Talk:Vaporwave/Archive 1

Archive 1

Miscellaneous trends section

Citing the decision to move the sub-genre section, I have likewise removed the miscellaneous trends section as it is even less notable to a general article. I have moved it here if this page in case it is needed. As I have seen a cycle of removal and readdition of this section, let me note that the article itself claims "there is little chance fashwave will ever 'impinge on the mainstream'", and indeed most videos have under 10k views. In addition, there is already a wikipedia stump on Fashwave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashwave, so at the very least the descriptions should be merged. If this article is not made long enough include a discussion of subgenres that have a much larger following, I don't see how this section merits inclusion.Juto20 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NNC: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

The reason why the sub-genre section was removed was because of sourcing issues (WP:OR), which is irrelevant to this section. The issue here is whether "Simpsonwave" and "Fashwave" is covered with due weight. I would say yes.

1. There's only two sentences about Simpsonwave and five about fashwave
2. The section only takes up about 6% of the article
3. All eight sources reference it to "vaporwave" - there is no other article in which this coverage would be appropriate

It's not a big deal. If you don't like that there's more about fashwave than mallsoft or futurefunk, then the obvious solution is to add more content regarding mallsoft or futurefunk, not remove it because you don't like it. Or you could go the Hardvapour route and add tons more about fashwave until it creates a need for WP:SPINOFF.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Miscellaneous trends Simpsonwave was a YouTube phenomenon made popular by the user Lucien Hughes. It mainly consists of videos with scenes from the American animated television series The Simpsons set to various vaporwave songs. Clips are often edited with VHS-esque distortion effects and purple video filters, giving them a "hallucinatory and transportive" feel. Fashwave (a portmanteau of "fascist" and "synthwave"), is a largely instrumental subgenre of vaporwave and synthwave, with political track titles and occasional soundbites, that originated on YouTube circa 2015. In 2017, Vice's Penn Bullock and Eli Penn reported on the phenomenon of self-identified fascists and alt-right members appropriating vaporwave music and aesthetics, describing fashwave as "the first fascist music that is easy enough on the ears to have mainstream appeal." One off-shoot, Trumpwave, focuses on Donald Trump. Vice writes that Trumpwave exploits vaporwave's ambivalence towards the corporate culture it engages with, allowing it to recast Trump as "the modern-day inheritor of the mythologized 80s, a decade that is taken to stand for racial purity and unleashed capitalism." The Guardian's Michael Hann notes that the movement is not unprecedented; similar offshoots occurred in punk rock in the 1980s (Oi!) and black metal in the 1990s (Viking metal). Like those genres, Hann believes there is little chance fashwave will ever "impinge on the mainstream". References

"Future Funk etymology"

The current assumption seems to be that the sub-genre of future funk was pioneered by Saint Pepsi in 2013. This may be the case for our purposes, as we understand future funk to be a kind of vaporwave off-shoot. However, the term "future funk" has been used in the past and I'm wondering about its relationship to vaporwave. Hip Hop artist Onra used the term in a 2009 album. (https://allcity.bandcamp.com/track/my-comet-2) At the beginning of the track My Comet a robotic voice can be heard saying "I want to hear future funk." The rest of the track is reminiscent of contemporary future funk as well, featuring vaporwave's signature pitched and stretched vocals. Maybe Future Funk deserves its own article soon, and etymology can be discussed further on that talk page. Pigrocket (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few terms are used in different contexts, hence the need for disambiguation pages. Perhaps Onra was using future as an adjective to modify funk, as in meaning the funk of tomorrow, rather than as a genre. It's also possible Onra was an influence upon future funk or the term future funk. It's difficult to discern these things without good reliable sources, and I'm afraid doing anything like this without them would be considered original research. As far as having its own page, future funk as a microgenre is probably not going to pass the notability standards, at least at present, but I'm open to be proven wrong on that.  Adrian^[232] 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"musical genre"

As per several of the sources within the article (primarily http://www.electronicbeats.net/en/features/columns/pattern-recognition/vol-8-5-the-year-in-vaporwave/ and http://www.dummymag.com/features/adam-harper-vaporwave), vaporwave seems to have evolved beyond its musical origins, now encompassing visual arts and film. Would it be appropriate to word this differently to reflect this? felt_friend 17:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. In a lot of subcultures, there are numerous ways to express it. Punk is music, visual art, literature, dance, fashion, etc. We are talking about the musical form of expression of this particular subculture. Cganuelas (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cganuelas: First of all afaik in vaporwave there is unmatched emphasis on the visual - it's as much about the unique visual style (shown primarily in images and videos/music videos) as it's about the music. This article isn't just about the musical expression but about all of it. --Fixuture (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

2020 A.D.: "This page is a part of a series on Vaporwave" Pigrocket (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Vaporwave's link to metamodernism

I think that Vaporwave is fundamentally linked to metamodernism in that it's all of it and yet none of it. Vaporwave is an ironic criticism of capitalism and yet yearns for a virtual reality connected by various corporations. I tried to find something on the internet that describes Vaporwave's link to metamodernism and I didn't find much and nothing really substantial. To me the link is obvious. I'll try to keep a look out, but if anybody finds anything before I do, I'd very much welcome an edit to this article in favor of this addition. Thanks! Lighthead ^þ 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Vaporwave is more than a music genre.

Vaporwave is also a design aesthetic, and involves more than just music. Just putting that there for anyone that wants to rewrite the article in the future. Sevarat (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To rewrite the article along those lines, one would have to cite reliable sources that explain that information (being sure to paraphrase and summarize instead of plagiarizing any material from the cited sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

"Vaporwave" clearly stems from and is a reference to vaporware. 14.200.76.101 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly" is not listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources, however. Claims have to be verified by citing a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Blank Banshee edit war

The Aux.tv page simply contains this Youtube vid, which by itself normally falls under WP:SELFPUB and so fails WP:Identifying reliable sources. However, Aux.tv's presentation of it could be argued to be a secondary source quoting the video, which would allow us to judge the video according to Aux.tv's reliability. Searching the reliable sources noticeboard for any mention of aux.tv pulls up nothing to date. Aux.tv appears to be a notable channel that focuses on distributing music, and so would appear to qualify as reliable. Blank Banshee is included in the video after about 4:24. @Ayubc:, please provide an explanation for your continued removal of Blank Banshee. Did you just not bother to investigate the source? Do you just not like Blank Banshee? What?

However, The Fader article does not mention vaporwave at all, nor connect Blank Banshee to vaporwave. @Vap0re0on:, I've explained this to you before. What reason was there to include this citation again? What reason was there to remove this source entry? Was it all accidental? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've warned both of these user's on their talk pages about edit-warring. On a side note, both users appear to be SPA, as evidenced by their history of contributions - Vap0re0on's contributions and Ayubc contributions. Both have only edited this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I actually edit conflicted with you and removed my own warnings. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that Blank Banshee may not belong on this page as an example of a music artist, but may be considered a valid example of a visual artist. Additionally, I could not find an example on his facebook page of an association with Vaporwave, but I did find one in which he associated himself with Seapunk. However, debate over whether Seapunk is a true music genre or just a type of aesthetic belongs on the Seapunk page. Source: https://www.facebook.com/Blankbanshee/posts/104255376393993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana00022 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Forum posts are not accepted as sources because anyone can make them. There is already a source (the latter one, IIRC) that describes Blank Banshee as Vaporwave, which is enough to keep it. Removing it at this point would require a couple of published sources specifically stating that Blank Banshee is not Vaporwave, preferably one of them addressing the current source (or at least its claims). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The removed subgenres section

That section was removed because it wasn't sufficiently referenced / notable enough to be featured in the article, however the content might be of value for some (e.g. for later use if any of those subgenres actually become notable enough) so I'm moving it here. --Fixuture (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Subgenres

Eccojams The earliest form of a vaporwave subgenre, possibly predating it, eccojams are normally 80's, 90's, and early 2000's pop songs digitally slowed down, chopped and screwed, and pitched down. A common trope in this subgenre is the constant repeat of a song's chorus line. Oneohtrix Point Never is the creator of this genre, under the alias Chuck Person, with his 2010 cassette tape Chuck Person's Eccojams, Vol. 1. 骨架的 (Skeleton) is considered a pioneer of eccojams, as well as a pioneer of vaporwave, with his 2010 albums Skeleton and Holograms. Mallsoft Mallsoft is a style of vaporwave that emerged in 2013. Mallsoft uses elevator music as it's main inspiration. Mallsoft songs rely heavily on reverb, to make the music sound from a certain area, most commonly a shopping mall. Mallsoft also heavily includes themes of consumerist society into it's imagery and music. James Ferraro's 2011 album Far Side Virtual heavily included themes of consumerism in its music, which was a major influence on mallsoft. The genre was deemed 'mallsoft' as many albums were released that sounded like they were recorded in shopping malls. Notable artists in this genre include Disconscience, 猫 シ Corp., 死夢VANITY, and Eyeliner. Future funk Future funk is a combination of funk, EDM, disco, and vaporwave. Future funk originated in early 2013, when Skylar Spence, under his original alias Saint Pepsi released the album Hit Vibes in March of 2013. The album contained sampled disco and funk music that was slightly remixed to make the songs club oriented. While most in the vaporwave community don't consider future funk a part of the genre, many future funk artists associate their music with the imagery of vaporwave. Future funk songs typically heavily sample 70's and 80's funk and disco songs along with having pounding kick drums and claps over the original drums, and loud chorus lines and melodies, to make the songs sound more club oriented. Notable artists in the genre include Skylar Spence / Saint Pepsi, Yung Bae, and マクロスMACROSS 82-99. Oceangrunge Oceangrunge emerged in late 2013 and early 2014 as an attempt to merge seapunk and vaporwave with grunge. Oceangrunge imagery mainly involves the open sea, along with the visual styles of 80's and 90's alternative rock bands, such as Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Soundgarden, and My Bloody Valentine. Oceangrunge was short lived, however, as many uninspired releases came out with no real effort put into the music, and jokes about the genre were spread across the internet. §E▲ ▓F D▓G§ is perhaps the most widely known artist in the genre with their 2014 album Storm Memories. Vaportrap Vaportrap emerged in 2012 when Blank Banshee released his debut album Blank Banshee 0. Vaportrap associates it's imagery with vaporwave, while musically it usually contains 808 kick drums, snapping claps and snares, and double or triple time hi-hats, while also using nostalgic sounds from old computers, software, video games, and commercials. Blank Banshee is considered the creator of this genre. VAPERROR is also a notable artist in the genre, with his 2014 release Mana Pool.

I have seen a chart that showed subgenres and their corresponding example releases. I did make a subgenre section before and used that as source material but it was copyrighted. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/019/496/edc.jpg Cganuelas (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Influence of Yung Lean on the visual style?

A lot of the visuals associated with Vaporwave are influenced heavily by the rapper Yung Lean's music videos, I'd say he's worth a mention in the article as someone who unintentionally shaped the genre's art movement. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stgrSjynPKs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.118.167 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues in History section- Major revision needed

A few things haphazard in the History section:

1. Only artists mentioned as forming the genre are Daniel Lopatin, 2814 and death's dynamic shroud.wmv. It seems quite absurd to only list the very emergent pre-vaporwave artist Daniel Lopatin and his Eccojams release, and then right into 3rd wave ambient vapor project 2814, with no context in between.

2. "２８１４ cited Boards of Canada, Steve Roach, Vangelis, Burial and Sigur Rós as influences." This line has little relevance to the article, and its comparisons don't really inform the reader on how 2814 is connected to vaporwave from a bigger picture. Perhaps if a quote was used citing Wong Kar-wai, cyberpunk, and neon imagery mixed with cityscape atmospheric sounds, it would better connect this project to the genre.

3. It's also absolutely preposterous to completely ignore Macintosh Plus' Floral Shoppe in this article. I understand the desire to shift focus away from the Floral Shoppe phenomenon as it's "oh-so-overplayed" and has become a meme unto itself, but to deny its existence and its major indisputable influence as a staple of the genre is nothing short of inaccurate. I'd even go so far as to say Mac Plus and/or most of Vek's projects deserve an entire section, although that could be a little over the top.

then improve it, it's very simple, but make sure that what you add passes WP:NMG (notability) and you have reliable sources that adhere to WP:RS. Don't cite, trainspottery WP:OR stuff, blog posts, Youtube vids, label press releases etc., or sources that link to any of this stuff, it will be removed. Semitransgenic _talk. 08:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This page on Vaporwave would be better if it had better sources about were Vaporwave came from and who started it. As mention before by others I also think that more artist should be mentioned aside from the very well know Macintosh plus. This article does do a good job explaining what it is and how it is just more than just music but as well as an aesthetic movement. It also does a very important job of mentioning how Vaporwave grew as a genera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.5.211 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing Issues

Don't know if anyone else is having this problem, but I'm trying to add a main image for the page. It disappears when I add it in the editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Burness (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alexander Burness: There were some issues with the code. I've fixed those. That said, the image really can't be used in this article: it's not free, and there's no rationale to use it in an article (other than the article about the album). —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Ah I see, that's a bummer. I had a look on the Wikimedia site and there are no free use photo's related to vaporwave yet :( Maybe some will be added eventually.

@Alexander Burness: You can help by finding freely licensed images and uploading them to Wikipedia or emailing or otherwise contacting the creators of vaporwave artworks and asking them if they're ok with the image getting uploaded here / licensing the image appropriately.

And as a sidenote please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages which can be done by appending ~~~~ to them. --Fixuture (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oneohtrix Point Never, a possible precursor to Lopatin and Ferraro?

Three tracks from mid-July 2009 are available on YouTube that may contain early examples of vaporwave that predate both Eccojams and Far Side Virtual. Tracks named angel, nobody here, demerol from the channel "sunsetcorp" all contain the main qualities of Vaporwave (chopped and screwed 80s/90s samples, early CGI, basic DAW effects). Might it be worth referring to these tracks as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.151.33 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

OPN is Lopatin. Most of those tracks you linked are off his Memory Vague DVD, which shares a common root with vaporwave. It was a specific project that is not usually considered vaporwave per se, and Lopatin (Chuck Person) is already credited with being a precursor to the genre. If you look at most of OPN's stuff, he uses these techniques fairly often, especially his earlier works. However, if there is a good reliable source crediting these works to vaporwave, then I'd see no reason not to include it.  Adrian^[232] 01:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Section revisions

There is dispute between a previous version (version A) and a revision (version B) (originally by User:Michael lone2004), which altered the sections: History and Related media.

Version A contains a sub-section of the History section consisting of original research that relies primarily upon primary sources—which are merely links to albums on bandcamp, most of which did not verify the information provided. The alterations in version B did a fair job of incorporating the ideas in a concise way using more reliable sourcing, as well as trimming down redundant and/or excess information and removing the necessity for subsections, which seemed to arbitrarily categorize the genre's history into eras that existed within a short timespan. User:Zumerock believes version A is superior and reverted the changes.

What is the reasoning behind this reversion? Are there specific parts of version A that were removed or trimmed that are believed to be important to the article? If so, could those parts be restored without reverting all of the changes?

Additionally, several copyedits were reverted along with the restoration of version A. Because of this, and in the interests of WP:BRD, I have reverted this restoration until a consensus can be reached here.  Adrian^[232] 12:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Zumerock here, the changes made were to ensure the ease of access on the history of Vaporwave. With the broad description given by Version A, it is suggested that many newcomers or individuals interested in Vaporwave would be turned off and confused with the History of it all. With the History being categorised into these subsections, we can see the different stages Vaporwave was in during the time periods aforementioned in Version B.

Categorisation is what is needed in the Vaporwave History sub-section as it is too vague to not be categorised into time periods.  Zumerock^Talk 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Splitting up the history section this way would be a bit unconventional for a genre article. It may be helpful to check out other articles about music genres, especially ones with WP:GA status or above, to get a good idea of what the layout of an article such as this is expected to look like. Category:GA-Class music genre articles would be a good place to start (there is a menu at the top to select varying qualities). Looking there, most GA-class genre articles are about genres with a long history, and thus their history section is divided into decades; the significant events within each decade then summarized within a few paragraphs. Grindcore's history section is divided up based around various regions. Deathcore, a B-class article with a (relatively) short history, is not sectioned at all.

There does not appear to be anything significantly different about Vaporwave to make an exception here, unless I am missing something, and sectioning it the way that it is in version A does not seem to provide any benefit to clarity or legibility. Vaporwave is a rather new genre, and the major things that are unique about it (from a historical perspective) are that it is non-regional and has a large array of sub-microgenres. This would suggest that the history section should be short, concise, and not split up into eras.  Adrian^[232] 16:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fashwave and synthwave

Most of the discourse on "fashwave" relates to vaporwave and consumer capitalism, which has nothing to do with synthwave. To say that it's a subgenre of synthwave but not vaporwave is just pedantry, let alone unsourced. Vice treats it as a subgenre of vaporwave and synthwave, which is closest to reality. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The mentions of "fashwave," and "trumpwave," should be scrubbed from this article. I feel as they where only included so some writers at Vice and the Guardian could get some extra clicks on their articles. I have never seen "fashwave," or "trumpwave," pop up in any prominent vaporwave circles. There are more miscellaneous trends such as "Naturewave," that have larger clout, as talked about in this Bandcamp daily. Vapnaysh (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only relevant guidelines are WP:HOAX and WP:PROPORTION. The existence of fashwave has been widely documented, so it's not a hoax, and "scrubbing" is out of the question (WP:CENSORSHIP). The content only amounts to about five sentences, and I can't see it being trimmed any further, since they establish five important points:

1. That it exists
2. What it entails
3. Where it was reported (with the mention of Vice, most readers will be able to infer that it was written as clickbait)
4. How it relates to vaporwave mythology
5. That it's not mainstream

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There is more evidence and relevance to subgenres like Slushwave, Signalwave and Broken Transmission than Fashwave. These are all subgenres that can be proven to exist, we can describe what they entail, and it is not doubt possible to find various articles reporting on them. It's ridiculous that this irrelevant topic keeps getting added back to this page and protected. Why exactly do we need a specific mention of "Fashwave" instead of the grab-bag of other microgenres associated with the vaporwave scene? What value does this add to the article? In what way does this irrelevant flash-in-the-pan enrich a reader's understanding of this electronic music genre and art movement? What, do we need to include an entire section on every article whenever a fascist does something and someone reports on it? 73.128.29.35 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to think the problem is that the article describes 3 things at once - the music genre, the Internet meme, and the visual art. All of the actual subgenres you listed belong to the musical vaporwave because they are actually a musical variation of it. Simpsonwave and fashwave are a variety of visual art and meme, as they differ only in their videos and art, and musically as for Simpsons - it's a classic vaporwave (or even eccojams subgenre), and for fashwave - it's a variation of different genres such as synthwave, vaporwave, electro house, etc. Musically, these terms are no different from the classic genres. I don't know how meaningful it is to separate the article into a culture/phenomenon and a musical genre, but it seems to be the only way to get rid of those terms. Solidest (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The miscellaneous trends list is pathetic. It makes it look like we get our facts through YouTube. Pigrocket (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s not very pathetic when the section has ~6 independent sources, none of which are from YouTube and all fairly reliable references for their respective subjects (including The Guardian, Pitchfork and Vice). Micro (Talk) 03:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

2018/01: Remove fashwave

It's hardly common to archive every single vice article onto Wikipedia. Fashwave as a visual appropriation of a music genre has no academic significance. Keeping its memory here will just turn curious internet trolls into Nazis. Please remove this entry. Pigrocket (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been told we need to show unilateral group desire to remove fashwave and synthwave if we want to get it removed without being reverted immediately

• see #Fashwave and synthwave--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2020/03: Fashwave removal

Since the original talkpiece got obscured i want to bring it back into discussion as the "genre" of fascist synthwave was never a subgenre of vaporwave, nor synthwave. It was an aesthetic propaganda trend aping the looks of an stablished online community. The lines about it ever exisiting is ok (and since calling for their deletion would be tagged as "censorship"), like in the synthwave article, it should be stated that fashwave was never a mainstream genre. However it being part of the genre list and getting the longest paragraph and other genres such as broken transmission, slushwave or dreampunk not being there is insulting.

Attemps to remove fashwave from the genre list and the article per se have been blocked by administrators for over 3 years now and the pledges to remove it have been unheard. Keeping it in here is not only misinformation on the genre, but an offense to the actual artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.134.198.149 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason why it has stayed is because it is reliably sourced from various notable and independent news agencies. Even if there were no official/serious fashwave releases, it would still be included because it exists, even as a contemporary microgenre. The exact sources (currently in the article) that say that fashwave is specifically derivative of vaporwave are the Heavy, Vice, and Brooklyn Rail references. One thing is to note though, and that is that fashwave is small and does not and should not represent vaporwave (which is essentially on the opposite side of the political spectrum). Micro (Talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Trumpwave is not similar to Fashwave. Only in the minds of demented leftists. 1.136.111.140 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bruh its a single-sentence mention backed by two reliable sources (Vice and Heavy), how did you get the impression that it was put in by "demented leftists" lmao. Micro (Talk) 01:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

2020/11: Removal of Fashwave

Having an entire section dedicated to "fashwave" violates WP:UNDUE; a quick internet search seems to indicate that fashwave was simply a flash in the pan and not a significant subgenre. Mentioning it in Political Appropriations is enough. Bowler the Carmine (they/them | talk | contribs) 00:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Good call. A fash in the pan, if you will. —BLZ · talk 04:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Chronology of mallsoft, future funk ...

In my recollection, there was some buzz about Floral Shoppe on some music forums in the spring of 2012. I distinctly remember how "vaporwave" was hyped as the next big thing, and how people were thinking up ways to build upon its premise. The first of these was "mallsoft" (or at least something where it was just music made to sound like it was played in a mall). I remember hearing for the first time through some SoundCloud link, probably around March–June 2012. Is there anyone who can corroborate this? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So far I can only manage to find Cyber Paradise (June 2012), Vacant Places (September), and Split Ep (November).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

George Clanton

Since my edit which listed George Clanton as a vaporwave pioneer was removed two times by User:ILIL, I wanted to bring the discussion here. Clanton has been described as a vaporwave pinoeer by a number of reliable sources, such as i-D, which offers a thorough description of his career ("George has been deemed one of the leading lights of vaporwave"), Billboard (magazine) ("Vaporwave pioneer Clanton"), Flood Magazine ("the vaporwave pioneer"), and Stereogum ("...celebrating the subgenre he helped to pioneer"), among others. ILIS's first rationale for removing my edit was that the sources are biased (which even if correct, Wikipedia does not expect sources to be neutral, unbiased, or objective as per WP:BIASED), while the second rationale was that my addition entails WP:FRINGE viewpoints and WP:FALSEBALANCE, even though they are backed up by several well-respected sources in the music industry. This smells like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. --Λeternus ^(talk) 15:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since 2012, there have been countless articles written about vaporwave, none of which describe Clanton as among the genre's pioneers. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." In the sources you've given, which only concern Clanton himself, nothing is said about what he contributed to vaporwave, except in Vice, which does not call Clanton a "pioneer", but does curiously state that Clanton knowingly describes himself as a vaporwave artist without actually being one:

George has been deemed one of the leading lights of vaporwave, the 80s-inspired electronic music subgenre, and despite never being entirely comfortable with this label, he’s embraced it as a tool for promoting his music online. “If I use the tag ‘vaporwave’ then I have an automatic audience, and a certain number of people will be like, ‘This is kind of like vaporwave, but it’s even better [...] That happens all the time, so I keep doing it.”

As far as I'm aware, Clanton did not release anything that most people would consider "vaporwave" until long after the genre was solidified. His earliest records appear to be standard synth-pop affairs that failed to incorporate the chopped-and-screwed techniques universal to vaporwave. I don't believe it'd be wrong to include him in the article body, so long as there's anything else noteworthy to say, but he should not be included as a pioneer in league with Oneohtrix Point Never, Vektroid, and James Ferraro unless there exists higher quality sources that investigate the matter. ili (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Clanton is, in terms of vaporwave, a newcomer, he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "pioneer." Music industry sources can be suspect, many "articles" we see about artists do not exist because of notability, or said artist's talent, they exist because a publicist paid to have them published, it's PR, that's how the industry works, that goes for Billboard as much as it does for an internet based mag like Stereogum (part of the Billboard-The Hollywood Reporter Media Group). Also, Flood, a source cited above, is run by the marketing agency Anthemic, so this is not a reliable source for anything, it's PR nonsense. For this reason, where possible, on contentious claims, we must use reliable secondary sources rather than industry rags. Acousmana (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

100% Electronicon

since this page was locked for over six months, the developments of the second half of 2019 and early 2020 have been neglected. There were two high-profile vaporwave events held in the second half of 2019 by the 100% Electronica label, held in New York and Los Angeles respectively. They are the largest events of their kind; surely, they deserve mention on this horribly outdated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.234.40 (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Strange characteristics section

The section uses unclear terminology such as "the ironic tendencies chillwave and hypnagogic pop", what is the purpose of the term "ironic" and how is it associated with an "ambiguous" take on consumer capitalism and technoculture?

• The term "ironic" is used like "satirical" and it's associated with an "ambiguous" take on consumer capitalism and technoculture because many associate the genre to project a viewpoint that is not clearly defined. ili (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

In section 2.3, I request that the following text be added to the end of the paragraph that begins, "In 2015...":

In September 2015, former Kmart employee Mark Davis shared digitized audio from dozens of cassette tapes that were played on Kmart in-store audio systems between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Davis's collection of digital recordings, uploaded to the Internet Archive, was covered extensively by mainstream media including MTV and National Public Radio, and the files inspired a number of vaporwave releases, including the 2017 album Attention Kmart Choppers by Juicy the Emissary.

Agitatedstate (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 01:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sources I cited above:

Internet Archive collection of Kmart audio tapes: MTV article: National Public Radio report: "Attention Kmart Choppers" album on Bandcamp:

Agitatedstate (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Here's a formatted version of the references:

Generated by Citoid.

― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 19:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Does that mean my requested edit will be posted on the page? Sorry, I am new to this. Agitatedstate (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. First three sources don't call this collection "vaporwave". The fourth does, but that's a primary source that I'm hesitant to include. Please look for secondary sources that mention the word "vaporwave". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Vaporwave and the Metaphysical painters

I'm an art history student who's been doing some research into the work of metaphysical painters such as Giorgio de Chirico and I've noticed some strong parallels with his work and the album art of vaporwave, it's particularly noticeable in his work 'Song of Love' (1914) I'm wondering if it's deliberate and an informed influence or just something that happens to resemble it. Sata1991 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Adam Harper article

hey User:Ilovetopaint, if you're lookin to beef up this article, this might help, plus I think he's got a whole book on it. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Posts that discuss vaporwave's "reflections and critiques" grate me so I can't bring myself to add more of that serious analytical talk here. I think there's more interesting things to note about how genres like these manifest and what kind of people are making it, not unlike Shibuya-kei#Background and influences (now that I think about it, these movements probably have a ton in common. I would laugh if anybody suggested that a band like Flipper's Guitar or Pizzicato Five were trying to make some kind of grand statement about our relationship to capitalist society rather than just stealing 30-years-old music because they loved it and wanted to appropriate it for themselves).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha, re: the Harper, it just seemed to contain lots of straightforward descriptions of genre tropes and such. And, I mean, I suppose the obvious response to your exhaustion with the critical angle would be: those two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I think what's interesting about this corner of contemporary music is that it doesn't really separate the affective/personal from the abstract/impersonal. "They're doing it because they love it" isn't really an explanation—the question is WHY they love it, and for music this uncanny I'm not sure it's ever not present. Political import doesn't have to be intentional, it's always implicit.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I get that the commercial themes are implicit, but I think they're overstated and probably came about from people like Ferraro feeding back into the super-serious scrutiny that Far East Virtual drew ("there are no jokes in what I do"). It's undeniable that the vast majority of this music is just "curation" (Lopatin: "Eccojams are a very simple exercise where I just take music I like, and I loop up a segment, slow it down, and put a bunch of echo on it—just to placate my desire to hear things I like without things I don't."). It's one of the most obvious angles of the music and unfortunately nobody writes about it, although there might be a couple things in Reynolds' book (I think the pages about vaporwave are placed close to Shibuya-kei).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this couldn't be said of literally any artist ever. Ostensibly the reason one makes music is "curation"—putting sounds together that they want to hear. There's a reason, however, that the sources vaporwave artists sample are what they are, which you'd be leaving aside. Lopatin, for that matter, speaks explicitly about capitalism and consumer culture, without necessarily drowning in rhetoric. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on some level, all music can be reduced to "curation", which is why I put the word in quotes. Vaporwave is an extraordinary case that I can't think of any true precedent for. It barely even constitutes a musical genre. The albums are basically somebody's compilation of '80s Japanese/Western pop or 32-bit game soundtracks. Because city pop and Dreamcast music sounds novel to most people is the only reason vaporwave wasn't instantly dismissed as hackneyed pop art, or at best memorialized as just another run of e-journalism fluff. The producers play their audience the same way Shibuya-kei acts did, but takes the "listen-to-these-generation-old-cultural-artifacts-we'd-like-to-rebrand-for-ourselves" principle to its logical conclusion.

Given that it allegedly started on Turntable.fm, a site for friends to stream tracks among themselves, it's mindblowing how someone can spend hundreds of pages of writing without using a word akin to "mixtape" (much less "lazy" or "yuppie"). Tanner doesn't even bother to note any links to pop art. Pretty good. This isn't "sampling"; a sample is meant to serve an auxiliary purpose to something else. It's just a straight up Campbell's soup can. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

it's a form of détournement, conceptually, there is nothing new in vaporwave, it's fluff, it only appears "new" to the most recent generation of kids to have toyed with rejecting the banality of consumer culture and the excesses of the culture industry. Acousmana (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Iacon

Another vaporwave artist is Iacon. --TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Example farm

I wish to take issue with the “List of artists” (which I have renamed “notable artists”) section on two points.

First is the formatting. There’s all this code that seems unecessary when it just renders as a bulleted list anyway. Normally this is done with asterisks, much simpler and easily understood.

Second, and more importantly is that someone seems to have decided that all that is needed is a source of some sort, when normally such lists only contain artists who have their own Wikipedia article. There currently appear to be six such entries, which is plenty.

I would therefore suggest chucking the entire section as it now exists and replacing it with a simple list of the six artists that have their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice discussion here tends to go a bit slowly, so I’ve just gone ahead and re-done the section. It should be siginifactly easier to maintain and is already easier to read. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• re: "Unnecessary code" – The only code is a {{columns-list}}, which tightens the list into 2 or 3 columns depending on your resolution.

re: "normally such lists [...]" – No, read WP:LSC and WP:LISTVERIFY (emphasis added):

"[Lists] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective [...], it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. [...] Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of the MOS sections you cite pertain to stand-alone lists. WP:EMBED would be the applicable MOS page in this instance. A portion of that reads Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope and I would argue that this is exactly what my edits reflect. It’s simpler to maintain and more likely to actually be looked at than a long list with many entries that do not have a supporting WP article. The format you reverted to seems to be aiming to list every single artist who could possibly be described as being in thsi genre, which is not desirable inside an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I could see your point if the list was approaching 50+ entries, but 24 is hardly overwhelming or unfeasible. And this is a microgenre after all. On Wikipedia, subjects can be notable without their own dedicated article. If it's really that much of a concern then we could probably limit the criteria to artists verified with minimum 2/3 sources. It's too arbitrary measuring "notability" with whether the subject has an article, because articles could be made for most of these artists --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There’s nothing the least bit arbitrary about having the simplest rule possible. It’s what is normally done with embedded lists, as in the “notable people” section in pretty much any article on a town or the “notable alumni” section of school articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's the now-removed artists who currently have no article:

• Phoenix 2772
• Chungking Mansions
• Color Television
• Golden Living Room
• Hong Kong Express
• Internet Club
• Donovan Hikaru
• Luxury Elite
• Mindspring Memories
• Nano神社
• Nmesh
• Staqq Overflo
• Telepathテレパシー能力者
• Vaperror
• Waterfront Dining

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. 04:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Dmttapes and its contrubuitions

So I've been doing a lot of digging into the vaporwave genre to further the research on this topic since i feel wikipedia is woefully lacking on the topic of vaporwave's existence in 2018. DMTTapes, a vaporwave label, has been in operation since 2014 and has been noticed by a plethora of successful people, so I'm just curious and would like to propose someone look into this, since im not a very good encyclopedia editor and also not a good writer in general. This page links to an interview with Vito James Genovese, the pioneer of this label and the "vaporwave isn't dead" movement, signified by his [www.indiegogo.com/projects/dmt-tapes-fl-presents-vaporwave-is-alive-pt-2--2#/ Indiegogo campaign he's putting on.]

I really feel this article would benefit into someone taking a look at this. i can't write very well, but vaporwave is my passion and there's a lot of good resources to expand this article here, especially since vaporwave is declared as a dead genre.

64.56.10.108 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)anon

@64.56.10.108: Wordpress blogs can't be cited on Wikipedia (WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:BLOGS). If you think the article is missing details then you should search online for mainstream sources that talk about what you want added.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Vaporwave aesthetic example

Multiple vaporwave album covers that features elements that would come to exemplify the vaporwave aesthetic, including retro computer imagery, Japanese lettering and pixelated graphics. Examples from upper left: "Birth of a New Day" by 2814, "Blank Banshee 0" by Blank Banshee, "Floral Shoppe" by Macintosh Plus and "Neo Cali" by Vektroid.

Potential replacement for the single example of Floral Shoppe already in the article, I just copied the description for now, which might or might not change to fit all four covers. (colour pallet, computer imagry, etc) Micro (Talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Almost no examples

The page mentions only two examples of vaporwave artists. Adding some more would round out the page further. W.andrea (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@user W.andrea Agreed that adding examples of other published vaporwave artists would be effective in adding weight to the topic. However, editors need to understand that such an underground topic may have online references with legitimate, yet construed as questionable, source citing. Jinpisces —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Now it’s swung too far on them other direction, see new section below titled “example farm”. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rather than looking for music on Wikipedia, try listening to one of the wonderful vaporwave radio stations that are out there. Contact me at pigrocket@ucsc.edu and I can give recommendations off the record. Pigrocket (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Macintosh Plus - Floral Shoppe album cover.jpg

File:Macintosh Plus - Floral Shoppe album cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be fixed and all good now. I also did the same to the three other examples i used for the single art replacement i put in this talk page earlier. Micro (Talk) 04:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the note I posted on your user talk page about user created non-free image galleries? While it might be possible to justify one non-free image for use as an example of the album cover artwork associated with this particular genre, a multi-image template of four such images is unlikely to be considered acceptable per WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#1 WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, unless each album cover is itself specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary within the relevant section as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Non-free galleries tend to be pretty much WP:DECORATIVE in nature, so it would be better to think of an alternative way of expressing this concept. Moreover, just providing a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained in WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 25#Non-free album covers in Vaporwave

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 25#Non-free album covers in Vaporwave. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Critical interpretation section

There's been a lot of pushback towards the removal/edit of the first statement in the critical interpretation section. I've given reasons on why it should be removed or edited, but it has been repeatedly reverted. Only one of these reverts has had a reason behind it. I'd like to see some legitimate arguments for why it should be kept or not changed. I'll refrain from making any more edits until this has been discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.137.165 (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Good article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaporwave_subgenres Espngeek (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Most of the references are those "essential vaporwave albums" photos you see on Reddit and I can only find 1 good reference in the article (the Digital Haze one) and most of the text in the actual article looks like it's either copy and pasted from here or completely original research (which isn't allowed, you have to find reliable sources that back up your claims). Should be deleted. Micro (Talk) 02:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger, perhaps? (if not, go ahead) Espngeek (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Pad Chennington

Would anyone want to check out his vids? Vaporwave musician and historian Espngeek (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Official YouTube channel Espngeek (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 04:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Surprised nobody had reviewed this article yet, so I'll look it through. 100cellsman (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

>>>>Copyvio<<<<

Dummy’s “Comment: Vaporwave and the pop-art of the virtual plaza”, and “Is Vaporwave The Next Seapunk?” and “Inside Hardvapour, an Aggressive, Wry Rebellion Against Vaporwave”, both from Vice are marked yellow in the copyvio detector. Please shorten or paraphrase sections that use these sources.

Lead

I would advise against using citations in the lead unless they’re being used for potentially controversial claims.

Characteristics

“Early incarnations of vaporwave relied on the sampling of sources such as smooth jazz, retro elevator music, R&B, lounge music, and dance music from the 1980s and 1990s, with the music made of "brief, cut-up sketches", cleanly produced, and composed almost entirely from samples, along with the application of slowed-down chopped and screwed techniques, looping, and other effects.” Maybe its a manual of style thing, but this I feel like this statement just goes on and on without occasional stops.

“Critic Adam Trainer notes the style's predilection for” The use of the word “note” doesn’t seem appropriate.

Maybe shorten or paraphrase Adam Harper describing the typical vaporwave track.

2009-2011: Origins and early scene

“while Far Side Virtual drew primarily on "the grainy and bombastic beeps" of 2000s media such as Skype and the Nintendo Wii.” The source doesn’t state that just 2000s media were used. Just complete the last part of the attribution that include Windows and Mac OS.

“A 2013 post on a music blog…” Is there a name of that music blog?

Critical interpretations

I find it interesting that you incorporated a study that described hypermodulation. While I feel like it does give more context in regard to the rise and fall of vaporwave, I’m not entirely sure whether or not the wording of the study makes it drift off from the subject.

Offshoots and subgenres

I couldn’t find Blank Banshee 0 popularizing vaportrap in the source.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Ilovetopaint, it's a couple weeks overdue, but here's my review! 100cellsman (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done except "complete the last part of the attribution" - confused by what part or attribution you meant ILTP (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant to include Windows and Mac OS in the part that describes "the grainy and bombastic beeps" as it does in the source. But then again, Windows 95 was already mentioned in the Critical interpretations section, so there might not be a need to mention it up there again. 100cellsman (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the article has minor issues at this point, I'm going to go ahead and hurriedly pass the article because this review had been up for a month. It otherwise meets the criteria. 100cellsman (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Status as an internet meme

The genre was seen as a meme, but has since moved past that era, and calling it a meme kind of reduces an art scene into nothing more than a joke. Would it be better to say that it was formerly an internet meme and was pegged in it's early life time as a joke, but has managed to weather these times? Formerly seen as an internet meme?

Just calling it an internet meme seems odd to me and it makes it feel throwaway when it's far more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DewMan001 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Whether vaporwave is a genre or "just a meme" depends entirely on who you ask. The article says what the sources say: both. I think calling it a style of graphic design would be valid too. There is no evidence to support that its "meme status" was revoked once it gained a contingent of serious fans. "Formerly a meme" is wishful revisionism, and it definitely has not "moved past that era". The sources used in the article are all dated from within the last two years.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vaporwave as a visual artform is a meme but it is very much an objective music genre as well. This page is more about the latter. Think of how emo is both a style and an exact subgenre of punk rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.198.98.24 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

2020

The lead was accurate and faithful to sources when it read "Vaporwave is a microgenre of electronic music and an Internet meme that emerged in the early 2010s." No source indicates that vaporwave is secondarily a meme, or that it was only initially a meme, and in fact, its mimetic connotations continue to be referenced as integral in sources as recent as 2018. The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography explicitly states that vaporwave is defined by its "'mimetic' subculture". i quote: "vaporwave is defined almost entirely by its online subculture. ... it is characterized by an intense material and citational reflexivity in relation to the Internet." This entire chapter essentially argues that vaporwave manifested as both a meme and music genre. A rubbish argument: "The memetic aspect relates to how it was disseminated online" — well, no duh – that's like saying "the musical aspect relates to how it was created".

None of the other sources suggest a division between vaporwave as a genre and a meme either. See also: The A.V. Club, Electronic Beats, Geek.com, and The Hundreds. Some of these are not as strong as sources as one could hope for, but at least they exist, which is more than I can (currently) say about any source suggesting division. I'd also dispute whether the Electronic Beats and A.V. Club sources fail WP:RS. But I won't bother with restoring them (yet). ili (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

removed sources were blog-like internet commentaries by non-notables that regurgitate similar narratives. Body of the article contradicts lead claims. A "genre" of music came into being when a particular musical movement was christened "vaporwave." No one was calling it a meme. Later all this art speak gibberish emerged, and the memetic angle grew legs; and more recently academic writers have jumped on the bandwagon and are simply summarising familiar pseudo-intellectual narratives that emerged years after vaporwave was actually "a thing". It's laughable. Both of the usable sources you cited discuss subject as: 1) genre; 2) genre disseminated memetically; 3) genre as meme. They don't seem to be able to make up their minds. Vaporwave was about music, the conceptual frame was the joke, that the musical concept happened to be informed by post-internet culture is secondary to the fact that it was, first and foremost, a musical sub-culture. The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography is hardly the best source for a musicological matter, and you are also misrepresenting what it states on page p81: "Vaporwave's 'memetic' subculture, dramatically visualized in the IC map, also portrays a profound shift in the material mediation online." Again, this relates to dissemination. In contrast, arguably the most authoritative book on the subject, never once mentions "meme". Acousmana (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"No one was calling it a meme" — That's true of an example like All Your Base (which, by the logic you've presented, means that AYB apparently doesn't constitute a meme) but certainly not for vaporwave. Its original premise was nothing more than a joke at rebranding chillwave, which was itself well-established as a "meme" by 2010. You fail to understand (or perhaps refuse to accept) that vaporwave is not foremost defined by musical prescriptions, but by its "aesthetic" (ugh), and that such a "conceptual frame" (or "mimetic subculture" as it's called in the source) formed an equal, if not larger part in codifying the meme/genre than the music itself. And you're cherrypicking what the book says. You dismiss one quote as just "relating to dissemination" while ignoring the fact that the entire chapter serves to argue that mimetic engagements with online culture is one of the core tenets of vaporware. Which it is. It's why, in 2020, we still have countless "aesthetic" (i.e. vaporwave) pages with hundreds of thousands of followers on every social network. Vaporwave is not just music, as stated so many times in the sources, it's also a subculture centred on plundering, recontextualizing, parodying, whatever, based on certain net-oriented themes.

It should be noted that Tanner's book also fails to devote any coverage to chillwave or seapunk. Which says a lot about how great the academia is at keeping up with the genre. Can you imagine reading a book about house music that skips over disco, or one about progressive rock that starts at Dark Side of the Moon? It's unfortunate that these origins are so poorly documented. All I can find is this A.V. Club article that only barely gestures at the low-effort music "-wave" meme that started around 2010. ili (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"not foremost defined by musical prescriptions," from a musicological perspective, stylistically, it is absolutely defined by "how it sounds," it was the sounding aspect of it that attracted wider interest; people listen to it, as they do any other music, they do no sit around discussing aesthetic theory. I appreciate the tongue in cheek, critical theory-like aspect, yes it's part and parcel of the subculture, but the statement "vaporwave is a meme," is a misapprehension. That's my view based on the sources offered. A few other usable sources that fail to mention this include: The Cambridge Companion to Music in Digital Culture, Somatechnics and Popular Music in Digital Contexts, The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality, Acousmana (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"it was the sounding aspect of it that attracted wider interest" It was disseminated on the Internet, not on radio. 99.9% of the people who first heard vaporwave in early/mid 2012 were looking at a thumbnail depicting the Floral Shoppe cover. It was the juxtaposed imagery of purple checkerboard patterns and Greco-Roman statues that had everything to do with the popular conception of vaporwave, its rhetoric, and its wider appeal. Vaporwave's reliance on framework/presentation is discussed in virtually every writing on the genre, and that particular presentation is what everyone refers to as the vaporwave meme: the aesthetics.

Vaporwave is a project in which the artists aim to explore "soulless techno-corporatism, with accompanying videos that draw on early Internet imagery: glitch graphics, late-90s web design, and cyberpunk aesthetics" (Harper 2015). The vaporwave visual aesthetic is thus integral to the totality of the vaporwave listening experience. The sound of vaporwave does not exist independently from its visual accountrements, to the extent that some Redditors suggest that vaporwave is first and foremost a visual medium with sound as a secondary layer (see subreddit VaporwaveAesthetics). In this way, vaporwave defies traditional music conventions that typically privilege the music over the visual form ..."

Somatechnics and Popular Music in Digital Contexts

ili (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Fiji water (and Arizona tea)

Could the article mention how Fiji Water is related? In itself a vaporwave aesthetic and increasingly use in the internet art? Sources include this, this and this. In a similar way, Arizona ice tea. Sources for both: [1] and [2]; source for Arizona: [3]. Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

1988 vaporwave example?

This track https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfoUQp4Kpa0&feature=&t=1452 "Wojciech Jagielski - Sałatka Z Bananów (Ćwiczenia Izometryczne) [Banana Salad (Isometric Training)]" could be consider an early (1988) example of vapowave? More infos: https://www.discogs.com/it/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw-Komendarek-Miko%C5%82aj-Hertel-Krzysztof-Duda-Wojciech-Jagielski-Antystres/release/8020718 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.113.243 (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah, that's just how music sounded in the 80's. Besides, vaporwave's main characteristic is its use of samples of 80's and 90's songs, which is why this sounds similar. And even if it did sound very familiar to vaporwave, the discogs page you linked doesn't say anything about its significance to the genre. — Preceding signed comment added by ya boi BEEFITRON (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason i proposed it is that sounds like an enfatization of the nowadays so focused synthish "mall music" concept, like a caricatural reprise of that '80s music but already in 1988. Yeah, discogs page isn't useful for this, was only for a reference. anyhow, thanks for your answer.

Nobody Here

There's going to be a documentary film about vaporwave: [www.indiegogo.com/projects/nobody-here-the-story-of-vaporwave--2#/], [4] and [5]Espngeek (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Mallsoft

Why is there no page for mallsoft? Can it be edited? Rasbubba (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If you could find sources on mallsoft you can add it to this page. puggo (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Start with Youtube, NeonPalm Mall video, go to Cat System albums, Symco Shopping Center by Byta, add and edit dream triggers, Randian and video game influences. Cheers

What? puggo (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not merge mallsoft back into vaporwave, doing so would clutter the vaporwave article, the page is new and has plenty of information to be added as the subgenre is distinct enough from the 'main' genre User:Limeysoda 14:16 04 July 2021 (UTC)

Stereogum and Fader (100% ElectroniCON)

User:Acousmana has removed the mentioning of the Electronicon festival on the grounds that it's backed by marketing agency sources and pr. The said sources, [6] and [7] are relatively lengthy articles published by Stereogum and Fader, which are currently used to reference other parts of the vaporwave article, but somehow the main topic that they cover (the festival) has been excluded. Also, other articles by Stereogum and The Fader are used as sources on vaporwave. Moreover, there seems to be no proof that the said sources are compromised or not independent, so I don't know on which Wikipedia policies is such removal based. --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fader is not an independent source, so it shouldn't be used at as far as I'm concerned, here, or anywhere else. Fader and Cornerstone are one and the same, it's a marketing/advertising agency, they get paid to push product, simple as that. For the past 18 years, it’s been an open secret that Fader magazine and creative agency Cornerstone have been operating under the same ownership. Guideline states: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)". Acousmana (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What about Stereogum? What about other sources in the article? Should we inspect every source for a possible connection with its subject? Is there a mechanism to do such a thing? --Λeternus ^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Billboard-Hollywood Reporter Media Group recently sold Stereogum back to its original owner, unclear what their business model is, they claim to be an independent publication, still calls itself a "blog." Yes, we should inspect everything, but who does? I caught this recent addition, and checked the sourcing, mainly because of the "pioneer" claims - and what seems to be a George Clanton publicity campaign. Do I have time to check all sources here, not really, should I, probably. Acousmana (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

So since Stereogum is a blog, we should not use it ever on any Wikipedia article? Are you sure they don't have editorial processes like the other music publications? --Λeternus ^(talk) 21:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and add 100% ElectroniCON again based on the Stereogum source. If anyone has an issue with that, please tell, but then we will have to decide if Steregum can be ever used at all as a reliable source, including on this article. --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Microgenre?

Vaporwave in its sum of its existence has gotten a multitude of attention by mainstream media, has spawned numerous sub-genres as the main article says, is created by hundreds of artists from all over the world, and spawned an entire culture around it. I think calling it a "microgenre" would be a misnomer. What do you think? - BEEFITRON (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. The Vaporwave page is complete libel at this point. One of the most poorly constructed and shittily gatekept pieces on Wikipedia. Fuck each and every one of you involved with keeping it this way.

I can’t believe a poorly constructed page filled entirely with libel got the second-highest article rating on the site. The shenanigans. Micro (Talk) 22:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

it literally fucking didn't but go ahead and spout stupid shit like that all you want by all means

I don't think it needs to be said but "microgenre" refers to specificity of categorisation, not necessarily the number of fans or creators. Vaporwave is a microgenre like dark psytrance is a microgenre. At the end of the day, it's just a form of chopped and screwed, which is a form of plunderphonics, which is a form of musique concrete, which is a form of electronic music... like a Russian doll, hence, "microgenre'. ili (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Who or what, exactly is this page 'libeling'? I realize the term may have different meanings in different jurisdictions. . . but. .. really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.124.132 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Made-up fashionable terms.

There is no scientific proof behind most of these supposed segments under fantasy genre names invented. Unless this is done, just drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF13:F500:3588:122B:3C36:87CD (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

change 'academic Emilie Frankel' to academic Emile Frankel PFilliou (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

lofi hip hop, an indipendent genre?

hi, looking around on the internet it turns out clearly that lofi hip hop has a much older origin than vaporwave (see nujabes or jdilla). I do not deny that the genre makes use of the same aestetic themes, and that it has undergone considerable vaporwave sonic influences, however I think it is a very rough approach to categorize it as vaporwave. How can we not consider, as a sample, its direct derivations from chillhout music? And also from a visual point of view it seems that the environment is developing its own traits, preferring cyberpunk or anime backgrounds (not dated, but "modern") over vapor images. Finally, it is necessary to keep in mind that the lofi category has largely exceeded the same boundaries of the aforementioned both in terms of plays and (first) profits, reaching platforms such as spotify and inventing new communication channels (radio youtube, chat, discord). Wouldn't it be appropriate to dedicate a dedicated wiki entry? If you are more informed than me, I await your opinion--MarcoMEXflorio (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nujabes & J Dilla are Instrumental hip hop, and lo-fi hip hop (or chillhop) is a development \ derivation of it. It has a bit more specific type of production comparing to og instrumental. Lo-fi hip-hop is barely related to vaporwave anyhow; the only common thing is that both genres were spread and popularized on YouTube via similar schemes. And yeah, I'd like to see it moved from chill-out article to its own. Chill-out on Wikipedia describes a loose category of genres, but I'm more inclined to think that it's just an AKA for downtempo and lo-fi hip hop is only being inspired by it, not a part\subgenre of it. Btw, if you are interested how other people see the difference between instrumental hh & lofi hh or should the one be a subgenre of the other - check these: #1 #2. Solidest (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your opinion, your resources are very useful, in conclusion I would like to ask you if you think the quote "In 2013, YouTube began allowing its users to host live streams, which resulted in a host of 24-hour radio stations dedicated to microgenres such as vaporwave and lo-fi hip hop.[58]" should be removed, as it makes the lofi look like belonging to the vaporwave world. Also, reading your contribution, I understand that lofi is neither derived from chillout nor downtempo. What then would its origins be? --MarcoMEXflorio (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's better to rephrase that sentence since it's still correct, but not perceived clearly enough. It's better to say that both lo-fi hip hop and vaporwave started as internet genres and were popularized as internet cultures spreading by similar tropes (vaporwave was the first one tho). Both lo-fi and vaporwave started as internet genres and they are parallel in these terms, not being on the same branch musically. Talking about origins - I'd still call lo-fi hip-hop a subgenre of instrumental hip hop for now (that is also a genre and should have its own article on Wiki). And if not, then it should be just a subgenre of hip hop. And I guess stylistic origins are also unambiguous here - it's instrumental hip hop, downtempo\chill out, maybe jazz and lounge. Solidest (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Do you think it is possible to identify subgenera of lofi?--MarcoMEXflorio (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

re:chillhop etc. gen-z rehashes, all derivatives of trip-hop and 90s downtempo, vaporwave was a separate stream, "chill" connotations were secondary to the post-digital/post-internet aesthetic that informed the style, only superficially related to "chill-out" music of the past, if anything it parodied it, but that was then... Acousmana (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As production technique or loose umbrella term - yeah, Lo-fi music works well, but as a genre - not really. When a production technique works within a single major genre of music (e.g. electronic music) then it has more reason to be a genre category grouping related microgenres of the single genre branch; when a similar element works within several large genre branches at once: rock (lo-fi indie), pop (hypnagogic pop), electronic (lo-fi house), hip hop (lo-fi hip hop), then it is unlikely that it will work as a single genre in classic terms, and not just a loose umbrella category (as it is already on the wiki). Because all the other genres in this category will have very little in common, sometimes even being radically different. Solidest (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address this topic--MarcoMEXflorio (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Glass Animals?

It feels like Glass Animals could at least be mentioned in this article. They're pretty big, and if not explicitly vaporwave seem to have some influences. I found out about this like last week so my word doesn't have much clout, just looking to see what others thought. DynaGuy00 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Request: I noticed that "microgenre" was misspelled as "mircogenre" in the Legacy section. Ri0ttAJC (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

112.205.4.228 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

i want to add vaportrap

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 05:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sovietwave

In the last year or two there’s been a vaporwave subgenre that’s emerged called Sovietwave. It’s a type of music and aesthetic listened to by some Russian/former Soviet millennials and Zoomers that uses sound bytes from news clips, old cartoons, movies and the like and has a generally depressing tone to it in order to invoke a feeling of nostalgia for the USSR. Artists that make music in this subgenre include Как Никогда, Протон-4, and Артек Электроника. Anyone know anything else about it that they’d like to add and make into a section? LaPorting4Duty (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sovietwave? - Solidest (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. It already has more information on it than other confirmed subgenres like Mallsoft. On top of that, I suggest adding Obamawave, and offshoot of Sovietwave that has been gaining popularity with creators like Saint Pepsi, Музы, and Guustavv.2603:3023:521:C300:E1AD:B48D:D684:C4B5 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Future funk

Could someone insert a link to the article for Future funk? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Λeternus ^(talk) 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Barber beats

Add Barber beats to subgenres. It's a huge subgenre and kinda new 178.121.6.223 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Future funk into Vaporwave

• The article should be merged back with vaporwave, per WP:OVERLAP. There's not enough that distinguishes future funk to warrant its own article. It can be summarized here with just a few sentences. (The current revision of Future funk is bloated with unreliable sources drawn from Discogs, Reddit, and Whosampled.) ili (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Disagree with the merge. The genre has become quite a big thing on its own - it is probably biggest and most popular sub-genre of vaporwave. It should have its own article, considering that smaller sub-genres also already have their own articles. You can find quite a number of reliable sources about the genre, not to mention constant mentions in major publications. The article just needs more work. Solidest (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can you find another article — about a subgenre of a microgenre — that exists with only three or four reliably-sourced facts? ili (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, merely being mentioned by reliable sources is not a justification for notability (WP:SIGCOV). ili (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here's some only by a cursory search: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] + there's a ton of decent articles on less-reliable places, but still worth checking: [18] [19] [20] and so much more.

• Why would I want to read a Medium article? Who is the author? Someone who listened to a playlist on YouTube and then proclaimed his/herself to be an expert on all things future funk? At least three of the so-called "reliable sources" you linked (lovinkproject, prospector daily, aadl) are also just student newspapers or someone's blog. ili (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, the number of secondary sources is already sufficient to keep the article separate. So I am still against merging. Solidest (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• P.S. Microgenre is a meaningless term that should not be given any weight, as various authors may call a microgenre any subgenre of the 10 main genres by complete subjective assessments. We have sources that call acid house and tropical house microgenres, whereas the former was huge in the 90s and the latter is still one of the most popular commercial forms of mainstream electronic pop music globally: spotify charts by years. Solidest (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll agree to that if we can agree that "vaporwave" is just as meaningless of a term. ili (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  In that case, then you do not agree with obvious logical conclusions and common sense, so I have nothing more to say here. Solidest (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Disagree with the merge. There is a question to be made about a lot of the validity of the sources cited in the article. Albeit there being a propensity to write the concept of the genre off as something that doesn't need to have its own article, the genre has had a lot of off-branching of artists that either are not inspired by Vaporwave or artists that weren't involved in the Vaporwave scene. There should be consideration to be made when discussing online genres/micro-genres and the validity of sources. Similarly to Vaporwave and other online genres, a lot of Future Funk's artists built & discussed the genre from social media platforms and blogs. Just because the source stems from somebody's Tumblr account or an online interview doesn't mean that there is absolutely no inherent validity that can be considered here- it just needs to be carefully considered further and verified. Writing these off off as "unsourced" is lazy. eg; Are you able to prove that the interview from Flamingosis is unsourced? A lot of its (and quite frankly, Vaporwave's) history exists on those platforms- it comes off as biased to write some of these sources off just because their information came from places that aren't easily verified. It doesn't have to do with the interpretation you have of vaporwave or any genre being meaningless- it has to do with the lack of careful consideration over what sources are "bloating" the article. Agaletus (talk) 04:10 , 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Agaletus: "it comes off as biased to write some of these sources off just because their information came from places that aren't easily verified." — That's Wikipedia. All content must be verifiable and based on the best possible sources. If you think that we should start treating blogs as reliable sources, then this website won't be a good fit for you. ili (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I just swept off many of the unreliable sources that were used on the article. If all the unsourced content was removed, the article would be reduced to just a few sentences. (And it was) ili (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

redirect to subsection here, that's a stub, it's not an article. Acousmana 12:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Disagree It is already mentioned in the main article; if hardvapour and mallsoft have their own articles alongside reliable sources, why not FF? It makes perfect sense. Espngeek (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Because reliable sources have much more to say about hardvapour and mallsoft than future funk. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ili (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • That is certainly not the case (at least regarding mallsoft). There are many more sources for future funk than for mallsoft, because the genre itself is much more popular and bigger than mallsoft. (According to number of RYM tags - it's x7 bigger than mallsoft and hardvapour, and I'm pretty sure, if we count releases on bandcamp's tag pages, the number would be around the same, not talking about the Google results) Yet you seem to treat it with a bias or something like that, removing all the sources except of the biggest media. While I think that many of these sources are fine and we should keep them (like at least these 10 I listed above). Because if you take the same approach in reviewing sources for mallsoft - only 2 or 3 out of the 15 current sources would remain there, with the article of one sentence in size. Solidest (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• You're right, I should have considered that Mallsoft probably has the same issues with source quality – I just haven't looked through the sources there. I don't doubt that future funk is bigger than mallsoft. If it's so popular and notable, though, then there should be a wealth of mainstream coverage about the genre. I don't see any editors citing articles from Pitchfork, The New York Times, Vice, AllMusic, etc. Just blogs and student-run publications. The Quiet Nonsense, for example, describes itself as "an alternative lifestyle blog" that sometimes outsources its writings to "younger creatives still stuck in high school". These aren't considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia. If you want to read what a high schooler has to say about future funk, well, Bandcamp and RateYourMusic already exist, don't they? ili (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• (addendum) There is already a plethora of sources in this article, but from what I can tell at a quick glance, they're all cursory examinations of the genre that simply describe what this Wikipedia article already states – a French house-derivative style of electronic music that uses anime and city pop samples – followed by a list of recommended albums. This is what I mean when I say that there's no substance to the writings about future funk. Where did future funk originate? Who coined it? Which artists/works are the most notable, and what made them notable? These are all questions that existing mainstream coverage seemingly fails to address. Feel free to prove me wrong! ili (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support I tried searching for some more sources not already used in the article and could only find it mentioned in connection to city pop (Journal article, Survey, Vice article) and a brief mention here. I don't think there is enough coverage in RSes to support a full article (although these sources should be helpful if the content is moved to this page). Alduin2000 (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep (No Merge): I personally don't even consider Future Funk an offshoot of Vaporwave in the first place. It's lineage to me is from French House and City Pop, but people incorrectly link it to Vaporwave solely because they both have visual influences from Anime and sample Japanese music. Topic passes GNG and a merge is not required. An article being short and not fully exploring the topic isn't a reason to merge/delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It is the most popular offshoot of vaporwave, but I do agree about the "no merge". Espngeek (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Barebones article and nothing I found leads me to believe this is covered as a significantly separate genre by RSes. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Disagree with merging. While I do agree that the article is rather short and needs some more sources, the genre itself has such a different tone to Vaporwave that merging it with the article seems like it would be a rather temporary change, especially if another, smaller sub-genre like Mallsoft is left with its own article, as has already been mentioned a few times here. From a stylistic perspective, while Future Funk tends to sample songs in a very similar way to Vaporwave, the way it uses those samples ends up making most Future Funk tracks more closely resemble French house or Nu-disco, to the point where the Nu-disco article mentions confusion with French house, and the French house article confusion with Future Funk. This is purely guesswork on my end, but I'd imagine the lack of sources is more due to a combination of Future Funk's recent creation, its lack of media coverage compared to Vaporwave, and the fact that the genre is mostly isolated to the internet as Vaporwave originally was. I'm of the opinion that if the article was merged, it would end up having to be recreated within a few years as more concrete sources emerged. Might try to help find some more useful sources and info in the future, but unfortunately I don't have the time to as of writing. Another Crafter (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  If you agree that there are less sources than needed, then WP guidelines say that we shouldn't have a standalone article on it. We also can't just assume that the subject will become notable in the future. See WP:NRVE and WP:TOOSOON. This is unless you can provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which are not used in the article yet? Other editors have looked and failed to find significant coverage, indicating that there is not evidence that this subject is notable. Even if the article is created in a few years, this is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work; Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability" that only creates articles when they have already been extensively covered in other sources (quote from WP:N). Also, discussion of Mallsoft is irrelevant here (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Deletion discussions aren't votes, they are decided on the basis of policy-based arguments. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with this for the same reasons, Mallsoft could even be redirected/merged into Vaporwave with its full content moved to the Vaporwave article. - Rauisuchian (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fair concerns, I'd like to take a shot at looking for more sources myself but its unreasonable to delay the decision process because of that. I'd still argue that the Mallsoft article is relevant here since its also one of the subgenres listed on the main Vaporwave page, but that might warrant its own separate discussion instead. Another Crafter (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• So, what's the verdict? Espngeek (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 4 editors oppose (Solidest, Espngeek, Macktheknifeau, Another Crafter) and 7 editors support (myself, Acousmana, Alduin2000, RoseCherry64, Popcornfud, Adrian, Raisuchan) merging. (Let me know if I miscounted!) ili (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    You've miscounted. And haven't reached consensus as well. But who cares, right? Solidest (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Solidest: Well, you don't, obviously, if you have the time to go through this entire discussion, count every editor that opposed and supported, and ultimately respond with nothing more than a smarmy remark instead of offering the name(s) I've missed, let alone respond with anything helpful — or even try to save the article in question by adding actual reliably-sourced content (i.e. professional journals, not high school newspapers). The creator of the article, Espngeek, elected to merge Future funk back from whence it came, so a formal consensus is not necessary unless you yourself want to put forth the effort to restore the article. But it's easier to wait for other people to use their free time to fix you a Wikipedia article than it is to do it yourself, right? ili (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Despite the number of artists associated with the genre and a fanbase, it still needs to meet notability guidelines to have its own page, namely its discussion in reliable sources. All of the current sources only seem to make mere mention of the genre, are interviews of musicians involved with the genre, or are lists of music in the genre. With this limited content in these sources it makes sense for it to be mentioned as a subgenre on the vaporwave page, but not to have a page of its own.  Adrian^[232] 11:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Don't see the need to have a dedicated article for this based on the sources/coverage right now. (Remember, things not needing to have their own page is not a bad thing, it keeps things concise and readable and easy to manage.) Popcornfud (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • By all means, permission granted Espngeek (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Future funk is basically sped up boogie funk. That's why it should not have an article. It is a subgenre of Vaporwave so it should be here. 178.121.6.223 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-width and fullwidth character text

Just a heads-up from a passing editor; I know that Vaporwave aesthetics commonly use half-width and fullwidth character text as part of their style, but article text should not use {{lang}}, specifically {{lang|ja|[text]|italics=unset}} to achieve this.

Language tags are used to ensure that foreign-language text is accessible for users using screenreaders. This marks up a section of text within the page as something that needs to be read in a different language. Using the Japanese ISO language code on text that isn't Japanese is akin to an English satnav going to France and pronouncing everything in phonetic English; in other words, the end result is entirely incomprehensible.

I've removed the language tags from this article for now. However, should Wikipedia ever come up with a half-width and fullwidth character text template - which, to be honest, I'd very much like - then we can use those in their place. I hope this makes sense; for the time being, please do not add those lang tags back. Thank you!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 15:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• "Evolution" and life in vaporwave flavours. (48475685782).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Since vaporwave in general and not specifically the meme originated in the 2010s, please change

… and an internet meme that emerged in the early 2010s.

to

… and an internet meme, emerging in the early 2010s.

so as to make the 2010s clause apply to the concept as a whole and not invite misreadings. 151.132.206.250 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Done ili (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Polyphia song as example

The music video for the song "The worst" by Polyphia uses notable vaporwave aesthetic. Suggestion to include in History section as long as a citation can be found substantiating this description. Relspas (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

origins of the genre

the origins of this genre are well documented noting its origins around 2009, however this article fails to mention dreamcast summer songs, an album which started production in 2007 and essentially captures the essence of the genre with digitally chopped and altered samples from dreamcast osts. this album predates both of daniel lopatin's work as oneohtrix point never and chuck person and is very similar in style to eccojams. despite this having been a very underground release at the time it would be worth to include since it goes to show many of the paradigms that shaped the creation of vaporwave were already present years before its first releases.

plus i find it ironic that there is a mention of gothboiclique in this article but dj screw (who arguably created the chopped & screwed trend and had significantly more influence in the topic at hand) is nowhere mentioned. Esquizofrenico88 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources, not self-published bandcamp albums or songs, and not personal observations. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Future funk note

I feel like this had to be said: who called "Tsundere Valley" one of the most popular future funk acts? First off, there's no artist under that name (I believe the original editor meant to say "Tsundere Alley"). Nevertheless, I feel like it would be a poor representation of future funk's actual fanbase to say that Tsundere Alley is among the most popular future funk artists. I understand this stance is leaning into personal preference, but I feel that they are known at best, with 15k followers on SoundCloud (impressive, but, there are plenty of other future funk artists with a larger fanbase). There's at least five future funk figures I can name off the top of my head that are more recognizable as figureheads of the sub-genre than Tsundere Alley. Max.Handler04 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)