Talk:Post-punk revival/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes

I've alphatized the list of artists, and added the Kaiser Chiefs. I hope you don't mind.80.101.187.6 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputes

I added the Disputed message and removed the following comments by 64.21.105.166 that were in the body of the article:

• History of the post-punk revival - "(Note: This article erroneously combines the 'garage-rock revival' of the late '90s and early '00s with bands from the same time period whose sound borrows from the 'post-punk' era. It needs to be rewritten by someone who knows what they're talking about.)"
• The dual meaning of post-punk - "(Note: this entire section is just flat-out incorrect.)"

Note that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with these remarks, but it seemed better to not have them in the body of the article. zztzed 12:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• "The more musically and emotionally complex music of indie rock bands like Arcade Fire(which, nevertheless, has been characterized by critics as featuring post-punk influences and sound) and Death Cab For Cutie" - This is sheer opinion, not a statement of fact. Arguably, a band like Interpol can be considered far more musically complex than Death Cab For Cutie and vice versa for that matter, but this article states it objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.45.75 (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed the disputed notification of the page until somebody comes along and argues why it should be there: the opinions above are not convincing. --Martin Wisse 12:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

!!!

I took !!! off of the list

• Why? I'm inclined to include them: they're part of the dance-punk trend and are more on the lyrical, punk-based end of that genre, making them akin to Liars and the Rapture, who are listed here. Of the three, !!! may take the most from the original post-punkers, if only in terms of percussion and production (PiL, ESG, outsiders like Talk Talk). —Tarnas 03:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• There are editorial comments in the article suggesting a rewrite, it needs those listened to and removed.

• I really agree that chk chk chk (!!!), should remain on this list. They use many of the same instrumental techniques as bands like P.I.L., Bush Tetras, ESG, Liquid Liquid, etc. --FACT50 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Classification

I think the post-punk revival is more accuately classified as an alternative rock genre rather than a punk rock one, namely because virtually all these bands are indie rock and have no direct connection to punk rock. WesleyDodds 04:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For the most part you are correct. But there are a whole slew of new bands more inspired by early post-punk that took a cue from the upbeat punk roots of the scene. --FACT50 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to second this objection. Almost all acts listed on this page are better described as "garage rock revival" or "alternative rock revival." Jack White & The White Stripes are unambigously in the blues lineage, which is distinct from post-punk traditions. Very few of these acts share the punk ethic, and are unabashedly corporate or signed to major labels. Bands like The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand are much more often grouped with their peers The Arctic Monkeys and The Killers than they are anything "post-punk." In general, there is very little correlation between the musical style of acts listed on this (Post-punk revival) page and the acts listed on the Post-punk page. I'd advocate that the title of this page be changed, or else the content (e.g. musical acts listed) modified substantially; as of now, the classifications and terms used here have little alignment with either mainstream or critical usage. --Ganteka

Meaning of Punk

Alternative rock and what it meant sadly died long ago and now you can find Sonic Youth or Dead Kennedys records among many others in almost any shopping mall. Punk rock has a wider and deeper meaning, not only referring to the music, genre or sound, a band can be punk playing with acoustic guitars or synthesizers like Billy Bragg, Devo or some Djs. Just look at The Clash, they were truly punks until the very end although they left the kindergarden shouting back in 1976. RRu 02:16, 27 June 2006

it all depends on how one defines "alternative". in common usage, it means both the nitty gritty artists you mentioned and all the stuff that has happened since grunge which is directly indebted to punk. 67.172.61.222 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The original use of the term Alternative was a reference to mid-80's College Rock. Bands as diverse as New Order, Love and Rockets, Pixies, R.E.M., U2, The Go-Betweens, The Pogues, Big Audio Dynamite, etc. It wasn't until the early 90's post-grunge period that it was used to describe any form of rock music that MTV cared to play. --FACT50 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

in fact, the mainstream of alternative was an oxymoron. what was it the alternative to anymore? it WAS independant bands that were not what the major labels and mtv were shoving down our throats. grunge and its popularity killed it. beyond the early 90s alternative became a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.101.86 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Post-punk revival?

I think it's silly to call article about radio-friendly bands such as Franz Ferdinand 'Post-Punk Revival'. (like a commercial punk bands which characterized as pop-punk), because this bands have nothing in common with post-punk of 1977-84 and more - their so-called post-punk is too commercial to call it post-punk.

Franz Ferdinand's main influences are Gang of Four and Josef K. WesleyDodds 08:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the singer of Franz Ferdinand has told me in person that "The Monochrome Set" were his single biggest influence. Although I have yet to see him cite them in the press. You must also pay attention to the wave of underground post-punk revival bands whoa re completely indebted to the more obscure originators of the late 70's / early 80's. --FACT50 21:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to second this objection. Almost all acts listed on this page are better described as "garage rock revival" or "alternative rock revival." Jack White & The White Stripes are unambigously in the blues lineage, which is distinct from post-punk traditions. Very few of these acts share the punk ethic, and are unabashedly corporate or signed to major labels. Bands like The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand are much more often grouped with their peers The Arctic Monkeys and The Killers than they are anything "post-punk." In general, there is very little correlation between the musical style of acts listed on this (Post-punk revival) page and the acts listed on the Post-punk page. I'd advocate that the title of this page be changed, or else the content (e.g. musical acts listed) modified substantially; as of now, the classifications and terms used here have little alignment with either mainstream or critical usage. --Ganteka

the 'happy" part of their sound is due to new wave,which is pretty related to postpunk!! the allmusictag of "new wave -post-punk revival" made sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.38.143 (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Expanded the history of Post-Punk Revival

Added a paragraph reffering to the ever growing influences shown by the most recent post-punk revival bands. --FACT50 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with a Post-Punk revival article

The main issue I take with a post-punk revival article, is that virtually all of the newest post-punk "inspired" bands are just as equally inspired from a wide range of music from the past 20 years. The main ones being New Wave, and Britpop. The new post-punk movement is more like a massive melting pot of influences. The press has just been keen to point out any bands that have a Peter Hook bass line, or Andy Gill guitar shred, as new post-punk. however if we look at the history of the movement, it has always been a melting pot of influences. Everything from Psychedelic Rock, Reggae/Dub, Ska, Jazz, Country, and a many other genres played a part in the formations of the earliest Post-Punk bands.

While there are indeed a large number of (mostly underground) new bands that wear their post-punk influences on their sleeves proudly. The majority of the commercial friendly bands just take elements from these various influences and mash them into something totally different. --FACT50 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Certainly Interpol's Paul Banks insists he never heard Joy Division before the band formed. But I think it's more that certain styles acted as the direct root of this movement, such as indie rock and the post-Britpop British indie scene. So it's best to consider the movement in those terms. And in terms of New Wave, for many years to the ears of the casual American listener, post-punk and New wave were considered the same thing. In recent years that has changed with the current interest in the period, but it's really handy for a lot of people to just list influence by bands like Duran Duran (one of the definitive New Wave bands) and the Smiths (like R.E.M., a pivotal alternative rock band that was a reaction to and helped drive a nail in the coffin of post-punk and New Wave) without regard as to whether or not they were actually post-punk. WesleyDodds 21:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"conventions of the original post-punk sound of the early 1980s" - what the fuck!!? There simply were no conventions. This article is utterly ridiculous. --89.245.93.61 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is more or less completely unreferenced

...and as such, is in an awful state at the moment. Users should cite while they write. See WP:A.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus it reads like a freshman-level essay :-\ --JD79 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it disqualifies itself for any serious attempt at a freshman-level essay by creating terms like "the Post-Punk ethic". Who devised this hoax? --89.245.93.61 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't you rewrite it? Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

BRAZIL

surely brazil (and CSS) deserves a mention. ask any music critic, they're probably 3rd in terms of post-punk revival after UK and US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.153.29 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bands Added

I added Liars, No Age, These New Puritans, and HEALTH. Liars and These New Puritans are listed as Post Punk on their page, No Age and HEALTH are listed as Noise Rock witch is a form of Post Punk.

That Noise Rock is a form of Post Punk, does not mean any modern band who describes themself as noise rock is Post Punk revival. For this reason I would suggest removing HEALTH plus probably quite a few bands selected with similar logic 131.251.134.146 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Tom Wainwright 68.161.76.234 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Solyt

Citations required - and a criteria set

This article is becoming a fan site. I mean - Editors? They are an 80's derivative, Big Country type of band. How can they be punk? At a real push they also have a faintly plodding Joy Division-eque feel (per Peter Hook) - but that does not make them punk - it makes them meandering, a little depressive, and kind of slow. There actual guitars and chords/riffs are pure 80's - not punk at all. And their vibe is 'indie' surely?

Editors are being insisted on by a notorious Editors fan (who has used nearly 30 sock accounts and endless IP's for this and another subject) - under the "commercially successful" line, but they are not commercially successful, either. In the end, we could get countless bands placed in here on similar merits to Editors.

We need to demand reliable sources for the term "post-punk revival" (or just "post punk" for modern bands) before allowing inclusion in this article. Citations shouldn't be hard to find if it is actually true. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh post punk revival and "punk" are very different! Editors are the definition of post punk revival. Here's a source and here's another. Not commercially sucessful? I know you're just winding me up, but albums that charted at no.2 and no.1 in the UK charts and selling over 2 million worldwide, I think might just classify them as being commercially succesful. They're definitely as successful as Bloc Party and Interpol and are more so then all the rest that are there with the exception of the Killers who probably don't even meet the defintion of post punk revival anymore considering they're now a pop band. I'm know you're pushing on a bit age wise Matt, but really get with the times.194.125.52.52 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The decline of this scene

In the UK, one of the major sources and markets for these things, recent sales performances have been very disappointing. I know the music industry is in decline, but the pop and hard rock and heavy metal markets haven't seen the same rate of sales decline. It's accompanied by chart decline too, which shows it really is the indie scene which is weakening. Thinking of most recent releases by Arctic Monekys, Kaiser Chiefs, The Feeling, Razorlight, The Kooks, etc. In the UK all this stuff tends to be bunched in as indie rock but it seems to be here that most of those types of bands are residing. Either way, almost any article on the indie/alt/gaage rock/post-punk revival/post-britpop ETC type bands mentions how in the early 00s it became big again, lasting until the mid 00s (2008 was when the decline started I think)....then doesn't mention the commercial death which followed. Not a genre I know well, so didn't wanna write it, but wanted to point it out! (Chill (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for this. I am sure you are right, it has declined pretty rapidly. Unfortunatlely, there is often a bit of a time lag before reliable sources start noting this (mainly because magazines note the rise of genres and only books - which come later - tend to talk about decline). As soon as we can find a reliable source that deals with decline we can add a sort of summary of the movement. If you come across such a source before I do please feel free to point it out here.--SabreBD (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New Wave?

How can this be omitted as a stylistic origin? The choice in naming aside ("Alternative/Indie" aren't in the title either}, I do think New Wave is significant to this scene. For starters, classic New Wave bands are constantly cited as influences by Pp revivalists (right down to Duran Duran even). For another thing, notice the fact that Pp-revival has managed to be much more commercially viable than old Post-punk. Yes I'm aware some genres become more commercial as time goes on, but that usually occurs when the core sound undergoes a commercial interpretation. And what could a commercialized, pop-friendly take on Post-punk sound like other than New Wave (by most modern definitions)? And frankly, "commercialized, pop-friendly" is a fitting description for this movement's general take on Post-punk. By the way, it's not rare at all to see "New Wave/Post-punk Revival" used instead of just Post-punk revival. Just saying. Theburning25 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Upon noticing that New Wave was formerly listed for a long time, before being removed by one particularly biased poster, I've re-added it. Theburning25 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting definitions

This is one of the topics where I keep an occasional eye out for new sources in the hope of improving it. It is clear that Simon Reynolds and Allmusic decided that there was a discrete post-punk revival movement, but most of the other sources I can find seem to suggest that this is just one term for a large and confusing trend that went by a lot of different names, including garage rock revival. Can anyone provide a reliable source that clearly distinguishes between these movements? If not I think we should consider noting the confusion and alternative names and themes, so that the article reflects and explains the debate, which is less than apparent to readers at the moment.--SabreBD (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no one objected for several months I have now done this. I have also come across a number of useful sources on the topic. It is now possible to take this further and provide more details of the movement and its varied origins and the different views of its origins. I know that it is a tenant of faith for some that the garage rock and post-punk revivals are completely separate, but that is not the view of many commentators and so should be reflected here in order to retain a NPOV. Accordingly I am flagging up an expansion of this article that will make the different interpretations and history of the movement so that editors can raise major points and suggestions for anything that needs inclusion. I will bear in mind points already made above.--SabreBD (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This now done. Also added pictures.--SabreBD (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is confusing precisely because it is attempting to describe a mish-mash of two genres. Do we have a source that clearly explains why the garage rock and new-wave revivals should be treated as a single genre, other than that they both happened in the last decade and could both be lumped as "indie" or "alternative"? If not, this content should be split out into its parent genres, as it already has been to some extent. Xcrivener (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources in the article that indicate the terms are used interchangeably. I have tried to make the article as clear as possible, but since no single term is used it has to reflect that. Is there any reliable source that clearly indicates they are actually separate?--SabreBD (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Although "New Wave" has always been an ambiguous term, I can't find a source that confuses "garage rock" and "post-punk", or their various revivals, simply because they are two different things. They have two different Wikipedia articles. Anyone could pick two genres that were popular around the same time and try to write a single article about them, but it's hardly encyclopedic. Xcrivener (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Try "though neo-punk of the 1990s (referred to by various names including "post-punk," "garage rock revival," "noise ... of bands sharing a similar punk aesthetic appeared: The Hives, The Vines, The White Stripes, and Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs.", which is in J. Stuessy and S. D. Lipscomb, Rock and roll: its History and Stylistic Development (London: Pearson Prentice Hall, 5th edn., 2006), ISBN 0131930982, p. 451. There are others. This is not an article combining two different things, but an article reflecting the fact that the sources call the same thing by different names.--SabreBD (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or if we go by AllMusic/Reynolds, two things by a range of different names. Xcrivener (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think what is here now better reflects the totality of reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not one to usually comment on these pages. But it seems to me this entire article could be wrapped into the Post-Punk article. Maybe a redirect for "post-punk revival" to the actual Post-Punk article? I note there is already a Post-Punk Revival section in the Post-Punk article. I don't want to get into the legitimacy of the entire Post-Punk Revival label, which honestly seems to be more marketing-hype, than a legitimate and verifiable musical movement. See above discussion on the difficulty of classifying bands within the supposed genre or even defining the sound. But I will point out that this revival article is already longer than the actual Post-Punk article, which ought to give the editors pause. Again apologies for formatting issues/violating usual wp discussion customs/etc.66.232.106.148 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The problems of definition are, in my opinion, a good reason for keeping this separate. This was a movement for which that the media struggled to find a single name. Garage rock revival is just as accurate and more widespread. Incorporating it into the Post-punk article would suggested a stronger link than actually born out by the evidence. The fact that this article is longer than the post-punk one is more a condemnation of that article than of this one. No doubt it will be expanded one day.--SabreBD (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There was critic talk of a "return of rock" in the early 2000s, of which the post-punk revival was a portion of, which might clear up the situation a bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis?

I came to this page after having not seen it for a while, and I ask myself: why has the garage rock revival been merged into the post-punk revival? Though some bands overlap (well, mainly the Strokes) these are two very different things. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

After a lot of research I can say that the sources use the terms interchangeably for most of the major bands. That is not synthesis - it is just reflecting what the sources say.--SabreBD (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify this? I ask because I am reasonably familiar with the genre and this is the first time I've ever seen it conflated with the garage rock revival/the "The" bands. A related issue is that the article as currently written reads like it's welding two different ideas together. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Post-punk revival/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 18:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   ---I am impressed by how well-developed the prose is. Nice work.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   ---I'm always happy when I review articles and find all the references nicely cited and easily verifiable. Thanks, it makes my job much easier!

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   ---Well done! Please see comments below for further areas of improvement. --Tea with toast (話) 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

I am happy to find this article to be in such good shape. However, it is a bit short, and I feel like there could be more content added. Here are some ideas:

• There are other punk-inspired genres, such as emo and Riot grrrl, that developed during this same period of post-punk revival. I think it would be worth including information about their relevance.
• I think it would be very relevant to include information about the cultural context of post-punk revival. There is some interesting information from the article on punk rock that could be used as a starting point here. You might discuss more about how the commercialization of the genre (such as the rise of Hot Topic) helped spur its growth, or about the resurgence of some of the philosophical roots of the genre (rebellion, anti-establishment, DIY) that might be relevant here. Of course, you'll want to avoid WP:OR, but I think there are sources that exist that could develop this aspect of the topic.

Thanks for your efforts, good luck, and happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and for the very helpful comments. I will work on them in the near future.--SabreBD (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you check the original source material "The Hellacopters, Backyard Babies and Soundtrack of Our Lives from Sweden"- are not specified as NW bands. Anyone who is familiar with their music will know they are not NW or PP by any stretch of the imagination, I suggest removing them entirely. If the intention is to draw attention to Swedish acts in this genre I recommend The Sounds. Bunnyman78 (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What happened to "Garage Rock Revival" title? New Title Misleading

Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember this article being titled "Garage Rock Revival." As it stands, the title of the article is misleading in how it pertains to bands that are trying to revive the garage rock sound of the mid-60's. Such bands are certainly not trying to revive post punk. Post punk was not garage rock, but a movement that consisted of bands that came much later (after 70's punk), such as Public Image Limited, as well as the goth and no wave genres, etc. Garage rock can never be spoken of as either pre-punk or post-punk, because it was the original form of punk rock (for references and detailed discussion, please read my posts in talk sections of "Garage Rock," "Punk Rock," "Punk Subculture," and "History of Punk Subculture"), so all attempts to revivalize it must be treated as "punk" and/or "garage..." and nothing else.

The title needs to be changed back to "Garage Rock Revival." There is still a Wiki article-link in the side box of the "Punk Rock" article that reads "Garage Rock Revival," but when you click onto it, you get something different that what was expected ("Post-Punk Revival", when it should read "Garage Rock Revival").

Please return the title of this article back to "Garage Rock Revival" (as it should be). New and seperate articles can be created for "Post Punk Revival," if there are any bands trying to revitalize that sound (i.e. PIL, goth, no wave, etc. or other revival genres. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It has never been called Garage rock revival. I believe you have been confused by a redirect.--SabreBD (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)