New Wave Outpost Forum

They go hand and hand plus sometimes theres some confusion between the two where Depeche Mode, New Order and Psychedelic Furs can be qualified as either. Which of the two genres do you think is better?

All post-punk is New Wave, but not all New Wave is post-punk.

Not quite true. Pixies for example are classified as post punk but dont fit in with new wave. Ditto on Bolshoi, the Alarm, The Church etc

That someone would misapply the term doesn't mean one definition isn't valid. I like Ollie's spin. Pixies, Sonic Youth, Pavement, etc might all be post punk-ish, but I would never call them post punk. Neither would I call the Strokes or Interpol post punk. An analogy is ska - I think most people of think of ska and might actually be thinking either of the 70s ska revival or even the 80s "third wave". Likewise, I think post punk had a later 80s/early 90s revival or influence and again a third wave early 2000s revival. None though are post punk itself IMHO.

New Wave covers such a immense swath of sub-genres (and some that cannot be easily catagorized) from the Ramones on one end of the spectrum to Wang Chung on the other. Post-punk falls within the edgier, literate, more rhythmic based experimentations born out of the punk explosion. Sometime between 1978 to about 1983 I think (before the ascendance of MTV). Then it somehow morphed into another media-coined term "alternative". I distinctly remember the new label being used heavily around the time of REM's debut album MURMUR in '83. They along with The Replacements were considered the Next Big Sound and the music media were scrambling for some new term to apply to it.

But all the same it's all part of New Wave basically.

<img src="http://i31.tinypic.com/14ms2o5.jpg"

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>That someone would misapply the term doesn't mean one definition isn't valid. I like Ollie's spin. Pixies, Sonic Youth, Pavement, etc might all be post punk-ish, but I would never call them post punk. Neither would I call the Strokes or Interpol post punk. An analogy is ska - I think most people of think of ska and might actually be thinking either of the 70s ska revival or even the 80s "third wave". Likewise, I think post punk had a later 80s/early 90s revival or influence and again a third wave early 2000s revival. None though are post punk itself IMHO.
[/quote]

And when I think of Ska, I'm thinking Jamaca 1959 to 1966-ish because by then Rocksteady took over... 2-Tone for me was punked out Ska, had it's roots their, but came out of the punk movement, hence post-punk. I think we're officially on the 4th wave of Ska.


<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/vespa_boy_2006/Smallerglokstadt.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

I would label The Pixies et al as "Alternative" (note the capital "A"), a label that MTV and Spin Magazine created to be able to lump all of those types of late-80's and early 90's bands into.

[quote][i]Originally posted by Ollie Stench[/i]
<br>I would label The Pixies et al as "Alternative" (note the capital "A"), a label that MTV and Spin Magazine created to be able to lump all of those types of late-80's and early 90's bands into.
[/quote]

I hate that "Alternative" label, it's every bit as useless as it is meaningless. And that MTV and Spin should have had a hand in crafting it makes it even more repellent.

Back when that term first started being tossed about I used to say, "Alternative to what? Any music is an alternative to another. Classical is an alternative to rock, folk is an alternative to heavy metal, soul is an alternative to country . . . whatever combination you want to make."

Back in the early 90s it had competition from another term being bandied about: "New Music," which needn't any explanation as to why that term is useless.

As for the post-punk label . . . it's a weird one. Many groups have been labeled that. Sometimes it gets a bit odd. The Talking Heads have been labeled "post-punk" and they started out BEFORE many of the punk bands (and TH were also considered part of the NYC/CBGB's punk scene and were called "punk" early on, along with the Ramones, Blondie, the Voidoids, and Patti Smith).

The label "New Wave" was created because some punk bands (notably the Sex Pistols) had been the center of much controversy and radio and concert bans which caused problems for record promoters trying to get their artists played on the radio. Programmers were afraid to touch anything labeled "punk". Thus, the "don't call it 'punk,' call it 'new wave'" trend began with the less abrasive artists (Talking Heads, Blondie, Mink DeVille) no longer being called punk, but New Wave, and the more abrasive acts (Sex Pistols, Clash, Damned) retaining the label (for the most part).

[quote][i]Originally posted by Los Palmas 7[/i]
I hate that "Alternative" label . . . [/quote]

I just edited my post slightly.

When I bashed the "alternative" label, I wasn't bashing those fans who use it. My ire was really directed at the marketers and programmers who feel the need to box everything it - not for the purpose of descriptions to help fans, but so that they can more easily channel more "product" to the consumers until a given style is run into the ground.

I do understand the tendency to label, despite the cries of "it's all just music." I do it. I even use the term "New Wave" even though I am familiar with the marketing/programmer origins of the term.

So, I don't bear any ill feelings toward those who use "alternative," it's just that the term has always rubbed me the wrong way.

How is it that the King of Categorization hasn't weighed in with the definitive explanation for the rest of us?

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z302/eight6pics/letmein6.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

I've always hated those labels....too many branches. Pub, punk, new wave, post punk, electronic, no wave, noise.....my brain hurts.

[quote][i]Originally posted by Max Murdoc[/i]
<br>I've always hated those labels....too many branches. Pub, punk, new wave, post punk, electronic, no wave, noise.....my brain hurts.
[/quote]

I've only got 2: Like, and Don't like. It's easier that way.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z302/eight6pics/letmein6.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

I only got 2, too...

1- New Wave: late 70's-to-mid 80's synth/keyboard-based bands.

2- Alternative: mid 80's-to-early 90's guitar-based bands.

Now... what to do with 70's and 80's artists such as Iggy Pop, The Ramones, The Plimsouls, The Clash and X? Ok... Post Punk. Make that 3 catagories. [:D]

---------------------------
Huh uhh... not Katherine.

Except The Ramones, The Clash and X were certainly punk. Iggy (as a Stooge), most likely labeled proto-punk and The Plimsouls as power pop.
It makes the definitions even grayer, doesn't it?



We didn't sell a lot of records, but somehow we left an impression.
-Johnny Ramone-