Talk:List of new wave artists

message: Is there a reason, Depeche Mode, and Erasure are not here? did i miss something? added them.
Negative1 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Additions 

message: I am sorry but I really have to do this. Arcadia, B.A.D. and some others are gone from this list: they were NOT in the new Wave scene, simply because they all started in or after 1984, which is the year the New Wave movement unanimously and finally vapourized, having endured at least 2 years of disbanding already. In the case of Arcadia, furthermore, it's even silly to name them as a separate entity from Duran (which, incidentally, WERE righteously New Wave). 
-Max, Italy.
PLEASE ADD COWBOYS INTERNATIONAL. THEY ARE DEFINITELY NEW WAVE.
STEVE-LOS ANGELES  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.53.19 (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting names

message: Considerd new wave back then, alt/rock now worth a mention IMO blu_sonic
:They seem to only considered New Wave in America, possibly because New Wave stations like KROQ would play them.  But even at the time, they were a reaction to New Wave, most notably in that they focused on guitar-driven music instead of synths (yes, I know New Wave isn't exclusively synth-driven, but that was the feeling at the time).  WesleyDodds 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  REM, Violent Femmes, same deal Edkollin (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Smiths

message: I know that including them might seem odd because they don't really sound like any other New Wave bands, but Nirvana said themselves that they were a New Wave band. Just wondering what others thought.
SavagePine 11:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard them described this way. Their notable for exploding the popularity of grunge rock.  Edkollin (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be interesting if you could find citations for early grunge acts considering themselves a form of New Wave. I have found these two NYT articles from the era describing some of The Pixies work as "New Wave"  Edkollin (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Nirvana New Wave? 

message: I propose changing the name of the list from List of New Wave Bands and Artists to List of New Wave Bands and Artists (U.S. Definition) . There U.S. definition section in the main article. A lot a the bands here would fit under that broad definition but not under the tighter definition described in the summary section Edkollin 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not change title but did rewrite description to explain this Edkollin (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for list title change 

message: I don't ever remembering Joe Jackson performing anything that would be considered New Wave music.  Is he really accurate for this category?  [seattlegirl1971, May 24, 2008]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlegirl1971 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen a number of sources that described the 1979 version of him as New Wave Edkollin (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Jackson, New Wave? 

message: Hello everyone !
I've noticed that some people kept removing some bands' names from the list on the mere grounds that THEY didn't feel those bands should make part of it and I've had to add Joy Division for the third time just now.
About this particular instance, I would just like to say that wherever you'll be looking for information about the band, they'll be referred to as "Post-punk" (at least) which is the basis of "New Wave" and ever so often as New Wave. Even in the Wiki article about New Wave music, they're described as pioneers of the genre.
I use this list as a professionnal tool (I'm a DJ specialized in music from the eighties and New Wave music in particular) and I expect it to reflect the huge variety of movements that the New Wave movement would cover so I can discover new bands and expand my set lists with underrated or forgotten acts. For this reason, I've never removed bands which I thought had nothing to do in the list (Baltimora, for example or The Clash or The Smiths or Modern Talking...) and I think that unless they're bands which REALLY have nothing to do with the New Wave era and spirit (The Nirvana debate), they should not be removed from the list just because you're in the mood of doing so. I guess some people want to use this list for research too and they're clever enough to decide whether this band or another fits their description of New Wave music or not.
Please don't mess with other people's contributions when they make sense.
Thank you very much!
CouchJarvis (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say if it's based on tastes or opinons, but I have removed a couple bands basing my decision on time issues: some bands in the list just were way too late for falling into the greater New Wave genre, even if we culd stretch it! I think that we all agree NW was dissolved by the end of 1984, and some of the bands I removed weren't even on the map come 1985.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.189.226.172 (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we think New Wave "desovled" is irrelevent only what reliable sources say counts as far as ANY Wikipedia article is concerned. When New Wave "disolved" the most common year I have seen by US reliable sources is 1986 but it is all over the map. I have seen Pet Shop Boys who started in '86 labled New Wave (that designation would be laughed at in the UK) as well as When in Rome's "The Promise" from 1988. This confusion makes it hell to edit this article. Edkollin (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, stop removing bands just because you don't agree ! 

message: This section is for discussion of the proposal to convert the list in this article to a category. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In its current form, the article doesn't have any advantage over a category, so I'd support the conversion into a category. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But what advantage would there be to making it a category?  They have some disadvantages, in my opinion: it's a little more awkward to add an entry, and it requires that every entry in the list have it's own wikipedia page.  -- Doom (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Let's discuss this point. So far, I will remove any band that didn't start in the 70's or 80's from this list, ok? Skraelinger 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now dispute the CLEAR summary on top describing this list as late 1970's and 1980's editors insist on adding 21st century acts and I keep on removing them. If you want these acts in this list PLEASE come to a consensus for doing so. If a consensus is reached I would be happy to abide by it. However I would disagree with it. I think post 1980's post punk revival or new new wave acts should have their own separate list. This list is overly inclusive as is. Edkollin (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For once, Edkollin, we seem to agree on some point with no arguments needed : I also think the list should exclusively focuss on bands and artists from the actual New Wave era and that the other ones should have their own New Wave Revival or Nu new Wave Bands list. CouchJarvis (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything that didn't come out of the 80's means that it can't be New Wave, only Nu New Wave 

message: They're not currently on the list but I'm thinking they surely belong.  Source-wise they've got New Wave listed on both their Wiki and Allmusic pages, and as far as others, well I found  which I was thinking of using.  On the page is a couple of New Wave references in quotes from reviews.  One sentence even credits the band's March '74 appearance at CBGB's as the "birthdate of the New Wave movement".  I guess I'm just double checking here to see if this source is good enough that I can add the band without risk of removal.  Theburning25 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia can not be used as a source, Allmusic can, The "other source" it is better to get the quote directly from the source (Trouser Press reviews are online, NME sometimes uses Wikipedia) Television as first NW band is in main article (CBGB owner reliable?) Edkollin (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically promotional websites are not considered a reliable sources. RIOR I think is what we used to call a record company. A record company's website is reliable for things like album release dates but they are not non-tabloid media or academic , so they wouldn't be expected to be objective about acts they are trying to sell. Trouser Press or other music and non tabloid non music newspapers are at least supposed to be objective and do things like fact check articles. It is really the fact checking and/or expertise that makes something reliable. Hope WP:RS helps. Edkollin (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television 

message: Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the  template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
* http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hifixqw5ldt
* http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:jifexqlgldf
--CactusBot (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011 

message: Much as all the debate on this is interesting I suggest it is all moot. Surely Vern Joynson's excellent tome "Up Yours - A Guide To UK Punk, New Wave & Early Post Punk" (sadly out of print currently) provides the answer and in terms of the UK New Wave is the definitive work on UK artists and bands of that ilk. In that book Joynson focuses primarily but not quite exclusively (he includes later Oi! and Street Punk bands, for example) upon the period of 1976-1982. Now in my view that was and is the new wave/punk era. Similarly, I think you can apply the same criteria in regard to US music from that period as well. 
Furthermore, the exclusion of punk bands in this listing totally undermines it's credibility. Punk was at the forefront of the "New Wave" in the UK and to exclude the likes of the Sex Pistols, Clash, Damned and Ramones whilst including 80's night club pop bands like the Pet Shop Boys, ABC and Culture Club (who were in almost everyway the antithesis of the original New Wave movement) makes a mockery of it. 
Without the likes of the Sex Pistols, Clash and Damned (and from the US the likes of the Ramones and Patti Smith), the 'New Wave' would have never happened in the UK...........
PS as a Paul Weller fan from 1977 onwards, the Style Council were never a 'New Wave' band either. 
94.5.83.210 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though it is out of print you can use it as a source here to label an act "New Wave". If the book had a genre definition for New Wave that should be quoted in the main New Wave music article. Hopefully the book will be back in print electronic or paper. Edkollin (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely Vernon Joynson Provides The Answer ? 

message: Isn't Public Image LTD New Wave??? I would say that also John Lydon's Solo Album is New Wave also.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StratusSticky (talk • contribs) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to get reliable sources to say say PIL is New Wave before they can be added to the list. Edkollin (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PiL 

message: Sure, New Wave is overwhelmingly associated with the 1980s, but that doesn't mean that the new wavers formed in 1990 and later are somehow magically a different genre. That's like saying The Darkness are not a glam rock band just because glam rock wasn't popular when they were out in the mid 2000s.
Nor are the new wave acts of the mid 2000s onward, like The Killers purely a revival -- in some ways, they are just a continuation of a trend that was HUGE in the 80s and not so much in the nineties but never really died.
The Killers named themselves after a band in a music video the new wave legends New Order made in 2001. In fact the top new wave names, you know, them and Depeche Mode, Duran Duran and a-ha were active throughout the entire nineties and two-thousands and still had quite a bit of success (though not in the top 40).
Modern new wavers like Owl City, Lights Poxleitner and Ellie Goulding are not some kind of mix of 90's alternative and new wave, they actually are new wave, every bit as much as the 80's acts are.
So I think we need to change this.
Pennn15 (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have have mixed feelings about changing the policy. As with "New Wave" itself reliable sources are all over the map and if you ask 10 people you will get 10 different definitions. For example "synthpop" and New Wave are considered wholly different genres in the UK while in the US synthpop is the leading subgenre of New Wave. Adding to the confusion is that while "post punk" and "new wave" are considered separate in many circles while "post punk revival" and "new new wave"  are generally not. Although lists are supposed to operate with the same guidelines as "regular" articles in practice standards are much lower and music genre lists are a particular magnet for what one editor called "Point of view warriors" that is people for it is so obvious that so and so act is or is not New Wave these acts are added without regard or knowledge of the guidelines. As a result there is no consensus and many undeserving acts listed. Finally getting down to my point while in my view there are many acts with styles of music that reliable sources would generally consider less "New Wave" then revival acts with so many questionable acts already here why add a whole new category?. Edkollin (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

text: See main New Wave article where I have added material from a US academic source that details the US/UK (and other)  definition differences and why they came to be. Back on topic the source did note a general reliable source consensus that anything after the mid 80s is not New Wave and the 21st Century acts are "revivals". An academic source ranks higher then mainstream journalists on Wikipedia this would suggest that the no 21st century acts policy remain, and that acts that started in the late 80s listed here should be deleted.  Edkollin (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post 1989 artists should be included 

message: This list is long enough. There is no need to list every band member of listed acts. With that in mind for now I am going to delete the addition of band members unless their solo work is reliably sourced as New Wave or one of its subgenres. Keep in mind that a lot of artists from bands do solo work to explore different styles then that of the bands they are in. As always this policy will be reversed if a consensus develops against it. Edkollin (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Put this in the lede. While this is not the type of thing usually put in the lede I did it because editors still continue to add individuals who did solo work outside of or after thier work in groups and every time adding them without sourcing of any kind. Edkollin (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual band members  

message: This section added for discussions started by the inclusion of Template:Dubious --KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for putting my warning in the right place and creating this discussion topic. Of course I understand groups go through stages, different genres, combine genres etc. My view is the "New Wave" part of their career has to be notable in someway be it a commercial hit(s) defined as New Wave or a subgenre by reliable sources or New Wave being a decent part of their career. For Robert Palmer I see allmusic says "Palmer's stylistic experimentation continued with 1980's Clues, a foray into synth-pop aided by Gary Numan and Talking Heads' Chris Frantz which yielded the club hit "Looking for Clues.". Although not known as a NW sub genre in the UK, Synthpop has been named a crucial New Wave subgenre by a lot of reliable sources. For Psuedo-Echo I see allmusic says "A Melbourne, Australia quartet who has changed their musical style several times over the course of their career. They began playing Duran Duran- and Ultravox-reminiscent synth-rock, mixing elements of late-'70s disco in and sporting a lipstick-and-big-hair look". They compare a part of their career to notable New Wave groups. If you think my argument is dumbing down Wikipedia standards you are right. The lists are the pit of Wikipedia. In the few years I have been editing this article most editors seem to want no standards no need for sources here or in their article only the editors opinion counts. Adding to the problem there is no agreement on what the hell New Wave is by the public or reliable sources. Yeah I compromised to prevent bitter edit wars that were common a few years back. Back to King Crimson even by the dumbed down standards I don't think they qualify. The reliable sources I have seen will talk about King Crimson as major huge prog/art rock figures or as allmusic says "If there is one group that embodies progressive rock, it is King Crimson" quite different. I used allmusic but if there are sources that point the New Wave version version of the group as notable be my guest. Edkollin (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Utopia addition to article falls along similar lines. Have not changed my view this is a list list for NW groups and should be a list for groups that play primarily New Wave. Even with this articles consensus for including everybody possible and following the guidelines as loosely as possible New Wave should at least be a "significant" part of what they do/did be it their best known album or most popular hit etc. Edkollin (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Responding to several recent edits by :
* Put duboius warning for King Crimson - This is a list of New Wave groups not New Wave albums. They are a prog rock group with a New Wave album not a New Wave group.  A reasonable point; however, you misplaced the template on the Killing Joke entry.  I used Undo to track the edit by which I moved it up where you meant to put it.
* Delete King Crimson's own website as source as unreliable by Wikipedia guidelines This was in reference to my addition of the following citation:   Recognizing that the point is moot if Edkollin's above point stands (i.e., if KC does not belong on the list at all), I contend that there is no policy that supports, much less demands, the deletion of primary sources per se.  WP:PRIMARY certainly says no such thing, noting instead, in relevant part, that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."  Which is exactly what my edit contained: a primary source, with quote included to avoid interpretation, backed up by a secondary source that makes the flat assertion.
* Finally, on the matter of whether KC should be on the list when they only had one album that counts as New Wave: I note that several other bands listed here have parenthesized qualifiers on their entries, such as "Chris & Cosey (early work)," "Cuddly Toys (later work)," "Pseudo Echo (early career)," and "Robert Palmer (1980s work)."  If these stand—and I see no reason why they should not—then I see no real reason to exclude KC when listed as "King Crimson (Discipline)" with proper supporting citations.  And all that said, Robert Fripp himself should almost certainly be excluded.
--KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for putting my warning in the right place and creating this discussion topic. Of course I understand groups go through stages, different genres, combine genres etc. My view is the "New Wave" part of their career has to be notable in someway be it a commercial hit(s) defined as New Wave or a subgenre by reliable sources or New Wave being a decent part of their career. For Robert Palmer I see allmusic says "Palmer's stylistic experimentation continued with 1980's Clues, a foray into synth-pop aided by Gary Numan and Talking Heads' Chris Frantz which yielded the club hit "Looking for Clues.". Although not known as a NW sub genre in the UK, Synthpop has been named a crucial New Wave subgenre by a lot of reliable sources. For Psuedo-Echo I see allmusic says "A Melbourne, Australia quartet who has changed their musical style several times over the course of their career. They began playing Duran Duran- and Ultravox-reminiscent synth-rock, mixing elements of late-'70s disco in and sporting a lipstick-and-big-hair look". They compare a part of their career to notable New Wave groups. If you think my argument is dumbing down Wikipedia standards you are right. The lists are the pit of Wikipedia. In the few years I have been editing this article most editors seem to want no standards no need for sources here or in their article only the editors opinion counts. Adding to the problem there is no agreement on what the hell New Wave is by the public or reliable sources. Yeah I compromised to prevent bitter edit wars that were common a few years back. Back to King Crimson even by the dumbed down standards I don't think they qualify. The reliable sources I have seen will talk about King Crimson as major huge prog/art rock figures or as allmusic says "If there is one group that embodies progressive rock, it is King Crimson" quite different. I used allmusic but if there are sources that point the New Wave version version of the group as notable be my guest. Edkollin (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Utopia addition to article falls along similar lines. Have not changed my view this is a list list for NW groups and should be a list for groups that play primarily New Wave. Even with this articles consensus for including everybody possible and following the guidelines as loosely as possible New Wave should at least be a "significant" part of what they do/did be it their best known album or most popular hit etc. Edkollin (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Crimson / Killing Joke 

message: It never would have occurred to me in a million years that anyone would consider Cheap Trick a New Wave band.  Stylistically, they have nothing in common with what are usually considered traditional New Wave acts.  I've listened to them for 35 years and I've never heard New Wave and Cheap Trick mentioned in the same sentence and now I see them listed as a New Wave band on Wikipedia.  They have always been called a Power Pop band, which is somewhat true but not entirely accurate.  They play catchy songs with a hard drive, but they have far more substance than other Power Pop bands such as The Knack, The Romantics, The Plimsouls, etc.  But because an article on AllMusic says "Power-pop bands happened to emerge around the same time of punk, so they were swept along with the new wave", then Cheap Trick are considered a New Wave band.  So, I guess there are different definitions of "New Wave".  It could be the synth driven pop of the late 70s and early 80s and the fashion that went along with it, or it could be any music movement that started at or around the same time as punk (mid 70s).  If we are to consider the second definition, then this list could be exponentially longer and contain bands that no one would consider "traditional" New Wave.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject, and I don't want people to think I'm bashing New Wave.  I came across this list looking for suggestions for my iPod.  I was just surprised to see Cheap Trick on the list.  You might as well have Van Halen on the list.  You can't tell me that at some point they weren't described as "New Wave" when they started using a synthesizer on 1984.
Jpaz70 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up. You are right ask a hundred people you will get 100 different definitions of New Wave. As alluded to above New Romantic and synthpop have always been considered separate genres from New Wave in the UK. It is not just allmusic I do remember power pop groups in the late '70's were considered New Wave (don't forget The Records) and sometimes Cheap Trick and Tom Petty also who mixed power pop with more what we would call Classic Rock elements today. If you listen to them or the Cars also from that period today it's Classic Rock that is played on Classic Rock stations. From a 1979 perspective it was much more stripped down then then Led Zep or Yes. Punk was rebelling against prog and big Stadium Rock by stripping all away down, power pop and Cheap Trick were doing it to a lesser extent and that got them labeled New Wave.   After synthpop/New Romantic in America (not UK) at least a lot of he original definition was forgotten. So I am glad that allmusic and Theo Cateforis 2011 book "Are We Not New Wave? Modern Pop at the Turn of the 1980s"  are bringing back the forgotten original meanings. Plenty of times I don't agree with the "reliable sources" but I don't edit that way that way. Edkollin (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have greatly expanded the paragraph on power pop to describe how and why it became associated with New Wave in the late 1970s. The academic source did mention Cheap Trick in his book. Edkollin (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheap Trick? 

message: I give. As I noted above I feel and will always feel a group should have a "significant"of amount of New Wave in their music before you call them New Wave or list them here.  The "consensus" is otherwise. Hard to tell what the consensus is because talk page participation is so little. But based on edits and what little bit of talk pages discussion we have had over the years the overwhelming majority of you feel otherwise and feel any amount of New Wave be it one album one whatever means a group should be listed. We still can not mislead readers thus we should based on reliable sources(that still goes)  note in parentheses note the song, album or whatever from the group that is new wave. Edkollin (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any amount of New Wave in an artist is what you want Any amount of New Wave is what you get  

message: The people who know what groups belong here are those who programmed and played the music for the public.  while those who 'know' their music can try to be logical about it, there is no denying what was played on new wave radio and in new wave clubs (whether you agree with the definition or not).  I was working in radio and club music at the time, and can tell you what was considered new wave in the usa.  and Clash was definitely new wave.  To include Linda Ronstadt and Alice Cooper in a list of new wave ARTISTS, but to ignore the Clash does not cut it.  there were new wave playlists that were being used back then, which still may be out there and accessible as references...and there were club DJs who were right in the thick of it.  if any of you were a new wave club or radio DJ, then you have expertise in your area, too.  but just because someone thinks a group did or didn't sound like it should be new wave is not going to reflect the objective TRUE history that wiki should be presenting.  it should be that someone who is going to recreate a club scene for movie or theatre can choose something that was actually played on the air or in a new wave club.
another source is the composite CDs--such as "New Wave Hits of the 80s."  I am not sure who made the decision as to what to include on those, but from what i remember, those did reflect the genre.  There were also some new-wave-specific record labels (eg. Stiff) and some producers (eg. Nick Lowe), where you can follow those threads and see what artists they touched.  and by the way, the biggest radio and club hits by Ian Dury were the cuts by Ian Dury & the Blockheads (Blockheads not included in the wiki list currently).
as to definition -- yes, new wave came out of punk rock.  at the time, new wave was considered the commercial version of punk--and many fans felt the artists had 'sold out' by 'going commercial.'  same thing with every era of music.  however, what many people liked about new wave was that it was always fresh and never got to the point of being a 'formula' sound.  you couldn't just put on a particular drum beat, add some strings, some flashy costumes, and then send it to the dance floor.  new wave was always evolving and trying something new (or reinventing something old), and novelty and experimentation were a major part of it.
the way it was generally being defined at the time was a return to garage band sound of the 60s with more electronics and a dance beat.  of course, a bunch of former 60s bands were retooling themselves into new wave bands.  but, as to a specific sound, i never heard anyone define it technically.  but, someone should then ask one of the well-known club DJs or radio programmers of that era to help.  obviously, there will be differences depending on the area of the country.  i was working in new york, and can tell you about that scene--which cuts we played.  i KNOW what was played there, and yes, Cheap Trick was indeed played on the air and in the new york new wave clubs, along with 2 of Joe Jackson's albums.
I see several missing bands that were played heavily--mostly they were bands that some editors prob have eliminated because of cross-over (eg. Sparks, Huey Lewis, The Jim Carroll Band, Patti Smith, etc.).  But if the artist was considered a staple in the new wave clubs, then it doesn't matter if they were also considered rock or electronic or punk.  maybe the problem is with the article name, as someone already postulated.  maybe it should be a list of artists that had new wave airplay/club tracks.
also, how popular would they have had to be before including them, since there were many releases that didn't make it?  if the group recorded with a record company, would that be good enough?  what if they were a live band, but didn't get a record contract?  i can tell you that there were groups on the Stiff label that didn't get much play at all.  do those all count, or is there some parameter we should use?  that is up to you all, but it needs to be established.
I am going to see if i can find if some of those old playlists are published...or something that is already written about those artists as a citation.
Number.6.freeman (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be done the right way 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of new wave artists and bands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://filipinojournal.com/our-columnist/sa-ugoy-ng-musika/a-tribute-to-the-%E2%80%9980s-philippine-new-wave-scene
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/guitarplayercom/jan-00/4990
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://spectrumculture.com/2013/05/midnight-oil-essential-oils.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/neworder/albums/album/134313/review/5942355/get_ready
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20150822062440/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flymagazine.net/archive_bands_article.cfm?id=4c31f22a
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on List of new wave artists and bands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://filipinojournal.com/our-columnist/sa-ugoy-ng-musika/a-tribute-to-the-%E2%80%9980s-philippine-new-wave-scene
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=23
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=511
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=327
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/guitarplayercom/jan-00/4990
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://spectrumculture.com/2013/05/midnight-oil-essential-oils.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/neworder/albums/album/134313/review/5942355/get_ready
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20150822062440/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a833dc1a-0479-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flymagazine.net/archive_bands_article.cfm?id=4c31f22a
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified