This seems reasonable but I wonder how much I actually agree with Douglas Wolk’s Village Voice analysis of what we might have called, if someone hadn’t thought of this a few years ago, the new wave of new wave. Wolk says that he ‘can’t help noticing that I like some of these bands less on their own merits than because they remind me of music I already liked’: which seems fair enough. But: a) this stuff, reissues and new material is all new(s) to me; b) there is no such thing as repetition. Rather than approach events in terms of what they remind us of, shouldn’t we assess them in terms of what seems new about them?