This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Art punk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I completely agree with their inclusion, is the any reason for their name to be written in Cyrillic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.200.84 ( talk) 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I find it very much appropriate and I am going to go ahead and add them. 72.191.174.31 ( talk) 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that some merger take place between this article and the Art-Pop/Punk/Metal page. -- Mjspe1 12:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I definately disagree with the claim that these artists are influenced by punk but are not punk, since many of these artists are considered punk artists. Also, the definition of "influenced by punk but not punk" is also the definition of Alternative, New Wave, Post-Punk and Indie Rock.
Can someone please clean up the links on this page? At least make them alphabetical? I'm quite disposed at the moment, and don't have the time to tackle it myself. -- FACT50 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I added most of bands which had been deleted. Welsey, please do not delete them without discussing them first on Talk. I've checked on Allmusic, eMusic and Rolling Stone - if reviewers have called them art-punk, then they're included in this article. Bands can fit into more than one category.
By the way, why did you follow me here from the DR article? FilmGal 02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing the bulk of an article's content and then nominating it for speedy deletion because it lacks content is at best a disingenuous tactic. If you would like to pursue deletion of this article, please take it to articles for deletion. - EurekaLott 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
How was that disingenious? The content that was removed had been unsourced for monthes. Hoponpop69 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone put them on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.24.121 ( talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess this page is here to stay, so we should try to figure out how to make sense of it. It seems to me that "art punk" breaks down into post-punk, noise rock and dance punk, primarily. So-called " avant-punk" should definitely be merged into this page. Aryder779 ( talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that this article should be conceived as a disambiguation page, something like punk metal. In any case, I think it would be a fool's errand to try to treat "art punk" as a definable genre. I mean, Black Flag are really very arty, and in their own way so are the Ramones, and the Sex Pistols ... in the broad sense, all punk is art punk. Oi! is still art, albeit pared-down and minimal art. Aryder779 ( talk) 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As one who's been using this term for some time, I'm glad to see that it finally has what look like the beginnings of a decent Wikipedia article. Thanks to IL7Soulhunter for starting this latest incarnation. The term "art punk" has been used 1,435 times by 699 people on last.fm [1]. If that's to be taken as any kind of barometer, it's used by a certain community at least to some degree, albeit not as much as the arguably synonymous genre identifiers " post-punk" or " post-hardcore," among others. The way I use this term is essentially a catch-all for any intellectual, complex punk rock that does not conform to the more "rockist" tendencies of classic punk or hardcore punk, influenced by classic punk and/or hardcore punk though it may be. In other words, "art punk" is an umbrella term including post-punk, post-hardcore, post-punk revival, and myriad smaller movements and offshoots such as no wave. But I digress: What we need here are references to the whole art punk movement from reliable, well written sources. I'll certainly be on the lookout. - ilikeartrock —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
I agree with ilikeartrock in many ways, and share his or her appreciation for L7Soulhunter's creation of this article. Art punk is indeed a term of some currency, and one that should be addressed on Wikipedia.
With that said: It troubles me, on the grounds that *all* punk is art punk, insofar as its music, and music is art. This isn't a glib argument -- I really believe that Discharge are just as "arty" as Teenage Jesus and the Jerks, and Napalm Death is art just as Fugazi is, and so are Man Is the Bastard and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and so forth. The intent to make a division between so-called "art" bands and other groups who are making something else that's not to be called art is something of a suspect assumption. To me. Now, with that said, Wikipedia is a place for references and not for OR, so I'd be glad to help with this article (and I've already tried to provide some guidance by producing the section titles). In some ways, "art punk" is a better term than "post-punk", because post-punk includes a weird temporal indicator that's become increasingly irrelevant.
Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again is probably the most important resource for this page, in my opinion.
Aryder779 (
talk)
00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Get real. As long as articles are sourced nothing close to that situation would happen. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 01:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no proof that these are subgenres and it will stay like this until some is presented. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My only goal is to make sure the article has factual and relevant information. You are not assuming good faith at all. And if you do agree with Michig's approach why don't you actually follow it instead of reverting to the version with irrelevant genres? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
So why is the rest of the irrelevant information still in the article? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time to use some sources to improve this article. These should help:
I haven't filtered these - these are the decent-looking sources I found from a Google search. Some of them I agree with, some I don't. It doesn't matter. Art-punk is whatever reliable sources say it is, and if they say it's two different things then so should the article. There's plenty here to base an article on, and nothing that I can see to justify a redirect to art rock.-- Michig ( talk) 09:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that of the six sources currently cited in the article, three don't use the term "art punk" at all.-- Michig ( talk) 09:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah they should be removed, along with all these subgenres that have no sources claiming they actually are subgenres. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed theres still been no effort to source these genre, and if they are still unsourced after tommorow I will remove them. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 06:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wire were never Art-punk! Chairs Missing and 154 are Post-Punk classics. By the way, what's Art-Punk, it seems to me that it's the exact same thing as Post-punk, I don't know how relevant it is to call Wire or Joy Division art-punk because they're not. 186.80.249.67 ( talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a dubious source to me. It's a very brief, and opinionated article by a man who is not, as far as I am aware, a noted critic of music in general or punk in particular. Other than that, many of the listed bands are not mentioned by the source. I am going to remove the ref. from any listed band not mentioned in the article, but we should give strong consideration to whether this is a worthwhile source in the first place. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Art punk. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Art punk. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
In general post-punk is seen as rock music from the punk and new wave era that is more experimental, "cerebral" or dark than both punk and new wave and there is already an academic and journalistic literature on post-punk. For more american music along those lines there are labels which are more widespread also such as no wave and post-hardcore. I don´t see the need for this article.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Art punk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I completely agree with their inclusion, is the any reason for their name to be written in Cyrillic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.200.84 ( talk) 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I find it very much appropriate and I am going to go ahead and add them. 72.191.174.31 ( talk) 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that some merger take place between this article and the Art-Pop/Punk/Metal page. -- Mjspe1 12:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I definately disagree with the claim that these artists are influenced by punk but are not punk, since many of these artists are considered punk artists. Also, the definition of "influenced by punk but not punk" is also the definition of Alternative, New Wave, Post-Punk and Indie Rock.
Can someone please clean up the links on this page? At least make them alphabetical? I'm quite disposed at the moment, and don't have the time to tackle it myself. -- FACT50 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I added most of bands which had been deleted. Welsey, please do not delete them without discussing them first on Talk. I've checked on Allmusic, eMusic and Rolling Stone - if reviewers have called them art-punk, then they're included in this article. Bands can fit into more than one category.
By the way, why did you follow me here from the DR article? FilmGal 02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing the bulk of an article's content and then nominating it for speedy deletion because it lacks content is at best a disingenuous tactic. If you would like to pursue deletion of this article, please take it to articles for deletion. - EurekaLott 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
How was that disingenious? The content that was removed had been unsourced for monthes. Hoponpop69 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone put them on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.24.121 ( talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess this page is here to stay, so we should try to figure out how to make sense of it. It seems to me that "art punk" breaks down into post-punk, noise rock and dance punk, primarily. So-called " avant-punk" should definitely be merged into this page. Aryder779 ( talk) 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that this article should be conceived as a disambiguation page, something like punk metal. In any case, I think it would be a fool's errand to try to treat "art punk" as a definable genre. I mean, Black Flag are really very arty, and in their own way so are the Ramones, and the Sex Pistols ... in the broad sense, all punk is art punk. Oi! is still art, albeit pared-down and minimal art. Aryder779 ( talk) 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As one who's been using this term for some time, I'm glad to see that it finally has what look like the beginnings of a decent Wikipedia article. Thanks to IL7Soulhunter for starting this latest incarnation. The term "art punk" has been used 1,435 times by 699 people on last.fm [1]. If that's to be taken as any kind of barometer, it's used by a certain community at least to some degree, albeit not as much as the arguably synonymous genre identifiers " post-punk" or " post-hardcore," among others. The way I use this term is essentially a catch-all for any intellectual, complex punk rock that does not conform to the more "rockist" tendencies of classic punk or hardcore punk, influenced by classic punk and/or hardcore punk though it may be. In other words, "art punk" is an umbrella term including post-punk, post-hardcore, post-punk revival, and myriad smaller movements and offshoots such as no wave. But I digress: What we need here are references to the whole art punk movement from reliable, well written sources. I'll certainly be on the lookout. - ilikeartrock —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
I agree with ilikeartrock in many ways, and share his or her appreciation for L7Soulhunter's creation of this article. Art punk is indeed a term of some currency, and one that should be addressed on Wikipedia.
With that said: It troubles me, on the grounds that *all* punk is art punk, insofar as its music, and music is art. This isn't a glib argument -- I really believe that Discharge are just as "arty" as Teenage Jesus and the Jerks, and Napalm Death is art just as Fugazi is, and so are Man Is the Bastard and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and so forth. The intent to make a division between so-called "art" bands and other groups who are making something else that's not to be called art is something of a suspect assumption. To me. Now, with that said, Wikipedia is a place for references and not for OR, so I'd be glad to help with this article (and I've already tried to provide some guidance by producing the section titles). In some ways, "art punk" is a better term than "post-punk", because post-punk includes a weird temporal indicator that's become increasingly irrelevant.
Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again is probably the most important resource for this page, in my opinion.
Aryder779 (
talk)
00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Get real. As long as articles are sourced nothing close to that situation would happen. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 01:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no proof that these are subgenres and it will stay like this until some is presented. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My only goal is to make sure the article has factual and relevant information. You are not assuming good faith at all. And if you do agree with Michig's approach why don't you actually follow it instead of reverting to the version with irrelevant genres? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
So why is the rest of the irrelevant information still in the article? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time to use some sources to improve this article. These should help:
I haven't filtered these - these are the decent-looking sources I found from a Google search. Some of them I agree with, some I don't. It doesn't matter. Art-punk is whatever reliable sources say it is, and if they say it's two different things then so should the article. There's plenty here to base an article on, and nothing that I can see to justify a redirect to art rock.-- Michig ( talk) 09:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that of the six sources currently cited in the article, three don't use the term "art punk" at all.-- Michig ( talk) 09:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah they should be removed, along with all these subgenres that have no sources claiming they actually are subgenres. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed theres still been no effort to source these genre, and if they are still unsourced after tommorow I will remove them. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 06:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wire were never Art-punk! Chairs Missing and 154 are Post-Punk classics. By the way, what's Art-Punk, it seems to me that it's the exact same thing as Post-punk, I don't know how relevant it is to call Wire or Joy Division art-punk because they're not. 186.80.249.67 ( talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a dubious source to me. It's a very brief, and opinionated article by a man who is not, as far as I am aware, a noted critic of music in general or punk in particular. Other than that, many of the listed bands are not mentioned by the source. I am going to remove the ref. from any listed band not mentioned in the article, but we should give strong consideration to whether this is a worthwhile source in the first place. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Art punk. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Art punk. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
In general post-punk is seen as rock music from the punk and new wave era that is more experimental, "cerebral" or dark than both punk and new wave and there is already an academic and journalistic literature on post-punk. For more american music along those lines there are labels which are more widespread also such as no wave and post-hardcore. I don´t see the need for this article.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)