Talk:Japan (band)

Removals

Various things tidied up, and comments:

1. Italics for album titles, double quotes for "song titles".
2. Standout tracks on the third album - says who? There is still too much puffery in the article, I've removed much of it and tagged the rest with {{fact}}
3. both highly innovative but extremely (deliberately ?) non-commercial, generating a minimalist yet intensely atmospheric feel which had very little in common with the Japan of old. It is now highly regarded amongst modern recordings of this kind, with tracks such as Every Colour You Are and the stunning Blackwater being the melodic highlights. - innovative is not the opposite of non-commercial, the article earlier on says Japan were minimalist and intensely atmospheric so how did RTC have little in common with Japan, and again uncited claims of critical praise and certain tracks being highlights.
4. — these provide a much more satisfactory way to access the band's music as opposed to the plethora of compilations - says who?
5. I've just removed all the stuff about copy protection and which versions of the albums had black and white pictures of the band inside, as it's really not germane.

I'm not a fan of the band (looked up this article after watching Alan Partridge dancing to Gary Numan's "Music for Chameleons" which reminded me of Karn's bass playing), so I can't expand the article more. I assume fans will have access to old reviews and so on to substantiate the "critical success" claims. --ajn (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

not New Romantics

Japan were not New Romantics nor were they ever part of the New Romantic scene. The band have refuted this assertion on many occasions, despite having the label dumped on them because they wore make-up and used synthesisers. There is even a sourced quote in this article from Sylvian himself from 1981 in which he flatly denied they had any association with it, stating it was a misconception due to trends at the time. The New Romantic movement was a nightclub scene started by Steve Strange et al at clubs such as Billy's and the Blitz. It was characterised by the "weird and wonderful" as club-goers would dress up flamboyantly, often adopting styles from the European romantic period (hence the name). Bands that rose from that scene included Visage, Spandau Ballet and Duran Duran, whose early looks were very much based on the New Romantic scene. But bands from the late 70s/early 80s that wore make-up and used synths were not New Romantics by default, nor is "New Romanticism" a genre of music. Japan had always worn make-up, years before the New Romantic movement even happened. Kookoo Star (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The make-up and clothes relate more to their glam roots.- MrX 03:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a common misconception because the press would label any early 80s band that wore make-up and used synthesizers as "new romantic" and so obviously the mistake filtered out into the public, even to this day. Japan, Soft Cell, The Human League, ABC, Heaven 17, Talk Talk....all bands that were mistakenly labelled as new romantics and all of whom totally denied they were anything to do with that scene. Dave Ball of Soft Cell probably said it best when he said "At the time (1981) we were linked to the whole New Romantics thing, but we were never a part of that. It was just a trendy London club thing with Steve Strange." I'm not even sure I'd call the New Romantic scene a "movement", it was more of a fad. By the end of 1981 it was over and the bands that had adopted that style of dress started wearing Antony Price suits instead. 88.104.24.6 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

These labels are entirely a matter of perception, so it is inappropriate to "rule" on them in Wikipedia article. This one correctly mentions that the band rejected the label. Mezigue (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have copy edited the material out of the lead entirely. It doesn't really belong in the there anyway in my opinion. If that is not acceptable, then I think we need to come to some consensus here about what adjective we should use (often, mistakenly, erroneously), or whether we should omit it. The edit warring of the past few days is not desirable.- MrX 10:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved! Mezigue (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It had crept in again so I removed it again. It's explained quite well in the article anyway, it doesn't need to be in the lead. 79.73.7.118 (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japan (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304083400/http://norwegiancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Japan to http://norwegiancharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Japan
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)