Talk:New Romantic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Music, Fashion, Or Both?

I'm not here to argue whether "New Romantic" describes a fashion trend. This is apparent. I also recognize that the fashion was associated with numerous bands, however I don't believe that these bands sound different enough from new wave bands that they should be put into their own category. Can anyone tell me the difference between New Wave music and New Romantic music (other than fashion)?

All in all, I think this article should be rewritten to talk more about the fashion, since there is less of a consensus about the music. Nlm1515 (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern English

Someone has recently gone through all relevant articles relating the band Modern English to the New Romantic movement. Modern English are now first in the list of the "main musical and stylistic proponents." If you are this editor, can you explain why you did this? I'm not sure Modern English ought to be listed on the New Romantic page at all, and they're certainly not more central to the new romantic genre and style than Spandau Ballet, ABC, Ultravox, etc. Nothing on After The Snow (admittedly the only album I've heard in its entirety) sounds particularly new romantic to me; I Melt With You arguably comes closest, but that track is atypical of the album and the band. Does anyone have a good source that cites Modern English as an important new romantic band, or should they be removed from the list? Kallionae 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.beggars.com/us/modernenglish/index.html for one. Try google for more Toddstreat1 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think they should be considered New Romantics. There like Kajagoogoo and A flock of Seagulls. Bands known for there unique haircuts. If they are considered than so should Modern English. I've some of there stuff from after "Aftr the snow". A song called "Hands across the sea" Its similar to A flock of Seagulls "photograph" In which the singer is far away from there lover. Its also a slow pop/rock song. Its so New Romantic. And just as Danceable. Yamchaken (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term

I was wondering if Americans used this term. I was a fan of New Wave in the early 80's and I don't recall the term. ike9898 19:48, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they do, though somewhat infrequently. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes we did. And there was an argument about whether the music was a subgenre of new wave, a genre of its own or a continuation of glam. It was a late 1980 to 1981 thing only. Another words Psuedo Echo and 90% of the bands listed in the article would not be discussed as part of the genre. Basically it was Visage, Spandau Ballet, very early Duran Duran, and Adam and the Ants and infrenquently ABC and Haircut 100. 13:57, 11 June 2006 (EK)

I'm in the US and hadnt heard the tern "New Romantic" until a few years ago on the net. I suppose we'd have called it New Wave or technopop or synthpop. But it was definitely around, esp. around 1983. MTV used to have a lot of British New Wave acts in its early years. 141.154.23.165 22:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that by 1983 that we would use New Wave or synthpop for bands that we would call New Romantic in 1981. Two factors. One I live near New York City and due to our location we tend to be more anglophile then other areas of the United States especially during that era. In this region british musical papers were widely available and they used the term and music writers in our local papers used the term "New Romantic" in 1981. Number two is by 1983 the bands themselves moved out of the scene and had gone in a more pop direction to get on MTV 69.114.117.103 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (EK)

disambiguating Organ

This article links directly to Organ rather than to a disambiguated page. There is an indie rock band called The Organ, but I don't know whether it is New Romantic. Is this the band referred to in the list of New Romantic performers, or is it another band? Michael Slone 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

fashion

Needs more on the fashion side of New Romatic. Gflores ^Talk 06:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

New Romantic was not a music style...it was fashion only within the New wave movement, nothing more. Visage produced rock music, Boy George more funk or reggae sound etc.

Visage was based on synthesizers, it was very electronic. It wasn't just some 'rock'. Their first 2 albums are that something called 'New Romantic' in its strictest sense (more strict than stylish Midge's Ultravox with all those classy videos).

Culture Club wasn't that electronic (though they did have good synths too), but they had their specific style. Songs like Time, Love is Love were clearly not some 'funk' or 'reggae', but something much more 'stylish'. I wouldn't call Culture Club exactly new romantic, they were more true New Wavers. Their only really New Romantic song is the beautiful Time, the rest cannot be called new romantic, but however I don't mind if they are listed under New romantic as well (I didn't add them but someone else).

And New Romantic was definitely a music style. New wave was wider genre than new romantic, all new romantic bands were in fact new wave, only they used more new romantic 'manner' than other new wave bands that didn't use it. Actually, the vast majority of new wave bands were (or went) into New romantic at some point (but some were really into it deeply, and for many years and some not so much and/or not so long). So that's why it's not so easy to draw the line which new wave band/artist should or should not be included under new romantic as well...

greetings, Ndru01

Culture Club weren't really New Romantics, but Boy George was heavily involved in the New Romantic scene prior to their success in late 1982 (by which time the New Romantic fad was over). Because of his involvement in the scene, which then manifested itself as his genderless image, the band are mistakenly seen as new romantics. As for a definition of New Romanticism itself, it was the marrying of the flamboyant fashion with electronic based music, though the music didn't necessarily have to be entirely electronic and some bands would have more of one element than the other (Adam & The Ants for example).

I added Culture Club to the list as the term New Romantic is a collective term (as clearly described above) for fashion, music, philosophy... And as Boy George was a prime figure within the scene/Blitz Kids... and carried on the new romantic look in Culture Club, it would be odd not to mention them!!--90.203.17.41 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Band list

It looks like someone just copied and pasted the whole list of New Wave artists. This list needs to be seriously scrutinized and trimmed. WesleyDodds 12:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is much better having more links in the same row than that very long list. How can it not be easier and better to see all before your eyes, than having to scroll and look at all that unnecessary white space (?) And I will post again the same list, since I believe names like Tears for Fears, Kate Bush, Yazoo, Simple Minds, Propaganda, Altered Images, Echo & the Bunnymen (all these had couple of albums pure new romanticism, even Shriekback, Cure and Stranglers). And TFF, Yazoo and Simple Minds literally defined New Romanticism, so all these should be listed, especially Yazoo, TFF and Simple Minds, and someone is for some reason removing them, and adding names like euro-disco Modern Talking (fine with me, but then allow something that is definitely more new romantic sound)... And if Modern Talking allowed then why not swedish Secret Service, that sounded more new romantic, but similar to Modern Talking and better than them. Also, why should Bow Wow Wow be on list, and not Yazoo and Simple Minds? I didn't remove any of the entries (and for me it is e.g unnecassary to mention Thinkman when we already have Rupert Hine, but fine with me to have both... but when someone likes both Marc Almond and Soft Cell on the list, why not Billy Mackenzie then too, his solo 2 albums were as much new romantic as Marc solo was), although some like these Bow Wow Wow, Scritti Politi and Modern Talking are more than questionable (but again fine with me, just then don't trim my list that doesn't remove these), and you are trimming my altough long (actually only 13 rows in this format), but much more objective list than that incorrect short. So I simply don't agree with that trimmed...

Thanks and Greetings, Ndru01

ps. I added Roxy Music and Bryan Ferry too. They certainly need to be on the list, especially Roxy Music. If you think Ferry is too much, then you can remove him. I didn't add Bowie (besides being a major influence to the movement, he had a significant phase as new romantic himself), but if you think he should be on the list, I'm perfectly OK, so you can add him yourself...

The list can also be arranged into columns.

Also, Some of those bands are definitely not New Romantic. Echo & the Bunnymen and Shriekback are post-punk, The Cure is goth, kate bush is simply art rock, and so forth. WesleyDodds 23:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Cure, Shriekback, Echo & the Bunnymen and Kate Bush don't exactly fall under New Romantic regarding their whole work, but all these have some period while they were very New Romantic. Shriekback's Night Town for example is one of the purest New Romantic songs I ever heard (it's like ABC with some more depth) and that song is from '88. And all their 80s albums are more or less new romantic-new wave. (90s and later Shriekback is irelevant). Cure's early 80s albums are also very new romantic (Close to you certainly isn't Goth rock), same as E&B. Kate Bush's Dreaming and Hounds of Love (her best album) are also nothing else but New Romantic.

greetings, Ndru01

"Close to Me" certainly isn't goth, but it isn't New Romantic either. People just label that particular phase of the Cure New Wave or alternative rock, depending on how poppy they are on a given song. Echo & the Bunnymen has never been labeled New Romantic; they come form the same Liverpool post-punk scene as The Teardrop Explodes. Psychedelic Furs are post-punk as well; while they developed a more New wave sound, it wasn't specifically New Romantic. Dreaming and Hounds of Love are classified as art rock and alternative rock; Kate Bush really had nothing to do with New Wave. WesleyDodds 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Close to Me is exactly new romantic, that and few other songs. And that whole phase is Cure New wave, I agree. But listening Close to Me just spells out - 'New romantic', and that's a fact. Kate Bush was definitely New Wave on these 80s albums. Saying it wasn't new wave is pure nonsense. And I agree to add Teardrop Explodes as well. Fine with me. But Kate Bush and Cure and the rest definitely belong here. I don't understand why you have something against that and want Modern Talking, Bow Wow Wow and Scritti Politti and some others that are far less truly new romantic than these I added...

And reading names next to each other is again better than having columns (and possibly again blank spaces). Hyperlinks today make this kind of listing I used just more superior than any other, if we want to have easy reading (and I hope easy reading is our goal, not the opposite).

greetings, Ndru01

Firstly, columns are much neater A block of text and links is actually much harder to sort out than a vertical list. That's why lists all over Wikipedia are sorted this way. Secondly, I don't see how "Close to Me" is New Romantic, and you really can't say it's a fact. There are a few undisputely New Romantic bands such as Duran Duran, Culture Club, Japan, and others, but right now the list is so broad it's largely indistinct from the List of New Wave bands and artists. And unless you can provide some sort of documentation that certain artists need to be listed under New Romantic, a lot of these names need to be removed. WesleyDodds 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's Allmusic's New Romantic page for some reference: New Romantic WesleyDodds 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But the list IS sorted (alphabetically), it doesn't need to be 'sorted out'. This is not a matter of sorting, but of displaying.

It's not true that this way is not used on wikipedia. Go for example to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music and look at the bottom, those lists. I saw that displaying actually from these classical music pages of wikipedia. There is simply no use of displaying too long lists, and if we have to list something that has at least 30-40 in the list it is already too long, so better use this way. Only I used commas instead of hyphens or dots. Maybe I shouldn't have used commas, but I can change that, it's not a problem. If you want me to replace all ', ' with ' . ' or with ' - ', no problem. I agree that columns is neat with the letter above the group, like on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Classical_era_composers but this way is not so easy for editing and I don't really see it so necessary for rock/pop music, where we have bands, and solists and solists from same bands again, all combined. So classifying that neatly under letters I think is too much of a classification for them (plus it leaves again too much unnecessary white space). Simply displaying names next to each other is definitely the best way for this page (and any rock music page) by my opinion.

And ok, if Kate Bush and Cure botter you so much, remove them. But then remove Modern Talking and Bow Wow Wow as well. It isn't so inaccurate including Cure and Kate Bush considering the manners in their music of that period, nothing more inaccurate than having Bow Wow Wow and Modern Talking on the list. So if you want to be so strictly accurate, then you have to get rid of your 2 also.

greetings, Ndru01

PS. Ok, I changed ', ' to ' - ' now there is one more blank space between them, so it looks less crowdy, and it's actually nicer having hyphens than commas. I admit now that commas between (immidiately after the name) wasn't a good idea...

Wow, a music genre article that says absolutely NOTHING about the music..Whotookthatguy 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tears For Fears were never New Romantic, they were simply "new wave" which is not the same thing. They never wore make-up or flamboyant clothing which are essential hallmarks of the New Romantic movement. They did advocate use of synths in their music, but so did Abba and Fleetwood Mac - and nobody would dream of referring to them as New Romantics. Just because a band uses synths in their music and appeared in the pages of Smash Hits magazine and were successful in the early 1980s, it does not constitute them as New Romantics. (and Kate Bush wasn't part of the New Romantic movement either for that matter).

Haircut 100?

Should Haircut 100 be added to this list? If you think so, please add it. ike9898 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Haircut 100 were not New Romantics. They were something of a pin-up band in the early 1980s, but that doesn't make them New Romantics.

Yazoo

I think in regarding Yazoo, I don't think they defined New Romantic. Think about Yazoo and their connections: Vince Clake was a memeber of Yazoo,Erasure and Depeche Mode. All of these groups are more in line with 80's Synthpop. Of course, both the new romantic and synthpop fall under new wave so one can easily confuse the two categories at first. But when I think of new romantic I think of Duran Duran, Flock of Seagulls, Tears for Fears, etc. They use synths but they're not primarily synth. Contrast them with Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Alphaville, Erasure, New order, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys and you'll notice the difference. If you do this, Yazoo will 'sound'more like synthpop than the new romantic. Try it.

I have to disagree. Duran Duran and Flock of Seagulls are also Synth pop. They both have mechanical sound and rythyms. Some songs are both mixture of both Synth pop and New Romantic. Example Rio from Duran Duran has the techno mechanical sound ?(with the assist of the bass guitar) And the Romantic lyrics and Saxophone of New Romantic music. Or Kajagoogoos Oh to be ah had mechanical light synths but had the Disco bass line and Funk of New romantics. And there are plenty of artist that are listed in this site as both Synth pop and New Romantic. Like Japan and there song the Quiet Life sounds similar to Duran Durans Planet Earth. When I think of most New Romantic bands I think of Synth pop but with Romantic lyrics and New Romantic fasion. Except for Spandau ballet and Culture club who don't use Synths in every song like A flock of Seagulls and Duran Duran. Now Tears for Fears I don't think they are New Romantics. They got the music but not the look or the style. You got to have the fasion of New Romantics to be New Romantic. As for Yazoo I dont think there New Romantic even though when Vince Clarke was in Depeche Mode they were associated with the New Romantic Movement. Yamchaken (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bow Wow Wow, the Pirate Collection, and PX

I think Bow Wow Wow should be on the Band List. Considering they were comprised of most of Adam and the Ants and temporarily featured Boy George. On the fashion front I think the Vivienne Westwood Pirate Collection and Worlds End Boutique along with Stephan Raynor's PX Boutique should be mentioned. These shops were where most New Romantics bought their clothing. I know someone mentioned more on the fashion side once before, and I think these two are the prime examples.

They certainly dressed up (and undressed as well), but the music wasn't NR at all, more fifties rock'n'roll ("I want candy") or drummy post-punk ("C30 C60 C90 go"). No synths and no sci fi/Germany references. Totnesmartin 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone added Bow Wow Wow to the list of "typical musical and stylistic proponents of the New Romantic movement" although the reference doesn't even mention them. Totnesmartin said it all, so I removed them. 89.164.33.98 (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong. McLaren created Bow Wow Wow to promote business partner Vivienne Westwoods formative New Romantic line, just as he'd done with the Sex Pistols for her punk line. See his interview - [1] 212.84.105.152 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Noting a removal

he New Romantics are also a newer band, emerging on the Phoenix, Arizona scene in late 2002. Their sound is a mixture of glammy-influenced blues-punk styled tunes, with heavy heavy guitars, often likened to Angus Young of AC/DC, Chuck Berry, or Olga of the Toy Dolls. They have strayed a bit from their namesake, the New Romantic styles of the early 80's, and have gone on to portray a rather disturbing eyeliner ladened group of overtly sexual, belligerent drunkards, the types your mother warned you about. The New Romantics are Neil Impossible, Brian Stylz, Joey Thomas, Lucky Dagger, and Joey Lowe. They have been complimented and referenced numerous times on Alice Cooper's radio show, and have opened for Mötley Crüe amongst other notable acts. It was rumored that their debut LP, 'Love Letters & Death Threats' was to be out in late 2004, but no such album exists to date.

It's probably not necessary to explain why I deleted this paragraph, but I figured I'd be sporting and put it to the community anyway.

Photo?

Since the New Romantic movement was so fashion-centric, I think it is important that a photo or two be added to this article, if possible. Adam Ant in full dandy regalia would be a good choice. 4.131.33.246 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. The "Ashes to Ashes" video isn't mentioned in the article, but it was a huge influence on the NRs - probably the last time Bowie was cutting-edge. Totnesmartin 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoping to help improve this article

I'm a huge fan of New Romantic and I don't feel this article completely captures the scene/style. I hope to drastically expand/improve this article, but haven't really worked on Wiki before. Because of this, I would like to make the expansion as collaborative as possible, and would appreciate criticism and suggestions along the way. I'll be offering "improvement previews" shorty.

Adrian Anansi 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Adrian Anansi

Depeche Mode, Human League, Heaven 17, and to a somewhat smaller extent OMD were all part of the New Romantic music scene along with Adam and The Ants (who was responsible for the fashions associated with the phenemenon) and Duran Duran. Also The Passions need to be mentioned. Remember their song "I'm In Love With A German Film Star"? I was living in Dublin at the time and The New Romantics were everywhere.jeanne (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, early DM, HL, H17, OMD were all more new romantic than Adam Ant was, who was new romantic mostly NR in dressing and very little in music. Tears for Fears on their first 2 albums were musically undoubtedly New romantic too, and definitely should be mentioned in the article. 208.72.122.16 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tears For Fears were nothing to do with the New Romantic movement. You are confusing NR with synthpop or New Wave. NR was more about the visuals (the clothes, make-up, etc). TFF never wore make-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.11.44 (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Band lists placed on this artcle

This article is not a list of bands that people consider New Romantic, only those who were key to the movement and only to illustrate a particular point in the article.

The article starts with "Typical musical and stylistic proponents of the New Romantic movement were Spandau Ballet, Visage, Japan, Ultravox, Adam & The Ants, Culture Club, and Duran Duran," this is a sufficient sample of bands to illustrate "Typical music and stylism" of NRs. Edits just involving the addition of lists of bands for the sake of it will be reverted, as these will generally not be New Romantic bands any way and damages the readability of the article. andi064 ^{T . C} 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

andi064 I think you should stick to the Human League part of Wiki espically since you dont even think New Romantic is a music genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the New Romantic movement, it isn’t part of WP:Music Genres, this is clearly discussed on this talk page. The way you alter articles on wikipedia specifically against the consensus of other editors demonstrates that you know nothing about the subjects you edit and are just damaging wikipedia. On this article if you took a moment to read this talk page before you edited, you would see that people who know what they are talking about are fed up with people just adding lists of bands that had nothing to do with the movement. There are 5 bands listed here that have the consensus of editors on each band page that they belong here. The article needs expansion on the history of the movement not lazy edits just adding random and erronius bands. If a band article doesn’t specifically agree that the subject was part of the NR movement it will simply be removed from here, no matter how many times you try to add it, and you will just earn yourself another ban under WP:3RR.andi064 ^{T . C} 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine I am just saying let people who actually agree taht New Romantic is a music genre do it. You even said yourself that your not a New Romantic expert, but then again who is. But all I am saying is your more of the Human League expert and all I saying is just "simply" stick to that. Its not to be offensive to anyone so dont take it personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered two groups that got a lot of play in the New Romantic venue I frequented, namely Pigbag and Modern Romance. In fact Pigbag's song "Papa's Got a Brand New Pigbag" always got everybody onto the dance floor!!! Should they be included?jeanne (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorise either Modern Romance or Pigbag as New Romantic. Modern Romance were almost there, but didnt quite fall into the category as they didn't dress that flamboyantly or wear make-up (though I do recall David Jaymes being CAKED in foundation for their TV appearances). Pigbag were nothing at all to do with the NR movement though, and they merely had a hit record at the same time the New Romantic bands were around (which is probably why the venue you went to played them).79.66.41.131 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know,John DuPrez, Modern Romance's trumpet player looked pretty flamboyant on TOTP in his flight suit and goggles!!--jeanne (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...yes I remember that appearance (for "Best Years Of Our Lives", wasn't it?). It's theatrical, but it's not flamboyant in a New Romantic manner though (which was all about make-up and OTT haircuts and Vivienne Westwood-esque clothes). Like I said, I think David Jaymes was almost there but was probably just a bit fey rather than a full-on NewRomantic (and certainly no more than David Van Day from "Dollar"). And the rest of the band were just a load of pretty boys in trendy suits playing sub-Latin American pop tunes. They reminded me more of the kind of band that plays at weddings than a proper pop band who had a string of top 40 hits. 79.74.30.80 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was "Best Years of Our Lives" when DuPrez donned the flight suit. You're right. Their music was sub-Latin American pop and they probably chose their name to cash in on the New Romantic movement. Anyway, DuPrez was the only memorable member of the group. He was certainly the most striking-looking!--jeanne (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lyrical Matters and SUBSTANCE

We are missing the opportunity to introduce the lyrical origins of the terminology. While much of punk and new wave was not romantic in its lyrical content, almost all of the New Romantic bands can be bound by a Romantic worldview and a strong faith in matters of the heart and positive resolutions to problematic issues: even when taking the alternative in an ironic sense (ABC and early Spandau Ballet are two prime examples of such irony pointing to a faithful underlying set of beliefs). Someone please introduce the notion, as it is indeed important to the origins. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.112.191 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that Roxy Music indeed solidified the term with Avalon, which was not only stylish and gorgeous in sound and vision, but also took a sincere and faithful approach to both love and music, in fact inexorably meshing the two in the penultimate example that all would follow: but one must quote an actual critic or two to introduce the notion... Ta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.112.191 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a photo

This article definitely needs a photo. Isn't there a free image somewhere of Adam Ant or Duran Duran?--jeanne (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doneandi064 ^{T . C} 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)