I recently came across a video on Youtube titled “This Trend is RUINING Shoegaze” by a Youtuber named Iconix. In this video they diagnose a systemic issue in the newer wave of shoegaze which has been bubbling up in the early 2020’s. Highlighting artists like Wisp, Whatsaheart and Novulent, Iconix claims that there is an issue of authenticity in the music being made by the forerunners of this new group of musicians (Iconix, 2025). The premise of this video is not only detrimental to the ways we view music creation in 2026 but also harmful to fostering music scenes that seek to experiment. Shoegaze is a genre of music which began in the late 80’s and early 90’s in the UK which maintains a core group of artists alongside continued interest and development over the past 30+ years. It is defined by its airy vocals and droning, distorted, heavy guitars (Jenkins, 2021; & The Yellow Button, 2024).
In Iconix’s video he mentions an interesting argument on authenticity and how our increased accessibility to music has manifested over the past 30 years. Iconix criticizes up and coming artists who have utilized non-traditional methods of music creation within the scene. He labels these artists as not ‘authentic’ or making music that isn’t “real”, while reinforcing hierarchical ideas about forerunners and experimentation within music in how it translates to value (Iconix, 2025). Iconix therefore presents himself as a ‘gatekeeper’ of the scene, ruling on how it should be structured, and which artists should we value and disvalue. I will be responding to Iconix’s video and arguing against the ideas he presented, focusing on the ideas rather than the non-relevant jokes and rants which exist within it.
To give this some semblance of structure, I have organised this into three jumping off points: Sampling and Production, Authenticity and Aesthetics, and the Hierarchical Nature of Scenes. Sampling and Production will be focusing on the methods and means at which up-and-coming artists within shoegaze are utilizing to make music. Authenticity and Aesthetics will be a focus on the value judgements we make on experimentation in music and enforcing hierarchies in which progenitors of music scenes are valued over those following the sonic signifiers of a genre. Lastly, Hierarchical Nature of Scenes will be a summary of the impact of what Iconix’s view point has on upcoming artists and experimentation in the way we structure music scenes, especially in the digital age.
Sampling and Production: All or Nothing“[Your Face by Wisp] has that kind of magic that makes it feel raw, authentic and real, but what if I told you none of it was real…Wisp didn’t make the song, a guy named Greyskies did... Almost every modern shoegaze artist at one point or another had Greyskies produce one of their songs."
- Iconix on Wisp’s “Your Face"
Iconix’s core complaint of modern shoegaze artists is their use of producers which renders the songs created as 'not original'. Greyskies is a producer who makes instrumental tracks which he shares on Youtube, one of which was used on Wisp’s “Your Face” and she is open about whenever she discusses the song (Iconix, 2025). Having a vocalist utilize tracks made by other artists is in no way a new concept, dating back to the late 1970’s with the foundation of Rap music and is a main feature of most modern pop and rap. I find it interesting to arbitrarily draw a genre line in the sand because shoegaze hasn’t traditionally had a producer-singer dynamic involved in its creation. Wisp's use of Greyskies' instrumental being considered "not real” or “inauthentic” is to completely devalue her power and skill as a vocalist and lyricist. To wipe away her misty and dreamy vocals due to her not creating every facet of the song is a low blow and high bar to set for all future artists within music.
As an example, if we were to hold other artists to a similar standard, such as Kendrick Lamar or Charli XCX, then we would have to consider 'To Pimp a Butterfly' and 'Pop 2' as fundamentally “inauthentic albums” (Lamar, 2015; Atkinson, 2017). Except of course, this is not the case, as 'To Pimp a Butterfly' is considered one of the best albums of all time, and it is all to the credit of the producers on the album and Kendrick Lamar. I firmly disagree with the idea that to engage with one part of the process is of less value than the contributions of someone who does it all themselves. I also fail to see the difference between Wisp contributing lyrics to a Greyskies track and Wisp providing vocals for a band she were apart of. If there is a difference then my apologies to Robert Plant, Jim Morrison and Ozzy Osbourne, but you frankly should go back to the drawing board to refine your craft because you’re coming off as a ‘poser' chasing an ‘aesthetic'.
To use an example from the shoegaze genre, are we to consider Debbie Googe and Colm Ó Ciosóig of little value to Loveless’s production because Shields and Butcher took a creative lead? Nevermind the fact that Wisp’s Natalie Lu is labelled as a producer on her ‘Pandora' EP, but her consideration of the lyrical and artistic direction of the art she makes is of immense value to the overall product (Wisp, 2024).
Overall, I found this claim intensely frustrating, not only because of the previous point but because what does it say of an artist who wanted to create and is instantly critiqued for her inauthenticity? Existing in the 2020’s is to live during an era where our access to listening, making and sharing is greater than it has ever been before. Natalie Lu notes that her love of music drove her to become a “active participant” in it’s creation, an experience I’m sure is not uncommon (Gardner, Moore, Adorney, & Soki-Kavwahirehi, 2023). Having played guitar for the three years prior, she instead found an instrumental online and found it as a layout for her to express herself musically. If this had been the story decades prior she would’ve written and played the song while she became comfortable expressing herself musically, however instead and luckily the song received the praise it deserved, becoming a viral hit.
In 2026, it has become much easier to have access art in all it’s forms, with distribution companies and online music streaming increasing access by leaps and bounds. This increased accessibility is only to our benefit especially for artists just starting out, but it is just as unfair to vilify newer artists based on their means and methods for engaging with artistry. As an example, one of the artists Iconix notes as exhibiting this inauthenticity, Whatsaheart, commented on Iconix’s video saying the following:
"Actually, I have been producing my own music in the studio these days! When i started off i was dirt poor, all i had was an old playstation headset and a dinky android phone so i made the most with what i had! I made the music i could at the time all on my android phone with bandlab and my headset :) I encourage anyone else that wants to start out to not let anything stop them from having fun with music ” (Whatsaheart, 2025)
Whatsaheart’s experience is not isolated, and is in fact the place at which most begin in 2026. Am I the only one whose first experiences writing lyrics was over a cover of Courtney Barnett’s ’Small Poppies’? Something I enjoy the most about the start of an artist’s carreer is their inability to not wear their influences on their sleeve, some great examples are Underscore’s U or Snail Mail’s Lush (Underscores, 2026; Snail Mail, 2018). If Lu wore her influences a lot more directly by utilizing the instrumental of another artist, are we next to de-mean Ethel Cain’s 'Dustbowl' for it’s interpolation of Duster’s ‘Stars Will Fall’?
Fundamentally, I do not believe it is wrong to have instrumentals or tracks produced by other artists, highlighted especially in the rap and pop genres. It is also crucial to not criticize an artist for the open access we currently have to music creation and distribution. However, that is not the only point Iconix levies against artist like Wisp and Novulent.
Authenticity and Aesthetics: They Were Making a Whole Genre
As a way to paint newer shoegaze acts on the lesser end of a scale of authenticity, Iconix says the following:
“Back in the 90’s and the early 2000’s, Shoegaze was defined by how innovative it was. Bands like My Bloody Valentine and Slowdive weren’t just making music, they were making an entire genre… On the other hand, modern shoegaze, especially in the online underground, seems to recycle the same sound over and over again. Artist seem to chase a sound rather than a vision and it’s making the genre sound very homogenous. Shoegaze now instead of innovating itself seems to try to appeal to an audience and aestheticize itself."
-Iconix on Modern Shoegaze
Broadly speaking my critique of Iconix’s point here can be divided into two sections: 1.) The lines we draw around genres are as it stands blurry at best and how exactly does one ‘make’ a genre. 2.) In the understanding that modern shoegaze artists are appealing to a ’shoegaze audience’ what impact does this have on the overall quality of their work?
To paint early shoegaze founders as setting out to make “a whole genre” is laughable, but also completely incoherent in its understanding of how music is made. The fable of the creation of Loveless and inception of shoegaze has been grossly exaggerated due to a consumer’s desire to create separation and pedestals between us and artists who experiment within genres. To discredit the influence bands like the Jesus and Mary Chain, Siouxsie and the Banshees and A.R. Kane from the influence they not only had on My Bloody Valentine but shoegazes inception is a method to idolize and deify musicians that made a powerful piece of art. Iconix’s goal is to further canonize a story around artists creating “a genre”. Our understanding of these strict categories that define music only further allow the aestheticization of the genre which Iconix rails against in this video. On this deification of artists this quote from Susan Sontag articulates it well saying:
“Usually critics who want to praise a work of art feel compelled to demonstrate that each part is justified, that it could not be other than it is. And every artist, when it comes to his own work, remembering the role of chance, fatigue, external distractions, knows what the critic says to be a lie, knows that it could well have been otherwise. The sense of inevitability that a great work of art projects is not made up of the inevitability or necessity of its parts, but of the whole"
This is from Susan Sontag’s 1965 essay “On Style” in which she discusses the dichotomy present in art criticism between Style (or genre) and content (the substance of a work of art). Sontag presents the idea that works of art pertaining to certain styles are devalued over ‘original, authentic’ content. Sontag in this passage is noting the myth of intentionality in art and the canonizing of the artistic condition into something with deep intent. Iconix persists this myth in his citing of groups like My Bloody Valentine as being intentional with their art as opposed to artists like Whatsaheart.
As someone who would consider herself a fan of shoegaze, I think we need to be frank about this “rigidity” of what shoegaze is. If you were to listen to Ride’s “Nowhere” and My Bloody Valentines “Loveless”, you would be hard pressed to find such a similiarity in sound to define it as “a singular genre”. A push to a more superfluous understanding of genre both benefits music listeners going forward, approaching a vastly and righteously oversaturated market of options, and also prevents this deification of which artist deserves the most credit.
But what does it mean to make a genre, who sets out to wholly build walls from their influences into a brand new space. Debussy, historically considered a prototypical Impressionist composer, denied his affiliation to this aspiring genre of classical music. This is something music publication have a field day with in the advent of what I would call “the second wave of hyperpop”, including artists like Underscores, Jane Remover, and Umru who all refute the alllignment with the genre of Hyperpop. Is it that these artists are ignorant of the genre of their own art? Or is it more realistically that genre exists in a nebulous space that is all influenced by each other. What is ‘homogeneous' of the breakcore influences of TAGABOW’s 2022 album “s” or the electronic drones of Quannic's 2022 album “kenopsia”. This is much akin to what Walt Whitman said in his preface to 1855 release of 'Leaves of Grass’, where he says :
“The greatest poet has less a marked style and is more the free channel of himself, he says to his art, I will not be meddlesome, I will not have in my writing any elegance or effect or originality to hang in the way between me and the rest like curtains. I will have nothing hang in the way, not the richest curtains. What I tell I tell for precisely what it is”.
This may very well be the experience of artists, influence and style may not ‘feel’ like it has an effect on art creation but that is because it is very rarely a conscious effort. In most people’s art creation, there is rarely the intent of hanging ‘curtains’ to influence the creation of art, but whether we hangs the curtains or not, they still hang up for our view is influenced by the house we built ourselves. I think Whitman himself admits this when he uses the word ‘originality’ specifically, hinting that as much as we may not strive for influenced art, we also do not strive for intentionally unique art as well. Of course, I do mean in the broader sense rather than as a totality of artistic experience.
Most bands (except maybe the Shaggs) don’t make music in a vacuum without influence. How different a band's approach from conventional methods is irrelevant to the fact that they were influenced by other music, other scenes. Many shoegaze and noise rock bands were influenced by the post-punk era in their inception (see Yo La Tengo, My Bloody Valentine and Sonic Youth) though the through line might not be clear to us it was clearly influential in developing the genre as a whole. In the inception of music genres or scenes, there is usually the use of different methods of creation or fusing different art approaches and concepts together. As an example, Wassily Kandinsky was greatly influenced by Monet’s impressionistic use of colours to convey emotions in art. This would later be foundational to Kandinsky’s approach of abstract art focused on the forms of color. However in the creation of this different approach or method we are led to the creation of a loose ‘rule set’ of how to make art within the genre, thus creating sonic signifiers of the style. For example see The Yellow Button’s definition of shoegaze, loose however detailed in the type of music it encompasses:
“[To] easily put it, it’s just kind of a wall of sound and very fuzzy, distorted guitars and I know there’s a lot of bands and artists out there who have that sound but I think with shoegaze it sounds a little bit more dark compared to dream pop where it’s more ethereal and light and just like very atmospheric as shoegaze is more gritty, buzzy, dark just like lots of guitar distortion hitting you in the face."
Note how this loose rule set still would encompass previously mentioned bands such as Quannic and TAGABOW, remaining inclusive to the experimentation within it’s reach. This can also tie into culture and create social signifiers (see the ‘Hot Topic’ style for pop-punk/emo in the early 2000’s, leather jackets and Mohawks for the punk movement etc.). It is fair to say that there have become clear social signifiers for shoegaze, which Iconix would argue has gone so broad as to lose it’s significance. However, I would argue that people are too quick to devalue art made within certain types of styles or those which engage with more specific intent to replicate the social and sonic signifiers. In the opening pages of the Susan Sontag’s previously mentioned essay “On Style”, she says the following:
“It would be hard to find any reputable literary critic today who would care to be caught defending as an idea the old antithesis of style versus content… In the practice of critcism, though, the old antithesis lives on, virtually unassailed. Most of the same critics who disclaim, in passing, the notion that style is an accessory to content maintain the duality whenever they apply themselves to particular works of [Art]."
Under this circumstance, it’s clear we can consider Iconix to not be a ‘reputable critic’ as he unabashedly maintains this distinction between content and style. There is an inherent devaluing of modern shoegaze acts because they are trying to “appeal to an audience”. It’s disingenuous to paint ‘progenitors’ of shoegaze as existing without the appeal to audiences, as if to disregard the Thames Valley scene which came up around these bands. To conform to a style is not to devalue the content of your art but instead to speak the sonic signifiers of the music you’d like to embody. It’s not that Wisp or Novulent is note for note copying shoegaze founders as there is quite a sonic gap between shoegaze artists past and present. Instead, by emobdying the sonic methods of creating music, mixed among their own unique influences, they have shifted the envelope of what is deemed shoegaze. Wisp’s music fits The Yellow Button's definition of shoegaze just as well as Ride does. However, Iconix would embody what Susan Sontag would consider a apprehension to style:
“Inevitably, critics who regard works of art as statements will be wary of 'style', even as they pay lip service to ‘imagination’. All that imagination really means for them, anyway, is the supersensitive rendering of ‘reality’."
In Iconix’s own scripting of My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive and Ride as being intentional of their creation of a genre for only themselves, he lend himself to the power behind the ’Shoegaze’ sonic and social norms which Iconix becomes later frustrated with. According to Iconix, modern shoegaze artist aren’t all individually making music which rings true for them, it is that certain exceptions are 'good artists’ despite the state of the shoegaze style currently. A majority of modern shoegaze genre is ‘insincere’ or “inauthentic” who cannot accurately represent their art in an authentic matter.
“One way in which the old duality [between Style and Content] lives on in the practice of criticism, in concrete judgements, is the frequency with which quite admirable works of art are defended as good although what is mis-called their style is acknowledged to be crude and careless… Still, it is clear that such a style is often felt to be a form of insincerity: evidence of the artist’s intrusion upon his materials, which should be allowed to deliver themselves in a pure state.”
Iconix’s point other than being wrong does pose an interesting question regarding the intrinsic value of art devoid of experimentation. This is a question I’ve been contemplating for a long time, which started with the slating of Greta Van Fleet’s album at the height of their virality in 2018. Greta Van Fleet, a band who like others wear their influences on their sleeve (if more directly), was painted as making clear-cut 70’s hard rock music. I was quite shocked at critics reception of them, not because I am a die-hard fan of their music (I am most certainly not), but because of it's labelling as inauthentic, unoriginal or critically poorly received. Even more interestingly, many critics noted enjoying several tracks of theirs but not the overall product because of the heavy inspiration. To follow a rule-set of what has come before you is not to give up on the creative process but to use as Sontag would call it a “set of rules by which this game is played”. In Matt Miller’s 2019 Esquire Article titled “I Feel Bad for Greta Van Fleet”, he defends Greta Van Fleet for their formulaic following of their inspirations as being a crucial part of the artistic process. Speaking on the impulse to “rip-off” Led Zeppelin when you start playing music, Miller says:
"Why did we love playing Zeppelin music so much? Well, it was fun, and we didn’t know any better. Eventually, as we were expanded our music tastes, we moved on to ripping off Radiohead and The National like respectable adults. But up until that point, if someone had handed us a major label offer, we would have gladly taken the money and become whatever rock throwback act the music execs wanted."
Parallel this experience with the idea that Wisp’s first song she had ever released became a viral hit instantly. I think important to discuss in the conversation, especially pertaining to shoegaze, is noting when in an artists career experimentation usually takes place. It is very rare that artists start off writing their first song rich with it’s unparalleled uniqueness. My Bloody Valentine, as an example, were a band for five years prior to the release of ‘Isn’t Anything’ let alone ‘Loveless’. The singer and drummer of the group started off in a band playing covers of punk songs and later followed up by writing songs with then-current genres such as gothic rock and post-punk. Where does experimentation stem from? Is it something expected instantaneously or something broached after experience and developing a taste in music. As Miller notes later in the article:
"The only thing Greta Van Fleet is guilty of is flippantly broadcasting a naive sort of uncoolness because they don’t know any better. Do they see the irony in lifting from a band that is known for stealing the ideas of black blues musicians?"
If genre is a nebulous concept, bleeding into each other more than any doctor would permit, we should see not see innovation as something that some people have and others don’t but a linear progression of new rules developed through a heightened level of skill and taste.
From the other perspective, to see art as lesser than because it’s lack of experimentation plays into a dichotomy of artistic sensibilities that Mierle Laderman Ukeles called the Life and Death Instinct. To briefly describe, Ukeles described the Life instinct focused on the drive to maintain, return and nurture that which is already present. This is paralleled by the Death instinct focused on innovation, the creative and the new. The artistic drive is always painted as the Death Instinct, constant innovation, but as Ukeles tried to exhibit in her Maintenance Art, what about the art which bridges the gap between striking out and looking after what you have around you. In her art piece called Maintenance Art, she did just that, maintaining and taking care of the exhibit around her. However in a more theoretical sense embodying the life instinct in your art is to uphold previously wriitten artistic rulesets and values incorporating your audience into your work. We are to believe that because Wisp (and Grayskies by proxy) used a ruleset written by bands of the past that their art is of less value. Sontag states that the only way to render this dichotomy obsolete would be through changing your perspective of style versus content (can be worded as genre vs. experimentation or as Iconix would consider it making a genre vs. making for an audience). This can be done by refocusing our view away from the dichotomy presented to us and judging artistic intent by their understanding of will: what does the artist wish to express and what rules do they wish to accomplish this by. Utilizing this new view will therefore deprioritize the hierarchy of which art is “more authentic”. So utilizing the core example of this essay, it is not that Wisp is “inauthentic” in her use of a producer and engaging with shoegaze sonic signifiers. Instead, Wisp is using her artistic will to write lyrics within the rule set of shoegaze stylings utilizing the methodology of previously produced instrumental.
“The argument will never be complete until ‘form’ or ’style’ [or genre] can be thought of without that banished specter, without a feeling of loss."
- Susan Sontag from "On Style"
Hierarchy of Scenes: A Scene that celebrates Itself
What does it mean to make a scene, and where do critics sit as far as judging the development of genres. It would be just so easy to wave away critics in the Charli XCX fashion of saying that “they don’t build statues of critics”. However, clearly an issue of judging what is and isn’t of quality and within the lines of a genre has grown into something of systemic issue in scenes. Who among us hasn’t encountered Iconix’s argument before: that this genre ‘used to be good’ but is now ruined by bad actors who don’t ‘understand as much as we do’? This is a mindset built on bitterness, something we are all susceptible to but in practice it’s important for the sake of developing a scene, that we de-prioritize these emotions when they come up. If you don’t enjoy the music that is well within your rights, but that is not what Iconix is doing. Notably, he states how much he enjoyed Wisp’s 'Your Face’ and featured clips of other reviewers praising the track (some even specifically noting the power of Lu’s voice). In the clips where he complains of the term ’shoegaze’ being watered down, exhibiting clips from TikTok of people calling things shoegaze, not only does he show his inability to sense a joke but he positions himself as a 'true fan'. To see ineptness and feel a sense of superiority I don’t think is an uncommon feeling, but one that should be generally frowned upon expressing in most social spaces. In this instance, I feel it exhibits a need to prove yourself as 'one of the good ones’. How do we cultivate scenes, I know for certain it is not by judging the means at which new artists find their feet musically. In a reply to Whatsaheart’s comment previously mentioned one user says "There is nothing wrong with using what you have at your disposal when you are doing it out of love and passion for the craft.” However, under the assumption that this is someone who agrees with Iconix, what do we define as a love and passion for the craft. Why would we not assume that anyone who uses their free time to create and develop a vocal melody over an instrumental they like is approaching this from “love and passion for the craft”. This is no reality a good way for a scene to function, off of suspicion and scrutiny. The Thames Valley scene that a lot of shoegaze progenitors came from in the early 90’s was often called “the Scene that Celebrates itself”. This was due to how bands in the area supported each other and were often found at each other’s gigs. That was not a scene built on hierarchy and competition but of genuine admiration of community and mutual support. I mention this because it is emblematic of the kind of environment where creativity flourishes; that which is welcoming and supportive.
I’ve been lucky enough to see plenty of bands perform their first gig, and a lot of the time you watch and see artists struggling to articulate themselves, not only in front of an audience but also from a skill level perspective. There is a quote that has stuck with me from the film ‘20th Century Woman’ regarding ineptitude in art in relation to “love and passion for the craft”. In this scene, one of the characters Dorothea listens to punk music and says “… so they are not very good, and they know that right?” to which another character, Abby says the following:
“It’s like they’ve got all this, this feeling and they don’t have any skill, and they don’t want skill because it’s really interesting what happens when your passion is bigger than the tools you have to deal with it."
An artist in their nascent creative energy is actually something that I feel is really fun to watch, despite their naiveté about what they are doing. We should strive to not add hierarchies and to label that newcomers on the scene are lesser than for their clear influence by other artists but aim to nurture and support them to create a better environment for everyone. To fail is to learn, and I believe a creative space where failing is normalized is a scene which is unafraid to articulate themselves and certainly one more open to experimentation. I am apart of a local art zine in Oxford called the Cowley Rag with a premise of “making bad art for the community”. This can on occasion be in a genuine interest in seeing bad art, but mostly it stems from being sick of the many superficial barriers which block people from expressing themselves creatively. This is both internal and external, self-doubt and consciousness or inaccessibility to allow others to see their art. To be honest, I would therefore applaud Wisp, Whatsaheart and Novulent because they confidently put themselves out there, and as a plus make great music.
Though Iconix in the description of the video adds disclaimers trying to undo the tone they presented in the video, they are discordant from everything that came before it. Which is that of chastising budding musicians for not doing it the way he would like. It doesn’t meet artists where they’re at instead they must meet the audience right where they stand with no amends for, truthfully, how the artists would like to authentically articulate themselves. Especially when our accessibility to music is massively increased and in a digital medium where building scenes is that much different, we should still strive to nurture and support artists as anyone who creates I’m sure has love and passion for what they do.
References
Atkinson, C. (2017). Pop 2 [Mixtape]. Asylum Records.
Fantano, & The Yellow Button. (2024, May 28). This Video is about Shoegaze [Video]. Youtube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIsn27KOpD0&t=305s
Gardner, A., Moore, J., Adorney, S., Ong, P., & Soki-Kavwahirehi, O. (2023, September 27). Best New Artists. Complex Magazine. https://web.archive.org/web/20230928233614/https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/a/alex-gardner/best-new-artists-september-2023
Iconix. (2025, May 8). This Trend is RUINING Shoegaze [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIupGqgusk4
Jenkins, J. (2021, October 28). Glorious Noise: The History of Shoegaze. Sweetwater. https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/the-history-of-shoegaze/
Lamar, K. (2015). To Pimp a Butterfly [Album]. Top Dawg Entertainment, Aftermath Entertainment & Interscope Records.
McMahon, J. (2024, February 23). The Resonant Impact Of Pop Punk Music On Our Culture. Substream Magazine. https://substreammagazine.com/2024/02/the-resonant-impact-of-pop-punk-music-on-our-culture/
Miller, M. (2019, February 2). I Feel Bad for Greta Van Fleet. Esquire. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a24125310/who-is-greta-van-fleet/
Mills, M. (Director). (2016). 20th Century Women [Film]. Annapurna Pictures.
My Bloody Valentine. (1991). Loveless [Album]. Creation Records.
Pitchfork. (2016, October 25). Rip It to Shreds: A History of Punk and Style. Pitchfork. https://pitchfork.com/features/from-our-partners/9943-rip-it-to-shreds-a-history-of-punk-and-style/
Ride. (1990). Nowhere [Album]. Creation Records.
Snail Mail. (2018). Lush [Album]. Matador Records.
Sontag, S. (1965). On Style. In S. Sontag (Ed.), Against Interpretation (pp. 15-36). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Ukeles, M.L. (1969). Manifesto for Maintenance Art 1969!
Underscores. (2026). U [Album]. Mom + Pop Music.
Whatsaheart [Comment}.In This Trend is RUINING Shoegaze [Video]. Iconix (2025). Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIupGqgusk4
Whitman, W. (1855). Leaves of Grass. James and Andrew Rome.
Wilson, M. (2007, February 11). My Bloody Valentine: Kevin Shields Sets the “Loveless” Record Straight. Magnet Magazine. https://magnetmagazine.com/2007/02/11/my-bloody-valentine-kevin-shields-sets-the-loveless-record-straight/
Wisp. (2023). Your Face
[Song]. On Pandora [EP]. Music Soup & Interscope Records.Wisp. (2024). Pandora [EP]. Music Soup & Interscope Records.