Jump to content

Talk:Synthwave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

Why are you relying so heavily on Iron Skullet, which is all opinion pieces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.78.40 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources are totally un-notable. We don't use Reddit interviews, facebook groups, rateyourmusic, other wikis and others for sources here. There is a lot that needs improvement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability applies to pages, not to sources, which only need to be reliable.
The main issue seems to be a relative dearth of secondary sources, even though primary sources seem to be common enough. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCarterAccount and JohanAnderssonSynthwave: Please have a look at the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline. -- intgr [talk] 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Tropylium is correct. I meant reliability. But the sources here aren't expanding on the importance on this genre, as it's mostly interviews from tumblr accounts, blog posts, and last.fm tags. Others are from music labels, which can be okay if used properly, but they aren't really journalistic sources to discuss a style of art or music. Those need third-party sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's worse than I thought. Most citations that even seem okay make no mention at all whatever for this genre. Even the interviews from questionable sources don't mention synthwave or outrun at all. At this rate, I'm considering nominating it for deletion as it's got nothing but sources that are misleading as they don't actually match the content in question. I'll give it time for this to be corrected, but so far it's just people removing the banners, not participating in the talk page and adding more sources poorly. This isn't boding well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: I'll be deleting and changing a few references according to your comments in order to get more secondary or third-party sources. DavidCarterAccount (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a total invention of RYM. RYM is unreliable, full of pseudo-genres, full of POV and supporters of POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.11.78 (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest I heard of this was from Bandcamp, which had a vibrant "Synthwave" tag and some related labels for a year or two before RYM decided on anything about it. It's debatable if tags should be by default taken to be genres, of course; cf. Last.fm. Getting anything into RYM's genre system on the other hand requires at least degree of userbase consensus and moderator approval; so they could be argued to constitute a primary source in favor of the judgement that synthwave is a genre. It's a particular POV of course, but then again, all sources have one. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the line Artists like nCov69 and Carbon Rapture have satirically released music described as Coronawave, Viruswave or Covidwave. A Bandcamp listing is not a notable and adequate citation here and there could be issues with NPOV Thisismeandhistory (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the term describes a genre... a subgenre of New Wave music, if you want. You'll find the term in old music magazines (print media). Also the terms "electro-wave" and "techno-wave". They all described the technological, synthesizer-based side of New Wave music.

Currently, this article describes a post-millennial derivative (with influences of euro-/italo-disco and house music), but not the original synthwave movement of the '80s/early '90s (that predates house music). That's the biggest problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.11.78 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Less history, more musicology

[edit]

Good to see that this page exists again. However, right now the majority of the page is about the history of the genre rather than the genre itself, and even the information provided is dubious, since it provides little inline citation, takes the "one true creator" approach (College), and ATM looks like mostly original research. I would make a motion to perform a somewhat drastic abridging of the page's history section, and fill it with more information pertaining to what defines the genre, and artists linked to it.

Also, just a minor note, it would seem that somebody has flagged most of the citations that do exist as dubious or incorrect. Upon further inspection, I would conclude that roughly half of these claims are debatable. One such source (le'toile) was an established monthly magazine. While I appreciate the attempt to "clean up" Wikipedia, the concern is misplaced.

Myconix (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myconix, It was me who added the cites needed. They aren't there to say "this is incorrect", they are there to say "is this correct"? Before, tons of the citations were from Rate Your Music and Last.fm, other wikis, random fan blogs. I went through most of them and removed the junkier ones, fixed ones that did not match the prose in the articles they cited, but I was genuinely unsure about the others. I've tagged them to try and make notes for both myself and others to go through them later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience editing the electro house page, this much concern regarding inline citations is disruptive and hindersome in the development of articles. It generally leads to the entire article relying on a strict group of primary "published" sources, and requires that all citations use the "quote" field, cluttering up the "References" section to nigh unreadability (and if you want to use two different paragraphs, you'll need to include duplicate citations, yuck). The rules are principles, not law. I won't disagree with you that better citations are neccessary before this article can make a drastic improvement, but in the same stroke we need to interpret the meaning of our sources, not the text.
Another thing to note, there is a lot of information, from both my edits and from other users, that is otherwise factual but being outright dropped, purely on the basis of no references. There's a certain amount of common sense that needs to be applied in these cases. Either way, if the contribution isn't libelous or misleading, and an inline citation is absolutey neccessary for whatever reason, then the proper response is to flag the information as [citation needed], rather than to delete it immediately.
tl;dr These things, they take time. Myconix (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time to bring out the old stand by I guess...

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...

–Jimmy Wales [1]

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.

So yeah, don't add material unless you have information to back it up. That's crap. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, avoid making "you" statements. They're impolite and create tension between editors. And this is not "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" that's beting deleted. Forgive me for braking my own standard, but you even said in an edit summary that the information is, in fact, relevant to the article. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy either: decision are made based on consensus, not what Jimmy Wales' or some other famous person's word. Like I said a million times before, I do agree that better citations are neccessary, but some discretion also needs to be applied, and right now, it looks like editors are just sticking to the letter of the law. Myconix (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note to the edit above, I would like to read the whole article you have cited, but the link you provided is dead. I have already searched the Archive for a copy, but I seem to be getting only crawling errors. Do you know where else I may be able to find this message? Myconix (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an attack as I just stated the facts. Wikipedia was not created with the intention of just adding "pseudo-information" (which what is included is, as it's against WP:OR). Good call on that archive link dying. used to work! We do have to base things on concensus, but that doesn't mean we can just vote to whatever we want to be in an article. We have to find sources to back it up and concensus is more for when sources disagree with each other or you've reached some other similar problem. Not when "I can't find anything, but this info that goes against WP:OR and WP:RS really needs to be here!" in an article that requires work elsewhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"pseu·do /ˈso͞odō/ not genuine; sham"
Uncited does not mean ingenuine, and applying deductive reasoning is not original research. For example, the citation you just reverted is obviously describing the aspects of synthwave, but it was removed on the technicality that the word "synthwave" explicitly wasn't mentioned. Whatever, keep the article this way, I've stopped caring. Myconix (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good wikis to work off of as a template

[edit]

I'm a fan of the genre myself and want to see this page expand to become more "legitimate". I've gone down the wormhole of looking at different wikis for specific/obscure musical subgenres many times. I've seen some different elements that I think would be helpful here.

  • This entry for wonky pop does a nice job of having an entire section that is just a list of artists who fit the genre, with a citation for each. I realize that many of the artists who fit the subgenre don't have their own wikis yet, but I think this would be a good step forward. It would also improve the structure of the entry by not just having some standalone sentences listing tons of artists. I added a list like this on 6/2/2015. It needs some references for a few artists. Many artists don't have their own wiki's yet, so I'm not sure it's worth including them. Might need to go back and clean up the text in the body of the article to remove redundancies.
  • Lots of entries have music samples available to listen to that are a good example of the genre, like this one for electropop.
  • Some entries, like this one for progressive rock, touch upon the visuals and artwork associated with genre. There is certainly a recurring theme in synthwave music of Miami sunsets, VHS glitches, sunglasses, 80's sports cars, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by November49 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the new addidtion that the genres is called "Synthpop". It's never mentioned in any of the references, and the term has an own wiki page wich refers to different influences, see wiki page synthpop for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCarterAccount (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SynthWave

[edit]

...was a term from the '80s. It described electronic New Wave music. It has a shit to do with soundtrack, disco and house music. Depeche Mode was SynthWave. Anne Clark was SynthWave. Soft Cell was SynthWave. Gary Numan, John Foxx, Yazoo... This is SynthWave. It's not a new genre at all.

These are 2 different genres with the newer partly being influenced by the former. Maybe the article could be renamed or this distinction be made clear enough in the article. I'd suggest a "not to be confused with tag on top of the article (like so: {{About-distinguish|the 80's genre|Electro Wave}} ). As a sidenote: you could create the english equivalent of Electro Wave (or "synthwave"). --Fixuture (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Show me a single source from the mid-2000s (starting point of the "genre") that calls this "newer genre" synthwave. All the "reliable" sources in the article are not older than a year.
The term synthwave was always connected to synthesizer-based New Wave artists. Even on latest party flyers and compilations...
The term is well-established in the post-punk/coldwave/minimal wave/darkwave scene... So yes, whatever this article describes... it needs a new lemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.11.78 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it didn't have a name when it started. I just added the "not to be confused with..."-note as I suggested previously. It's not "always" connected to that. Google it and you'll see almost entirely videos, images and music of the synthwave (2000s) aesthetic. If you want to get the other genre also called synthwave (or probably more often Electro Wave) back on the map by that name create an article for it...that would also help out with avoiding confusion. --Fixuture (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you didn't understand. THIS article will be removed to another lemma. SynthWave is a 30 years old term. It has a bigger history than some kind of neo-disco hipster shit.
As far as I can tell from your links, the 80s thing seems to be most usually called "synth wave" with a word break or something similar (a couple have "synth-wave" or "synth.wave"), while the current thing is always "synthwave" without one (being a part of the same name "tradition" as chillwave and vaporwave). So that might resolve any brewing name disputes. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just nitpicking. Synthwave, synth-wave, synthy-wave/synthie-wave...they all exist and describe one and the same thing. Why don't you move this article to outrun (genre)? Would be much easier.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.72.244 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because articles use the name that's most commonly used in reference to the thing described in the article. In this case "synthwave" is more prevalent than "outrun". There are many indications of this, here's 1 (compare it with this).
As said you could still create a Synth Wave (80s genre) (if you create the article under that name this article would move to sth like "Synthwave (2000s genre)") or Electro Wave article.
--Fixuture (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's about priority. '80s Synthwave is more important than a small retro revival trend. There is no need for parantheses... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.23.73 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to start a new article on this allegedly more important subgenre, but I kind of figure that the current situation is that an existing article has priority over a nonexistent one. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's easy to explain. As far as i know, the lemma was blocked for years (?). Impossible to create an article.
Btw: This article has only 5 (?) reliabe sources, im i right? And most of them are web sources from 2015 or 2014. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"SYNTHWAVE" OR "RETROWAVE" DIDN'T BRING ANYTHING NEW TO THE TABLE - EVERYTHING THAT IS CELEBRATED THERE AS A "DEFINED GENRE" IS A 1 TO 1 COPY OF THE SYNTHESIZER STYLES & HEROES OF OLD. BRING ME SOMETHING NEW AND I'LL PULL AN ANCIENT SONG EQUIVALENT FROM MY COLLECTION. I KNOW IT'S HARD TO CREATE ANYTHING MEANINGFUL AFTER DADDIES & UNCLES HAVE EATEN UP EVERYTHING THAT'S COOL.
MANY NEW PRODUCTIONS ARE GOOD AND FUN, BUT NO SONG OR ALBUM STANDS OUT AS AN EVERGREEN - THE GENIUS OF THE GENRE PIONEERS OF THE OLD DAYS IS SIMPLY MISSING. NO GROUNDBREAKING THEMES, CATCHY TUNES FOR ETERNITY OR NEW SOUNDS - JUST BETTER RECORDING QUALITY.
I COULD DESCRIBE EXACTLY TO THE MOLECULE WHY, DESPITE THE MANY BRILLIANT ORIGINALS OF THE LAST CENTURY, THE NEW GENERATION OF ARTISTS ARE ONLY LAME "REMIXERS" AND NO INNOVATORS, BUT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSCIOUS AT THE TIME - SMELL THE AIR AND THE KNOW THE SPIRIT OF THESE TIMES -THE "ZEITGEIST".BUT MANY MILLENIALS AND GENZ BUNGLERS WHO RAMBLE ABOUT ELECTRONIC MUSIC WEREN'T EVEN IN THEIR DIAPERS WHEN THIS KIND OF MUSIC SWUNG OVER THE ETHER.
"SYNTHWAVE" AS A TERM COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST FROM THE 80S PRESS THAT FABULATED ABOUT "NEW WAVE" - ​​THE FACT THAT THIS TERM WAS LATER SIMPLY BORROWED FROM 2000S ARMCHAIR FARTS SHOWS THEIR BOUNDLESS UNIMAGINATIVENESS. (WE WERE ALSO NARCISSISTS, BUT NOBODY THOUGHT THE MUSIC PRESS WAS COOL AT THE TIME)
NOW TO THE POINT: THE "NEW" SYNTHWAVE WAS AN UNDEFINED MÉLANGE THAT EMERGED IN THE EARLY ELECTRO HOUSE SCENE, WHICH ALSO DREW A LOT FROM ACTS LIKE DAFT PUNK AND OTHER FRENCH HOUSE PROJECTS OF THE '90S. OVER TIME, PEOPLE BEGAN TO PRODUCE SOUNDALIKES OF OLD SYNTHESIZER HITS AND STYLES FROM THE 70S AND 80S - I FOLLOWED THE WHOLE THING VERY CLOSELY - SINCE I'VE BEEN A PROFESSIONAL SINCE 1997 AND CAN UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPMENT EXACTLY.
SIMILAR NONSENSE -FOR EXAMPLE ,HAPPENED WITH THE 'CROSSOVER' ROCK GENRE IN THE 90'S WHEN SOME DOLTS COPIED ONE SONG AND ELEMENTS OF THE BAND 'FAITH NO MORE' AND DUBBED IT 'NU METAL'.
NOT ONLY DID I GROW UP LISTENING TO THE SOUND OF THOSE DECADES, I'VE BEEN BANGING MY SYNTHESIZER KEYS SINCE 1988, AND IT'S ATROCIOUS HOW THESE GLORIOUS MUSICAL INNOVATIONS ARE SHAMELESSLY APPROPRIATED BY PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T INVENT ANYTHING NEW EXCEPT FIDDLE WITH PIRATED SOFTWARE. IT'S NICE THAT MUSICIANS ARE TRYING TO MAKE GOOD MUSIC AGAIN, BUT "ADORNING ONESELF WITH FOREIGN FEATHERS" IS CHEEKY AND CHEAP.
WE'VE ALWAYS HAD RESPECT FOR OUR IDOLS, SO WE'VE ALSO BROUGHT EBM/HOUSE/TECHNO/TRANCE/JUNGLE/BREAKBEATS AND A MYRIAD OF OTHER STYLES TO LIFE TO SET OURSELVES APART FROM THE ARTISTS WHO WERE OUR ROLE MODELS.
QUOTATIONS WERE ALWAYS OK, BUT NOBODY WOULD HAVE DARED TO "POSTHUMOUSLY" CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THESE STYLES.. SINCE THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM, MUSIC (AND ART) HAS ONLY BEEN CLONED. I'M SORRY, BUT I MUST EXPRESS THIS SAD TRUTH: YOUR GENERATION IS THE MOST NARCISSISTIC OF ALL IN HUMAN HISTORY, WITH THE GREATEST URGE TO BE "INDIVIDUALISTIC" AND PRESTIGE-ORIENTED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE MOST BORING AND UNCREATIVE. I HOPE COMING DECADES WILL BRING THE CHANGE.KINDEST REGARDS ->GEN X46.114.172.86 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to be merged with and added to the original synthwave article. Most of the cited quotes from relevant artists clearly state that they are attempting to imitate or revive the style of 80's film scores, which are part of the original synthwave genre. As such, the modern movement is not a new genre, but rather a continuation of the old, and should therefore be in a section of the original synthwave page, and not have its own page. Movements are not genres- genres describe a style, not a timespan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.199.94 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2015

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

The result of the move request was: what an absolute mess. Shortly after this discussion was opened, RHaworth made the (IMO correct) decision to revert the recently undiscussed move and put the article that was temporarily at Synthwave (Outrun) back to simply Synthwave. Then Anthony, for reasons that are beyond me, decided to move this discussion to a redirect talk page. I will move it back and turn this talk page back into a redirect after I've closed this discussion. In closing, I am endorsing RHaworth's move – there was clearly no consensus to change the status quo of having the 2000s genre at Synthwave. I will move Synthwave (version 2) (a nonsense title) to Synthwave (1980s) (largely per Tropylium's suggestion) and restore the content so it's no longer a redirect. This may require further requested moves to fully iron things out (e.g. is there a primary topic for "Synthwave" or should it be a disambiguation page? Should the 1980s article be moved to one of the other terms, say "electro-wave" or "techno-wave"?), but this confused and poorly formatted discussion is not likely to generate any clear consensus on those issues. Jenks24 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synthwave (Outrun) → ? – I was asked (see [1]) to move page Synthwave to Synthwave (Outrun), which I did, without moving any edits, by reverting a very recent cut-and-paste move. I then moved Synthwave to Synthwave (version 2). I then undeleted another article and its talk page which I found under Synthwave and its talk page. Can someone who knows more than me about recent pop music please sort out what is what and what to do with what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, dang, it becomes clear that my request was not filled out correctly. I wanted to restore the old synthwave article in place and delete the version of the page which was created by RivetHeadCulture. RivetHeadCulture moved Synthwave to Synthwave (Outrun), which is a nonsense title.
Sorry about the confusion! Binksternet (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please restore my article? This article was well-sourced (in fact, 12 primary sources from the '80s and '90s that clearly prove the use and the existence of the terms). I don't see any reason for speedy deletion.
"RivetHeadCulture moved Synthwave to Synthwave (Outrun), which is a nonsense title."
You are right. Move it to Outrun Electro, because this is the only term from a book that exists. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a problem. Synthwave 2 was already under the correct lemma (Synthwave). It describes a much older (sub-)genre of the '80s and '90s (and '00s revival). It's about priority. A 35 years old term/genre is much more important than a post-millennial retro-trend with only a handful of bands. The content of the Synthwave (Outrun) article didn't change for months (summer?). The original authors disappeared somewhere in the galaxy. I don't even know why User:Binksternet started such a mess. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out at Talk:Synthwave, RHC's 80s genre is, per their own sources, mostly not even called "synthwave". The claim that it deserves priority for the title appears to be unsubstantiated. (It obviously also does not deserve speedy deletion, though, probably not deletion at all.)
If we're accepting primary-source arguments about importance in terms of vague assertions about whichever genre "contains more bands", I welcome anyone to count the hundreds if not thousands of modern synthwave artists to be found e.g. at Bandcamp and in fact also self-tagging themselves as "synthwave".
However I suppose the ultimate compromise solution is going to involve Synthwave being reserved as a disambiguation page, so let's consider further ideas on how to disambiguate the two contenders. Synthwave (80s) versus Synthwave (10s) would probably work, for example? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability of particular artist

[edit]

Does the musician Starcadian (aka George Smaragdis) meet notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.154.46 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Artists

[edit]

A section to discuss new artists to add to the list

Fixions also produce synthwave, but don't have an wiki-article. I've never made an article, so I'm wondering if anyone would like to help out

Music: https://fixions.bandcamp.com

Sources on latest album: http://www.slickstermagazine.com/fixions-genocity/ http://newnoisemagazine.com/review-fixions-genocity/ http://lastdaydeaf.com/french-cyberpunkdarkwave-fixions-genocity-out-now/

Is the "fashwave" tangent really relevant?

[edit]

It comes off as Relevance Level C to me. It's not about the genre or anything particularly relevant within it. And the way it's written, especially with the final quote about it being "easy ... on the ears" and ready for mainstream appeal comes off like someone doing public relations. All three articles were written within the space of about six weeks almost two years ago, which suggests to me this was a brief flash in the pan and not a noteworthy current within the scene. --63.239.150.2 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything described as a subgenre of synthwave is Relevance Level A. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a "subgenre" in any meaningful sense though? It's not a different current of music. It's a tiny handful of people making the same stuff but with one subject matter. If that's a subgenre, the much larger amount of horror-themed synthwave is, too. I think it should be removed for low relevance and/or violating Undue Weight guidelines. --63.239.150.2 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one particular subgenre isn't included in an article does not negate the relevance or notability of other documented subgenres. There's literally only two sentences about fashwave in the article. If there is an WP:UNDUE issue, a better solution would be to add info about the horror-themed synthwave genres you mentioned. Unless sources contradict each other on the matter, determining whether "subgenres" are contextually meaningful is not really our job --- at the end of the day, "synthwave, "vaporwave", "fashwave", etc are all just super specialized marketing terms/gimmicks for what is basically synthesizer-based ambient/dance music. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning this subgenre is irrelevant to the genre as a whole and is done to politically motivate this genre of music. This should not be present as it is irrelevant to the genre as a whole.(talk) 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"that fascist subgenre" isn't relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.40.229.239 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research into how "fashwave" even showed up here in the first place. Looks like OP (2620:1D5:A04:A:A01A:ECF1:A2FC:263E) added several edits to semi related articles (vaporwave, synthpop) about fashwave, October 27, 2017. OP's ip address shows them in Lancaster, PA. Interestingly, there was a white supremacist rally in town a few days before those edits went up. That relation is sketchy at best, but OP has only made edits reguarding fashwave and only did it on that one day. I don't see why it's still up here at all. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's a politically motivated edit and even if we assume it isn't, fashwave isn't in anyway relevant to synthwave as a whole. It's actually kind of embarrassing it's still here. 108.45.100.119 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y’all calm down. The section wasn’t put in for political reasons, all that stuff about a white supremacy rally is likely just a coincidence. The section will stay as it is reliably sourced by multiple references, which all show that fashwave is relevant to synthwave. Micro (Talk) 23:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see no problem including this as a small paragraph. It's written in NPOV and is valid through a good source Thisismeandhistory (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant for the article. Same reason why the rock'n roll wikipedia page does not mention skinhead rock'n roll. It does not define a sub-genre. It is high-jacking an existing genre for political purpose. 2A02:C7D:529D:DE00:51E7:B1FC:3297:1D04 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because rock 'n' roll is a 1950s style of music that doesn't have any subgenres catering to skinheads. You're thinking of the punk genre called "Oi!", which does, in fact, have its own section on the Punk rock article. ili (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison between political genres in "synthwave" and "Oi!" is a false one. "Oi!" differs in that its political content actually constituted a larger movement and resulted in real-world events, such as the Hambrough Tavern riot in 1981, whereas the purported fashwave is created by a stunningly small subset of users mostly contained in small imageboards like 4chan. Because the actual fanbase for fashwave is so incredibly small and niche, it does not even constitute a "microgenre". Fashwave has not garnered even a modest representation or following among the multitude of indie blogs, and in fact more articles were written about fashwave in 2017 as a reaction to learning of its existence than actual fashwave artists that exist. Moreover, the actual musical substance of fashwave is identical to synthwave, albeit containing images of their political ideology. Ironically, this is exactly the goal of the creators of fashwave and the specific political movements coming out of imageboards like 4chan, who aim to "corrupt" pop culture symbols by linking them with their political movement, and thereby gain undue attention - and subsequent credibility - from press watchdogs. This section should only stay if the greater "Popularity and spin-offs" section is increased to reflect the actual new microgenres emerging from synthwave, such as darksynth, chillsynth, retro-synthpop, and others. As it stands, the amount of this wiki entry dedicated to fashwave is actually not correctly representative of the topic. Perhaps a "Political Appropriations" section similar to the section within "vaporwave" would be appropriate. Old Zisty (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true that fashwave is less notable than darksynth, chillsynth, retro-synthpop — and at this rate, maybe there also exists retro-darkchillsynthwavepop — then simply WP:PROVEIT using mainstream sources that attest to the validity of these micro-microgenres. (In my opinion, which counts as little as anyone else's, trying to split these genres apart is like splitting the hairs on a flea.) ili (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand the difficulty with properly delineating electronic music microgenres! I intend to amend this article to feature the major subgenres of synthwave, as well as perhaps creating new pages for said genres, which (in my opinion) have perhaps grown large enough to now be considered microgenres in their own right. However, after some thought I do believe the fashwave section should be kept and simply moved to a new section like the aforementioned "Political Appropriations" section in "Vaporwave," along with sovietwave as well. I would certainly like to include an edit relating to both of their extremely small user bases, but I will not do so unless I can verify with a sufficient source. I will of course generally WP:PROVEIT extensively with proper sources for any other edits mentioned in this comment or otherwise. Old Zisty (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this as no action appears to have been taken. I am sure such politically motivated minor subgenres exist in all styles of music and are not discussed or cited in the wiki articles for those styles. As previously discussed above this is not a significantly impactful subgenre to the existence or relevance of sythwave, however its inclusion as one of the few subgenres mentioned make it appear to be so. I would suggest it be removed unless and until an appropriate new section is created to house it as was suggested above Khaygn (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can that paragraph just be removed? Can someone just do that? I'm not a big Wikipedia editor and am extremely inexperienced in this rea, but it's ridiculous that this paragraph is still there.
Is there a section in the Punk Rock page about Nazi Punk or in Metal about white nationalist bands? There is always some fringe group trying to hijack non-mainstream music genres. It's nothing unique to synthwave. 47.205.14.157 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to remove it, but people will keep trying to add it. General consensus here seems to be more against its inclusion in the article than for it. It's a nothing subgenre that barely even exists. Also, the Guardian and Vice are terrible sources for reference. Trashy clickbait sites should never be taken seriously or used as reference. Theshape78 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credit

[edit]

No credit given to GTA: Vice City, that came out just before this genre grew. Similar to the mid 2000s synergy between RHCP, skate games, and snowboarding etc. B137 (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]
I will create one for FM-84 in due course. Miami Nights 1984 may not want one created. Cheers! Thisismeandhistory (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Binksternet why remove the whole notable artists section? Is it not worthwhile replacing it rather with a new article page like the synth-pop genre article has i.e. list of synthwave artists. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are allowed to create a list article called List of synthwave artists. You can take the previous list from this article's history. Binksternet (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers thanks you are a great help here Thisismeandhistory (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fashwave" - really notable?

[edit]

I don't think it is, so it should be removed. There are many, many other genres like this that don't get a mention at all on their parent genre's articles. What do you guys think? Ed6767 talk! 23:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Duplicate section and better placed on Vaporwave. Ed6767 talk! 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not duplicate, it's overlap, which is expected per WP:RELART . ili (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but where? Music genre articles are justified to cover an associated subgenre. Removing content just because someone might take offense goes against WP:CENSORED (Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.) ili (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: World Literature Humanities 2610

[edit]

Has Kung Fury been of any influence?

[edit]

The movie was hyped a few years before Stranger Things was popular. ”True Survivor” by David Hasseflhoff was very popular too https://www.popmatters.com/synthwave-feature-list-2641449554.html

GTA Vice city reference

[edit]

I don't see how a vague soure from a person not relevant to the genre is enough to claim the success of synthwave can be attributed to a GTA videogame 90.167.195.227 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going mainstream?

[edit]

There's a channel on youtube (NewRetroWave), amongst many others, that has accumulated millions of subscribers; the genre has become increasingly popular recently, many famous artists - not only within the dance music scene - such as the Weeknd, Ed Sheeran and Ava Max, are taking inspiration from the music and the sounds of the 80s; I wouldn't consider it a microgenre anymore and stating that it is based predominantly on the music associated with action, science-fiction, and horror film soundtracks is also incorrect in that it is based broadly - and copycats - the music that was mainstream at the time: synth-pop, italo-disco, new romantic and eurodance. Itemirus (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synthwave was not used in the 1980s

[edit]

I used ChatGPT and Gemini to see if it had anything on the so called 1980s genre also referred to as synthwave, but they both said the term was not used in the 1980s, meaning, the term was not used at all. Idk where you guys are finding references to a so-called 1980s synthwave when all I can find are for the 2000s genre. Moline1 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synthwave&oldid=1254827850"