Talk:Post-noise

There seem to be two main definitions for post-noise. One is the American post-noise underground or post-noise psychedelia scene from the 2000s that’s connected to hypnagogic pop (which this page focuses on). The other is a style of noise music that seems to have been more common in the UK and mixes extreme noise with influences from post-rock and ambient music, and doesn’t really have anything to do with the first scene.

I’m just putting this out there in case people come across sources that are actually referring to the other style when editing this article. I’m not sure if it makes sense to outline this as a disclaimer on the page yet, since I haven’t found any sources that clearly point out the difference. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Sounds of the Underground by Stephen Graham was used to back up claims that post-noise and hypnagogic pop were used interchangeably. I removed the citations because the source does not make such a claim - nor does it itself use the terms interchangeably (statements scattered throughout the book such as 'Limitations of space mean that I also don’t discuss fringe pop and post-noise musics such as hauntology, hypnagogic pop, experimental techno, and so on ...' and 'Noise might reasonably be understood to include everything from power electronics (PE) to industrial, some forms of free music, post-noise genres such as hauntology and hypnagogic pop ...' demonstrate that Graham does not consider the terms to be interchangeable, and sees hypnagogic pop as a kind of subgenre of post-noise).

Another, similar claim has now been readded ('Additionally, the terms "post-noise", "glo-fi", "chillwave" and "hypnagogic pop" would briefly be used interchangeably at different points before their styles perceptibly narrowed') again citing the Graham source, on the basis that 'page 186 of the Graham book says "post-noise e.g hypnagogic pop"' but 'e.g.' simply means 'for example,' suggesting that for Graham hypnagogic pop is an example of post-noise, and once again he is not using them as equivalent terms. The Graham source should not be used to back up this claim. --Echoedits67 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, I had removed the following source (https://www.journalofmusic.com/discover/john-maus-his-audacious-younger-self) as a citation for the claim that post-noise and hypnagogic pop have been used interchangeably, because it also makes no such claim, nor is it a demonstration of the interchangeability of the terms. The source merely states that 'this interview with post-Noise pop artist John Maus is, as ever wih Maus’ erudite and analytic self, a highly interesting affair' and that's the only place it uses the term post-noise. It does not use the term hypnagogic pop.

But now the source has immediately been added back. This source does not support the claim being made and should likewise be removed here. --Echoedits67 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, the remaining three sources (NME and the two Quietus links) do not mention post-noise in the first place; I don't see how they can act as evidence that 'the terms "post-noise", "glo-fi", "chillwave" and "hypnagogic pop" would briefly be used interchangeably at different points before their styles perceptibly narrowed'? As it stands, the claim is not backed up.

According to Wikipedia:NOR, 'The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable, in the sense that it must be possible for an editor to find a reliable, published source that directly supports this material.' Therefore, if the claim 'the terms "post-noise", "glo-fi", "chillwave" and "hypnagogic pop" would briefly be used interchangeably at different points before their styles perceptibly narrowed' is made, a citation needs to be provided directly stating the same. None of the citations given do that, so at least one should be provided, or the claim should be removed. --Echoedits67 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The statements you have brought to attention here have been removed. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Added original research template. See comments I've made in edits and above on the talk page; the article contains numerous 1) uncited statements and 2) statements for which citations are provided, but the citations do not support the statements. WP:NOR states 'To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.' Echoedits67 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Uncited statements have been removed and the interchangeable line is removed. At the moment I'm trimming anything out that is marked as uncited. So there is no reason for an original research banner if there's no original research. 90% of the information is supported here besides whatever other editors have added which I haven't checked yet Aradicus77 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hauntology predates post-noise. Boards of Canada is cited as presaging the hauntology music movement and their releases stem from the 1990s https://pitchfork.com/features/article/why-boards-of-canadas-music-has-the-right-to-children-is-the-greatest-psychedelic-album-of-the-90s/ Aradicus77 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. But Stephen Graham seems to be the only person who talks about post-noise in more depth, so if he considers hauntology a post-noise genre it seems to make sense to follow him. He calls post-noise a twenty-first century genre but to be fair not that it originated then. It might then make sense to remove the date of origin from the infobox unless it's well-sourced somewhere else. --Echoedits67 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there were any post-noise releases before the 2000s. It basically started with the Skaters. I’m not sure who else would’ve been doing it before then, and if they were, it probably would’ve been more hauntology-type stuff. Post-noise is a specific American West Coast outgrowth of the noise scene that starts mixing in new age and what would later become hypnagogic pop.

If Graham says “21st century,” then the 2000s should be fine, since he wrote that book in 2016 and the 21st century had started the previous decade. So I’m re-adding that to the infobox. Not everything has to be explicitly stated in sources as “this started in the 2000s” because you can infer it from him calling it a 21st-century genre, plus the fact that the early groups cited in the article are from the 2000s. It couldn’t have emerged in the 2010s at the time he was writing, because those bands already had releases before then and David Keenan referred to the “post-noise” scene in 2009. So if it’s a 21st-century genre, then it started in the 2000s. See WP:COMMONSENSE Aradicus77 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It basically started with the Skaters. ... Post-noise is a specific American West Coast outgrowth of the noise scene that starts mixing in new age and what would later become hypnagogic pop.

Trouble is this is more your personal understanding than what Keenan and Graham (the person who popularised the term and the only person who's written more than one or two sentences about it) say post-noise is. What follows is merely my interpretation

For Keenan "post-Noise" seems to be a descriptor for hypnagogic pop (hence why "Noise" is capitalised - it's literally something after Noise, "post-Noise" here is an adjective not a noun). Hypnagogic pop comes after noise but retains some similarities with the genre, so it's a post-Noise genre.

Graham explicitly explains what he thinks post-noise is. It's to noise music what Reynolds' "post-rock" is to rock music. It develops out of noise music but in some way transcends it. To me, clearly building off of Keenan's idea and trying to turn it into an actual genre. Though this doesn't seem to have caught on.

This is pretty much all we have to go off. Your definition, "specific American West Coast outgrowth ..." is something completely different and it's not in either of these sources. I'm aware some people nowadays use the term that way but "some people use it like that' is hardly a solid basis for a Wiki article. Echoedits67 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Relevant quotes:

Noise might reasonably be understood to include everything from power electronics (PE) to industrial, some forms of free music, post-noise genres such as hauntology and hypnagogic pop, DIY, avant-rock, and more.

(p. 170)

Post-noise, I suggest, performs a related invigoration of noise technique, breaking apart its orthodoxies and inserting newer influences and references from popular culture alongside dyschronic affects (as in hauntology, particularly) and subliminal modalities (more on this later), both functioning as vital new elements of the music’s expression.

p. 185

“post-noise” refers to twenty-first-century music building off the viscous sounds, loose gestures, and anti-mainstream contexts of noise, while adding pop influences and even some commercial appeal (see chap. 9)

p. 8 --Echoedits67 (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced information should not be added. Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.

Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three.

Examples of unsourced claims added recently:

cultural_origins set to 2000s, United States

Post-noise (also known as post-noise psychedelia or post-noise pop) is a microgenre and music scene that emerged in the early 2000s Echoedits67 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE u digging in me 😂😂😂. Like I said not everything has to be explicitly said, it can be inferred very easily that the writer is referring to the 2000s. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE also says:

• "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia (see also Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the policy on original research, do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, or coining new words. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.

---

If no source states anything close to "post-noise emerged in the United States in the 2000s" don't state it. Echoedits67 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm just citing what the site says, WP:COMMONSENSE states you sometimes will infer stuff. That is not really original research. It's not like I'm saying post-noise was invented by this group of people or making this big long made up scribe. The source itself calls it a "twenty first century genre" what else does that mean but 2000s. the only other decades you got is 2010s and 2020s and obviously it didn't start then given the artists mentioned in the body. That's not original research it's WP:COMMONSENSE but we can tag a third opinion if you want User:BinksternetAradicus77 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay great.

The source itself calls it a "twenty first century genre" what else does that mean but 2000s. the only other decades you got is 2010s and 2020s and obviously it didn't start then given the artists mentioned in the body.

But it being a twenty first century genre does not necessarily preclude it from having its origins earlier. Hauntology can be called a "twenty first century genre" but have its cultural origins earlier, you yourself said "Boards of Canada is cited as presaging the hauntology music movement and their releases stem from the 1990s." Hypnagogic pop is a twenty first century genre yet the earliest releases by Ariel Pink are from the 1990s.

Point is, so little has been written about post-noise in-depth that some of the information about it is just not out there (yet). Imo it's better to just leave it out instead of trying to infer anything from vague phrases like "twenty first century genre." Echoedits67 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Your argument has some good points but we have already established there's sources that showcase hauntology acts from before the movement, the hypnagogic pop page cites it as a 2000s genre and hauntology page is also cited as a 2000s genre. You have not provided any info on an act earlier than the Skaters that has been described as "post-noise" and the Graham source specifically calls the genre a "twenty first century genre". I wouldn't mind removing any info on emergence but let's wait for a WP:THIRDOPINION. We are both just inferring very limited sources with our own perspectives at the end of the day. The thing I don't get is why do you want the page to not mention it emerging in the 2000s when all other peripheral genres of this kind did? Do you know of some early post-noise acts / tracks? Is it just because the Graham source doesn't say it explicitly? If we have ruled out that it's not a 20th century genre, all the acts started in the 2000s and its a twenty first century genre thats pretty obvious to me.

Your Ariel Pink citation is WP:OR unless you provide a source that cites those 90s albums as "hypnagogic pop". The hypnagogic pop page says its a 2000s genre. Aradicus77 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We are both just inferring very limited sources with our own perspectives at the end of the day.

I am not doing that. I'm simply paraphrasing or citing what existing sources say, which is in line with Wiki guidelines. You should not be adding your own perspective to any article.

The thing I don't get is why do you want the page to not mention it emerging in the 2000s when all other peripheral genres of this kind did? [...] Is it just because the Graham source doesn't say it explicitly?

Yes. If a reliable source doesn't say it, don't include it.

If we have ruled out that it's not a 20th century genre, all the acts started in the 2000s and its a twenty first century genre thats pretty obvious to me.

It doesn't matter what's obvious to you. Articles have to reflect previously published sources, not your opinion or interpretation. No sources state that the genre started in the 2000s, so including it in the article is WP:SYNTH, which states

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. Echoedits67 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Binksternet

Please, if you can, take a look at the other sections of this talk page as well, especially "Hauntology in infobox." The issues I've been having with this article are structural, not just specific small changes. Echoedits67 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What else is wrong with the article structurally? You are now the crux of most of the information. I didn't really revert most of your changes. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

" Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." Aradicus77 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, common sense suggests that if hauntology is a post-noise genre, post-noise did not in fact originate in the United States in the 2000s. Echoedits67 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll add UK but I feel that's a mistake on that writers part, there's no other extensive source atm so that's all we can go off of. Hauntology pretty much predates all the hypnagogic, post-noise... etc. stuff. It's the start of it. To add on even when saying this the hauntology page cites that genre as starting in the 2000s and the hypnagogic pop page cites that as the 2000s as well. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as souces. Wikipedia:Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia

Even if the sources being cited were valid, that still falls under WP:SYNTH.

If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.

a) Graham saying post-noise encompasses h-pop and hauntology [claim A] and b) another reliable source saying h-pop and hauntology started in such and such places at such and such time [claim B] does not allow for synthesis of the two sources' claims into a conclusion like "post-noise started at such and such time and place" [claim C]. That falls under WP:OR. Echoedits67 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want to edit the cultural origins section go ahead. I won't add "Twenty-first century" because the source never explicitly states that the genre began in the twenty first century. It says " “post-noise” refers to twenty-first-century music building off the viscous sounds, loose gestures, and anti-mainstream contexts of noise".

I'm not sure what to put in that section when there's no explicit source on cultural origins. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I've removed what it said, but the cultural origins field of the music genre infobox is required, so I don't know if the entire infobox needs to be removed? Echoedits67 (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)