Talk:The Modern Lovers/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Modernlovers.jpg
Image:Modernlovers.jpg 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

John Felice
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Felice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated ...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Were the Modern Lovers "New Wave"?
User:Donbodo takes the view that the band can be described as "New Wave" rather than "Protopunk". I disagree. I find it hard to understand how the music they played around 1972 can be described as "New Wave" - the term was not invented to describe the music until much later in the 1970s - maybe 1977 or 78 - and then was used specifically to describe the music that developed after the punk rock explosions of 1975-76. Earlier in the 1970s, the Modern Lovers were influenced by bands like the Velvet Underground and, to the extent that their music around that time can be categorised at all, can best be described as "protopunk" - that is, it influenced the punk bands like the Sex Pistols rather than being influenced by them. The music Richman produced after 1976 can hardly be called "New Wave" either - it was pretty much independent of any genre at all, but bore no relation to the music of people like Talking Heads or Devo, who epitomise the term to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above position argues that the Modern Lovers cannot be classified as New Wave because 1) the term "New Wave" was not invented yet, 2) New Wave developed out of punk, and 3) the later bands of Jonathan Richman were not New Wave. But these arguments cannot stand because: 1) A musical category is used to describe a type of music based on its actual characteristics, not on when the name was invented. The term "punk," for example, was not immediately applied to bands that we now call "punk." We call them "punk" retroactively, because we can look back and see when this type of music first appeared. The reason why we call something "protopunk" is because, while it has some characteristics of punk, it is missing some of those characteristics. The original Modern Lovers' music has all the characteristics of New Wave. 2) New Wave did not develop after punk, at least not in the U.S., but it developed alongside it in the same underground scene. Bands like Television, Patti Smith, Talking Heads, Devo, Pere Ubu all began playing New Wave music at the same time, and in some cases even before, punk. The Modern Lovers were making their music in this same period, though they were clearly ahead of the others by perhaps a year or two (at most). 3) I agree that the Modern Lovers in later times were not New Wave. I am speaking only of the original lineup. --Donbodo (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See the following link:. Note the following comments: "Richman's real claim to fame is as the leader of Boston's Modern Lovers, whose single Velvet Underground-influenced studio album arguably set off the entire New Wave movement in the United States." And with regard to the first Modern Lovers album: "The breakthrough American New Wave album, laying out the entire Velvet Underground-influenced CBGB's formula - it ditches any vestige of the VU's psychedelic experimentation in favor of snappy, danceable, and rudimentary roots rock."--Donbodo (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - but as I've said at Talk:New Wave music, there is a clear difference between US and UK interpretations of the term "new wave". In the UK, the term was and is used for the more self-consciously arty style of music that came in after 1976, not before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, but since this article is about an American band, should we not use American terminology to describe it?--Donbodo (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We should use terms which are actually used in authoritative sources to describe the band. If they are described as "new wave" (or indeed "protopunk") in published sources, that's fine, but the article on "new wave music" itself needs to make clear that there is this difference in terminology and that what was "new wave" in the US context does not necessarily mean "new wave" in the UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is the term "protopunk" permissible in this article? Is there an authoritative source that calls the Modern Lovers "protopunk"?--Donbodo (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - Allmusic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that website more authoritative than the one I cited above?--Donbodo (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Allmusic is recognised here as a reliable source with professional reviewers, whereas Wilson & Alroy isn't, so far as I'm aware - it's essentially a blog. But that's not really my point - I accept that there may be reliable sources that call the Modern Lovers "new wave" (though to me, from a UK perspective, it seems odd - we're discussing that at Talk:New Wave music if anyone else is interested), but clearly there are also reliable sources that call them "protopunk".  Like any of these genre classifications, there are very few fixed dividing lines, most genres overlap (and indeed most serious artists straddle, overlap, re-invent and blur genres, almost by definition) and what is one thing to one person is something different to another.  My point was only that a ref to the Modern Lovers being classed as "protopunk" should not be removed as it is valid, useful and referenced.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Their first album sounds psychedelic
In 1970-1972, psychedelic rock was as big as ever despite what many would lead you to believe. A lot of the concepts and sounds of the songs are very much like late 60s psychedelic movement, songs like "Astral Plane" are every bit as New Age mystic as anything you'd find from the late 60s. So perhaps they could be seen to have evolved from psychedelic rock to punk rock and later on to proto-new wave? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.34.105 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "...every bit as New Age mystic as anything you'd find from the late 60s." Really?  Try listening to the Incredible String Band.  But seriously, all these genre categories overlap and blur into each other (see my earlier comment in the previous thread) and, as you suggest, evolve.  They certainly weren't seen as "psychedelic" at the time - and, apart from maybe people like Pink Floyd, "psychedelic rock" in the strict sense (say, H. P. Lovecraft) was a thing of the past by the early 1970s anyway.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)