corey Hart, Kim Wilde, Bananarama, and Tony Basil being on the list...but alas, they do have a history in the US with "New Wave" label. A factually erroneous history, yes, as these artists lack the early punk/underground scene connection or influence important to defining New Wave (making them much less qualified than your list of bands). But Wikipedia is merely concerned with what can be verified by sources, and I just have to put up or shut up. These bands can be sourced and certainly so can yours. Theburning25 (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television

They're not currently on the list but I'm thinking they surely belong. Source-wise they've got New Wave listed on both their Wiki and Allmusic pages, and as far as others, well I found which I was thinking of using. On the page is a couple of New Wave references in quotes from reviews. One sentence even credits the band's March '74 appearance at CBGB's as the "birthdate of the New Wave movement". I guess I'm just double checking here to see if this source is good enough that I can add the band without risk of removal. Theburning25 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can not be used as a source, Allmusic can, The "other source" it is better to get the quote directly from the source (Trouser Press reviews are online, NME sometimes uses Wikipedia) Television as first NW band is in main article (CBGB owner reliable?) Edkollin (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wasn't planning on actually using Wikipedia as a source here, but I figured it was worth mentioning as long as I was making a case for the band. I was surprised they weren't already there, actually. I suppose I still haven't quite gotten the hang of this "reliable sources" thing, judging by this response and also the failure of my secondary source for Killing Joke (thankfully the band is still there). Maybe you or the person who removed it can let me know what went wrong there? In the meantime, I'll keep trying to improve my "reliability"-discerning skills (though I'm thinking I'll be more comfortable as more of a "reverter" than an adder of fresh info on this site). Theburning25 (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically promotional websites are not considered a reliable sources. RIOR I think is what we used to call a record company. A record company's website is reliable for things like album release dates but they are not non-tabloid media or academic , so they wouldn't be expected to be objective about acts they are trying to sell. Trouser Press or other music and non tabloid non music newspapers are at least supposed to be objective and do things like fact check articles. It is really the fact checking and/or expertise that makes something reliable. Hope WP:RS helps. Edkollin (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

++New Wave++

Is described as the "new wave" of british bands to own the US pop charts in the 80's. This list of bands includes American bands which is way off. New wave is not a sound or style but a word coined for the new british invation of music after the beatles and other brits of the 60's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.64.97 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave was first used to describe a French film movement, in the late 1950's it became a more acceptable word for word for punk rock in 1976, then as a more pop/experimental kind of punk rock from roughly 1978-1981, then finally from roughly 1982 through the rest of the 1980's in the United States it had a similar meaning to what you describe. While it was predominated by British groups there were always American acts and acts from other Non-British countries that were and are considered New Wave be it B-52's, Blondie, Berlin, Split Enz, Nena.

These genre lists are loosely based on what is in the Wikipedia article about them. The New Wave Music article details the material I just summarized. Edkollin (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what you appear to be referring is only a smaller part of New Wave that might be more accurately described as British "New Romantic". The widespread MTV prominence of this scene gave "New Wave" a larger U.S. commercial viability than it had up that point. However, the use of "New Wave" in describing them was still connected to an earlier set of acts, albeit ones a bit different (but influential to them) to a large degree.

In fact, "New Wave" dates back to at least 1976 when first coined for bands from the New York scene (CBGB's). It was originally synonymous with punk, but was soon branched off for more specifically poppy/arty acts of the punk explosion, who were thus "nonthreatening" enough for conservative music programmers (wanting in on the punk phenomenon but not it's "ugliness"). This original U.S. New Wave was epitomized by Cars, Devo The B-52s, The Knack, The Pretenders, The Romantics and The Motels. Their UK counterparts included Elvis Costello, The Police, Adam & the Ants, Squeeze, The Jam, Ultravox! and Madness.

Later, a few American acts managed to get it in on fun of the more predominantly British, MTV "New Wave"--these include Berlin, Missing Persons, Cyndi Lauper, The Go-Gos and Ebn Ozn....also as Edkoll stated, acts elsewhere in Europe and Australia, NZ and Canada achieved commercial New Wave recognition including Men at Work, INXS, Split Enz, Yello, A-ha, Men Without Hats and Nena. Theburning25 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave is a Genre not a cultural event

The term was originally applied by the British music press in the late 70s to describe the emerging post-punk scene and was quickly adopted by record labels and record shops in marketing such acts. Anyone visiting a 'decent' record shop in England during these days would have found a dedicated 'New Wave A-Z' Section along with Punk, Electronic, New Romantic, Rock, SKA/MOD, Folk and Chart sections.

Typically the New Wave bands were standard guitar based outfits with the addition keyboards and had the DIY attitude of punk without the aggression and tended to address issues of youth and culture in lyrics that their audience could relate to.

But as with any musical genre the lable coined to describe it usually ends up being 'borowed' and applied to something entirely different. For example R&B - once a description for music orignating in the 40s and describing the likes of BB King, Bo Diddley and the original Rolling Stones and now used for almost anything relating to rap/hiphop/dance music. Garage, first applied to 60s US bands the term was then 'appropriated' by Punks who intern had this as well as their own sub genre 'Hardcore' stolen by Hip Hop.

Your arguement is that for you this term refers to a cultural event because of how in the 80s America were sold music from England and Europe using a familiar radio friendly term that audiences could relate to as it harked back to the sixties 'British Invasion' as typified by The Beatles, The Hollies, Herman's Hermits etc.

Now that may be true from your POV, but for the sake of accuracy if you want this part of American culture documented then create a separate page and not attempt to muddy and airbrush history. User:Mattblackcat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.161.205 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I want to apologize for my edit summary remarks as you obviously have contributed a well reasoned suggestion. Reliable sourcing has to be part of any solution because it a basic Wikipedia guideline. This is the case even if it leads to an "obvious" omission or an "obvious" untruth. How do we justify deleting synthpop acts when sources like the New York Times and allmusic proclaim them New Wave? even if its cluelessly wrong?.

The punk influenced/inspired music in general just has not been written about nearly as much as first wave punk or hip hop. I have never used "culture" despite my POV in either the genre article or this list because there just not the sourcing to justify it never mind creating a separate article.

We could split the articles and lists into "New Wave Music in America" and "New Wave Music in the United Kingdom". But that leaves out the rest of the world. And since what is New Wave music in each country consists of many acts from the other country I have always found this awkward. But maybe it is just my mental block. You could propose a rough draft or outline that flows smoothly and will be able to when all is said and done stay within the Wikipedia rules I could be convinced.

I should mention while I feel a split would be awkward what we have now is awkward, so I am open to suggestions. Edkollin (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a separate Second British Invasion article. It is noted in both the Second British Invasion article and New Wave Music article rather then "selling" this type of music, the US music industry was very resistant for many years. Edkollin (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC):[reply]

I can sympathize with your concerns about the later, U.S. reinterpreted "New Wave". However, the fact that this happened does not mean that early New Wave existed as only a British event/concept, as you seem to suggest. There was also an American, early New Wave scene in existence which was similar to and every bit as important as the early British one (albeit for Americans, not quite the cultural monster).

Where would genre trailblazers like Blondie, Devo, The Cars and Talking Heads fall if the articles were separated according to "70s British" (i.e. "real" New Wave) and "80s America"? Theburning25 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person above who mentions what New Wave means in the UK is so right and how wrong the American idea of it is reaches its apotheosis in the heading below where someone makes the ridiculous contention that "New wave is only 80s music" in Britain it was dead as a term by the 1980s and is wholly 70s. America is a larger market but the vast majority of these acts are British and new wave is a completely 1970s term in the UK - no-one would have called any of the 80s synth pop or New romantic groups new wave - if you'd said it in England they'd have just laughed at you. New Wave was a title which existed 1976-79 to desribe slightly less full-on punk bands with guitars and playing a sort of less extreme version of punk. No-one would have used the term seriously after 1979. TBH this articles whole premise is deeply flawed.And yes Blondie etc would be termed new wave in England but that they were generally guitar bands playing traditional types of music. 80s Synth-pop/new pop/New Romanticism was music firmly of the future.I'd say Gary Numan heralded this new movement if it can be called this.Incidentally the poster salso made a good point of how names of music types change over the years/in different parts of the world i think you could ass freestyle to thart which in England was largely known as electro - a term which probsably predates fresstyle even in america, and also hardcore does not mean hiphop in Britain or the rest of Europe but the type of breakbeat techno which dominated the rave scene from about 1990-93. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.157.1 (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Vernon Joynson Provides The Answer ?

Much as all the debate on this is interesting I suggest it is all moot. Surely Vern Joynson's excellent tome "Up Yours - A Guide To UK Punk, New Wave & Early Post Punk" (sadly out of print currently) provides the answer and in terms of the UK New Wave is the definitive work on UK artists and bands of that ilk. In that book Joynson focuses primarily but not quite exclusively (he includes later Oi! and Street Punk bands, for example) upon the period of 1976-1982. Now in my view that was and is the new wave/punk era. Similarly, I think you can apply the same criteria in regard to US music from that period as well.

Furthermore, the exclusion of punk bands in this listing totally undermines it's credibility. Punk was at the forefront of the "New Wave" in the UK and to exclude the likes of the Sex Pistols, Clash, Damned and Ramones whilst including 80's night club pop bands like the Pet Shop Boys, ABC and Culture Club (who were in almost everyway the antithesis of the original New Wave movement) makes a mockery of it.

Without the likes of the Sex Pistols, Clash and Damned (and from the US the likes of the Ramones and Patti Smith), the 'New Wave' would have never happened in the UK...........

PS as a Paul Weller fan from 1977 onwards, the Style Council were never a 'New Wave' band either.

94.5.83.210 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Happy Jack[reply]

Even though it is out of print you can use it as a source here to label an act "New Wave". If the book had a genre definition for New Wave that should be quoted in the main New Wave music article. Hopefully the book will be back in print electronic or paper. Edkollin (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PiL

Isn't Public Image LTD New Wave??? I would say that also John Lydon's Solo Album is New Wave also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StratusSticky (talk • contribs) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get reliable sources to say say PIL is New Wave before they can be added to the list. Edkollin (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post 1989 artists should be included

Sure, New Wave is overwhelmingly associated with the 1980s, but that doesn't mean that the new wavers formed in 1990 and later are somehow magically a different genre. That's like saying The Darkness are not a glam rock band just because glam rock wasn't popular when they were out in the mid 2000s.

Nor are the new wave acts of the mid 2000s onward, like The Killers purely a revival -- in some ways, they are just a continuation of a trend that was HUGE in the 80s and not so much in the nineties but never really died.

The Killers named themselves after a band in a music video the new wave legends New Order made in 2001. In fact the top new wave names, you know, them and Depeche Mode, Duran Duran and a-ha were active throughout the entire nineties and two-thousands and still had quite a bit of success (though not in the top 40).

Modern new wavers like Owl City, Lights Poxleitner and Ellie Goulding are not some kind of mix of 90's alternative and new wave, they actually are new wave, every bit as much as the 80's acts are.

So I think we need to change this.

Pennn15 (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have have mixed feelings about changing the policy. As with "New Wave" itself reliable sources are all over the map and if you ask 10 people you will get 10 different definitions. For example "synthpop" and New Wave are considered wholly different genres in the UK while in the US synthpop is the leading subgenre of New Wave. Adding to the confusion is that while "post punk" and "new wave" are considered separate in many circles while "post punk revival" and "new new wave" are generally not. Although lists are supposed to operate with the same guidelines as "regular" articles in practice standards are much lower and music genre lists are a particular magnet for what one editor called "Point of view warriors" that is people for it is so obvious that so and so act is or is not New Wave these acts are added without regard or knowledge of the guidelines. As a result there is no consensus and many undeserving acts listed. Finally getting down to my point while in my view there are many acts with styles of music that reliable sources would generally consider less "New Wave" then revival acts with so many questionable acts already here why add a whole new category?. Edkollin (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although America is a larger market the vast majority of these acts are British and new wave is a completely 1970s term in the UK - no-one would have called any of the 80s synth pop or New romantic groups new wave - if you'd said it in England they'd have just laughed at you. New Wave was a title which existed 1976-79 to desribe slightly less ful-on punk bands with gutars and playing sort of poppier version of punk. No-one would have used the term seriously after 1979. TBH this articles whole premise is deeply flawed.This article is a complete embarrassment to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.157.1 (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See main New Wave article where I have added material from a US academic source that details the US/UK (and other) definition differences and why they came to be. Back on topic the source did note a general reliable source consensus that anything after the mid 80s is not New Wave and the 21st Century acts are "revivals". An academic source ranks higher then mainstream journalists on Wikipedia this would suggest that the no 21st century acts policy remain, and that acts that started in the late 80s listed here should be deleted. Edkollin (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Individual band members

This list is long enough. There is no need to list every band member of listed acts. With that in mind for now I am going to delete the addition of band members unless their solo work is reliably sourced as New Wave or one of its subgenres. Keep in mind that a lot of artists from bands do solo work to explore different styles then that of the bands they are in. As always this policy will be reversed if a consensus develops against it. Edkollin (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put this in the lede. While this is not the type of thing usually put in the lede I did it because editors still continue to add individuals who did solo work outside of or after thier work in groups and every time adding them without sourcing of any kind. Edkollin (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

This section added for discussions started by the inclusion of Template:Dubious --KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Crimson / Killing Joke

Responding to several recent edits by Edkollin (talk · contribs):

Put duboius warning for King Crimson - This is a list of New Wave groups not New Wave albums. They are a prog rock group with a New Wave album not a New Wave group. A reasonable point; however, you misplaced the template on the Killing Joke entry. I used Undo to track the edit by which I moved it up where you meant to put it.
Delete King Crimson's own website as source as unreliable by Wikipedia guidelines This was in reference to my addition of the following citation: Fripp, Robert ([2009]). "King Crimson - Discipline". Retrieved 2012-01-11. ...an album that perhaps had more in common with the then current post-punk new wave than the band's progressive rock past. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Recognizing that the point is moot if Edkollin's above point stands (i.e., if KC does not belong on the list at all), I contend that there is no policy that supports, much less demands, the deletion of primary sources per se. WP:PRIMARY certainly says no such thing, noting instead, in relevant part, that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Which is exactly what my edit contained: a primary source, with quote included to avoid interpretation, backed up by a secondary source that makes the flat assertion.
Finally, on the matter of whether KC should be on the list when they only had one album that counts as New Wave: I note that several other bands listed here have parenthesized qualifiers on their entries, such as "Chris & Cosey (early work)," "Cuddly Toys (later work)," "Pseudo Echo (early career)," and "Robert Palmer (1980s work)." If these stand—and I see no reason why they should not—then I see no real reason to exclude KC when listed as "King Crimson (Discipline)" with proper supporting citations. And all that said, Robert Fripp himself should almost certainly be excluded.

--KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting my warning in the right place and creating this discussion topic. Of course I understand groups go through stages, different genres, combine genres etc. My view is the "New Wave" part of their career has to be notable in someway be it a commercial hit(s) defined as New Wave or a subgenre by reliable sources or New Wave being a decent part of their career. For Robert Palmer I see allmusic says "Palmer's stylistic experimentation continued with 1980's Clues, a foray into synth-pop aided by Gary Numan and Talking Heads' Chris Frantz which yielded the club hit "Looking for Clues.". Although not known as a NW sub genre in the UK, Synthpop has been named a crucial New Wave subgenre by a lot of reliable sources. For Psuedo-Echo I see allmusic says "A Melbourne, Australia quartet who has changed their musical style several times over the course of their career. They began playing Duran Duran- and Ultravox-reminiscent synth-rock, mixing elements of late-'70s disco in and sporting a lipstick-and-big-hair look". They compare a part of their career to notable New Wave groups. If you think my argument is dumbing down Wikipedia standards you are right. The lists are the pit of Wikipedia. In the few years I have been editing this article most editors seem to want no standards no need for sources here or in their article only the editors opinion counts. Adding to the problem there is no agreement on what the hell New Wave is by the public or reliable sources. Yeah I compromised to prevent bitter edit wars that were common a few years back. Back to King Crimson even by the dumbed down standards I don't think they qualify. The reliable sources I have seen will talk about King Crimson as major huge prog/art rock figures or as allmusic says "If there is one group that embodies progressive rock, it is King Crimson" quite different. I used allmusic but if there are sources that point the New Wave version version of the group as notable be my guest. Edkollin (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia addition to article falls along similar lines. Have not changed my view this is a list list for NW groups and should be a list for groups that play primarily New Wave. Even with this articles consensus for including everybody possible and following the guidelines as loosely as possible New Wave should at least be a "significant" part of what they do/did be it their best known album or most popular hit etc. Edkollin (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap Trick?

It never would have occurred to me in a million years that anyone would consider Cheap Trick a New Wave band. Stylistically, they have nothing in common with what are usually considered traditional New Wave acts. I've listened to them for 35 years and I've never heard New Wave and Cheap Trick mentioned in the same sentence and now I see them listed as a New Wave band on Wikipedia. They have always been called a Power Pop band, which is somewhat true but not entirely accurate. They play catchy songs with a hard drive, but they have far more substance than other Power Pop bands such as The Knack, The Romantics, The Plimsouls, etc. But because an article on AllMusic says "Power-pop bands happened to emerge around the same time of punk, so they were swept along with the new wave", then Cheap Trick are considered a New Wave band. So, I guess there are different definitions of "New Wave". It could be the synth driven pop of the late 70s and early 80s and the fashion that went along with it, or it could be any music movement that started at or around the same time as punk (mid 70s). If we are to consider the second definition, then this list could be exponentially longer and contain bands that no one would consider "traditional" New Wave. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, and I don't want people to think I'm bashing New Wave. I came across this list looking for suggestions for my iPod. I was just surprised to see Cheap Trick on the list. You might as well have Van Halen on the list. You can't tell me that at some point they weren't described as "New Wave" when they started using a synthesizer on 1984. Jpaz70 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. You are right ask a hundred people you will get 100 different definitions of New Wave. As alluded to above New Romantic and synthpop have always been considered separate genres from New Wave in the UK. It is not just allmusic I do remember power pop groups in the late '70's were considered New Wave (don't forget The Records) and sometimes Cheap Trick and Tom Petty also who mixed power pop with more what we would call Classic Rock elements today. If you listen to them or the Cars also from that period today it's Classic Rock that is played on Classic Rock stations. From a 1979 perspective it was much more stripped down then then Led Zep or Yes. Punk was rebelling against prog and big Stadium Rock by stripping all away down, power pop and Cheap Trick were doing it to a lesser extent and that got them labeled New Wave. After synthpop/New Romantic in America (not UK) at least a lot of he original definition was forgotten. So I am glad that allmusic and Theo Cateforis 2011 book "Are We Not New Wave? Modern Pop at the Turn of the 1980s" are bringing back the forgotten original meanings. Plenty of times I don't agree with the "reliable sources" but I don't edit that way that way. Edkollin (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have greatly expanded the paragraph on power pop to describe how and why it became associated with New Wave in the late 1970s. The academic source did mention Cheap Trick in his book. Edkollin (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any amount of New Wave in an artist is what you want Any amount of New Wave is what you get

I give. As I noted above I feel and will always feel a group should have a "significant"of amount of New Wave in their music before you call them New Wave or list them here. The "consensus" is otherwise. Hard to tell what the consensus is because talk page participation is so little. But based on edits and what little bit of talk pages discussion we have had over the years the overwhelming majority of you feel otherwise and feel any amount of New Wave be it one album one whatever means a group should be listed. We still can not mislead readers thus we should based on reliable sources(that still goes) note in parentheses note the song, album or whatever from the group that is new wave. Edkollin (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be done the right way

The people who know what groups belong here are those who programmed and played the music for the public. while those who 'know' their music can try to be logical about it, there is no denying what was played on new wave radio and in new wave clubs (whether you agree with the definition or not). I was working in radio and club music at the time, and can tell you what was considered new wave in the usa. and Clash was definitely new wave. To include Linda Ronstadt and Alice Cooper in a list of new wave ARTISTS, but to ignore the Clash does not cut it. there were new wave playlists that were being used back then, which still may be out there and accessible as references...and there were club DJs who were right in the thick of it. if any of you were a new wave club or radio DJ, then you have expertise in your area, too. but just because someone thinks a group did or didn't sound like it should be new wave is not going to reflect the objective TRUE history that wiki should be presenting. it should be that someone who is going to recreate a club scene for movie or theatre can choose something that was actually played on the air or in a new wave club.

another source is the composite CDs--such as "New Wave Hits of the 80s." I am not sure who made the decision as to what to include on those, but from what i remember, those did reflect the genre. There were also some new-wave-specific record labels (eg. Stiff) and some producers (eg. Nick Lowe), where you can follow those threads and see what artists they touched. and by the way, the biggest radio and club hits by Ian Dury were the cuts by Ian Dury & the Blockheads (Blockheads not included in the wiki list currently).

as to definition -- yes, new wave came out of punk rock. at the time, new wave was considered the commercial version of punk--and many fans felt the artists had 'sold out' by 'going commercial.' same thing with every era of music. however, what many people liked about new wave was that it was always fresh and never got to the point of being a 'formula' sound. you couldn't just put on a particular drum beat, add some strings, some flashy costumes, and then send it to the dance floor. new wave was always evolving and trying something new (or reinventing something old), and novelty and experimentation were a major part of it.

the way it was generally being defined at the time was a return to garage band sound of the 60s with more electronics and a dance beat. of course, a bunch of former 60s bands were retooling themselves into new wave bands. but, as to a specific sound, i never heard anyone define it technically. but, someone should then ask one of the well-known club DJs or radio programmers of that era to help. obviously, there will be differences depending on the area of the country. i was working in new york, and can tell you about that scene--which cuts we played. i KNOW what was played there, and yes, Cheap Trick was indeed played on the air and in the new york new wave clubs, along with 2 of Joe Jackson's albums.

I see several missing bands that were played heavily--mostly they were bands that some editors prob have eliminated because of cross-over (eg. Sparks, Huey Lewis, The Jim Carroll Band, Patti Smith, etc.). But if the artist was considered a staple in the new wave clubs, then it doesn't matter if they were also considered rock or electronic or punk. maybe the problem is with the article name, as someone already postulated. maybe it should be a list of artists that had new wave airplay/club tracks.

also, how popular would they have had to be before including them, since there were many releases that didn't make it? if the group recorded with a record company, would that be good enough? what if they were a live band, but didn't get a record contract? i can tell you that there were groups on the Stiff label that didn't get much play at all. do those all count, or is there some parameter we should use? that is up to you all, but it needs to be established.

I am going to see if i can find if some of those old playlists are published...or something that is already written about those artists as a citation. Number.6.freeman (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of new wave artists and bands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://filipinojournal.com/our-columnist/sa-ugoy-ng-musika/a-tribute-to-the-%E2%80%9980s-philippine-new-wave-scene
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/guitarplayercom/jan-00/4990
Corrected formatting/usage for http://spectrumculture.com/2013/05/midnight-oil-essential-oils.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/neworder/albums/album/134313/review/5942355/get_ready
Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20150822062440/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flymagazine.net/archive_bands_article.cfm?id=4c31f22a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of new wave artists and bands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://filipinojournal.com/our-columnist/sa-ugoy-ng-musika/a-tribute-to-the-%E2%80%9980s-philippine-new-wave-scene
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=23
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=511
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=327
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/guitarplayercom/jan-00/4990
Corrected formatting/usage for http://spectrumculture.com/2013/05/midnight-oil-essential-oils.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/neworder/albums/album/134313/review/5942355/get_ready
Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20150822062440/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flymagazine.net/archive_bands_article.cfm?id=4c31f22a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]