Talk:Post-noise: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, 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)[reply]