Talk:Buck-Tick

The description is missing Cosmos and Sexy Steam Liner

The newly added description to buck-tick goes from six/nine to one life one death, and somehow the information about the cyberpunk didn't show up in the description. I checked the text page and the info is there, it just isn't appearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minamoto1989 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the Albums

Super Value Buck-Tick is not a real album, a fake one. I'm fixing it to make it correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minamoto1989 (talk • contribs) 19:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Correct name

Pardon the mess. Buck-Tick is the correct typography, and the new page can be edited at Buck-Tick/Temp. It's there because the original version was a probable copyvio. Please don't recreate BUCK-TICK - Buck-Tick will soon be reactivated. Tearlach 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why lower case when the official BUCK-TICK website has it in all capitals? --J Bush 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because any native english speaker have monopoly over latin alphabet and can dictate entire world how they must write in it, obviously. Sorry if it may sound rude, but considering all of the abuse of "we know what proper typography is" I can think of no other reason. --Rowaa[SR13] 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone organize the albums better as well? If possible, I'd like it to hold their relevent LPs and EPs in one section. Live, remixes, compilations and et cetera should be put in another section beneath. - Shadowolf 18:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To copyvio editors: new page - please reinstate. Thx. Tearlach 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Album merges

Sorry for the merge mess at the top of the page, but I wanted to get people's comments before taking action. I think I can present a layout that will allow all those track listings on the main article but not make it so long. I'll throw something together in my sandbox for you guys to see in a bit. But considering how the main article is so small, I don't see how it's a good thing to split track listings into different articles. Even with all the listings in one place, the article itself is still a stub, since lists do not a good article make. But it will make it better. Remember, Wikipedia is not our own fan-site. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The merge suggestion looks at first sight to be unwise: you have nominated 17 albums to merge into this article. WP:NOT paper: if someone is likely to want to link to an individual album, it is better to have an article on that; you can organise them using a category if you like: see WikiProject Albums for information. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

it's ironic that you linked to WP:NOT. These are lists, not articles. Not a single one of these albums count as articles according to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I dunno. I can't imagine pulling this off - but if you can do it, then cool. But we'll have to see it first. With that many albums, I feel its more wise to keep them as individual articles. The albums can be expanded upon after all (in the bands history and response in recording the album, record sales, synopsis of the album's sound in comparison to their others, and whatnot). So my doubts hold... I'm generally against the idea. Shadowolf 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say no - simply because this band has such a huge discography. I'm generally against album pages in general, so I would say keep the most important albums and delete the rest (like best of albums - but others may not agree with me on that). I'm actually gathering sources for this page, so it can at least be sourced. [1] [2] [3] There are some album reviews on those sites too. Denaar 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Edit - didn't see the dates, I see that was already resolved, just saw the update to the page. Denaar 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a huge update, but the big error was the confusion over the 'Special' albums counting to the other 'Album' list. The other thing is, the singles are not linked, should they be merged within the Albums pages connected to the album it derived from, or have their own page? They do have a huge dicography, so it would be difficult. Just wanted to see any comments before I do anything further. Does anyone have any ideas for a proper layout of the synopsis of Albums pages? Should they be more detailed and in what way? (I am completely new to this, so it is tiring and confusing to try and add something without knowing how to and the reaction of others) Fukakutei 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Once this article gets too huge to manage, then a separate discography article should be made. At this time, the article isn't big enough to do that yet. I would be against making pages for the singles unless someone has good, multiple, (non-fanbased) sources that are specifically about that single. There needs to be more than a single cover and a song list. Denaar 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think as of right now, the Buck-Tick discography needs a makeover. It needs to be more organized. It's obvious the discography is pretty big and should be put on a seperate page. Thoughts? Kuro Banpaia (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

-Okay, I just went ahead and made a discography for BT, since no one got back to me. I'm going to need help on the 'Special' section however, to verify what's what. It seems Buck-Tick have a lot of DVDs, VHS, etc, and right now the 'Special' section needs to be organized. But other than that, the discograpy is perfect. Kuro Banpaia (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

If you are going to add English articles that duplicate the information here, go ahead and leave the Japanese sources as well. Having things double sourced couldn't hurt. There is a lot more information on this band out there - for instance they have done a lot of anime sound tracks we can find references for. Denaar 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to unofficial websites

There used to be a number of unofficial Buck-Tick related sites linked off this article, and I'm wondering while all those links seem to be consistently removed. Is it a copyright issue? Unofficial sites are usually the best English-language resources for Japanese bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.214.239 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the guidlines at WP:EL. From the section - Restrictions on linking: Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Most fan sites have magazine scans or lyrics on them. Also check Links normally to be avoided - which includes blogs and personal web sites (fan sites). Denaar 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Albums are messed up

Buck-tick has only released 15 albums. Some reason this forum is including specials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.210.241 (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hey guys, I finally rewrote this article to make it complete! This is all original text so there is no copyvio. I know there was discussion about this before but I've used "BUCK-TICK" instead of "Buck-Tick" throughout because the band have used the former typography on every release they've ever made, and all the magazines use it too, so I really think it's the correct one. I left the discography sections intact, I just refined the translations of the album titles a little. For the paragraphs with citations only at the end, it's not that the beginning sentences lack citations, it's just that all the info in the paragraph came from one source so I just cited it at the end. If anyone takes issue with this, feel free to put in more citations. I'm sorry about the large number of Japanese-language sources but it's just impossible to find quality English-language info on BUCK-TICK. I've provided English translations wherever possible. Enjoy!Numode (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Numode

Whoa!!!! Thank you so much for doing this! It's great to learn about their early history! Orcalee (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored to "Buck-Tick" per WP:MOSCAPS. Citations:

• "Formulaic approach plagues J-rock", Daily Yomimuri, 22 January 2006
• "Megadeth headlines weekend Soyo rock fest", Korea Herald, 27 July 2001
• "Outdoor summer festivals for all tasts", Daily Yomimuri, 8 July 1999

-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed missing section

a typo was preventing the section regarding Cosmos and Sexy Stream Liner from appearing. This is now fixed :) Numode (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Numode

This band has no links to the Goth rock music genre.

This band is a visual kei band and even their early material is not Goth rock. I will remove the Goth rock tag again and will continue to do so until someone has a sufficient counter argument. Japanese Goth rock bands do exist however they're not associated with the Visual-Kei movement, just because a band dresses in dark clothing does not make them a Goth rock band.

You are laughably wrong. Read the Visual kei article, such bands can play any genres. In this Fools Mate interview Sakurai admits they turned goth and there are other such interviews.[4] You are the one Genre Warring. Xfansd (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We will need to reach consensus, this band is evidently not Goth rock though the link does prove the musician was influenced by Goth rock band Bauhaus so I apologize and agree that this band should have the Goth rock tag however, I believe the Gothic Metal tag will be more appropriate on most of the other bands that we are arguing, unless of course you can provide me with sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikenkanbaby (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong Buck-Tick are without doubt gothic rock, but at least you agree not to remove it anymore. D is metal but was in Japanese gothic rock bands simply because no one created a Japanese gothic metal bands category. D'erlanger is not metal (obviously their old stuff is) and you seriously think The Candy Spooky Theater and Phantasmagoria are? I could go either way with Kurouyume and Ghost. Keep in mind that for all the years these articles have existed you are one person contesting them. Xfansd (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, I listen to a lot of Goth rock and Buck Tick are not Goth rock. They sound nothing like Bauhaus, The Cure, Souixsie and Banshees or the Sisters of Mercy and it's not because they're Japanese because there are Japanese bands that are Goth rock such as Madame Edwarda. There is a Goth movement in Japan and Buck-tick is not associated with it. The Candy Spooky Theater and Phantasmagoria may not be metal but they too are certainly not Goth rock. I was trying to help the wiki as I know a lot about Goth rock, I mean I am a Goth and most other Goth rock enthusiasts would agree these bands do not sound like Goth rock bands however, I can't tell you what is Goth and what isn't, it wasn't long ago when everyone was saying Marilyn Manson and Evanescence was Goth.

I am glad we have come to some sort of consensus though, since it would be pointless making a Japanese Gothic Metal category we should keep the Gothic Metal influenced bands in the same category. I think there should be a notice to inform readers that not all the bands listed are Goth bands or have any Goth rock influences on the Japanese Goth rock category page. Shikenkanbaby (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just listened to Phantasmagoria - Material Pain and judging from that I'd say that they have metal influences. Shikenkanbaby (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As for Candy Spooky Theater it is clear they have a similar sound to Dir En Grey which would be is described as experimental metal/rock and alternative metal/rock. Shikenkanbaby (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you clearly don't know Buck-Tick, but its sourced so that's mute. A category called "gothic rock bands" is not used on artists that were influenced by goth rock, but on artists that actually play it. The problem is Japanese music doesn't get much in-depth coverage, so some leeway is given for things that can't be sourced. But you claiming to be an expert and systematically removing things, and then claiming to know the influences of bands after hoping on Youtube is not acceptable. That is called Original research. Xfansd (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh hey, it does exist. Category:Japanese gothic metal musical groups Xfansd (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant though, I guess this where we'll have to draw the line then, I agree that the other bands are to be placed in the Gothic Metal category and that Malice Mizer and Buck-Tick to remain in the Japanese gothic rock category. If you feel the Japanese gothic rock groups category is for bands that actually play goth rock then I don't think they should be in there but I am happy to know that the bands that are in there have some goth rock influences. I've listened to entire albums and EPs from some of these bands and none of them feature goth rock tracks, the music is often too aggressive and lacking the post-punk styled guitar riffs and bass lines. Could you post a link to some of the said bands goth rock songs? Shikenkanbaby (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nah dude, Wikipedia's not a forum for people to discuss and find music they like with others. If you're thinking of using that way to determine genres it would be textbook original research. Xfansd (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Buck-Tick. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222121654/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_1994ongakutohitosaissayinterview.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_1994ongakutohitosaissayinterview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016220347/http://v-music.ch/interviews/int071.html to http://www.v-music.ch/interviews/int071.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608002856/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007vmc_saihinterview.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007vmc_saihinterview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608071721/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527083908/http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview2.html to http://notgreatestsite.net/articles/ta/bt_2007upsound_sainterview2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting

I am gradually rewording the text and try to find more references to use... I'm guessing this article is written based on fansites. Xia ^{talk to me} 14:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop taking Acchan's name off members!

Atsushi is still a member even if only in spirit so stop putting him in previous members! And stop talking about the band in the past tense! They haven't officially disbanded! It has only been a week for F's sake! Give people time to grieve! This is so disrespectful! 2600:8807:4400:345E:21AD:BD3F:6586:CDE1 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, unfortunately he passed away and as such is not anymore member of the band. Nobody beats death in that sense. It is a shock to everyone, but that's sad and harsh reality. The band cancelled all activities and most probably will have a hiatus or even disband after a tribute concert this or next year. There's a very small chance they will continue after 35th anniversary without a frontman who was so integral to the band. At the moment, if you read between the lines the official news and how were given and handled, practically all members are past members already...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The band has stated that Atsushi remains a member. Kami from MM and others are still listed as current members of their respective bands on wikipedia, so stop removing him from the members list.

Edit- some truly petty individuals have been tampering with other bands' pages on how they identify deceased members so how about we propose this-- the Japanese page for this article is obviously the main article for this artist. The moment the Japanese editors decide to put Sakurai into a past members box, then so can we. Until then, I recommend he go back as a current member as, again, this has been stated by his bandmates as being the case and we also do not know what as yet unreleased material may come out in the coming years and months that Sakurai will feature vocals on. 2603:7000:8240:EC00:F9D5:167C:E51:C84C (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Atsushi is a member. Stop that

He may have passed but he is a member Fairylina (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

Do not move Atsushi Sakurai to past members. He is not a past member, he is an eternal member. Having him be a "past member" is incredibly disrespectful to his passing. Siriashe (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Liu1126 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

question

Just a question I know it says buck tick has evolved over time but should new wave be under the genres because of their early albums having a new wave pop feel in early era just a question and also the sputnik source says it too just a question if not then that’s ok 2600:381:CBA0:28CA:2981:ACCB:A696:E875 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Well the sputnik source says that they have incorporated new wave that’s what I meant hehehe sorry and what I meant by their early albums is that how they sound it’s basically what they call positive punk but it feels new wave just a question if anyone feels the same if not that’s ok 2600:381:CBA0:28CA:2981:ACCB:A696:E875 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)