Talk:Art punk

Grazhdanskaya Oborona

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)

Joy Division

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)

Merge

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)

Not Punk?

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.

Clean up

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)

Deleting Bands

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)

The thing is "art punk" isn't necessarily a genre term. It can also be an adjective. So by describing say, Wire, as "art punk" can simply mean they are a punk band with arty tendencies. We need an actual description of the genre to work from, otherwise this list is highly subjective. Personaly I think this page could even be redirected to post-punk, since that's what many of these bands are classified as in specific genre terms. WesleyDodds 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But here's the problem: What differentiates "art-punk" as an adjective and "art-punk" as a genre? It's not like the difference between The Doors being called "gothic" and the Sex Gang Children being a "goth rock" band. Isn't art-punk primarily punk bands with "arty tendencies"? As I'm sure everyone who is editing this article knows how little info there is on art punk, other than the music-related articles we're able to find on the web or in old magazines. So...there isn't really much of an actual description as of yet. The only main thing we have to go on is that we have found these bands as being referred to as art-punk, and the inlfluences and similarities between these bands. -- CatZilla 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

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)

Television

Someone put them on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.24.121 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Strategy

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)

Glad to see this/Known Issues

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).

Art punk- ?-

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)

Thanks alot, man. Although I believe that there is a difference between "art punk" and other punk, I can identify with the problem of not really deciding what's art punk and what isn't, but why something is art punk and another isn't. For example, why is Sonic Youth art punk, and Black Flag not? Similarly, why is Moss Icon art punk, and The Hated not? These are just two examples. Like it or not, I think there are certain qualities which identify something as "art punk." That's not saying that "art punk" is any more or less art than more traditional punk, but it is to say that "art punk" is a certain mentality if not a certain sound. I have to say though that regardless of these issues I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of "post-punk," and really it's for that very reason I like to use "art punk."

But we're not here to discuss what is art punk and what is not, at least at this stage. I've read Rip It Up and believe it is an excellent resource. I also think Micheal Azzerad's Our Band Could Be Your Life, as it dedicates whole chapters to Mission of Burma, Sonic Youth, Big Black, and Fugazi among others. The only problem with both Rip It Up and Our Band is that neither specifically refers to the post-punk and post-hardcore groups in question explicitly as art punk, at least that's my recollection. Ilikeartrock (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right that Azzerad and Reynolds don't explicitly use the term, but Reynolds does say that "post-punk" is a bit of a misnomer because many of the groups started before punk, and argues for a kind of Eno-Bowie-Nico-Krautrock continuum threading through punk. I think we are trying to discuss what is art punk and what isn't, aren't we? If this page is going to exist, it needs to distinguish itself from punk rock as a whole, right? Basically, I think this page should exist, because "art punk" is a term that's used -- I just think it should primarily function as an umbrella for lots of other subgenres. Aryder779 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and what I meant was we're not trying to really split hairs as to which bands are art punk and which bands are not in this discussion, as that would get us way off track. Obviously, bands like Mission of Burma and Sonic Youth are clearly art punk. Although with say, the Buzzcocks for instance, there's a bit of a gray area. But it's not a point I've really thought out, or one worth arguing too much. I think at this point we need to get a basic history down, refer to the books we discussed and other places like Allmusic, and then hit the subtleties later. You made good points, and I should look at my copies of Rip It Up and Our Band again. Ilikeartrock (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to redirecting this back to Art rock?

Anyone?Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. You lost your AfD, now you are making every attempt to simply delete this article by other means. There was a clear consensus to keep this article, so why do you not move on, or attempt to improve it? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete the article, there is a difference between deleting and redirecting, get your facts straight.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Read my message carefully. What I said is that you lost your AfD, so now you are trying to redirect the article, which is tantamount to deletion. You do not think this article should exist, so you take every opportunity to delete most of its content, and try to redirect it. So again, since consensus is against you, who do you not move on to something else, or actually try improving this article? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Art punk as synonymous with Art rock at all, although there is some overlap with bands being described using both terms. Art rock includes things like early Roxy Music, which has nothing to do with any sort of punk. Genre articles are always going to be difficult, but ultimately this sort of reduction of articles will leave us with one article, called 'Music'.--Michig (talk) 18:32, 14 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)

So let's source it. Properly. See below.--Michig (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough of the reverting to the unsourced version

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)

You are being disruptive. Just because the article is not to your liking gives you no excuse to remove referenced content. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting referenced content that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE is not vandalism. I could say Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon and reference it but it still wouldn't belong in this article.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is disruptive editing. Please desist from this behavior. Aryder779 (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some original research here in classifying subgenres of art punk, and I don't see a lot of sources that back up the assertion that these are actually subgenres of art punk. Where sources exist specifically for art-punk these should be in the article, and if bands that have sources to support 'art-punk' as a description also have sources that use these subgenres as descriptions, that would give some legitimacy to associating these genres as part of art punk, but it needs to be demonstrated. Generally, I think effort needs to go into finding sources that specifically refer to 'art punk', and the article should then be based on that.--Michig (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this approach, Michig. But, nothing can be accomplished when hop's only goal, or so it seems, is to reduce the article to a stub, redirect, and/or delete. His intentions do not seem to be constructive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:13, 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)

Hoponpop - The most recent edit (the addition of a huge amount of irrelevant information) is clearly unhelpful. Please read WP:POINT. Aryder779 (talk) 04:51, 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:

• Wire: the art-punk band's journey and legacy, from The Independent
• Idieducky posts tagged as art-punk
• Art-punk in the guitar bar, Baltic Times article about the band Biplan
• Athens Art Punk, SF Weekly article about Pylon
• article about Neurosis
• New York Times article about No Age
• article on the A-Frames
• article on Yeah Yeah Yeahs
• article on The Ex
• No Wave article
• article about The Rakes, The Guardian
• This and This use art-punk to describe Art Brut
• Book that uses art-punk to describe Pere Ubu
• article on San Francisco art punk
• another book source for the genre
• Rebel Art
• Daughters review from altpress
• PopMatters article

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)

Thanks for contributing so many sources. We should investigate these. As to the ongoing subgenres question - on some level this is a question of interpretation. The sources Michig has contributed certainly support the idea that groups generally considered under a variety of rubrics (noise rock, no wave, and post-punk, in particular) are also considered art punk. We can talk this out. Aryder779 (talk) 02:09, 16 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)

"Rebel Art" outsideleft

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509134634/https://www.mimaroglumusicsales.com/artists/cja.html to http://www.mimaroglumusicsales.com/artists/cja.html

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: 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) 22:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112155130/http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=149630 to http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=149630

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: 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) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The label "post-punk" already exists

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)