Talk:New rave

Late 90's
I see no sources or any evidence to suggest that "New Rave" even existed as a buzzword around the end of 1990's there I am removing it. ParanoidTrooper (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly quoted
This quote:

"In their review of the Klaxons' new album, Myths of the Near Future, the NME branded all ravers of the traditional rave scene “twats with baggy trousers”. [17]"

Does absolutely not mean the same like the original:

"Nearly a decade ago, rave died as the bloated bastard was kicked from its nightclub residency by a generation of indie kids with an urge to pull the dancefloor from beneath the feet of twats with baggy trousers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest Account (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

other languages
there is an article in greek wikipedia about new rave.why isn't it listed here?

"New Rave" bands
The citing of two bands to account for a music genre highlights a distinct weakness in the term 'New Rave'. Perhaps this article should present the term as a phrase used to market the Klaxons debut EP rather than a categorical music genre. It is a clever word play which is to be expected from the clearly educated Klaxons, whose songs are scattered with literary references. Indeed even the Klaxons seem to have out grown the term. ‘Myths of the Near Future’ is a record that has many songs unaligned with the presented signposts of the new rave genre, the distortion-free, piano pop single ‘Golden Skans’, for example.


 * This is precisely why I have changed it to say "a label applied to a style of music" rather than an actual style. I think the term is a little more widely used than just to describe the Klaxons debut, tho.Famico666 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the bands added in the last few days don't belong here. This term was coined by the NME to describe a few bands - namely The Klaxons, Datarock and Shitdisco. There are others of course, but if they're not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article then they shouldn't be listed on this page.

Also, lumping other bands with similar sounds in is ridiculous. Are we going to claim LCD Soundsystem and The Juan Maclean as "New Rave" now? Stu  ’Bout ye!  09:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute the above is rubbish most notably two members of the NME awards indie rave tour; css and sunshine underground are not included. Also there was a double page spread on Nu-Rave with Shitdisco and Sunshine Underground.

I think Lost Penguin and Crystal Castles deserve as much praise as Klaxons for making this genre popular, I agree most of the other bands added here are not notable bands and don't deserve a place.
 * Find reliable sources and the bands can go in! Rock star  ( T/C ) 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I added Crystal Caatles to this article and a few others.

Up and coming bands
I think this page may need a section for up and coming new rave bands. Ones that have not been recognised by NMe as being new rave, but obviously are in the same category as klaxons and the like.
 * I don't think that's needed. Wikipedia is not a "New Rave" fansite. Only notable bands should be listed. And the shoehorning of other bands, who have nothing to do with it, into this "genre" is inappropriate too. I reverted more additions today. Stu   ’Bout ye!  16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For this reason, I've removed the random bands that had been added. I suggest that any other bands other than these core three should have a reference. Damiancorrigan 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Bloc Party? I mean when are you "New Rave"? Is all rock bands who use just a little bit of electronic "New Rave"? I mean then Depeche Mode should be mentioned in this article, at least! Mood Swinga 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC+1)
 * Bloc Party has, as I've seen, never been a New Rave band. I agree with Depeche Mode, but probably as influence? Meh, maybe not. We'll take it where the sources lead us. Rock star  ( T/C ) 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Culture or Genra?
I never really took nu rave to be a genra, far more a culture - somewhat like nu-romantic is concept.

Therefor i'd see it apt to mention that it is popular to have glow-sticks, warehouse 'raves' or bright clothing.

It's an odd thing - it is just made up by the NME to sell a few bands - is it a bad thing? Does it matter? It's got it's own wikipedia page calling it a genra, so has it become one?

Heathcoteheat 12:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that most of the reference articles have mentioned the fashion and re-vamping of the original rave, so I think a new section is in the works... Rock star  ( T/C ) 04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Leggings re-appropriated?
'neon clothing, glow sticks, and baggy t-shirts teamed with leggings are re-appropriated'

yes neon clothing, glow sticks and baggy t-shirts were worn frequently, but leggings were in fact anathema to what would have been thought of as the 'raver uniform' - rave clothing in general was closely tied to the Madchester, baggy clothing style - baggy jeans (and very baggy at that) were probably worn by everyone who considered themselves a 'raver' at some stage

its spelt...genre

It's NOT RAVE
Of course, it's not rave at all. It's guitar music pretending to be rave, and it really has no right to steal the term for it's own purposes.

'Rave' (dance music of the early 90s and beyond) got some of it's influences from punk. The simplicity of the riffs is one thing that stands out as being quite punkish, as does people setting up independent labels to put the tunes out. BUT, rave never pretended to be punk.

By all means, make guitar music which is influenced by rave music, but don't pretend that it's a new kind of rave music, because it's not.

"Nu Rave" Doesn't exist. All these people are doing is take a term that an uninformed and ignorant magazine journalist coined, and using it to RENAME already existing genres. This "Nu Rave" isn't new, it's just renamed and I don't see the need for it. And there isn't anything new about this scene either, it's been around since the nineties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.199.209 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling it new rave does kind of imply that this is the re-birth of rave, which it isn't. Rave, like punk, never really died. Free parties have been going ever since it started in the early 90s, it's just that the media have suddenly realised that they exist. They didn't die out when the criminal justice bill became law. We didn't all just go clubbing instead. 'Rave' was a catch all name for music played at raves, and the term changed to 'dance music' instead. House, Techno, Hardcore, Jungle (Drum and Bass), are all rave / dance music. Also, that early 90s Hardcore / Jungle sound (which is what most people would call rave) has been comming back slowly over the last 6 years, under the banner of 'Hardcore Breaks'. Check out www.nu-rave.com or www.backtotheoldskool.co.uk for info on that. 62.64.200.172 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just normal indie guitar poppy stuff but with a bit of synth over the top, but a name's a name. 82.41.120.60 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought New Rave was as much a reference to New Wave as it was a claim to be the new Rave. Ian2203 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

it's a play on New Wave.. therefore, delete the "Nu Rave". 84.238.10.100 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

some people have no idea.
how can anyone decide by themselves that a page on new rave should only feature bands that are notable??? who decides who that is is, it is a new phenomenon, but was around long before nme. In 2003 james saint acid who runs Bangface {a well established night in london} started calling his nights 'new rave' so those of you that think you know what you are talking about need to chill out and let all poeople put information up regarding their understanding of the term, this site is about information not the cocealing of it. People should also realise that the nme version of new rave is one that is being sold to them and has very little to do with the exciting 'underground' scene that spawned these acts. this is about culture not comercialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.135.249 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Because this is an encyclopedia of established facts, not a place to add subjective opinions. You need to add your sources if you are to claim a little known band is new rave. Famico666 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bangface looks like a proper rave to me - i.e. it has dance acts, and some of them are even Oldskool acts like Altern 8, Slipmatt, etc... So, it's got every right to use the word rave. They have 'Neo-Rave' on the site though, not new rave.

Famico666, you are an idiot

Enter Shikari
ES are mentioned twice on the page, once as an example of new rave and once as an example of a band that is NOT new rave. this needs to be cleaned up - are they new rave?Damiancorrigan 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No they are not, they are metal music influenced by dance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.141.234 (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually written "nu-rave"?
The opening line states that the genre name is actually "nu-rave". If this is so, then citation should be provided and the article name should be changed appropriately. If not, all mention of the spelling "nu-rave" should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Static Sleepstorm (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Adding an italic note to the beginning of the article?
I'd like to add 'Not to be confused with nu rave, a resurgence of the original rave scene.' How do I do this? Famico666 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

background to new rave
Would people agree that precussors to the current genre described by the media as new rave are: !!! (chk chk chk) and The Rapture?

Also, it might be helpful to consider that what is deemed to be new rave (as indie dance, as opposed to a pure development of rave) seems to have crystalised with the release of Digital Penetration, a sampler as what passes as New Rave these days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poray (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Clean-up and Linkspam
Please help clean-up this article by finding notable secondary sources that confirm some of the unsourced claims on this page. Also, please do not add any linkspam to this article, as it will be deleted. This includes linkspam in the external links and of supposed new rave bands (like Pull Tiger Tail and Enter Shikari). If these bands are new rave, which it looks like they're not, then cite it. Finally, CSS is NOT a new rave band. They might be classified sometimes as new rave (see the "Criticisms" section), but they are not new rave. Stop adding the link to the main section. Rockstar915 18:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the article a bit and cited more sources. Let's keep this going. Rockstar915 19:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Big edit
I've made a few changes:

1) Considering how much arguing there is over what constitutes New Rave, "style of music" is pushing it. The article can't criticise New Rock as a 'media construct' but give it legitimacy as a 'style' in the first sentence. In a few years time this article may verge on non-notibility and at present it deserves its place here more for its controversy than being an actual genre.

2) If the article criticises applying this label to bands that evolved outside of the UK, then Datarock (who are Norwegian) can't be New Rave. I don't care what Kitty Empire says in the Observer article, she's been wrong before. In fact, she says Datarock 'have taken up the imperative of dance music (to 'have it') and grafted it on to a guitar-bass-drums-keyboards set-up.', she doesn't say they are New Rave and even goes on to ask "Does New Rave really exist beyond the borders of Hoxton, London's crucible of asymmetric hair and irony?" A band being mentioned in an article on New Rave does not make them New Rave.

3) Removed this: the difference is: the USA disco-punk have more funky beat, the New Rave have a bit more of punk attitude. Not only is it grammatically dyslexic, it is also not true - !!! may be funky, but Rapture (at least on their first album) were as punky as New Rave is.

4) Altered the sweeping statement about what NME relabelling indie. They aren't.

5) The Observer article does not use the word 'nu', nor does it use the phrase 'new wave', so citation is removed. Famico666 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to big edit
1) That's fine.

2) Be careful not to violate WP:OR. Wikipedia does not tell the truth; Wikipedia reports secondary sources. If someone in a notable newspaper calls Datarock New Rave, then Wikipedia reports Datarock to be New Rave. The only way that it could be found to be incorrect is if you find another reliable source that says explicitly that Datarock is not new rave. Until then, Datarock goes back in.

3) That's fine, good job removing unsourced original research.

4) Fine as well.

5) The Observer reports on the fact that Klaxons called themselves "nu-rave". It's in the fourth paragraph. Rockstar915 00:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Response
2) a) you can't quote ANY source and say "see, they say so, it must be true". You aren't going to get anyone explicitly saying "Datarock aren't new rave", so is this fallacy going to remain forever?............. OK, I just typed "datarock new rave" into Google and the first page that comes up queries why the hell Datarock are described as New Rave. Does that count? It's not as 'legit' as The Observer, but you did ask for a source. b) The Observer article doesn't say "Datarock are new rave". Instead, Ms Empire talks about the current trend of bands putting electronic music into guitar music. She even questions whether the genre can exist outside of a certain area in London. Datarock aren't from that area. c) If a Norwegian band can be described as new rave, then "despite evolving in a different musical culture and, in some cases, a different country" should be removed from the article. However, this comment has been in the article longer than Datarock have been and hasn't been called into question. Therefore the newer and more dubious addition (that of Datarock) should be removed.

Therefore, in the name of (a) an alternative source being found, (b) the original source not explicitly verifying the statement in question and (c) internal consistency within this very article I am removing Datarock again.

I don't want this to be a silly revert war, but I think I've stated my case quite clearly.

5) Sorry, missed that. Did a search for "nu rave" (with a space) and didn't find it.Famico666 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't want a revert war, and I'll stick to your guidelines as per Datarock not being a New Rave band. I just don't want this article to become original research and having editors just add their favorite bands as exponents of the genre (it's happened before one too many times in this article). I think it would be great to get a few more reliable sources with a few more bands, and just solidify it as that. Rockstar915 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I myself removed a number of dubious bands. On the same basis I wanted to remove Datarock. I only see two bands as being certifiably New Rave and thats Shit Disco and Klaxons. Personally speaking, I'd like to add Hadouken! but as they don't even have a wikipedia page of their own yet and no sources supporting them as being New Rave, I can't. If you listen to them, they clearly are new rave, but it can't be verified. Famico666 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can find something to verify that band... maybe we should go ahead and create the article? In your opinion, are they the "main exponents" of the genre or a good example of it? Rockstar915 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The main exponents are the NME! Shitdisco only have three songs so far, but they are described as 'main exponents'. Famico666 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That Observer Article
Incidentally, the article is seriously flawed. For a start, Baby D was a drum n bass track or, more accurately back then, 'jungle'. It wasn't rave in any way whatsoever. I think it should be struck from the record for being unreliable.Famico666 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Let Me Be Your Fantasy" by Baby D would not be considered jungle or drum and bass. It came out originally in 1992 before jungle music had really become distinct from breakbeat hardcore and would therefore be considered a hardcore tune. It was a hit in 1994 unchanged from the original version and, although Baby D did release some jungle tunes, the tune mentioned in the Observer article is not one of them. The tune and jungle itself are both examples of rave music as breakbeat hardcore, jungle and drum and bass are all played at raves even today such as Raindance. If you don't consider Baby D, their tunes or jungle music to be rave music I suggest you spend some time looking at their respective pages here on Wikipedia. Ssp212 21:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay... but I don't think Baby D is even a part of this article. Rock star  ( T/C ) 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They were mentioned in the Observer article that Famico666 was referring to as "flawed" and "unreliable". I was just suggesting he or she checked his or her facts before making a statement like that. Ssp212 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, good call. And thanks for the input, as I know little about D&B. As of now, I think it's safe to say that the Observer article works fine in this context, no?. Rock star  ( T/C ) 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia (re WP:A)
Please refer to WP:A for an explanation of why the Ms. Kitty article is both a reliable source and should be used in citing the article. Rockstar915 20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to get too carried away with following Wikipedia guidelines. See this article for a good parody of how wikipedia can go too far sometimes. I am sure the Kitty Empire article would be regarded as being reliable for the fact that it comes from a reputable source and she is a famous (if not necessarily reputable!) writer, but I know a well written article when I see one, and that article is not one. There needs to be some common sense in applying wikipedia rules or it becomes an internet cult and not a genuinely respectable work. Famico666 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong -- I also think that Wikipedia's guidelines can be carried too far. But they're also necessary (IMHO) in that they prevent original research and people removing sources because they don't like the writer or the specific article... Please don't take that last clause as an attack against you -- I'm just trying to show why WP:A, though obnoxious, might be needed. Rockstar915 00:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the article
"New Rave", be it a buzz word of the NME or otherwise, is nonetheless a worthy sub-genre of rock music and thus deserves a page on wikipedia written from an unbiased (i.e. not anti-NME) point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.43 (talk • contribs)

We need a source for all this - and has anyone considered this a genre apart from the nme? Secretlondon 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that by now, it's moved past NME, per all the sources cited. NME might have created it, but its gone rolling off in its own direction. Rock star  ( T/C ) 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it really is just a buzz word made up by the NME. This is not a legitimate genre at this point. These bands are disco-punk or indie-dance or electro-rock or whatever. How about !!!, are they "New Rave"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwiki95 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Sadly, Wikipedia is not a place for our original ideas or research, even if you think something is wrong. Wikipedia's articles are based on already reported material. And, whether or not the NME made New Rave up, it has been covered by numerous reliable sources as its own genre. !!!, therefore, would not qualify to be a New Rave band in this article specifically because none of those sources referenced have written about the band being New Rave. Such is Wikipedia policy. Rock star  ( T/C ) 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain the last paragraph? I have been to many concerts and never once seen a tractor. 82.15.9.10 13:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Nevermind it's gone now.)82.15.9.10 13:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar, you are talkng rubbish. It take a lot of artists to come together and say they are new rave, who has? not very many people. many people are getting confused with what new rave is, such as thinking it's indie rock, dirty disco, minimal techno, some new house, electronica etc. Is Ed Banger Records new rave? no... they are one of the leaders of the new style of house that's come about, who a lot of artists are being influenced by at present. the article also says that new rave is only in England? what rubbish.

the article is rubbish and needs to be backed up.

Bangface is right and Nathan Barley was released in 2005...
this article is bollocks. who wrote it? the term may have been invented by NME or whoever, but underground communities like Bangface were the ones who made it all possible. those Klaxon morons are just like the antidote in the early 90s to rave music then aren't they? Remember EMF? lol So it's a bit silly even now to lump indie rock in with dance music such as what Ed Banger produce?

Nathan Barley documented this new culture in his comedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Barley and that was ages ago! I remember London when all this was happening from the beginning and it wasn't in 2006.

I suggest that the term 'New Rave' should be stripped down to its basic element, that it's something that NME has made up to make it easier to create hype. If you want to talk about the culture or any detail there needs to be links to all the subcultures that exist as they are all different.


 * Re: the above unsigned comment - To be blunt here, that Nathan Barley = Klaxons thing is utter crap. They aren't "media types" and they've never lived in Shoreditch. Trust me here, I know plenty of people who are like Nathan Barley and Klaxons are not.

Merge New Rave, Dance-punk and Electro rock
These three articles are quite poor - they have little content and are basically just a list of bands. Given this, and the fact they are so similar, would a merge be appropriate? Are they sufficiently distinct genres to deserve seperate articles? I don't think so personally. And what would we call a new merged article? Stu  ’Bout ye!  16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really think we could merge the articles. There's a lot more here that just a list of bands (there's only about 8 or so on the whole page) and dance-punk has been said to be more US-orientated. I would say that alot of the bands would cross over more than one of these but i don't think that they could be merged into one article. --SteelersFan UK06 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that as the three articles stand, they're all quite short with not much scope to expand. One main article covering all three would have much more material and it would have the possibility to improve to a GA or FA. Maybe merging isn't the best way to proceed, but all three need drastically improved somehow. Stu   ’Bout ye!  07:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think maybe combining the articles into one could work...but as you said, what would we call it? Ps. I don't know as much about Electro rock, I was only aware that Dance-punk & New Rave had similarities. Maybe only these two should be merged? --SteelersFan UK06 13:28, 21

June 2007 (UTC)

i think dance punk and new rave should be merged...their practically the same thing wih different labels69.234.112.188 (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree, they are completely different, dance punk is a genre originating in 1970s new york, this is a media construct originating recently in nme. There is barely evidence of any link. -- neon white user page talk 05:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins
A recent edit was made to the page by an unnamed user which was later reverted. Just wanted to say i think that something along these lines should probably be added to the page, as Angular were the first people to speak about the genre. Just a thought. Opinions? --SteelersFan UK06 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While it may or may not be true, in order for inclusion it must be proven. I have no problem with the addition of the material so long as it is attributed to a reliable source. Rock star  ( T/C ) 05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source which the user included was a gig flyer from the earliest known mention of "New Rave" (spelt differently), published by a night promoted by Angular, is this WP:V? --SteelersFan UK06 06:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Different Nu-Raves
Is it not possible to have two different Nu-Rave pages to cover both the Indie Nu-Rave and Dance Nu-Rave scenes? Both are equally valid for having wikipedia entries. User:Fluffski 15:18, 02 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of either of those existing only the term mentioned here. -- neon white user page talk 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment as this article is almost solely about the Indie Nu-Rave scene. There is evidence of the dance Nu-Rave scene (magazine article, internet forum, nu-rave sections in online record stores) which are just as valid as the references sited in this article. The Indie Nu-Rave article even states 'Several have publicly declared they have nothing to do with the genre. Indeed, even Klaxons have declared they are not New Rave, describing it as a "joke that’s got out of hand' User:Fluffski 10:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about a media used phrase/buzzword, there is no reliable evidence for anything else, which you are well aware of as you contributed to the afd which resulted in the deletion of a non-notable article. -- neon white talk 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great so I'll just create a phrase/buzzword page for the term Nu-Rave relating to dance music.User:Fluffski10:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have any sources for that then do so, if the page has the same issues as the previous article then it will likely be speedily deleted under criteria G4 -- neon white talk 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

this page is not about Nu Rave... its about Indie Rock gone dance. The real Nu Rave is really old school rave music revamped into a better production sound with today's technology. Look at hardcore breaks to understand really what Nu Rave is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.23.186 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

MC Hardcore Superstylee
Why? I have no idea why this band is mentioned as a forerunner of this genre. Firstly there is no citation, but much more importantly, it's factually incorrect. Search for the band in youtube and you'll get a grand total of 0 hits. How can such an irrelevant band be a forerunner of Nu Rave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroldo (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
"Music publication NME is largely responsible for popularising the term throughout 2006 and 2007, despite having itself claimed in mid-2008 reviews that "New Rave is over".

That "despite" makes no sense given that 2008 is, um, after 2006 and 2007. It's entirely possible to popularise a term one year and then consider it outdated the next, and not at all surprising in publishing. 86.132.138.159 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

crap crap article
It looks to me like somebody has just huffed at new rave totally in this article, i agree it was a total joke, a manufactured peice of sensationalist rubbish.. but to me this sounds like one persons opinion. euaaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.137.81 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge Indie dance, Dance-punk, and New rave
Merge Indie dance, Dance-punk, and New rave,but not Electronic rock. They all can barely be defined at all. Aaronallknowingone (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

whats the problem?
in the 80's you had college rock, then in the 90's it was alt-rock. they are the same in the 70's you had punk, in the 90's it was grunge. they are the same in the 70's and 80's you had goth. now you have emo, same thing basically new rave is modern dance-punk. if the prodigy came out 5 years ago instead of 20 they'd be called new rave too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.16.163 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguable?
What's "an arguable British-based music scene?" Does it mean that its Britishness is debated? If so, can the wording be changed to reflect that? The sentence doesn't make sense as it is. Maybe something like "it is most commonly applied to a British-based music scene [...] although its roots are subject to debate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.48.236 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New rave. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402101836/http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/features/article2235633.ece to http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/features/article2235633.ece

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential sources looking back on New Rave

 * Klaxons' Jamie Reynolds: 'New Rave was like the 60s – if you can remember it then you weren't there' (2014)
 * New rave 10 years on: A joke or Britain's last great youth movement? (2016)
 * New Rave: the moment fashion and music both got their act together (2016)
 * The Definitive History of New Rave in Eight Tracks, Narrated by Jamie from Klaxons (2017)
 * The Glorious, Messy Rise and Fall of New Rave (2021)
 * Remembering the fleeting explosion of New Rave (2022)

OBLIVIUS (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)