Talk:Shoegaze/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stereolab?

Stereolab were influenced heavily by shoegaze, and allot of their music could be described as shoegaze itself - maybe they deserve a mention? --82.12.241.34 09:38, March 27 2006

Stereolab features a pretty through description of the band but doesn't mention shoegazing. if you feel it should, you might want to mention it on that articles talk page --MilkMiruku 12:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think shoegaze is prominent in Stereolab, their sound is very groove-oriented and I do think that the so called nugaze references are too crowded (i.e. someone self promotioning here?, haha) , they could really use some clean up. I think its important also to mention how shoegaze blended into post-rock, this happened before the remergence of shoegaze and it is noticed most of all in mogwai, which is not mentioned. I also think that a band like sonic youth is deserved being mentioned, many of the heavily distorted guitar textures that shoegaze was later on known for can be traced back to an album like Sister, although their concept and context was very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.77.37 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2006

the trilogy pen, switched on, mars audiac quintet is as shoegazey as it gets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.77.30 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

First, one can argue subjective opinions about this ad infinitum, but none of that's relevant to an encyclopedic discussion of the issue. The important question is what do outside, verifiable sources say about it? That said, I think it has merit to mention a connection if some verifiable source for that argument can be found. Early Stereolab is sometimes described as part of the so-called The Scene That Celebrates Itself alongside Chapterhouse, Lush, etc. Stereolab's first few releases, the ones that were compiled as Switched On, have a very strong "wall of sound" with vocals heavily buried into the mix kind of sound that clearly owes a debt to My Bloody Valentine and has some similarities to Lush. However, from Peng! onward, Krautrock and other influences are clearly more dominant and Stereolab starts moving away from the classic "shogaze" sound of MBV, Lush, Chapterhouse, etc. But, once again, that's just my opinion - working from sourced material is key here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Article should be moved to the title "shoegaze"

The name of the genre is shoegaze NOT "shoegazing". [1][2][3][4][5] Second Skin (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see this as an issue. The first being the early 90s term, the latter the US 00s term. The former seems preferable, but it might be worth clarifying the terminology in the the lead. No doubt its been discussed to death here earlier. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed to death, several times, with 'shoegazing' being preferred. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in Shoegazing music

Like other phenomenons in British pop history (Manchester Rave, Jangle Pop, Twee Pop, Britpop), most Shoegazing acts were all-male groups, from Ride to Chapterhouse, from Blind Mr. Jones to Moose, from This Scarlet Train to Boo Radleys, from Catherine Wheel to Swervedriver, from Kitchens of Distinction to Pale Saints (who added a female singer years later). And there were dozens more (Bethany Curve etc.)...

The entire section is poorly sourced. But let's see... We have Cocteau Twins, Galaxie 500 and MBV as genre forerunners. Female-fronted/gender-mixed Shoegazing performers include Lush, Slowdive, Curve, Alison's Halo, Medicine, Velocity Girl, Secret Shine, and maybe the Telescopes. At first sight it seems that Kevin Shields (the only source) is right and the scene was "gender-balanced". But if you count them all, including underground bands, the male bands outrank the female bands. Female shoegazers became more popular within the "Nu-gaze" movement of the new millennium. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Characteristics

User:Ilovetopaint obviously misunderstood something. The new text describes the equipment of MBV, not Shoegazing. The sentence "Co-founder Kevin Shields stated that the band's choice of pedals never included chorus, flanger or delay effects." means that he created a sound comparable to Shoegazing, although his equipment is not typical of Shoegazing. It is simply not represenative of the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RivetHeadCulture (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be "Shoegaze", not "Shoegazing"? It seems like shoegaze is the more popular term, and the body of the article mostly uses it as well. Other articles also tend to refer to the genre as shoegaze.☣Yutsi — Talk/Edits 18:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

yeah title is DAF, but has been discussed, example, check rest of archive, could be put to fresh vote I guess? Acousmana (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad title indeed. The "consensus" on this matter seems to be from over a decade ago, and it was hardly even a "consensus." According to Google Trends, "shoegaze" has become over 10x more popular in both the US and UK. ThrillShow (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I misspoke. The discussion from 2006 reached no consensus, and the discussion from 2014 was closed after it received only two votes from users who were basically just bored with the conversation. ThrillShow (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Support "Shoegaze" myself, rather than the verb, which of course was originally meant as a smear. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Yutsi: @ThrillShow: Let's do it Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests talk@TRANSviada 22:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)