Talk:Post-punk

message: This is ridiculous.  This article is completely made up.  There was never a "post-punk" movement.  There certainly was a progression between simple punk rock and artists expressing themselves, but no one ever called themselves post punk.  This is simply a descriptive term that someone made up into a movement.
:I agree, Mr. or Ms. or non-binary Anonymous.  I always thought it was silly.  I bought an album years ago where the record store had a label on it saying it was "post-punk industrial hip-hop" or some such nonsense.  However, it is a term that is and has been out there, so if some feel that it's a real form of music then they are free to make that argument I suppose.  Also, they seem to believe it's a real thing, so...RRskaReb talk 05:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think post-punk is a made-up term, I have bad news for you about how other genre labels are created. Locust Valley (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole Article Needs to Be Re-written with Actual Facts 

message: I have to question the opening line that asserts this was a rock music movement. Simon Reynolds asserts that the movement was created by acts that disagreed with Punk Rock's back to basics style. John Lydon and others used to assert that they were post rock and criticized "rockists". The movement as it broadened did encompass rock and that early criticism was heard less and less often as time wore on. But I do think the opening line should be reexamined.Edkollin (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rock music movement? 

message: I believe that the names of the Berlin Trilogy albums by David Bowie and the The Idiot by Iggy Pop should be mentioned as a major influence on post-punk as it really was the case especially in the latter case.--Milosppf (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to effectively source such an assertion. If you could find maybe a couple of references to noted post punk artists mentioning the albums in interviews it would certainly help. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you check The Idiot Wikipedia article in the legacy and covers sections you might find quite a few remarks on the album and an abundance of cover versions of the songs from the album by post-punk acts.--Milosppf (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots 

message: That section was merged in from another article.  It was the incorrect thing to do on several fronts. The very reliable sources described New Music both as a separate entity and important part of 1980s music scene. Another words it was easily notable enough for its own Wikipedia article and never should have been deleted for whatever purpose. The reliable sources never said new music was post punk music. It said a lot of it came from post punk. That is not the same as being a sub genre or part of post punk music. The reliable sources also were clear that plenty of New Music came from areas that were not post punk. New Music was a pop music post punk was anti that.
While the merging of the articles was the incorrect thing to do as a lot of it did come from post punk it so it should have a place in this article 
The New Music material has been deleted in this article and as many links as I can remember changed to the reconstituted New Music Article. I will add to the See also section of this article the reconstituted New Music article. I will wait to see if an attempt is made to merge the newly reconstituted New Music article into this article without notice or consensus. If no new merger attempts are made I will add new music as a sub section that will look similar to the post punk revival sub section. Edkollin (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of New Music section 

message: I have found post punk to have a rather dark sound. Does anyone else notice this? AmericanLeMans (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark 

message: I'm actually a little surprised their isn't a characteristics section for this article. Surely because post-punk is both a eclectic and diverse sound it would be important to try and highlight aesthetics within in? Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  At the time, in terms of  genre, it was more literally constrained/defined by  genus (approach, ethos, production, etc.), than by resulting style(s).  Subsequently, some revivers/followers/fans have (variously) cherry-picked post-punk to create their, more stylistically constrained, conception of 'post-punk'.  Styles (and influences) of the post-punk genus are not adequately described – nor, perhaps, is the evolution of retrospective post-punk boundaries/definitions.  – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Post-punk#1980s has a diversity assertion, pitched at 1982 (where its been tagged with an unelaborated 'why?').  This would be an early point where an analysis might be made (from genre of relevant prior albums) – however, a few years later would be more representative (as some of the earlier 'derivative forms' remained incubated/fluid within the post-punk scene for several more years).  – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diverse Characteristics 

message: This has to stop. There is only one INCOMPLETE reference in the article. I assume it belongs to the book The Sex Revolts: Gender, Rebellion, and Rock 'n' Roll? The book doesn't even explain why Reynolds calls Industrial music a 'post-punk' genre. It looks more like the arbitrary assumption of the author. No primary sources, no footnotes... nothing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.16.144 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial music 

message: Because there is a lot of information fit into a compact lead and several sequential clauses, it seems like a helpful idea to include commas to clarify these differing clauses and ensure a clearer communication of the content. Do you have a compelling reason for removing them? The WP:COMMA guideline doesn't favor either, but simply instructs us to use whichever is more clear while remaining consistent. User:K999 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a journalist and publicist, so I use AP Stylebook, not MLA. AP is the standard across the internet for journalism. In my personal view, it's better, and Oxford commas are archaic and pretentious, but that's not relevant. What is relevant is that WP:COMMA does indeed favor consistency, and on Wikipedia, is is generally considered that if there are competing styles that are both valid, you stick with what the article began with. Your use of Oxfords renders the dozens of other usages in the article inconsistent, so you should therefore respect the article's prior style and keep it consistent. If newspapers and news sites can manage phrasing and clauses without Oxfords, i think it's reasonable to assume you can as well.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, they should be used sparingly and mostly that means once per article. Many editors here don't count the lead in that. I do but I recognize others do not, so if you want to add back a second link for the items in the lead, I will not revert it. They definitely should not be linked twice in the body, though (as a number of these I culled down were). Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxford comma 

message: This new edit was problematic: "The early post-punk vanguard included groups such as Siouxsie and the Banshees, Public Image Ltd, Joy Division, Talking Heads, and Gang of Four, as well as groups that predated the punk movement, such as Pere Ubu and Throbbing Gristle."
This statement does not make much factual sense, as Pere Ubu began in 1975 and TG in 1976. Compare to the "vanguard" bands listed, and there is really no difference, as two of them formed the same time as Ubu and TG: Banshees are 1976, Talking Heads are 1975. If you want to correctly cite bands that formed way earlier than punk, and were included within post-punk, you would instead need to look at say, Suicide (1970), Television (1973) or the Residents (1974).Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But there were dozens of post-punk bands that achieved a sizable following in 1975–79, not just these 11. I'm sure the list can be doubled or tripled if I searched through enough sources. What about This Heat, Adam and the Ants, Echo & the Bunnymen, the Feelies, the Monochrome Set, the Raincoats ... ? All formed between 1976–78 and all have been called "post-punk".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I really doubt that all members of the music press gathered one day in 1978 and said "from now on we shall call Joy Division 'post-punk'!" It's more like somebody began prescribing a name ("post-punk") for a style of punk rock some bands had been pursuing for a while. We shouldn't be deciding who is in the "post-punk vanguard" without sources that actually talks about who populates that club. Google "most important post-punk bands" and try to find an authoritative source. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If sources are included in the lead which is rather unusual, then a quote from Heylin is required for chronology. Woovee (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predating punk 

message: Someone, in March 2019, placed a copy edit tag in the second paragraph of the lead, with the reason: "integrating the information from the footnote's sources into the article's body (see earlier revisions)". This is not a job for a copy editor. It's a job for someone who is familiar with the topic and is willing to understand the meaning of this suggestion and then perform the necessary research to implement it. I have remove the copy edit template from the article, since the prose reads fine, and I am placing its content here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sort of help is needed with the second paragraph of the lead 

message: They were conspicuously absent in the list of “vanguard” bands. I take it that is because they were not in a particular book. Well I added them and provided 3 sources documenting that their first 2 albums were important early post punk recordings. Someone is edit warring over it. The last time they were removed (s)he actually left the 3 sources, but removed the band! Keithramone33 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they were relevant or if they are "post-punk enough". However, I think they should be kept in the article unless someone with more (verifiable) knowledge than me can explain why they should be removed here in the talk page. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The B-52s 

message: I'm surprised to see practically no mention of both David Bowie's Low and Iggy Pop's The Idiot. Based on further research I've done (which is now present in both of those articles), both of these records are considered very influential on the post-punk genre. Bowie and Pop's biographers have noted its influence on bands like Joy Division (AllMusic even states it). Hell, Joy Division literally named themselves after a Low track, tried their best to imitate Lows drum sound on  An Ideal for Living, and Ian Curtis hanged himself with The Idiot playing on his turntable. Point is, both of these records need to be mentioned in the article. Even Siouxsie Sioux acknowledged the influence of The Idiot on the Banshees at one point. – zmbro (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that these albums should be mentioned, the page for the Idiot even mentions its influence on industrial and post-punk, I think a couple sources could be found to get that album added. Not too sure about Low but I don't doubt that it influenced post-punk too. Brian Eno are David Bowie are already mentioned on the article so that might not be needed. Aradicus77 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bowie and Iggy Pop 

message: The article totally forgets Alternative TV, which made the first British true post punk Album, The Image Has Cracked. Considering some of the context on the album, it can be considered a seminal transitional record. Released May 1978. 212.97.250.73 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Credit for the first post-punk record is disputed" 

message: How in the world does critical theory play a role in the pseudo genre of “post-punk”? 108.56.193.206 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas from art and politics, including critical theory?! 

message: I believe the recent resurgence of the movement should be mentioned in the lead. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:F03E:AC3:C90F:6199 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post punk revival 

message: I've added a forerunners section that mentions the influence the glam rock band Sparks had on the genre, as well as krautrock and the works of Brian Eno, David Bowie and the Red Krayola. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krautrock and Sparks 

message: The redirect Post-punk metal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  FMSky (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Post-punk metal]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]