Talk:New-age music

Possible move

Would it be better to move this article to lower cased "New age music" and use "new age music" throughout articles? All is One (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Neither "new" nor "age" are proper nouns, and per Wikipedia, "Names of musical or literary genres do not require capitalization at all, unless the genre name contains a proper noun such as the name of a place. For example:

   Incorrect: They are a Psychedelic Rock band.
   Correct: They are a psychedelic rock band."

What is the difference between "a Psychedelic Rock band" and "a New Age band"? The capitalization (as with New Wave/new wave) looks outdated and inconsistent.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What makes new age so absolutely unique that it requires an exception like this to the accepted capitalization style? Softlavender, you have not responded to my logical argument, but I should also note that the burden of proof falls upon you, as this capitalization goes against Wikipedia rules. I respectfully ask for a debate before I make changes in accordance with those rules. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I support a move to lower-case.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC) _{striking.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)}

It should be hyphenated: new-age music. It would be ambiguous to have new age music. Bhny (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do I like it, or think it overbold? Either-way, de facto, new-age (by 405 people, 4,357 times) seems to be a distinct new age (by 33,429 people, 203,466 times) sub-genre.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great! This should put the cat amongst the pigeons! A sub-genre that depends upon what appears in some contexts to be a conventional use of the hyphen for a unit modifier, but must not be understood in that way! What next, eCCENTRIC cAPITALIZATION?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I had another look and the tag-clouds do suggest distinction, but the tag-cloud for 'new-age' is not cohesive. Generally there, it seems to be some folks' shorthand for a handful of sub-genre.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should look to Last FM's broken tag system for anything. They should merge the alternate spellings- newage, new-age, new+age etc. New-age with a hyphen is pretty standard. NYTimes uses it. Bhny (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the New York Times uses it, then it must be correct ;-) Just as a matter of interest, is this usage as a free-standing noun (as in, "new-age is the genre with which Elmer Fudd is most noted") or as a unit (compound) modifier (as in "Elmer Fudd is best known for his performance of new-age music")?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

New-age is a general term, not specifically music. Bhny (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But of course. Please feel free to substitute other nouns and adjust the terminology ("Elmer Fudd is best known for his preparation of new-age banquets", "… writing new-age poetry", etc.). But what is the answer to the question?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

the answer is compound modifier[1] Bhny (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought so. Even the New York Times would not be so illiterate as to write a sentence like, "The Age of Aquarius is a name sometimes given to the New-Age." Obviously, in the phrase "New-Age music" (or "new-age music") there must be a hyphen. This is beyond being a matter of opinion, subject to debate and a vote.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To summarize- the page should be moved to New-age music and "new-age music" should be used in the article. Bhny (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Bhny (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of dictionaries and other books use the spelling "New Age music". See OneLook and Google Book Search. 50.137.5.120 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Music of the movement

I think this looks a whole lot more WP:SNOWBALLish when one considers such a move/name-change bridging the New_Age#Music interface, i.e. the place to discuss a move seems to be Talk:New Age (a page that looks featured-article calibre).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested re-move

The following discussion is an archived 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 due to no consensus. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

New-age music → new age music – We do not hyphenate any other genre like this (new wave music, nu metal, no wave, new school hip hop etc.); the grammatical and disambiguation arguments made for it in the original discussion (which was not done via WP:RM, and so did not represent anyone but a handful of then-present editors of the article) were not very defensible. The hyphenation is actually wrong; new age is a genre/musical movement, not a description. That is, Kitaro is a "new age composer", a composer within the new age movement in music, not a composer of a new age, which is what "new-age composer" means). If one seriously believes a reader might somehow misinterpret new age music as "age music that is new" (?!?), 1) think again, and 2) just link it to this article. As in cases like industrial music and folk music, the word music is present simply as a disambiguator, like dog in German shepherd dog, which we do not write German-shepherd dog. The lower case should be retained; new age music is a general and very wide musical genre, only vaguely and peripherally related to the New Age movement of spiritual philosophy. New age music had its origins there, but has largely plotted its own course since the 1960s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Some genres are hyphenated, e.g. avant-garde music and post-punk music, because the underlying terms are hyphenated (e.g. "the avant-garde", "a post-punk drummer"). I.e., they're not "genres like this", as phrased in the nomination.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with grammatical argument. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with grammatical argument. (How is it that we are coming to opposite positions based on the same reasoning?) The situation here is described with the term "unit modifier", and is not at all complicated. Contrary to what SMcCandlish says above, we do in fact hyphenate German-shepherd dog when we wish to refer to a dog of that breed, as opposed to a dog of any breed who works in Germany herding sheep. When standing alone, "new age" is not hyphenated, of course (e.g., "his music belongs in the category 'new age'"); when standing as a unit modifier, the hyphen is added. This is, BTW, not really a matter of grammar, but a matter of style. Most English-language publications (as opposed to English language publications) adhere to this style, but not all. Furthermore, there is a division of opinion about whether unit modifiers should always be hyphenated, or only in cases where there is ambiguity ("fast sailing ship" and "fast-sailing ship" are two different things, just like the German poodle who works as a shepherd). A small minority of English-language writers prefer to resolve these ambiguities in the opposite fashion: "fast sailing-ship", for example, to denote a ship with sails that can achieve a high speed. In other languages, too, there may be differences, which is the reason "avant-garde" is hyphenated: it is a French term, and in French it is a hyphenated compound, so the hyphen is retained when it is borrowed into English.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – per Jerome Kohl, the hyphen is perfectly normal here. It is common this way in sources, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's new age and hence "new age music"; cf. heavy metal music. The opposition is surprising since the hyphenated form is not common at all.—Neodop (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with grammatical argument of Jerome Kohl. Bhny (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Jerome Kohl that this is not, strictly speaking, a question of grammar, since the grammarians are divided about this and rational arguments can be for either reading. As a question of style, such a matter would normally be resolved by reference to WP:MOS; but, I don't believe this particular issue is therein addressed. Thus, I must resort to my understanding of how the phrase is more often written; in my personal experience, the hyphen is more often included than not. If a contrary citation is made to a section of WP:MOS that I've overlooked, I will gladly withdrawn opposition. Xoloz (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – The relevant Wikipedia style guide is found at WP:HYPHEN.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Jean Michel Jarre

WTF !!! NOTHING ABOUT JEAN MICHEL JARRE ???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.213.255 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• He's actually very loosely connected to new age. He seldom uses ethnic or medieval music for inspiration. He almost never uses non-electronic instruments. He doesn't always write downtempo/chillout music. In fact, many of his compositions are fast and upbeat (like most of Chronologie, Side two of Equinoxe) while his slower compositions (like on Oxygene) are better described as ambient. And these "new age spirituality", or at least some ethnic/pagan/medieval/oriental inspiration? Jarre uses none of that. Beaumain (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a fact (though underdocumented in this article) that one use of "new age" is for spacey, non-dance but also not quite ambient, often instrumental electronic music. This is the same use by which people also often classify artists like Vangelis or Klaus Schulze or as "new age". This use persists since often such music has no better description going for it either. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The article really needs a rewrite

According to Allmusic, New-age music is "born from an aesthetic that aims to induce a sense of inner calm, new age music emerged from the meditational and holistic fields. Generally, these are harmonious and nonthreatening albums that are allied with new age philosophies encouraging spiritual transcendence and physical healing. Some of these albums are artistically satisfying as well as therapeutic. Lesser musicians, however, often make ridiculous claims in the liner notes as to their ability to catapult listeners into advanced spiritual states through specially designed sonic vibrations and "immaculately conceived" musical ideas".

However, I don't understand why and how in both Allmusic and the article are cited considerations by which are listed/higlighted electronic music composers whose music style has nothing to do with New Age spirituality, relaxation, meditation, alternative healing, yoga practice and so on. The "History" section is badly written, and facts about the so-called genre or musical movement are misleading; example, Mike Oldfield's progressive rock album Tubular Bells is cited to be an album of New-age genre - that's complete ignorance of musical styles. As can be seen in both "History" and "Influences and themes", the whole article is more focused about the artists who influenced (dubiously) the New-age musical genre and movement, rather then those artists who really belong to it. The whole article needs to focus on the real New-age musicians, for example like Deva Premal, and not electronic composers like Vangelis, and should note the difference between those real New-age musicians, and the general term "New-age music" which is, as stated under "Definitions", used for "music which cannot be easily classified into other, more common definitions". The whole article lacks references. As both Enya and Kitarō were nominated for Grammy Award for Best New Age Album, it should be seen what kind of definiton is used for the genre by the The Recording Academy.--Crovata (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that this article could be improved considerably, several of your criticisms are directed at statements that currently appear to be supported by reliable sources (for example, your statement about Mike Oldfield). Liner notes, as you suggest, often cannot be regarded as reliable sources, particularly when they are written by the artist, since they amount to self-published statements. It is important to keep in mind that "what we know to be true" makes little or no difference on Wikipedia, where claims must be supported by reliable sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

However, it is a well known problem when seemingly reliable sources do not have reliable and correct considerations - Tubular Bells is not a New-age album, or simply, the source statement was more about the "terminology"/"philosophy" rather than "music genre" of New-age. It seems that exist conflicting viewpoints what is "New-age music". I am now a bit interested, so will do a research on these issues, and then edit the article with reliable sources. If the information on your user page is correct, you could review the edit, and improve the article with your experience and reliable sources which are not unavaliable for me. --Crovata (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl, I rewrote the article. It needs a review for any information or grammatical errors.--Crovata (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent news. I have already found some formatting problems in the references, but I think they have been there for a long time. I will review the text for grammar and syntax. Thanks for your hard work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jerome KohlI am not informed about the general music terminology, but after reading the sources I don't understand what is the correct term of the musical-marketing genre/style/category/; New-age, New Age, new-age, new age or some other, and thus decided to use "New-age". Seemingly, the use of this form makes sense as the genuine "New-age" music is related to New Age movement which name is mostly written with upper case first letters, but...--Crovata (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that this is not really "musical" terminology as a marketing term, and there is no single practice in the marketplace. For the purposes of this article, this matter was discussed some time ago (see further up on this Talk page), and it was decided to use all-lowercase. The hyphenated form is used when the two words together describe something else, such as "new-age music" or "new-age artist".

Think Henk N. Werkhoven's The International Guide to New Age Music (1997) could help improve the article, as according to preface "New Age music, though often instrumental, turns out to be a repository for diverse musical styles. It ranges from classical music to rock music, from jazz to meditation music, from Western music to Eastern music. And suddenly New Age vocal music could also be heard... Many record stores decided to call any music that could not be easily labeled New Age... To cope with all this complexity, I have tried in this book to make a first attempt at clarifying this new musical trend by building a dam around all these musical waves. New Age music isn't all that new anymore. The genre has been around for nearly thirty years, counting back to its very first pioneers", and review that the major pop artists like Enya, Enigma, Tangerine Dream or Mike Oldfield were not even mentioned, and the focus was on dedicated new age music artists and labels.--Crovata (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know when will have time to edit, but The Dynamics of a Cultural Struggle in Academia: The Case of New Age Music Research (2012) by Omri Ruah-Midbar and Marianna Ruah-Midbar is really good and informative source on the subject.--Crovata (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Where is the new consensus?

I notice that, despite the apparent consensus (or lack thereof) documented in the two discussions above at #Possible move and #Requested re-move, that this article title has just been changed (back) to the unhyphenated form with the second word capitalised. Where is the discussion that established a new consensus for this move? I would like to read it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It was done with this edit-[2], and no mention in talk. I just reverted it. Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the page shouldn't have been moved without discussion and consensus, especially given the existing discussions above. However, the usual formation does seem to be with capitals and no hyphen. Presumably the term "New Age" is modelled on terms such as "Bronze Age" and "Iron Age", so just as we would refer to a Bronze Age sword or Iron Age tribes in Britain, never a "bronze-age sword" or "iron-age tribes", we similarly refer to "New Age music" and not "new-age music". Placing this article at "New-age music" seems to me like an attempt to force it into a WP:MOS guideline where it doesn't fit, rather than following WP:COMMONNAME and using the form that most writers in the real world use. --Deskford (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Deskford. Using the style "New-age music" is a Wikipedia-ism that bears no relation to the way in which the term is usually written in the real world - that is, without a hyphen. We should not be using WP style guidelines in a way that distorts common usage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm repeatedly having to check the usage. I'm OK with New age or New-age but new age is wrong. Someone posted above that Wikipedia's rule is to lowercase genres, but that's not that the rule. Most genres are lowercased but not all. Christian rock, for example, and Latin jazz use caps. In all my reading I doubt I've ever seen "New" lowercased. Maybe we can agree on that at least. I would change that usage in this article, but I have a hunch someone would change it back.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

{{subst:empty template|}}

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ~~~~

QUIET NEW AGE MUSIC FINDS RESPECTABILITY

Possible good source for early new age history. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1985/06/01/quiet-new-age-music-finds-respectability/ Anonymous-232 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)