Talk:New Order (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martin Hannett / New york and Electro[edit]

It's actually stated as a matter of fact finally.... "their immersion in the New York City club scene of the early 1980s introduced them to dance music." no single person or band is genius, After the American/N.American Joy Division tour never happened, they still went ahead later as New Order to New York, where they took binders full of notes of the funk/electro scene that was happening in new york clubs at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.151.180 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was written after I mentions this seems to sway the idea that they had to go to go else where to develop the style that became their signature. If anything, the person who gave them their style was Martin Hannett, who showed them how to use mixing boards and produce their own music

When they on tour in New York, they were influenced by the Electro sounds they heard.

I originally pointed to the connection to new york and electro/funk . First of all I dont hear Latin Freestyle in the early and mid 80's. I sort of jokingly said they made binders full of notes.

1. They didn't time to "emerse themselves. They went on tour and they visited some clubs after their gigs.

2. - Joy division/ Martin Hannett was highy original that's why they were praised right from the beginning. While they were punks, they stood by Hannett's extreme prodding of incorporating electronics in their first album, something people who made punk style music did not do. they thought of themselves as punks.

3. Joy Division and early New Order sound had a very industrial aspect to it, mirroring the city itself a once heavy 18th century industrial city.

4. By 2nd Joy Division album "Closer" there were song on that album that were already highly synthetic...just electronics, no guitars.--Starbwoy (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the pages for each single[edit]

There's a lot of original research all over them. The Ceremony article implies that the original version sounds superior production wise to the second version (certainly not the standard opinion. The reason why the band re-did it is fairly obvious.) Procession goes on about some "pop optimism" overcoming the gloom, giving the track a "mixed message" (no, not really...but that's just my opinion.) Both versions of Temptation have "structure", it's not an abstract ambient or noise piece...

And then you have the multitude of no-name bands and performers littering the pages for doing a cover or remixing the songs. Only the official remixes, like the Shep Pettibone Bizarre Love Triangle and True Faith, should be included. Cover versions should be avoided altogether, leave them to the pages of the artists who did them. JonasEB (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House and new wave[edit]

I don't understand why certain editors are so adamant about keeping "house" and "New Wave" out of the genre description. I've added it a few times and it was removed. New Order has recorded plenty of house and new wave. Temptation, Everything's Gone Green, Blue Monday (their most famous song) are all new wave singles. Low-Life is a New Wave album. Power Corruption & Lies is a New Wave album. Round & Round, Spooky, Fine Time, Run, World (The Price of Love) are all house singles. Most of Technique and Republic are composed of house music. These aren't just one or two songs. New Order composed a significant amount of house and new wave to be classified under that genre. I'm restoring it (again) as I feel this is enough evidence for their classification. 75.85.53.109 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I feel about the house music label; I don't know enough about the genre to have an opinion either way.
I believe the new wave genre label is appropriate.
Editors have pointed to new wave's British definition as being a commercially-viable style of punk rock and argued that no British person in the 80s would have considered the new wave, but I don't see how this should matter for their current genre classification. the Wikipedia article for the genre itself describes how critical consensus shifted to use new wave as an umbrella term for the myriad of punk-influenced styles of popular music that arose in the 1980s, including alternative dance and synth-pop. If that's the case, why should we stick religiously to the original definition some forty years onwards?
The fact is that definitions are amorphous, subjective and constantly changing with time. My favorite example is grunge music; pretty much every leading grunge band, from Nirvana to Soundgarden, repudiated the label. Despite this, modern journalists and fans classify them as grunge because they shared the same influences, played on the same labels, and exchanged members and musical ideas with each other. Whether or not the artist or people from a specific time period considered a genre label to be appropriate doesn't matter because genres are simply a way of reflecting our modern-day perception of musical history. In the present musical consciousness, New Order is so closely intertwined with new wave in the sense of an artsy, commercially viable synth-pop/pop rock style with punk sensibilities that to argue otherwise feels disingenuous. KevindeAmsterdam (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in assuming you're American and using 'new wave' in its American meaning? In the UK New Order are not referred to as 'New Wave' which in a UK context means basically a late 70s more commercial brand of punk. The Buzzcocks were New Wave but not New Order and certainly not in the mid 80s when they were using synths heavily. Check out the wikipedia page on New Wave for more on the UK/US usage of thid term. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the inclusion of New Wave. However, New Order may have produced house-influenced music, but not house music itself. Also note that the band isn't listed at List of house music artists, not through omission, but because they don't belong there. The article mentions the acid house influence, which is sufficient and accurate -- Foetusized (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. They made house-influenced music but they didn't make house records. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Punk is the correct label for early New Order. New Wave is just a catch-all for bands of that era that doesn't describe anything. JonasEB (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is post-punk not pretty catch-all in it's own right? Much like "New Wave", it was coined to describe 1st wave punk evolved, but diversely influenced music. I do suppose "post-punk" tends to be differed for bands "darker" or less commercial, or perhaps is even more of a timeline distinction--meant more to give a distinct identity to bands coming in around/after the 1980-ish demise of UK's original Punk/New Wave explosion. The term doesn't seem very sound-oriented though.

Still, more important on this site is whether New Order's New Wave ties can be documented. I wouldn't exactly say that's difficult, especially judging by the quick hint I even got when a Google search gave me "New Order New Wave" as a drop-down result. I can also judge this by the numerous "New Wave best of" lists I can recall which included something from the band. Let's face it, they've always been a pretty important name in the genre (even if it's more to their American audience, for whom they're a defining band. It counts here.). Excluding the genre here seems a little ridiculous. Theburning25 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of New Wave in the body of the article, just in the infobox where you have added it. As I said above, I have no issue with New Order being categorized as New Wave, but I think that it ought to be mentioned in the body of the article instead of just the infobox. -- Foetusized (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check technique and republic you’ll see it says house not House-influenced new wave, if you check the singles during that period they say house or acid house and once again not House-influenced new wave, maybe you guys could use wikipedia once in a while. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just used Wikipedia and removed a bunch of incorrect mentions of "house" and "acid house" from the articles of New Order songs and albums. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's called original research, hopefully someone will change it back, oh, and block you from wikipedia. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i point it your flaw and rather than admit defeat you just edit out every mention of house and acid house, real mature 188.222.41.105 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what original research is on Wikipedia. Come up with some citations from reliable sources to support your position that New Order performed house music, not just incorporating house ideas into their alternative dance music, and don't edit these articles until you can add those citations to the articles. You didn't point out my flaw; you pointed out a flaw in all of these articles, which I then fixed. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess your right, sorry about that. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and your welcome 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic lists house music under New Order, and you'll find that Republic and Technique are also listed as such. I fail to see them as New Wave (certainly not since the mid-80s anyway) and most certainly not post-punk bar the first two albums, but I don't persist in removing links to them. DShamen 16:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of New wave was very poppy. Thats why they were always called "post punk" until the term disappeared in the early 90's. they were originally punks who were branded "post punk" right at the beginning. Its was was Joy Division with a a new sound and additional member--Starbwoy (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave became an American term...that became highly overused It became a catch all phrase for everything and anything that sounded a bit different in the U.S. It was marketing term. It was most used in U.S, it was used less in Canada, and mostly not at all every where else--Starbwoy (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Order are not 100% house at ALL. They are a true synthpop and alternative dance group. Thanks!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that they were "100%" house? No one. Just as they aren't 100% "synthpop" or even "alternative dance" (which is one of the best ways to describe what they do along with alternative rock in my opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.117.186 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Myxomatosis57: seems this debate has been going on awhile. Multiple first and third party sources agree that New Order has produced multiple songs spanning multiple albums which are best described or only describable as "house" or "acid house" (first and foremost being Fine Time). Here's another just for good measure: The Guardian Music on New Order: Music Complete: "It boasts a full-on, stabbing piano house track, People On the High Line". House is a genre New Order has produced a number of songs in spanning decades. Your response to individual citations has been one song here, another song there doesn't make New Order a "house band". I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and should also probably go look up what "house band" actually means before having an opinion. Tarcieri (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of singles/songs and albums are indeed described as house. However, wouldn't it be WP:SYNTH to call New Order a "house music act" (That's obviously what I was referring to by "house band," why this patronizing attitude?) just based on a few songs (Fine Time, People on the Line as you've mentioned, would be great if you provided those sources) and a single studio album (Technique) since we would be reaching a conclusion regarding the band's full output? Do we have any actual sources that actually refer to the band as house? Also wouldn't it be more convenient to discuss the house genre in the prose while we keep the sourced and more encompassing electronica in the infobox? That would be better than forcing every single electronic dance music genre they've experimented with to there. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You concur some of singles/songs and albums are indeed described as "house" by multiple first-party sources. If there are indeed multiple first-party sources which confirm that there are both multiple songs and an entire album which can be classified as "house", how is that insufficient evidence that "house" is *one* of the *many* generes that New Order has been active in? (and perhaps most notably, active in semi-recently with albums like Music Complete)
It seems there are many sources which confirm that house is a genre that New Order has been highly-active in. It seems you have a higher bar than multiple songs or indeed an entire album: can you please show me where it is specifically stated in Wikipedia policy that this is insufficient evidence? It seems you argue that no first-party source, describing the band in general, has ever said that in particular because it is not the band's **principal** genere, but if that's the case, I'd argue that 99% of the pages about a music group are both out-of-whatever-policy and simultaneously accurate, because there are first-party sources that a subset of their music belongs to that particular genre. Regarding the comment "That's obviously what I was referring to by 'house band,' why this patronizing attitude?" well if you went to the page for house band you would see the "Not to be confused with House music" note which I'm pretty sure has existed since before either of us interacted and there's a reason for that: this is terminology no house music fan, and anyone attempting to curate a history of what bands are-or-are-not house music would ever use, period. You are being excessively pushy with editorial opinions about that which you simply have no clue about. Can you please educate yourself on all of these topics so you have an informed opinion before debating?
For clarity while it seems New Order's experiments in House music don't meet some ill-defined bar I've never personally expressed in Wikipedia's policy, they owned The Haçienda which is widely regarded as one of the most important venues in the history of house music. They made house songs. They made an album which is universally regarded as being seeped in acid house, with a track 1 which can only be described as "acid house" as its primary genre. How can you seriously argue this is insufficient to list house as one of the many genres New Order was active in? Tarcieri (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with adding "house" to the genres. A lot of Technique can fairly be described as house. The band specifically wanted to make Balearic house. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

I'm translating this page for the Italian wiki an I need an clarification for understand the meaning of reflected the label's aesthetic of doing whatever the relevant parties wanted to do. Can someone help me? --Asdino (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Order (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song Titles[edit]

  • In some cases, songs appear to have had their titles derived from lines in other songs.

I'm not sure that's what's happening, as:

  • the phrase "This time of night" appears in the song "As It Is When It Was" on Brotherhood but is the title of a song on Low-Life

Low-Life came out in 1985, Brotherhood in 1986.

  • and "Face Up" from Low-Life features the phrase "In a lonely place", the title of the B-side to "Ceremony".

Low-Life came out in 1985, Ceremony was released way back in 1981.

  • Also, the track "Chemical" from the 1993 album Republic featured the word brotherhood, which was the name of the 1986 album.

Again, the title was supposedly inspired by a song that was released years later.

Maybe the idea behind all this is that New Order re-use certain "themes", although -with the exception of In A Lonely Place- the terms in question are way too common to make a case, imo. At any rate, I doubt that any of those titles was inspired by songs that were released a year (or years) later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumorian (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock[edit]

In many Wikipedia articles of the genre of their albums/singles are also credited as alternative rock. I think it should also be listed as a main genre.Myxomatosis75 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, much of the first half of Brotherhood and a lot of Technique would definitely qualify as alternative rock.

Would also like to add that whoever seems to think that Gillian Gilbert is the bands sole keyboardist needs to watch a few more live performances. It's quite clear that Stephen Morris and Phil Cunningham play plenty of live keyboards at gigs, and Bernard Sumner has also been known to in numerous gigs. Gillian wasn't in the band for a few years, who was playing the keyboards then? What about Republic, which was full of keyboards? Are people suggesting that one person wrote all of those parts and the other three stood around doing nothing? In the studio, it's well known that all of the group (although mostly Bernard Sumner) contributed keyboard/synth parts, so it doesn't qualify to only have Gillian as a keyboardist there either - and this is in no way being detrimental to her as a musician - just pointing out the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.45 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 July 2014[edit]

Add in the biography section "Reunion with new line-up, Lost Sirens: 2011–present":

In July, the group toured North America,[1][2] where they debuted the song "Plastic".[3]

Thanks for your consideration. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hudson, Alex (17 March 2014). "New Order Announce North American Summer Tour, Play Vancouver". Exclaim.ca.
  2. ^ "New Order Schedule North American Tour". New Order Now. 17 March 2014.
  3. ^ Dart, Chris (2 July 2014). "New Order debut new song, 'Plastic,' at show in Chicago". CBC Music.
Done Sorry for the long wait. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 18 August 2014[edit]

it's just too many genres,someone change it

201.92.31.94 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the genre of the band should follow the WP:V guideline: there should be sources cited to say that the band has one or more genres. These will be from WP:Reliable sources that say what the band is overall. Second, what we put in the band's genre parameter is not a collection of every genre that they ever recorded or performed. The band's overall genres will be published in reliable sources, which will be cited. The genres will not automatically come from the album articles or the song articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The band is recognized as the first alternative dance group according to Allmusic. The band is also classified as synthpop ([1], [2], [3]), post-punk ([4], [5]), new wave ([6]), and dance-rock ([7], [8])

Already knew the genres except electronica. THANKS!!! JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the original infobox picture of the article ( 2005-06-11 New Order live.jpg ) and the caption (New Order performing at Southside Festival in Neuhausen ob Eck, Germany in 2005) were removed just before the protection. It'd be really great if these were restored. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: I've lowered the protection level to semi-protection, so the autoconfirmed users here should now be able to edit it. Admins are allowed to use semi-protection for edit warring between registered users and multiple IPs, because the IPs would have an unfair advantage with respect to our edit warring rules - see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Guidance for administrators #3. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the closest we ever got to four genres (the infobox instructions at Template:Infobox musical artist tell us that the maximum number of listed genres is four), and since there are now seven one of these must go (along with the two others added since). With no objections, I will remove 'new wave', both for the reasons I've stated below and because the source now provided is a dead link. Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Myxomatosis57: There are NO SOURCES where New Order have ELECTRONICA in them. You said you were working on the genre and now I can't find any sources. PLEASE HELP ME. PLEASE!!!!!!!

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014[edit]

61.24.10.19 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic[edit]

since when did All music became the end all of information on bands. Most of the writers dont really know more than you and me, and also just research. just because its written on on a music blog or all music does that mean all thier inforamtion is right . For older bands ...did they buy the music at the time, or went to the concerts?Starbwoy (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New picture[edit]

Seeing as Hooky's no longer with the band, and Gillian's returned, isn't it time for a new picture?

Yes, I have put up a new image on the main article.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Order vandal[edit]

As some of the editors dealing with New Order- and 808 State-related articles may know, these are continuously vandalized by a static IP vandal actively since July (with first edits presumably being in March). The articles have been protected for numerous times and vandalism persists each time the protection expires. This situation urgently needs a higher level of administrative intervention; IPs used by the vandal are yet to be blocked.

I've previously reported the vandal to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and been considering reporting him/her to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse but I don't think he/she meets the criteria for now. What else can be done except reverting and protecting the articles? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find that the person has been blocked I think we can establish an LTA case purely because the disruption is so egregious over a long period. Until he's blocked we just have to keep asking for protection. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why he is not blocked (or even properly warned) is that he has been using different IPs for nearly each edit. One of the IPs was banned previously, but it was just temporary. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore the guideline at WP:LTA and compose a case page against him. I think protection of the wiki comes before dotting every 'i'. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add relevant information to the new case page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/New Order vandal. Newly discovered IPs should be listed there, and they can be tagged in this manner to make it clear to others the serious nature of the violation. Binksternet (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those are from 126.0.0.0/8, an enormous range that belongs to a single entity; a Japanese bank that apparently provides ISP services. I can't find any information about subnet assignments within that range. However, long-term range blocks are possible if logical groupings or clusters can be identified in that list. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE!

The New Order vandal from Japan has been rangeblocked by another administrator for 1 month from February 9. Cheers JG Malmsimp (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!![edit]

I CAN'T FIND ANY SOURCES WHICH HAVE ELECTRONICA ON NEW ORDER. PLEASE HELP!!!!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song Titles section[edit]

Removing the following from the article. The cleanup tag expresses well the problems with it. Bacchiad (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many New Order song titles have nothing to do with the song. In some cases, song titles appear as lyrics in other songs. For example, the phrase "This time of night" appears in the song "As It Is When It Was" on Brotherhood but is the title of a song on Low-Life, and "Face Up" from Low-Life features the phrase "In a lonely place", the title of the B-side to "Ceremony". Also, the track "Chemical" from the 1993 album Republic featured the word "brotherhood", which was the name of the 1986 album.
Other song titles were taken from the titles of old movies such as Thieves Like Us and Cries and Whispers, and the film Whistle Down the Wind is mentioned in the lyrics of "Vanishing Point" on the 1989 album Technique, an album which is otherwise notable for not including any of its song title phrases in the lyrics of any of the nine tracks, although the phrase "Fine Time" does appear in Joy Division's song "Transmission".
This practice appears to have been discontinued after the 1980s given that on Republic several songs contain their titles (e.g. "Regret", "Ruined in a Day", "Special", "Young Offender"), and on Get Ready most song lyrics contain their titles except "Slow Jam", "Close Range" and "Run Wild". Similarly, the songs on Waiting for the Sirens' Call contain their titles with the exception of "Who's Joe", "Krafty" and "Guilt Is a Useless Emotion".
Thanks for removing this stuff. I don't think any of it is salvageable. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This sounds like WP:SYNTH (sic) to me. Notes from RS'es about how they choose their song titles and lyrics can go in the album or song articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROTECTION NEARLY OVER!!!!![edit]

With protection of New Order's article expiring on Wednesday, Myxomatosis57, Binksternet and I are fearing on March 9 that the NEW ORDER VANDAL from Japan will be returning to make EXTREME VANDALISM on most of New Order & 808 State articles. Can we have indefinite semi protection on both the bands, albums and musicians please?

THANKS A MILLION

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE!!: Protection on New Order will expire in 12 HOURS from now. :(

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 wrong edit from the New Order vandal from Monday = indefinite semi-protection

THANKS

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid 5[edit]

Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that the short version of Elegia was used in the E3 2015 trailer for Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain? I feel like this is one of the main reasons the band is relevant in 2015. The song is highly charged amongst fans of the series, which is one of the longest standing and most critically acclaimed series the medium has to offer.

Requested move 14 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Re "The band is probably unknown to anyone under 40 now", I'm well over 40 and I've never heard of them either. Perhaps they weren't as well known in the US as the UK. wbm1058 (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


New Order (band) → New Order – Page was moved without discussion and contradicts previous 20102011 discussion – AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF and Amatulic: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I moved the page because it seemed uncontroversial and required no discussion. It was obvious to me that a rock band cannot possibly be the primary topic for a term that predates the band by half a century, and lacks the requirement in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of having long-term historical significance, unlike, say New Order (Nazism), which is probably what most people associate with the term "New Order". It honestly did not occur to me that this move would be regarded as controversial by anyone. In that spirit I have no objection to reversing it, although I think that such a reversal would go against our guidelines for naming. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, it was pointed out to me that there is a RM discussion concerning the disambiguation page New Order (disambiguation), which isn't the same as the band article. Perhaps that is what AngusWOOF is referring to. I see no "contradicted" RM discussion about the name of this band article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things called a new order. See [9] and New Order (disambiguation). Move New Order (disambiguation) to New Order? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anthony Appleyard: Yes, because there is no clear primary topic, the primary term should be the disambiguation page. I actually performed this move when I moved the band article, but I see that move has now been reverted. The primary term "New Order" should not be a redirect to an article about a band. That's now how Wikipedia is supposed to work for disambiguating terms. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See old discussion at Talk:New Order (disambiguation)#Move to primary location. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I didn't see that initially because I started with the band page, and that discussion wasn't on the band's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of the previous discussion in 2011 was no consensus so thus the (band) designation was not created. So why should a bold move be done to undo that result? There's nothing new about the notability/weight of the topics that would suggest one term is now less significant than the other. Also the band is still active, Should this discussion run into no consensus then the (band) article should move to New Order. If the original RM was moving A to B and that was no consensus, a bold and undiscussed move from A to B should not mean a RM of B to A but a RM of A to B. That just baffles me how Wikipedia wants to do things. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should a bold move undo that result, you ask? Because our guidelines have evolved since then. I just checked the history of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and confirmed, while the arguments in that RM discussion were in line with the guideline back then, they are not relevant now. Shortly after that RM discussion closed, the guideline got a new criterion: a topic must have long-term significance to be considered primary.
    We don't have the luxury of cherry-picking which part of the guideline to follow. If we choose page views, inbound links, etc. it's likely that the band is the primary topic by virtue of pop culture interests. But the meaning of "New Order" existed long before the band. And in 10-20 years from now, the current pop-culture meaning, known only to a fraction of the world's population familiar with English rock bands, will likely be forgotten, but the original meaning of "New Order" will still be recognized world-wide. So if we choose long-term significance as the criterion, the band isn't the primary topic. But we can't choose one or the other. Taking both into account, there is no primary topic, therefore the term "New Order" should be the disambiguation page. Again, I do not see why this would be controversial. The guideline is what it is, and if it should be changed, this discussion isn't the place to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. I just wanted to make sure it has a discussion before such a move. Consensus so far is to not have the band as the primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Malmsimp, Myxomatosis57, Binksternet as the active watchers of this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep like this - there are so very many things called "New Order", per the dab page, and so New Order should go to the dab (or be the dab). The band can live with "(band)" attached - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (that is, Keep like this as DG says above). The term is too ambiguous to have a band as primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lots of topics share this name, none having so much primacy as to take it over. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose many things are "New Order", a disambiguation page should be at the base location -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep as is, and undo today's move New Order to New Order (disambiguation). That there's a previous RM buried in the archive is unfortunate, but as it stands all broken links have been long fixed, and New Order (disambiguation) shows too many topics. The band is probably unknown to anyone under 40 now. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The term refers to many things, and there seems to be no good reason to assign the title on its own to a band. Davidelit (Talk) 10:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this appears to be the most rational decision. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - clearly the band is not the first thing that comes to mind for the typical reader - besides, this is making the page pop up at WP:MALPLACED which means we've got to deal with it. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- New Order may refer to New World Order (conspiracy theory). CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Order (band). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Order (band). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genres - need to be ordered as they are now.[edit]

I'm getting fed up of reordering genres - as they are - the band are

This is beginning to test my patience - they are ordered as they are now and into the future.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


So where are the all the genres sourced? Do we copy the "Styles" from AllMusic verbatim? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Alternative Dance". AllMusic. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  2. ^ Breihan, Tom (15 June 2009). "New Order Swap Peter Hook for Blur's Alex James for New Band Bad Lieutenant". Pitchfork. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  3. ^ Cook, Jr., Philip C. (2009). Here We Go Again (again): The Eighties Nostalgia Movement in Contemporary Popular Culture. Proquest. p. 26. ISBN 1109192622.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Kelly, Karen; Evelyn McDonnell. Stars Don't Stand Still in the Sky: Music and Myth. NYU Press. p. 82. ISBN 0814747272.
  5. ^ Albertson, Jeff (3 July 2014). "'80s New Wave pioneers New Order to play Paramount – Concert preview". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  6. ^ Edwards, Gavin (5 August 2014). "Flashback: New Order Hang With the Hoff". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  7. ^ Rolling Stone
  8. ^ James, Martin (23 October 2011). "Music: Live: Electronica veterans move with the times". The Independent. Retrieved 18 October 2015.

Picking four genres[edit]

I see the most recent topic of discussion was about genres, but I'd like to raise the issue again with the goal of trimming the genre list down to four, as is preferred Wikipedia policy. My preferred four would be alternative dance, synth-pop, post-punk, and either one of dance-rock or electronic rock. 'New Wave' was not a term used to refer to New Order in England while they were active during the 80s, so it should be removed. 'New Wave', in an English context, referred to the late 70s era of artists like Elvis Costello, The Jam, XTC, Specials, etc. It was not a term used by British music journalists for most of the 80s, and certainly not for a mid 80s dance/synth-rock band like NO. Looking through the archives, I was able to find a user, Vauxhall1964, who echoed my frustrations nearly a decade and a half ago. I'm going to provide a few direct quotations from him, as he puts it better than I could:

The idea that Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Wham! or Culture Club/Boy George were New Wave is wrong. As this article states 'new wave' in the UK stopped being used around 1980, several years before these groups appeared. They were never called 'new wave' in Britain as this term was obsolete by then. In the US 'new wave' was/is used as a catch-all term for any 'modern' sounding pop/rock from the late 70s until the end of the 80s (especially if it came from Britain)but referring to British acts from the 80s as 'new wave' will make no sense to those acts themselves or British readers. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The poster who said “New Wave” was in fact, and extremely narrow music genre, which at it’s earliest, began around 1979, and at the latest, pretty much fizzled top a close by 1986." is simply wrong. The term was used 1977-1980 in the UK (where the term was coined). It was not in use in to the mid 80s at all. In America 'new wave' was used well into the 80s to describe anything and everything from UK synth pop, Aussie rock like Men at Work and goth rock like Siouxsie & the Banshees. In other words the US definition is almost meaningless as it's usage was so wide and indiscriminate. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no-one in Britain at the time or now would call the Thompson Twins, Haircut 100 or Flock of Seagulls 'new wave'. That term had ceased to be used in the UK by 1980. Haircut 100 were classed as 'New Pop', the Thompson Twins as 'pop' and the Seagulls as 'synthpop'Vauxhall1964 (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, that's why new wave has got to go - New Order are only one of many such British acts incorrectly tagged as 'new wave', but it's a start. The four/five genres I proposed would work best, I think, as they are all fairly accurate stylistic descriptors and not anachronistic to the time and place in which the band were active (England during the 1980s). Furthermore, two bands who I have always thought had quite comparable evolutions in sound to New Order were Factory labelmates The Wake (UK band) and Section 25. Neither of them have 'new wave' listed (perhaps because as lesser known groups, their pages have been edited by better-informed editors), but both have post-punk, the former have synth-pop, and the latter alternative dance. As the bands most comparable to New Order, I think these 3 genres work quite well for NO as well, and for the fourth I again would propose either electronic rock or dance-rock. Hope we can have a discussion on this issue soon. Jinglyjangle (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the same user I quoted already, Vauxhall1964, actually commented on this very page, which I somehow missed while looking through other talk page archives. Once again, he's spot-on:

Am I right in assuming you're American and using 'new wave' in its American meaning? In the UK New Order are not referred to as 'New Wave' which in a UK context means basically a late 70s more commercial brand of punk. The Buzzcocks were New Wave but not New Order and certainly not in the mid 80s when they were using synths heavily. Check out the wikipedia page on New Wave for more on the UK/US usage of thid term. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Order_(band)&oldid=1195932286"