Talk:Post-punk/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1


The ties to original punk rock should be more clear

The page should do more to describe post-punk's relationship (or lack thereof) to real punk rock. All the page really says is that the big similarity is the "iconoclastic stance." And obviously most post-punk artists listened to the sex pistols. But, since punk rock has always involved "scenes" of some sort, it is worth noting that the post-punk "scenes" and the original punk rock "scenes" have never really had a connection or overlap. Post-punk may often reference the "iconoclastic stance" and badass attitude of punk rock, but post-punk artists aren't at all a part of punk rock: they didnt perform or tour with punk rock artists, they didnt sound anything like punk rock (try to compare joy division with bad brains), they didnt even cover punk rock songs as far as i know.

Also, the page is mistaken in saying that post-punk added eclectic influences to the punk style; post-punk artists were not at all the first to do so. Just look at original punk: the clash did all sorts of reggae stuff and even had their first album produced by lee perry; the ramones were punk but also adapted the style of early-60s phil spector songwriting and had a few albums produced by spector. It's unfair to say that punk was its own isolated thing and that post-punk was somehow the sole agent of bringing in outside influences.

In Reponse: The first "post punk" artists invariably came directly out of punk, brought along a lot of their original punk audiences, and often played with punk bands. Seeing Joy Division tour with the Buzzcocks, or Sex Pistols fans grabbing up copies of "Public Image" didn't discomfit anyone. Even on the US east coast early punk and post punk had a lot of crossover (Pere Ubu, early Devo, No Wave). You happened to choose a band (bad brains) from the one scene that *didn't* have any noticeable crossover - American Hardcore punk; which is arguably several more steps removed from the original punk scene than Joy Division or PiL is.
Also, Post Punk did add a lot of eclectic influences into the punk style. A few punk bands started the process, but as a movement it was Post Punk (and new wave) that brought in the most variation, while punk itself became more and more defined, culminating in hardcore (very limited musical scope).

This discussion was once moved

This discussion is partly copied from the talk page of the hyphenless "Post punk" article, which now redirects to "Post-punk".

First entry

why do you include some of the 'radio friendly' bands in the list of post-punk? its not clear whether they should be considered as post-punk. perhaps a separate page for the 'revival'? although i wonder if it should be given that must respect


Punk does not continue to exist and has been dead since 1983.

Welcome! Am I still alive, maybe I died shortly after? More seriously, I would disagree with the above assertion. Can you quote any source as holding that opinion, it would be great! Hyacinth 00:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe Crass did a song called "Punk is Dead" circa 1983, stating that punk had become a fashion, and that any substance the movement originally had was now gone. I don't really agree, and don't think that this is particularly relevant to the article, but I just thought I'd give a reference point for the above user's comments.Tomorrowsashes 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just for the record, "Punk is dead" was recorded in 1978 and appears on the first Crass album The Feeding of the 5000

Punk is not dead. Disco is dead. See the difference?

Just for the record International Times of Jan 77 had a huge blaring front page headline PUNK IS DEAD. Many people agreed with Mark P. when he later said (words to the effect of) punk died when The Clash signed to CBS. Wwwhatsup 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
punk died the day the sex pistols were formed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So it was stillborn? Zazaban (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

industrial cannot be a derived form ("led to the development of genres ...") - it was there with punk (Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire to name just the most important bands), so I suggest to eliminate the term Cschorno

The bottom line is? People are still making/enjoying Punk music and living the Punk lifestyle. "Declaring" Punk dead doesn't mean anything to the people who are still doing it. Cheers! Very Old School Goth (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

neopostpunk bands

Should bands like Bloc Party and Shellac be included in the list of post-punk bands? I don't think they should, as they weren't part of the original movement. Cnwb 00:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article called post punk revival (or something similar) needs to be created for these newer bands. Cnwb 00:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm. . . . sentence starting "Championed by. . . " seems a bit UK-centric. Anybody wanna weigh in with some U.S. champions and labels? Soundguy99 17:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Re: US champions and labels

Well, to be fair, post punk was an almost exclusively British phenomenon. I can't think of a single American post punk band off the top of my head. The equivalent movement was hardcore punk in America.

Bloc Party, Interpol, such bands are all Alternative. Alternative is just another word for post-punk. You can call Joy Division Alternative if you want, the word just arose during the late eighties.

err.. no, No, NO, this is not true. Alternative is another word for New Wave maybe. post punk is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are all wrong, no, Alternative CANNOT BE NEW WAVE!!! Alternative is not the same as post-punk, it could be said that it evolved from post-punk but it is NOT THE SAME THING. Thanks to you people, tne term of post-punk is distorted a lot, the same with alternative and new wave. READ MORE!!! The-15th (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


American Post-Punk has a very distinct sound, and I guess it's the main origin of the early indie rock, more than english post-punk itself. Well, in USA there were Savage Republic, The 100 Flowers (formely the punk band Urinals), Redex, Television, etc... hardcore scene is the correspondent to uk82, or second-wave punk in england, specially the early anarcopunk/peace-punk scene. I guess that a uk band with "sound"-equivalence to usa post-punk is The Sound.. I mean, they're less bass driven and more melodic guitar driven, less existencialistic, less reggae/dub influenced, but are definitively post-punk. I think it's an imediate consequence of the big differences between usa punk and uk punk.

Any way, I think some "sattelite" scenes must be added. The Belgium/Dutch scene with Factory Benelux, had some influence in uk bands like Mecano, Flue, The Names and Minny Pops. Some worldwide scenes with relevant creativity like in Brazil: Vzyadoq Moe, Smack, Akira S e As Garotas que Erraram, Akt 2, Fellini and Chance.

Other important thing is to show the difference from the early scene, 77-78, founded basically by ex-famous punk bands — the first Public Image Limited (Johnny rotten/ex-Sex Pistols) album in 1978, second album of Wire, and first album of Magazine (Howard Devoto/ex-Buzzcocks) contain almost every thing to be explored by post-punk—, and the following bands, like Mekons, The Fall, This Heat, Gang Of Four, Au Pairs, etc, which are more university-student/artistic and experimental oriented, from the 79-82 scene (the called "gloom n' doom"), with Bauhaus, the post-Warsaw Joy Division, Killing Joke, Cure, Siouxsie, which are more dark, existencialist, introspective, strutucturally simple.

Also the new wave of post-punk influenced bands aren't always naively "pop". Franz Ferdinand, Stellastarr* and Bloc Party are surely mainstream, but Metric, for example, isn't; there is a direct steatement in leaving the stereotype of "intelligent music = dark and less fun" in favor of joyful inteligence... Le Tigre is a hell influenced by Post-Punk, and are very joyful. Xiu Xiu on the other hand is very harsh and experimental, but it surely have Joy Division/Smiths (listen to "Poe Poe", "Ian Curtis Wish List" and their cover of Joy's "Ceremony"). But I do agree with the idea of creating the post punk revival article; in fact, the main aspects of the 80's post-punk, like emergence of independent labels, the two-tone ska/reggae/dub revival and especially the feeling of the lost of a big-thing (the diy/freeing punk spirit) is not compatible with the situation where neopost-punk emerged. Many of these bands fully incorpore the current development of the musical scene, like the rock-folk of Cat Power, the characteristic riffs of the previous Strokes/Hives explosion, the danceblable electronic beats (not that similar to the emergent synth scene or even the dance-music scene of the 80s), the post-rock structure, etc... neopost-punk , despite beeing sound-similar, have a complete different meaning; it have more to do with the retro hype than with a post-post-rock steatment.

And don't forget to include Interpol on the neopost-punk list!

  • I don't think that Post-punk needs to apply to a specific sound, I think that it is rather a reaction against the strict minimalism of punk; essentially keeping punk ethos and ethic and all that, but letting the music become more advanced and less primal. So yes, I think that Shellac and Fugazi and Bloc Party ARE essentially post punk-how else would one describe them?

"Post punk", "post-punk", "post-punk revival"

I'm wondering about the specifics of labelling these punk rock genres: in the discussions above and in recent music press articles, the term "post-punk" (with a hyphen) is most commonly used, whereas in this Wikipedia article the focus is on "post punk" (no hyphen). The "post-punk" that we are most likely to discuss today clearly has nothing to do with the "post punk" fallout in the late-1970s/early-1980s, and I was surprised to learn that there has already been a "post punk" genre proper: the modern usage "post-punk" most definitely refers to a revival of elements of punk from its original era, rather than to a reaction against this era, and is instead a reaction against what punk has become in mainstream 1990s American culture.

That is, "post-punk" is reacting against this last decade's American skater/pop punk (e.g., New Found Glory or Dashboard Confessional) as well as its American alternative punk (e.g., Green Day or Offspring), whereas the original "post punk" was a reaction against the original 1970s punk movement, primarily NOT in America.

So my questions are:

  1. Is there any precedent for calling this new "post-punk" the "post-punk revival" (any music press usage of this term)? I don't think Wikipedia is the community that should coin this new term.
  2. How exactly was the original "post punk" label written, with or without a hyphen?
  3. If the correct terminology is "post-punk" (with hyphen) in both eras, shouldn't that be the main article? And if it was "post punk" in the 1980s, there should probably be two articles, since the modern usage is definitely "post-punk" and refers to something very different from "post punk".

I think getting the hyphen down is important: this isn't post office punk, this is the music that comes after punk, and just as it is "post-rock" (used to describe Tortoise and others) and "post-hardcore" (Fugazi, other Dischord Records bands, At the Drive-In, etc.), so should it be "post-punk". Grammatically that's my opinion, and apparently that of the modern music press as well.

And to whoever wrote that big comment on punk above, very nicely put, you should sign your name yo! And go bless the punk rock article with your knowledge buddy, I'll check your spelling for you! :)
Tarnas 05:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i wrote that comment a long time ago... now i made the article in my primary language (portuguese). I guess my english is not good enough to write some substantial thing. Check my comment down here :) —Waldo Jeffers 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the problem of creating neologisms. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what this new emergence of post-punk influenced bands is called. But I think the new bands should be listed separately. The original post-punk movement existed in a certain historical context; it was about taking the freedom created by punk, and drawing in influences from other sources (most obviously, disco and Jamaican dub). The current movement is simply modern rock bands drawing influence from the original movement. I think it's a distinction that needs to be made clear in the list.
Also, maybe the article would be neater if the long list of "post-punk" bands was moved to Category:Post punk. -- Cnwb 04:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There's definitely some harking back to '80s post-punk sounds (Interpol's Ian Curtis vocals, for instance), but I don't think much of present-day post-punk draw too much influence from the 1980s post-punk bands. I think the concept inherent in each movement is the same though. In the 1980s, post-punk was a reaction against punk stagnation and a progression of punk sounds, while present-day post-punk is a reaction to the commercial pop-punk/alternative rock of the 1990s and an integration of dance and garage/noise-rock conventions into punk. Of course, some of the present-day post-punk groups have been pretty commercially successful, but a lot of them haven't, and i don't really begrudge them the success as selling out.
         I think the list should stay in this article, though it definitely needs to be split in two. --Tarnas 07:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


I frankly find the whole label of "post-punk" to be offensive. What does it even mean when bands that were on the Roxy tour get this label? For me, it represents a complete misunderstanding of the very idea of punk rock. To school the children, back in the '70's and early '80's, there were all these bands that we could only see at a few clubs or heard on 10 watt college radio stations. Then the A&R men of the record industry saw that lots of kids were into stuff that wasn't dinosaur bands and decided to present a Five Caucasians version of punk they called "New Wave". Striped of its radical politics, this new wave/power pop could be played on the big time FM stations controlled by the industry. For many of us, the walls were up and if it got put on the radio we would call out "sell-out" and refuse to listen to them anymore even if they were really good.

So, who do you all see is post punk, anyway? The Clash, VU, The Heartbreakers, Patti Smith (& her husband's band)? For me, this is just another example of why wikipedia is so stupid and so dangerous. 96.255.240.187 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Werre you even born back in the time? This term wasn't invented by Wikipedia, rather by critics during the late 70's and early 80's and is and was in widespread use by various musical publications even before Internet existed and VU (Art rockers), The Clash (Punk band), Patti Smith (Rock poet), Heartbreakers (punk band) are NOT post-punk. Post-punk is not New Wave either, what you say about New Wave is true but Post-punk was actually the evolution of Punk, a transitorial state (for what was to become Goth, Alternative, Industrial and etc.) were it became more experimental and more underground. So if you intended to say that Post-punk is a bull term, you are actually not making any sense at all. Regards, The-15th (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was a teenager going to places like The Marble Bar in Bawler & 9:30 here(when it was in the Atlantic Building), late '70's, early '80's; no one at this time used the term "post punk". At least among my friends. it was a punk band or it was coming from the industry and that label was new wave. In fact, to call a band new wave was a way to insult them. You may not understand this, but the idea of punk rock was to fight the system. The record industry was seen as a tool being used against us. Yuppies that came to clubs were called posers. They would be attacked if they ventured into the pit.

Velvet Underground as art rock? That's funny. Art rock (another demeaning term) was used to attack some of the dinosaur bands like Yes, Genesis, ... that played in huge venues, and played pretentious music. Cale did have some connection to this "art rock" or progressive rock crowd in the '70's, but...

These days, Wikipedia is the tool that a few very conservative male nerds use in an attempt to change history, deny those who know stuff from posting, and limit speech. It might be a good idea if every living punk rocker get together and sue this little web site.

New wave and post punk are the same term. It is an unflattering label to put on any real punk rock band. And labels are always dangerous.

the walls were up and if it got put on the radio we would call out "sell-out" and refuse to listen to them anymore even if they were really good.

the idea of punk rock was to fight the system.

Wow, I would really appreciate if this poster was taking the piss. This type of rigid, pinhead thinking is exactly what helped to destroy Punk, if not Rock music in general. The notion derived from angry teenage boys wanting to instill their own elite culture of fantasy rebellion (how much did they change, exactly?) and nothing in the way of objective facts. They, who falsely interpreted Punk as a second, angrier hippie movement wanting to "change the world" (the original punks opposed hippie-rock "activism") rather than a Rock genre, and having the nerve to cast out bands who came to punk before they did. Yea no radio airplay and no commercial exposure for us...even though we're still signed to record labels and are playing professionally rather than playing in our garages just for fun! Everything that this poster has said is embarrassingly wrong. User The15th who tried to "correct" him is embarrassingly wrong for agreeing with his assertion of New Wave being "industry created bands. In fact the first poster's claim of "post-punk and new wave are the same term" is probably more close to truth than the assertion that user The15th misguidedly agreed with.

I really shouldn't have bothered (after two years especially), but it just irritates me to see misinformation like this sit here unaddressed except for one person who also got it wrong. I'll just stop here, hoping this little rant doesn't get "docked". Theburning25 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Article move

  • I'm taking action! No one responded to my hyphen/no-hyphen article naming question, and no one got to work formalizing the split between the first and second waves of post-punk in the article, so I've just done both. Using a hyphen in the article name is plainly standard English, and is the concensus spelling in both the American and U.K. music press, so now it's the standard here. :D --Tarnas 09:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Le Tigre

Why is Le Tigre listed under 80s era post-punk?

  • It was discussed above somewhere, I don't listen to them so I can't say why, they're a present day band but maybe they have followed classic 1980s-era post-punk sounds and stylings. Their music is part of that movement, though not necessarily that decade. --Tarnas 10:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Weakerthans

Someone added The Weakerthans to the post-punk revival list, but I don't think they fit the post-punk revival mold at all, or are even notably influenced by it. Much more in the indie/pop mold akin to Death Cab for Cutie, unless I'm missing something obvious? Even prior membership in Propagandhi doesn't warrant mention here, there's no significant connection between Propagandhi/Weakerthans/John K. Samson and 2000s-era post-punk. —Tarnas 00:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would posit somewhat of a connection between the Weakerthans and original post-punk bands such as The Smiths and early R.E.M., and they're definitely post-punk in the sense of applying a punk aesthetic to music that falls outside of the bounds of conventional punk, but I'd also agree with you that they don't belong in any list that would put them in the same genre as Interpol, The Strokes or Franz Ferdinand. That said, I don't think they have much in common with Death Cab, either. Bearcat 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Devo... "post-punk"?

I'm not comfortable with Devo being put into the category. Technically, they began in 1972, well before the punk movment actually began. Some of their hard edged guitar driven material could be classified as punk, I suppose. They shifted to a more poppy synthesizer dominated sound in 1980 and stuck with that approach from then on. I've always considered Devo to be filed under New Wave. I agree with this statement from the New Wave article:

Later still, New Wave came to imply a less noisy, poppier sound, and to include acts manufactured by record labels, while the term post-punk was coined to describe the darker, less pop-influenced groups.

There's a lot of crossover between New Wave and post-punk (and other genres), and that's why a lot of these bands have explanations next to their listings describing exactly why they fit the post-punk mold, not necessarily to the exclusion of being part of other genres. 1972 was long before New Wave began, so by the reasoning that a band predating a genre cannot be part of the genre, Devo should not be New Wave, but clearly they are: this predating reasoning is warped. Devo's relationship with post-punk just needs to be better qualified/clarified. —Tarnas 04:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
My line of reasoning is this: The name "post-punk" in and of itself means "after punk." This isn't even an implicit meaning, it's overt. This automatically disqualifies anything pre-dating punk. On the other hand, "new wave" is more of a contrived term introduced to classify music that already existed. The term may have appeared in the world of pop music at a specific time in the late 1970s, but that doesn't mean that new wave music didn't exist before that. It strikes me as odd to claim that "post-punk" could exist in a pre-punk era. Druff 19:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Bands like Suicide, Television, DEVO, Throbbing Gristle, Ultravox!, Neu!, etc. often get thrown in with the Post-Punk classification, because they were formative on the future style of Post-Punk. So technically they are pre-punk, but there influence on Post-Punk is so large, they should at least warrant a mention in the article. --FACT50 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
While Devo began before the punk movement, they first became successful while punk was in full swing and didn't release their first real album until 1978, when punk was ending and post-punk was starting up. While they definately have their own sound and went in a more pop-based direction in their later years, their early albums definately qualify as post-punk.Ash Loomis (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Simon Reynolds book and the whole article

In Simon Reynolds excellent book on this period and genre, he chronicles it as between 1978-1984.In fact he makes a good case for arguing that it started in the summer of 77 when John Lydon was interviewed by Capital Radio and played (to the fury of Malcolm McClaren) an eclectic selection of his favourite records which included Peter Hammill, Can and Dr Alimantado thus showing (which would continue with the first few Public Image singles/albums) that he wasn't half as "ignorant, moronic, violent, destructive ... as they wanted to promote me". Anyway what this article could do with is using that comprehensive book as more of a source. Also it focuses too heavily on the current "revival" which should be a footnote not as the opening phrase wrongly states "there are two movements". It also suffers a little bit from UK/USA misinterpretations.

Oh and yep. It does have a hyphen!

Jem 15:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's not true that the current post-punk revival is just a footnote, as you can see it could fill up its own article, though I'm sure there could be whole lot more written about the original post-punk, probably as much as there is on hardcore punk. —Tarnas 04:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Well a footnote on this article, not necessarily a footnote in wikipedia is what i meant. I'll start to add to the "original" post-punk bit of this article and hopefully someone might move the revival to a separate article ??? Jem 13:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure thing. —Tarnas 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Err, I just wanted to make myself more clear, I'll split off the post-punk revival parts of the article into their own article if you start expanding on the original post-punk movement info. It'll be a collaboration! :) But I'm leaving it as is for now. —Tarnas 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
While Simon reynolds does a decent job of trying to describe what Post-Punk was and is. He really seems to focus on the Death Disco influenced bands like Gang of Four, ESG, PIL, etc. And doesn't really get into the various splinter styles within the genre. No one has mentioned the book "The Post-Punk Diaries" which is a much more all inclusive collection that catalogs almost every release and signifigant event in the scene between the years 1980 -1983.--FACT50 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-punk revival

I was hoping to start up an article on the post-punk revival, which is currently happening. I think that the info on here is worth a separate article.

Also, as goes for the Strokes, I tend to think of them not being post-punk as such, but more influenced by some of the softer 70s New Wave bands that we wouldn't tend to think of as punk today. --MacRusgail 20:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do. I think it needs shifting from this article Jem 09:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Jem. I'll wait a couple of days for other support, and if there's no objections, I'll start it up. I see it as different to original post-punk, just like there was a mod revival at the end of the 1970s. --MacRusgail 10:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I've split off the post-punk revival stuff to post-punk revival. I think that title is legitimate as other related trems don't cover the exact meaning (such as "garage rock revival" or "modern rock") or include all the bands in question, and because Rolling Stone, Village Voice, and NME have all used the term, along with other peers and many lesser publications. —Tarnas 19:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Great. I've just started to make some tweaks to the original. Thanks for doing this. I think it makes sense. Jem 13:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

2.2 Post-punk bands (1980s era)

I have to say I don't like the annotations against some of the bands included in this list- these look too much like opinions/editorialising rather than encyclopedic facts. quercus robur 22:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Audio clips and more...

Hi, I wrote the portuguese version of Post-punk article and would like include some points in here (specially about american post-punk and non-musical aspects of post-punk era) but my english is not that good. I also added some post-punk music samples in the english article (portuguese one don't accept fair use)... and i guess this lateral table should be revised, it looks like a copy&paste of punk article, lot of things just don't fit!... will make some changes in it, ok? —Waldo Jeffers 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

U2

U2 post-punk? I would say no, but maybe those who know more about U2 than I do would disagree. To state the obvious, post-punk doesn't just mean following punk, it has to do with diverging from punk in a way that carries on the punk aesthetic. It's distinct from the more pop-oriented descendants of punk that are put in the genre New Wave--which is where I would put U2, until they moved in a more mainstream direction. But again, I'm no expert on U2's career, so if there's something more to the story.... Nareek 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

U2's chief influence is Joy Division. The first album Boy is a total post-punk record. Additonally, they tended to play with a group of musicians in their early days who went on to become the Virgin Prunes (of which The Edge's brother was a member). WesleyDodds 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. The first two U2 albums are Post-Punk, though they moved to a more mainstream arena rock sound by The Unforgettable Fire. Maybe this should be specified? Xath
I don't think it's necessary; a lot of post-punk bands changed their sound over the years, becoming New Wave, alternative, or just mainstream rock (I included that information at the end of the article). It's also important to keep in mind that in spite of U2's huge success (practically the only post-punk band to become successful in America in the early 80's), The Edge's guitar work to this day still comes from a post-punk background influenced by Joy Division and Keith Levine of Public Image Ltd. WesleyDodds 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I used to listen to a lot of Joy Division, and I did own Boy at the time, and I have to say I never would have made the connection. Would you describe The Undertones, say, as post-punk? Nareek 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
All I've heard from the Undertones is "Teenage Kicks" so I couldn't tell you. I do know that "A Day Without Me" from Boy is about the death of Ian Curtis, and Bono has said he learned to sing from listening to Ian Curtis. There's quite a bit more information about Joy Division's influence on U2 in the New Order documentary, where Bono himself makes probably the most insane cameo appearances I have ever seen. Aside from that, there's the Keith Levine influence on the Edge, the connection with the Virgin Prunes, and the similarity in sound of U2 with the likes of the Chameleons, Echo & the Bunnymen, and others. WesleyDodds 23:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really arguing--you're one of "those who know more about U2" that I was hoping would double-check. But I wouldn't have thought of Echo as being post-punk either.... Nareek 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's alright. Post-punk's pretty broad anyways, to the point where it's kind of funny that all these post-punk revival bands out now only seem to pull influence from the same five bands or so. WesleyDodds 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The similartity of Boy and The Chameleons body of work is due mostly to the fact that both bands were produced by Steve Lilywhite.--FACT50 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Source for definition?

Does anyone have a source for a definition of post-punk? It seems like we're all working from some personal intuition about what is and isn't part of the genre, and our intuitions don't necessarily coincide. For what it's worth, The Raincoats seem much more representative of post-punk than Echo, but that's just my POV.... Is there a source, or sources? Nareek 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it simply because we're trying to list examples of what post-punk sounds like, and Echo are more well-known while the Raincoats are relatively obscure. Post-punk is pretty broad and we should try to deliniate the forms it can take, but we also want to give people a frame of reference if they don't particularly know anything about post-punk.
From my experience, the best-known and most iconic post-punk bands are Joy Division, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Public Image Ltd., The Cure, The Fall, Gang of Four, Echo & the Bunnymen, Psychedelic Furs, and Bauhaus. WesleyDodds 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
WesleyDodds' list is pretty close to what I would also consider as such. Each band started a bit punky and then lost the straight-up punk part in favor of an artier sound, which is precisely how post-punk developed. For a source, how about AMG's definition of the Post-Punk genre. They aren't always completely accurate, but they usually know the basics. Their list of artists contains significant overlap with WesleyDodds'. Folkor 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for--it's a pretty good list, and what's more--it's verifiable! Nareek 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term

I heard, post-punk is a term from england, never used in the united states. In the US the term New wave was created for new bands of the after-punk-era (later spreaded through MTV since 1981). It's the same thing like Post-Industrial... it is a british term used for industrial-bands of the early '80s...

btw: New wave isn't "pop-oriented"... it's an umbrella term for any new musical trends developed in the middle or the end of the '70s... mostly an outgrowth of punk music.

There is a very fine line between Post-Punk and New Wave. New Wave tends to have more pop hooks, and generally more commercial friendly music. The New Wave bands also used keyboards as a central part of their sound. Where as Post-Punk bands either used keyboards for effects and flourishes, or in the case of bands like Fad Gadget and early Human League, they tortured their synths.--FACT50 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently reading a collection of Jon Savage's articles, and he uses the phrase "post-punk" as early as 1987 (as far as i've discovered), and quite a bit afterwards. We Americans do use the phrase post-punk quite a bit these days for sure, but I don't know about back in the 70's and 80's since I'm afraid I wasn't alive then, much less able to read music press. I think I've seen some mention of post-punk in US music writings from the 80's, but yes, it was quite common for the press to just lump any music of the period into the New Wave genre; even today New Wave compilations are released with tracks by Joy Division, The Cure, Bauhaus, and so forth (don't get me started on alternative rock comps that are loaded with Tears For Fears and ABC). These days, modern music criticism on both sides of the Atlantic now make a firm distinction between post-punk and New Wave. Thus (roughly), New Wave is the more poppy, quirky stuff, and post-punk is the dark, arty and fractured stuff that came in the wake of punk. WesleyDodds 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I went to my college library and looked up the Rolling Stone encyclopedia from 1983. Joy Division and New Order are one entry, and the most interesting thing about it is that it calls Joy Division "post-punk" and New Order "New Wave". WesleyDodds 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More on use of term

The term "post-punk" (always with hyphen) was in use here in America long before 1987. I was a music journalist and musician in NYC in the '80s, and we were using the term already by 1983 in reviews and musician want ads to describe the artier, darker, more atmospheric bands that were clearly not punk rock or new wave, though the terms all overlapped enough that some bands fit under more than one description.

Echo and the Bunnymen were most certainly post-punk! In fact, back then they were one of the bands considered emblematic of the term. I think there has been some degree of retrospective shift in focus, due to the Reynolds book, in which the more rhythmic, political, dub/disco-influenced wing of post-punk, descended from PiL/Slits/Go4, is seen as more central to the aesthetics of the genre (perhaps because he personally likes this subgenre better?). I think the book is great, but he does neglect to some degree the more atmospheric wing of post-punk descended from Joy Division (Bunnymen, Furs, Cure, The Chameleons, The Sound, Comsat Angels, Sad Lovers and Giants, etc.), which back in the early to mid-'80s was the kind of post-punk me and my friends here in NYC were most enraptured by. And yes, early U2 is certainly part of that wing and were instrumental in the development of the atmospheric post-punk guitar style.

Also, there were a lot of strange and obviously errant entries in the band list (how on earth could Surf Punks or Debbie Deb be original post-punk artists?), which I pruned, and a lot of interesting and/or important bands were missing, so I added them: The Associates, Medium Medium, Savage Republic, Modern Eon, For Against, Maximum Joy, Pylon, Mercenarias, Liquid Liquid, Bunnydrums, Abecedarians, ESG, Kommunity FK, Live Skull, Rema-Rema, Three Johns, Adam and the Ants (like some others, their later poppy works starts to fall outside post-punk, but their debut "Dirk Wears White Sox" was definitely post-punk and quite influential) etc.

-Greg Fasolino

May I ask what paper or papers in NYC you wrote for?. I remember Hofstra University on Long Island having a program that ran weeknights 10PM to 2PM starting as early as 1980 called "The Post Punk Progressive Pop Party". I have a hazy memory of a DJ named John Fox doing the show. Do not bet the ranch on that name. New York University's station WNYU had it's "New Afternoon Show" and believe it or not WNEW's legandary Scott Muni played Post Punk artists on his "British Things" program that ran on Friday Afternoons. 69.114.117.103 08:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (EK)

Some other bands: Cabaret Voltaire, Ludus, Killing Joke, Wire, the the, early Scritti Politti, Delta Five, DAF, PragVec.

To add to Greg's list, here's a list of American Post-Punk bands I compiled: Pixies, Mission of Burma, Savage Republic (and all of the I.P.R. bands for that matter), Television, Suicide, Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Tuxedomoon, The whole No Wave movement, B-52's, REM, ESG, For Against, Bunnydrums, The Wipers, Klaus Nomi, Oingo Boingo, Wall of Voodoo, Chrome, Big Black, SWANS, Sonic Youth, and early Fugazi. -FACT50
That's "post-punk" as a term referring to music in the aftermath of punk (which entails, well, everything), rather than as a specific genre/movement. American post-punk as a genre/movement is pretty much agreed to have ended with the advent of R.E.M. and alternative rock. WesleyDodds 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your point here? What do you think "Post-Punk" is supposed to refer to? All of the bands in my above examples save "Fugazi", and "For Against" were formed before R.E.M.--FACT50 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Post-punk as a genre is different from alternative as a genre. However, post-punk as a phrase meaning "after punk" is more expansive, since that also would include oher genres that emerged in the wake of punk including alternative and New Wave, hence the phrase "the post-punk period". But this here is about a genre, not the phrase (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), which Elvis Costello, Oingo Boingo, R.E.M., B-52's, Fugazi, and the Pixies don't belong to. WesleyDodds 04:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, I put "post-punk Pixies" into Google and I find the band is referred to as part of that genre by such notable outlets as The New York Times, the BBC and the Boston Globe--all on the first page of results. Wesley, I have to say that while you have a very clear idea of what is and is not post-punk, other people have used it in a lot of different ways, and I think this article has to reflect that. Nareek 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm more making a distinction between the term's use as a noun and as an adjective. I'm an English major, it's what I do. I I will point out that many American alternative bands were called post-punk occasionally in the 1980s, but they were just as often called "college rock" or "indie rock" as well. No one was really bothering to define either genre at that point. Anyway, Allmuisc and Reynolds' book on post-punk prettty much draw the line on the boundaries of the genre somewhere around the mid 1980s, so that what I'm going by (yes, I've been meaning to revamp this article for a while, but I'm currently caught up on stuff like Britpop). WesleyDodds 05:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The three mentions of Pixies as post-punk I cited all date from 2004 or 2005. And at least two of them are by music writers for two of the English-speaking world's most prestigious news outlets. You know Wikipedia doesn't work by us deciding which sources we think got it right--we need to present what a range of sources say. Nareek 05:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I know they're recent, I looked at the articles. But you also need to view the sources objectively. We need to ask questions like "What do they mean when they say 'post-punk'?" Context is important. Also, sources should be weighted. When comparing sources, it's important to ascertain why they are using the term. For example that NY times article talks about Gang of Four and fleetingly describes the Pixies as post-punk. However, it is not the objective of the article to talk about post-punk; it's an article about Gang of Four. So I would not hold it as an authority on what constitutes post-punk, because that's not the point of it. Context could also be important because it could also be a simple mistake or confusion. There's sources out there that call Sonic Youth "no wave" even though they formed after the movement died out.

In regards to the article: certainly this article needs a section on the terminology of the term (which would warrant a mention of the Pixies when describing uses of the term) but when dealing with the substance of the article, like the development and history of the movement, the Pixies and Elvis Costello are not part of it. WesleyDodds 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with you here. Post-Punk never ended. As a sound or an artistic movement it has carried on from 1977 to the current day and age. Where do you think Indie rock, and College Rock came from? I am sorry but R.E.M.'s Radio Free Europe was featured on the POST-PUNK CHRONICLES from Rhino Records back in the mid-90s. So How can you possibly dispute their place in the history of Post-Punk?? How can you possibly dispute the place of Elvis Costello and the B-52's as well? Just because Simon Reynolds doesn't mntion them in his (sarcasm) godlike tome to Post-Punk (/sarcasm). --FACT50 09:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Post-punk is not a fact of nature--it's a label that has been put on various things by various people, and it's not possible to say that one music critic's use of the term is correct and another's is wrong--regardless of whether such usage conforms to or contradicts one's personal opinion of what "really" constitutes post-punk. The article should cite the range of usage of the term by notable sources. Actually, it would be greatly improved by citing any source for its definition. Nareek 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep insisting Elvis Costello is post-punk? I've read plenty of books on rock music and he's pretty much universally classified as New Wave. WesleyDodds 11:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In defining genres or if bands belong to a genre it is my belief that we should use the "popular definition" at not be limited to the Reynolds book as valuable as the use of it has been to the article. By popular definition I would include mass and music media and internet tools such as message boards,blogs,etc 69.114.117.103 08:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (EK)

Media yes, message boards/blogs, no. They're not reliable/citable sources under wiki guidelines. Even then, references in media are only useful if they explain the labeling or history (or are part of its histoyr). After all, labels can just be used for anything; they're just names. That's what's been my point all along. This, like virtually all wikipages, are about the subject, not the term (hence the guideline "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"). I mean, there's people who've called Nirvana heavy metal in print and on TV but that doesn't mean that they are. WesleyDodds 14:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that one or two blogs calling a band "post punk" should be ignored but if a band is commonly called post punk in the blogosphere and music oriented message boards that should be a consideration. In 2006 the media many times is behind the consumers it is reporting on. Wikipedia is part of this revolutionary change 69.114.117.103 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (EK)
"Mr. Costello, with his four-man band, made music that, in sharp contrast with the stringy, nervous post-punk sound of earlier Costello concerts, sounded richly fleshed out and at moments almost operatic."
--Stephen Holden, New York Times, 6/24/91 [1]
For me personally, I can more easily hear Elvis Costello as post-punk than U2--"Pump It Up" is starker and more angry than anything on Boy. But it's not about what I personally think is post-punk--or what Wesley Dodds personally thinks is post-punk. It's about what notable published sources think is post-punk. And that's a wider range of music than is acknowledged by this article. Nareek 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It all really depends on what you classify Post-Punk as. Boy has an almost direct influence on the earliest Chameleons albums, that kind of importance can't be discredited or ignored. Costello was just as important, but inspired more singer-songwriter types of artists. --64.121.0.101 02:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-punk was the response to New Wave. While New Wave was mainstream, Post-punk was more underground. I don't think the latter really ever got mainstream. --Rivet138 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Rivet138

If we are to believe the Reynolds book post punk was a particular reaction to punk. To over simplify things The punk rule-breaking was great, the back to rock and roll roots element in punk rock was wrong. Again according to Reynolds book post punk acts were somewhat mainstream in the UK. Acts such as Joy Division did appear on Top of the Pops. I will leave it up to our UK editors for more details and context. Edkollin (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Rivet138, your statement reveals a severely limited understanding of these terms. In fact New Wave was not very mainstream, or certainly not in the U.S. It's roots are in the same rock underground as punk and postpunk's, but it merely became the most popular label to apply to bands in the movement, because of "punk" being absent from the title. Thus, bands who seemed less threatening to radio programmers became somewhat more promotable through the term, and they generated more visibility as faces of movement. This resulted of course in New Wave breaking off from punk into it's own genre, and expanding to describe even poppier music over time. Keep in mind that there wasn't some uniquely "New Wave" sound or formula that gave any band it's accessibility factor (but rather a Synthpop, Power Pop, Jangly Pop, Disco-Rock sound, etc). New Wave is the general umbrella label for this period of subgenre developments, and it's criteria does not include chart performance.

Post-punk was primarily Anglo-centric. I'm not sure who it was above who disagreed, but no matter what this term was definitely rare in the US. Of course American bands did receive this label, retrospectively, but all signs point to the term being coined in the context of a relationship to the UK's first wave punk (the U.S punk timeline is different, keep in mind). It's goal seemed to be capturing the array of experimental of bands coming through the UK at the demise of the '77 punk. In fact, PIL's debut has a strong case as a launching point for post-punk seeing how it marked a significant, maybe fatal "blow" to '77 punk via movement leader Johnny Lydon's transformation into a dreaded "Art Rocker".

Post-punk spawned very few commercial successes, and when taking the vast array of New Wave music into consideration, it too spawned but a few. In fact as mentioned right above me, the UK's mainstream did embrace some post-punk, and I would say that this is about the equivalent of the success experienced by New Wave in the US...or maybe New Wave's was even less. In the US, despite the term being well known, a real look back will reveal that "New Wave success" amounted to little more than a moderate number of one-hit wonders. Even many of these acts didn't break the charts until after they strayed far from their more Wave-sounding origins (example: Simple Minds' "Don't You Forget" was NOT a properly New Wave song--it had a polished, stadium-friendly structure derived from radio-ready US Pop-Rock). So no, New Wave is hardly defined being mainstream. A band wanting to go mainstream is simply it's own thing. Theburning25 (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Throbbing Gristle

TG might be classed among post-punk bands, but there should be a reference to how they were actually pre-punk. They first started to play in 1976 and the infamous ICA Prostitution show controversy was one of the scene-setters for punk. Donnacha 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

they originated from a 1960's performance art group and had nothing to do with punk in any way. 67.172.61.222 20:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Links removed?

Why were the links to www.post-punk.com removed?? Surely it is a reputable source of information on the genre. Actually the links we provide on the site are far more all inclusive than the material found on this article.--FACT50 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It simply redirected to another site that didn't work. WesleyDodds 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted it and checked it. Please don't delete the link again, I'm having enough issues dealing with wiki admins in other articles. Thanks. --FACT50 09:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding some links

Adding some links to the international list in the history section. Also added a quick paragraph about the association of No Wave to post-punk. I see it was already referenced in the "See Also" links, but I felt it should be touched upon even more prominently in this article. --FACT50 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated the classic bands links

If anyone has any disputes, please let me know before delting. I can cite sources for any of the links I added. --FACT50 18:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd phrases, lists and sources

"The post-punk revival is unique in modern rock trends, in that it has retained a strong following even after similar 80's revival genres such as electroclash have fallen out of style." really ? the only genre to have ever come back into vogue ?

This article really could do with a few more citations and references. 2 is not really enough for such a substantial music genere with screeds of books, articles and research a google away.

Most of it is a long list of lists of music bands, labels and other genres (44 bands!!! in a short article

a few weasel words "many would argue", "could arguably be said to" "the post-punk genre of music might" -


Has post-punk really a causal relationship with any genre of the 80s and early 90s. "It found a firm place in the 1980s indie scene, and left behind several major sub-genres, including Shoegaze, Industrial, Post-Hardcore, College Rock, and Madchester." well the articles for shoegaze, industrial and madchester don't mention the words post-punk at all...

There are 1.5m post punk returns from Google and this is the #1 article btw... No disrespect to who's put in a long time contributing to this but we're a long way to go with this one. Most of the discussion above on this disucssion page is not about quality of the article but about whether x or y should be defined as in or out. So how can this article improve ? The attempt to find the first reference to the phrase post punk is a good start... And if its stopped meaning anything as a phrase then it should say so. Jem 11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Industrial music is a parallel movement and definitely not a post-punk style. that's really crap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.29.182 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Industrial was a related genre, much like Gothic Rock. They both developed in the same era, around the same artists. FACT50 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, goth came after punk (though with a probable look back at Black Sabbath and suchlike), but Industrial (in its origins)grew out of Northern art-rock things like COUM Transmissions (later Throbbing Gristle) and Cabaret Voltaire - punk gave them an audience rather than an influence. So we should leave Industrial out really. Totnesmartin 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Libertines

User:Tefalstar is determined to add The Libertines as a leading Post-Punk Revival act. I've reversed it twice, and another anon editor also knocked it out. I don't consider them derivative of post-punk. Can I get a witness?Wwwhatsup 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They don't really have anything to do with Post-Punk. They were more like The Strokes, and The Vines. Garage Revival bands. FACT50 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but the Libertines are the mainstream face of PPR. Obviously they have little in common with stalwart post-punk bands, lets say for example, Joy Division. However, if we are including PPR bands on two criteria, commercial success and post punk influence, the Libertines have to be included if Franz Ferdinand are. Franz are the epitimy of Garage Rock. The Libertines are basically Interpol with melodies. I don't know whether you are writing from the UK or not, but for the sake of adding 2 words to this article, we would be incorporating what a lot of people, certainly over here, consider to be a modern image of PPR. Thanks. --Tefalstar 14:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

the Libertines have to be included if Franz Ferdinand are. Franz are the epitimy of Garage Rock - I disagree. I'd say almost the opposite is true. The epitomy of post-punk is quite generally accepted as the Gang Of Four sound, a dubby almost disco beat with slashing guitar and angsty vocals. FF are directly derivative of that. The (early) Liars are the epitomy of PPR. The Libs are lyrical folk-garage and post Brit-Pop if anything. I'm not going to rv your change anymore without any support from others, but I believe it is misleading to place the band in this category. Wwwhatsup 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gang of Four are a typical post-punk band, but PPR isnt post-punk. Its influenced by it sure, but no carbon copy. The body of the Libs work is mid to high tempo, bass lead music with punk guitar work. But that isn't deemed commercially viable by record labels so the other extreme of their work is released as singles. Franz Ferdinand and Kaiser Chiefs are much closer to Brit Pop, listen to "Do You Wanna?" and "I Predict A Riot" respectively. It isn't a coincidence or big mistake that when the Libertines are categorized by genre, they are pigeon-holed PPR. It is the consensus view, taken from their roots and total output, that the band's work is in the same vein as PPR. Anyway this isn't a forum, so thats my last word. Thanks for your input. Regards --Tefalstar 16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gang Of Four-Damaged goods.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gang Of Four-Damaged goods.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Siouxsie And The Banshees-Metal postcard.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Siouxsie And The Banshees-Metal postcard.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Suicide-Ghost rider.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Suicide-Ghost rider.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Raincoats-Adventures close to home.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Raincoats-Adventures close to home.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:This Heat-Twilight furniture.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:This Heat-Twilight furniture.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:G-Schmitt-No 6.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:G-Schmitt-No 6.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Legião Urbana-Ainda é cedo.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Legião Urbana-Ainda é cedo.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Public Image Limited-Theme.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Public Image Limited-Theme.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pere Ubu-Humor me.ogg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Pere Ubu-Humor me.ogg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Joy Division-24 hours.ogg

The image Image:Joy Division-24 hours.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)