Experimental rock was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 1, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Experimental rock 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Experimental rock:
|
The timeline includes almost exclusively bands in the punk/post-punk/noise/industrial tradition, and almost nothing from the avant-prog/art-rock tradition. There's no Henry Cow, no Magma, no Gentle Giant, no Eno, no Amon Düül II, no Thinking Plague, no Ruins, no Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, no Charming Hostess. It's also missing extremely important and influential bands like Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, the Residents and Mr. Bungle. I'm not sure that it's actually possible to create a timeline like this that represents all types of experimental rock equally, but this one doesn't even come close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisible map ( talk • contribs) 13:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as he incorporated elements of Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr, already listed, with lyrical technique inspired by William S Burroughs, and succeeded massively with it, I'd say he's pretty experimental rock, certainly post punk. He wasn't as out there as say Can was, but I think he deserves to be up there with all the other post-punk bands, not only for being similar, but for bringing that sound to millions of people. I mean, it's debatable exactly how experimental is experimental, but I don't think the idea is too absurd. Also, where's Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd? Roger Waters can eat it, but Syd was very much in line with all these cats, Syd combined elements of Sun Ra and Keith Rowe with surf, rock, and pop, and later used James Joyce influenced lyrics in his solo work. I know for a fact he influenced at least all of the following - Can, David Bowie, Sonic Youth, Jesus and the Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, Blur, The Flaming Lips and The Mars Volta, so I think he's important as well. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.9.223.89 (
talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Animal Collective influencing post-rock? Maybe current post-rock bands, but Animal Collective did not start until 2000. Slint and Talk Talk are widely considered to be the first two post-rock bands.
This article is also missing important math rock bands like Don Caballero and Battles.
I would completely remove the section on Grunge, as well. None of those bands had any experimental tendencies, even though it was a new genre.
I think it's a little unfair to exclude Nirvana from experimental rock. The definition of experimental rock by its very nature changes over time. Just because Nirvana's unique combination of metal, post-punk and jangle-pop became popular in bastardized form through the next decade doesn't mean what they were doing at the time wasn't experimental. I'm not the biggest fan of grunge, but even Soundgarden incorporated odd time signatures and noise elements in their early music. If they could be considered experimental by today's standards, how are they not experimental for the 90s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.131 ( talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an absolute delineation between the terms experimental and avant-garde. They are not used interchangeably in the context of other abstractions that they are used to categorize. Someone should seriously reconsider recreating this article. It is not factual. Experimental is used primarily to designate something as being "better" or breaking away from traditional form. Avant-garde is used primarily to designate that something is new or innovational and tends to account the importance of traditional form.
Again, revise. As of right now, this is an uncertain article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotsko ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that the examples it uses for experimental rock acts are only on the brink of being experimental. Bands like circa survive, coheed and cambria, and glassjaw really aren't experimental, they just have experimental attributes, but really not very many. This article does need revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.71.132 ( talk) 07:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that this article has one source, and that is not a very good one, can anyone present some evidence that this is a genre? All these acts might be experimental, but I do not see any evidence that they are in any meaningful way a genre. If not I will remove the genre infobox in a few days.-- SabreBD ( talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Experimental rock is something of a catch-all label; being that there is no exact definition of what experimental rock is, I think it's a little inappropriate to define it in the lead as "diametrically opposed" to verse-chorus-verse. You could make a sizeable list of artists mentioned in this article itself who incorporate verse-chorus-verse into their songwriting. Regardless, AllMusic is an online database with questionable writing; I don't see why it should be considered an expert journalistic resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.131 ( talk) 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Experimental rock's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "RIAA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not willing to remake this article, but it is annoying that almost none of its contents are supported by anything, and that it has been that way for almost a decade. I trust nobody will miss it if I initiate a reboot? Here are the only sources I could find within 2 minutes.
-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 10:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Ilovetopaint considering how unfinished this page still is since you began overhauling it, might I suggest grabbing this other Bill Martin book—haven't read it, but it seems to provide a good overview going through the last several decades. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go through it all and use it to try to round the page out historically before continuing to add preferential details to one (60s) section. GentleCollapse16 ( talk) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Post-pronk jazz-rock is important. Notable examples are the Florals, Tank Rapper, Boy Conviction, and Soft Carwash." How is this informative to anyone? You can't just namedrop a billion bands and expect someone to have learned anything from it. Swap out the made-up names with any other from this page – no wave, post-punk, post-progressive – it will all be the same to a layman. You have to offer something more substantial. The article will be bloated and incoherent if you fail to use discretion like this.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no difference between pop bands that are heavily artistic and art pop bands. Art pop is not some fixed historical genre that doesn't depend on the bands being pop bands and artistic."
I put a notice about the article here. Chilton ( talk) 12:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There was a longer version of the article that was basically deleted in February 2016 and that could be helpful in expanding the current version. Chilton ( talk) 12:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
the extremely improvisational and almost unclassifiable Can"? "
Pink Floyd's "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" was directly influenced by Egyptian music."? "
Toward the end of the 1980s rap emerged into a mature, experimental phase"?-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Psychedelic rock groups such as Fifty Foot Hose, the United States of America, Silver Apples, and Red Krayola introduced avant-garde electronic music into their songs. The sounds of Indian and Arabic music were also widely admired and adapted.
In Japan, experimental rock acts Merzbow, Keiji Haino, Hanatarash, and Boredoms started their careers in the '80s. In Germany, Einstürzende Neubauten built several instruments for their experimental industrial music. [...] The best-selling offshoots of the post-industrial scene have been industrial rock and metal; Ministry and Nine Inch Nails both recorded platinum-selling albums. Their success led to an increase in commercial success for some other industrial musicians; for example, the Nine Inch Nails remix album Further Down the Spiral, which included contributions from Foetus and Coil, was certified gold in 1996.
Using this as a spot to copy and paste material from the body that can be summarized in the lead:
-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iadmc ( talk · contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No problem with grammar and spelling but the prose too often loses its focus and meaning. The second sentence starts "Artists aim to liberate..." Liberate what? We are not told. Then we get: "...most of its leading players had incapacitated themselves in some form". How? Presumably drugs/alcohol but this isn't addressed in the article. Next: "...new openings were created from the aesthetic intersecting with the social...". Yuk! It's even marked "jargon". Then: "...was released to a four-month chart stay..." Is that really how people speak? Why not: "...spent four months in the charts..."? And: "...inspired the trend of experimental rock as commercially viable music..." This clause is too loosely constructed and sounds more impressive than it actually is. Why not: "...inspired experimental rock musicians to attempt to make money from their music..."? Worst is the sentence starting "From then on, the ideas and work of British artist and former Roxy Music member Brian Eno...", which at that point breaks off into a massive aside by the end of which I'd forgotten what the context was. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout fine. The prose (thus WtW) is the problem as highlighted above. Also, "In the opinion of Stuart Rosenberg..." doesn't tell us who he is or why we should listen to him. (Perhaps the film director, Stuart Rosenberg?) Ditto "professor Kelly Fisher Lowe claims...", [Claims? Is her word in doubt?] "Author Doyle Greene identifies..." [another WtW...] and "author Barry Faulk writes...". Who are these people? We need to know, otherwise one could just quote some bloke's book bought in a second-hand book shop that didn't even make its advance back... | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Fine, if a bit over-complex for my taste. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Presumably the people I mentioned above are reliable. Some of the citations are from hard copies without e-versions, so I can't verify, which is another reason this is on hold... perhaps someone else can verify the sources? | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything appears to be attributed to sources (aside from the "leading players had incapacitated themselves" bit in the lead which is a well-known enough fact but still needs citing, IMO). | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | As far as I can tell, all good. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Well rounded and to the point. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problem here either. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | All good. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | A bit of vandalism but what article doesn't? | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All seems good. One is out of copyright; one is a cropped version of one from flickr; the third is a cropped version of one assumed by Commons to belong to the uploader. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All good. | |
7. Overall assessment. | I can't in all honesty pass this article. If I find myself wanting to edit while reading, it can't be a Good Article. And there are too many places where I would edit as highlighted above. Indeed, I might come back and do just that! Hopefully next time... |
There is currently a Beatles overrepresentation. There's also a few other bands, that while great, are not Experimental Rock. The introduction with Beach Boys and Beatles to talk about studio techniques and how influenced later on is fine but that's where it should end. They were monumental bands for Art Rock and released a couple of psychedelic pop albums but they were not experimental. Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour and The Who Sell Out do not belong next to The Fugs, The Velvet Underground and The Mothers of Invention in an Experimental Rock article.
I would also replace their image in the 60's section (maybe with Velvet Underground). Look, I love The Beatles but there's some Beatlemaniacs shoving them everywhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMTWTFS ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Experimental rock was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 1, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Experimental rock 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Experimental rock:
|
The timeline includes almost exclusively bands in the punk/post-punk/noise/industrial tradition, and almost nothing from the avant-prog/art-rock tradition. There's no Henry Cow, no Magma, no Gentle Giant, no Eno, no Amon Düül II, no Thinking Plague, no Ruins, no Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, no Charming Hostess. It's also missing extremely important and influential bands like Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, the Residents and Mr. Bungle. I'm not sure that it's actually possible to create a timeline like this that represents all types of experimental rock equally, but this one doesn't even come close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisible map ( talk • contribs) 13:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as he incorporated elements of Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr, already listed, with lyrical technique inspired by William S Burroughs, and succeeded massively with it, I'd say he's pretty experimental rock, certainly post punk. He wasn't as out there as say Can was, but I think he deserves to be up there with all the other post-punk bands, not only for being similar, but for bringing that sound to millions of people. I mean, it's debatable exactly how experimental is experimental, but I don't think the idea is too absurd. Also, where's Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd? Roger Waters can eat it, but Syd was very much in line with all these cats, Syd combined elements of Sun Ra and Keith Rowe with surf, rock, and pop, and later used James Joyce influenced lyrics in his solo work. I know for a fact he influenced at least all of the following - Can, David Bowie, Sonic Youth, Jesus and the Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, Blur, The Flaming Lips and The Mars Volta, so I think he's important as well. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.9.223.89 (
talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Animal Collective influencing post-rock? Maybe current post-rock bands, but Animal Collective did not start until 2000. Slint and Talk Talk are widely considered to be the first two post-rock bands.
This article is also missing important math rock bands like Don Caballero and Battles.
I would completely remove the section on Grunge, as well. None of those bands had any experimental tendencies, even though it was a new genre.
I think it's a little unfair to exclude Nirvana from experimental rock. The definition of experimental rock by its very nature changes over time. Just because Nirvana's unique combination of metal, post-punk and jangle-pop became popular in bastardized form through the next decade doesn't mean what they were doing at the time wasn't experimental. I'm not the biggest fan of grunge, but even Soundgarden incorporated odd time signatures and noise elements in their early music. If they could be considered experimental by today's standards, how are they not experimental for the 90s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.131 ( talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an absolute delineation between the terms experimental and avant-garde. They are not used interchangeably in the context of other abstractions that they are used to categorize. Someone should seriously reconsider recreating this article. It is not factual. Experimental is used primarily to designate something as being "better" or breaking away from traditional form. Avant-garde is used primarily to designate that something is new or innovational and tends to account the importance of traditional form.
Again, revise. As of right now, this is an uncertain article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotsko ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that the examples it uses for experimental rock acts are only on the brink of being experimental. Bands like circa survive, coheed and cambria, and glassjaw really aren't experimental, they just have experimental attributes, but really not very many. This article does need revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.71.132 ( talk) 07:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that this article has one source, and that is not a very good one, can anyone present some evidence that this is a genre? All these acts might be experimental, but I do not see any evidence that they are in any meaningful way a genre. If not I will remove the genre infobox in a few days.-- SabreBD ( talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Experimental rock is something of a catch-all label; being that there is no exact definition of what experimental rock is, I think it's a little inappropriate to define it in the lead as "diametrically opposed" to verse-chorus-verse. You could make a sizeable list of artists mentioned in this article itself who incorporate verse-chorus-verse into their songwriting. Regardless, AllMusic is an online database with questionable writing; I don't see why it should be considered an expert journalistic resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.131 ( talk) 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Experimental rock's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "RIAA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not willing to remake this article, but it is annoying that almost none of its contents are supported by anything, and that it has been that way for almost a decade. I trust nobody will miss it if I initiate a reboot? Here are the only sources I could find within 2 minutes.
-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 10:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Ilovetopaint considering how unfinished this page still is since you began overhauling it, might I suggest grabbing this other Bill Martin book—haven't read it, but it seems to provide a good overview going through the last several decades. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go through it all and use it to try to round the page out historically before continuing to add preferential details to one (60s) section. GentleCollapse16 ( talk) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Post-pronk jazz-rock is important. Notable examples are the Florals, Tank Rapper, Boy Conviction, and Soft Carwash." How is this informative to anyone? You can't just namedrop a billion bands and expect someone to have learned anything from it. Swap out the made-up names with any other from this page – no wave, post-punk, post-progressive – it will all be the same to a layman. You have to offer something more substantial. The article will be bloated and incoherent if you fail to use discretion like this.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no difference between pop bands that are heavily artistic and art pop bands. Art pop is not some fixed historical genre that doesn't depend on the bands being pop bands and artistic."
I put a notice about the article here. Chilton ( talk) 12:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There was a longer version of the article that was basically deleted in February 2016 and that could be helpful in expanding the current version. Chilton ( talk) 12:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
the extremely improvisational and almost unclassifiable Can"? "
Pink Floyd's "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" was directly influenced by Egyptian music."? "
Toward the end of the 1980s rap emerged into a mature, experimental phase"?-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Psychedelic rock groups such as Fifty Foot Hose, the United States of America, Silver Apples, and Red Krayola introduced avant-garde electronic music into their songs. The sounds of Indian and Arabic music were also widely admired and adapted.
In Japan, experimental rock acts Merzbow, Keiji Haino, Hanatarash, and Boredoms started their careers in the '80s. In Germany, Einstürzende Neubauten built several instruments for their experimental industrial music. [...] The best-selling offshoots of the post-industrial scene have been industrial rock and metal; Ministry and Nine Inch Nails both recorded platinum-selling albums. Their success led to an increase in commercial success for some other industrial musicians; for example, the Nine Inch Nails remix album Further Down the Spiral, which included contributions from Foetus and Coil, was certified gold in 1996.
Using this as a spot to copy and paste material from the body that can be summarized in the lead:
-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iadmc ( talk · contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No problem with grammar and spelling but the prose too often loses its focus and meaning. The second sentence starts "Artists aim to liberate..." Liberate what? We are not told. Then we get: "...most of its leading players had incapacitated themselves in some form". How? Presumably drugs/alcohol but this isn't addressed in the article. Next: "...new openings were created from the aesthetic intersecting with the social...". Yuk! It's even marked "jargon". Then: "...was released to a four-month chart stay..." Is that really how people speak? Why not: "...spent four months in the charts..."? And: "...inspired the trend of experimental rock as commercially viable music..." This clause is too loosely constructed and sounds more impressive than it actually is. Why not: "...inspired experimental rock musicians to attempt to make money from their music..."? Worst is the sentence starting "From then on, the ideas and work of British artist and former Roxy Music member Brian Eno...", which at that point breaks off into a massive aside by the end of which I'd forgotten what the context was. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout fine. The prose (thus WtW) is the problem as highlighted above. Also, "In the opinion of Stuart Rosenberg..." doesn't tell us who he is or why we should listen to him. (Perhaps the film director, Stuart Rosenberg?) Ditto "professor Kelly Fisher Lowe claims...", [Claims? Is her word in doubt?] "Author Doyle Greene identifies..." [another WtW...] and "author Barry Faulk writes...". Who are these people? We need to know, otherwise one could just quote some bloke's book bought in a second-hand book shop that didn't even make its advance back... | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Fine, if a bit over-complex for my taste. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Presumably the people I mentioned above are reliable. Some of the citations are from hard copies without e-versions, so I can't verify, which is another reason this is on hold... perhaps someone else can verify the sources? | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything appears to be attributed to sources (aside from the "leading players had incapacitated themselves" bit in the lead which is a well-known enough fact but still needs citing, IMO). | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | As far as I can tell, all good. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Well rounded and to the point. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problem here either. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | All good. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | A bit of vandalism but what article doesn't? | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All seems good. One is out of copyright; one is a cropped version of one from flickr; the third is a cropped version of one assumed by Commons to belong to the uploader. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All good. | |
7. Overall assessment. | I can't in all honesty pass this article. If I find myself wanting to edit while reading, it can't be a Good Article. And there are too many places where I would edit as highlighted above. Indeed, I might come back and do just that! Hopefully next time... |
There is currently a Beatles overrepresentation. There's also a few other bands, that while great, are not Experimental Rock. The introduction with Beach Boys and Beatles to talk about studio techniques and how influenced later on is fine but that's where it should end. They were monumental bands for Art Rock and released a couple of psychedelic pop albums but they were not experimental. Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour and The Who Sell Out do not belong next to The Fugs, The Velvet Underground and The Mothers of Invention in an Experimental Rock article.
I would also replace their image in the 60's section (maybe with Velvet Underground). Look, I love The Beatles but there's some Beatlemaniacs shoving them everywhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMTWTFS ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)