Talk:List of post-rock bands/Archive 1

Archive 1

American Analog Set

I think most will agree that the American Analog Set definitely does not belong on this list. I removed them. -keremm

Check out "post rock" at AllMusic. Since the group's style is defined as ambient-space rock, the listing is valid... Folajimi 11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All Music does not specifically list them as post-rock though. They just happen to share some of the same arbitrary adjectives with the genre. Moreover, they don't sound much like any of the bands that AMG specifically lists as post-rock. Keremm 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Guerrero

By what strange definition of post rock is Tommy Guerrero included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.47.148 (talk • contribs)

• Well, don't just stand there — do something! ;) --Folajimi 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Raison d'être

Now that I think of it, what is the purpose of this list? After all, the post-rock groups category seems to be more comprehensive, and is perhaps a more prudent way to raise the issues which have been discussed here.

In other words, the concerns raised here would be better addressed on the talk page of the subjects in question. --Folajimi 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Raison d'être

The post rock groups page only incudes bands that have a Wiki page. Bands that do not have a Wiki page are not listed in Post Rock Groups, but are in List of Post Rock Bands. The List of Post Rock Bands page might raise awareness which might lead to future Wiki article creations. 24.87.7.121 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Boards Of Canada

Boards Of Canada dont belong here either, the way they use instruments, compose and their sound is not what would be called post-rock. They are better placed in a list of ambient or electronic groups. -Itmplyurvyld (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Bjork Post-Rock?

I dont think so, maybe her music is related to, but I have no reasons for include Bjork in this genre.

The Bjork´s wiki page, says about Genres: Pop, Trip-Hop, Rock, Vocal jazz, Ambient, Electronica, Dance, Alternative.

What do u think? Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.160.130 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of red-linked artists

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Lists, unless there are any qualms with it, I'm going to remove the artists from the list who don't have a page. As it exists now, it's entirely useless. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why not, and don't forget the link spam (artists with only an external link). On another note, if all bands with articles are added to Category:Post-rock groups, this list would be superfluous and could be deleted. Punkmorten 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Will get on this tonight. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

post metal bands

IMHO we should toggle post metal bands (i.e. Isis), since this is a list of post rock bands and there is also a list for post metal bands. Connacht 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Active/Non-Active Bands

Should we differentiate those bands on the list which are no longer active? Perhaps marking them with an asterisk or placing a "birth year" and "death year" for each band? Windmillninja 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Country

Just something minor. Should we keep the locations as countries only? Or should cities/states or provinces be included as well? I personally prefer simply listing the countries, for more details people can view the specific Wiki article. Right now with all the specific city/state/province the page is getting quite messy to view. Specificity should not be the purpose of this post rock list. 24.87.7.121 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Some British bands are given a UK flag, some an English or Scottish one depending on where they are from (see e.g. Stereolab, Mogwai). This is inconsistent and confusing. Surely if the usual criterion is a state as in international entity, that's the UK for any band from any part of the UK, and the different national flags should not be used. 86.0.169.202 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Additions/Deletions

Any reason in particular that notable post-rock bands such as September Malevolance and Up-C, Down-C, etc have been removed, yet we have straight metal/metalcore bands such as "I" and "Inner Surge"??

It seems the list was edited to remove anything without a Wiki article, yet not edited to reflect true post-rock bands nor notability (for example "Toe" redirects to the body part and the disambiguation points to two post-rock bands named Toe of which neither have wiki articles).

Maybe we should not worry so much about having a wiki article, and worry more about what are actual post-rock bands. IMO stick to Post-Rock/Post-Metal and maybe Math Rock bands. Straying into Experimental, Stoner, Metal bands seems a bit excessive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.125.226 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Please see this:

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Lists, unless there are any qualms with it, I'm going to remove the artists from the list who don't have a page. As it exists now, it's entirely useless. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We must worry about whether bands have an article by our own guidelines. If a band is notable and doesn't have an article, perhaps starting one should be your major concern. I do agree that the list has problems (your "Toe") example is good as well as having bands that are definitely not post-rock on the list, and those should be cleaned up. But we shouldn't go adding bands that don't have articles.

– moonty (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has deleted a lot of links from this article, echoing Moonty's sentiment, and adding that most of the links I removed were myspace and website links. To avoid this, and several other articles such as this, becoming a breeding ground for spam, these removals are necessary and should be routine. If a band is a notable example of a recognised, notable genre it follows that they should have an article on Wikipedia. If not, well, sorry, they probably are not notable when set against the policies and guidelines of WP:MUSIC. That's as simple as it can get. See also WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Bubba hotep 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not much of a wiki contributor and I would not know how to go about writing a new article, but I do know that an allmusic link is good enough for notability. At least, I think this is correct. If that's true, there is a link for Up-C Down-C... if someone would like to create an article:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=UPC%7CDOWNC&sql=11:kzfoxqudldje~T0

Both Up-C Down-C... and September Malevolence are listed at discogs.com and a part of a significant post-rock best of list at decoymusic.com

http://www.decoymusic.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6772

Perhaps I will go through and compile a list of the bands that don't exactly fit the genre as well. Thanks 65.122.125.226

An All Music Guide link by itself is not enough to guarantee notability – not as far as Wikipedia is concerned anyway. The exact guidelines are at WP:MUSIC, as stated. There is a good chance that being on AMG will mean that other independent, multiple, non-trivial sources for the band are available which would fit in nicely, but that isn't always the case. I have no opinion on whether the bands that do have articles which are included on this list, should be on the list or not. I abstain from genre-wars as a rule, and that wasn't what brought me here in the first place (to this list, that is). It sounds like you have more than a passing interest in music in general (as do I), so why not register and get creative – once you start, you'll find you can't stop – as long as the material is within the inclusion criteria. :) Bubba hotep 09:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Anekdoten is not post-rock in any way, shape, or form.

There are way too many stretches in this list. A metal/drone/whatever guy should come through and remove anything that isn't post-rock. Unfortunately I personally don't know enough about metal to know what bands really may be post-rock (Isis, Pelican for example) and what is not, but there are a ton of highly suspicious bands in this list. Cleanup definitely required. 65.122.125.226 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

a-ha

I have added the band a-ha as a post-rock band due to their artice stating that one of the subgenres is post-rock. Please remove the band if you feel that it is not appropriate to add this band to the list. ThisIsAOneWaySystem 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding bands to this list

If you have a notable band that belongs on this list, create a proper article for your band, THEN add your band to this list. Bands without articles WILL be deleted. 67.48.110.106 (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization/Cleanup

This article does not comply with WP:FLAG. A proposed change for this page in the discussion page there is to remove the flag icons but list the bands by country instead of using arbitrary alphabetical sections. This would make country of origin much easier to identify than using flag icons, it would also allow bands from the United Kingdom to be identified using England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland subsections.--Boffob (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

collen/a lily/logh/eluvium/to rococo rot/calla

I mean GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Of course I removed them because : collen experimental ELECTRONIC!! a lily ambient ELECTRONIC!!! eluvium AMBIENT!!! LOGH AS EMO AS IT GETS!!! to rococo rot ELECTRONIC!!! calla INDIE!

but why I removed is not an issue the issue is who added those artists as post rock in the first place!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron.mnml (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

new jewish folk != post-rock

Therefore, I have removed Black Ox Orkestar. There is so much wrong with this list that I don't even know where to start, but I've removed them because it was a glaringly obvious thing. Eris Discord | Talk 03:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Country Flags Removed

Music reflects a culture, and a culture reflects the nation. Removing the country flags from beside the band entry does not go against the guidelines. It is not distracting, and given the above reason that music reflects a culture, thus a nation, it is not irrelevant in this context, rather it is a 'good reason' to keep the flags. This is a response to the edit on 12:07, 19 June 2008 by Wyatt Riot. Please allow the undo of this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.36.242 (talk)

Music can reflect a culture, especially when a band is playing some sort of traditional or world music, but even there things get sticky: if a band from the United States plays Mexican music (like Los Lobos, for instance), are they given the U.S. or Mexican flag? Post rock bands can be quite diverse, drawing from a variety of different cultures, often at the same time. And yet rock music is so prevalent that it's essentially a monoculture itself. I just don't think that we have a good reason to "emphasize nationality" as required by WP:MOSFLAG. And besides all that, flag icons add all kinds of other problems, such as edit wars over which flags are appropriate and an increased level of complexity to new editors. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing this article

This article is in dire need of sources. I went ahead and put several sources on the first two sections, but more are needed so I added the {{fact}} tag to the entries I couldn't easily find online sources for. As stated in the section above, there are a few easy places to find sources. Searching the Google News archives has proved fruitful. Also Pitchfork Media's [1] has provided a number of reviews that describe the bands listed here as post-rock, though a direct search of their website may be necessary since Google News doesn't contain all of Pitchfork's archives. Other well known musical review sites and publications would also work, like Rolling Stone. I also suspect that many bands keep reviews on their websites that may no longer be accessible on the web. In order to keep bands that aren't considered post-rock off the list, the bands that are on the list must be shown to be post-rock. That means reviews and write ups must contain both the band name and some variation of "post-rock" describing the band. I've done some work, and would appreciate some help from those who regularly edit or maintain this list. AniMate 07:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Okay, I think the Motorhead vandalism (and, to a lesser extent, the addition of non-notable bands) is getting out of hand. Any other opinions? Unless the consensus is that I'm way out of line here, I'll make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection in a day or two. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection was denied because, as the admin stated, this is a content dispute. I guess I disagree, but whatever. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem was I have no idea how to evaluate who, if anyone, is right in this situation. Anyone can add anything to this page, and because there are no sources any and all entries are on equal footing. I suggest rather than bothering to revert the IP you find reliable sources that describe each band as "post-rock". If you can't find a source, remove it from the list. That way, if someone tries to add a band without a reliable source or that is not post-rock, it would be very easy for any admin to see a problem and help fix it. AniMate 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and added a handful of references as well as the dynamic list notice. The article must be sourced if you want to exclude certain bands from the list, though. AniMate 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but it seems like trying to prove a negative in some ways. But I do agree that sourcing should help and it would make disputes of this kind easier to resolve. I'll try to find some time to help with the sourcing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not trying to prove a negative, it's making sure only positives are in the list. It's impossible to add something false to a fully sourced list, as something that doesn't belong won't have a source backing up a false rationale. The trick is to find good sources. Avoiding things like Last.fm or Amazon.com which often contain user generated content is a good start. Anything from Rolling Stone would be excellent of course, and most sources found in google news would work as well. The goal of a list like this should never be to have slow moving edit wars to keep information you disagree with out. The goal is to have a fully sourced list where only reliably sourced additions should me made. Who knows, if we get everything sourced and add some info about the genre to the lead, it could make it to featured list status. As it stands now, it's terrible, and I'm being generous. AniMate 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to get everything sourced, I agree. I watch maybe a dozen or so standalone list articles and I don't think one of them is sourced. Definitely a bad thing, but I've never really considered it until now. Thanks for the work you're already doing, and hopefully I can pitch in shortly. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can too, because it isn't hard and needs to be done. I've gotten about 20 or so bands sourced, mostly beginning with A. I didn't put much effort into it, but now if someone decides to put Anthrax on the list, they'll have to do so with a source... and I doubt there are many (any?) sources that would claim Anthrax is post-rock. Another good source might be reviews posted on the bands websites. This is really more a note for me, as I've just been hitting Google news archives and the first couple of pages that come up in Google. AniMate 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that the entry on Motorhead says it's a rock band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawaga (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous List

Yes, why not, and don't forget the link spam (artists with only an external link). On another note, if all bands with articles are added to Category:Post-rock groups, this list would be superfluous and could be deleted. Punkmorten 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened to this initiative? Albeit I'm late to the game on this article, it seems the most logical thing to do. If there is a dispute about whether a band should be in the category, you can check the appropriate article and see if the genre is sourced or not. Unless there are any objections, I'll make a move to do this in the next few days. emanuel lagos (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

PiL

So, I noticed Public Image Ltd. is on this list. Can they be considered fully post-rock though? Surely they were an influence and had a few songs that channeled post-rock, but their article doesn't classify them as such. I'm not saying they should be removed, but I do think it should be discussed. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

To me the typical way these genre-based lists work is that to be included an artist must have a Wikipedia article, and either their article or the list must contain a reliable source identifying them with the genre. It's not an entirely firm rule, but a good rule of thumb. For PIL, to me, the NME quote in the lead of that article would be sufficient for inclusion here even if they're more other genres. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of post-rock bands. 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 web.archive.org/web/20121118155024/ altmusic.about.com/od/genres/a/post-rock.htm to altmusic.about.com/od/genres/a/post-rock.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

*shels

where is *shels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.241.192 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable, third-party published source saying that—say, something listed as reliable at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES—then feel free to add them. Woodroar (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)