Talk:Noise rock/Archive 1

I'd like to drastically change the list of bands in this article

The definition of Noise Rock seems way too broad given the bands included in here. Bands like My Bloody Valentine and Deerhoof are certainly noisy at times, but categorizing them as that is just confusing.

The expository portion of the article I feel is accurate given my understanding of the genre, despite the non-encylopediac tone, but I would like to drastically changes. Does anyone support this?

Also I'm changing the section on Anal Cunt because they're largely a parody band. Brennsto 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw Nirvana listed? I don't see where they are noise rock.

Yeah do it! Don't know who included all those grunge rock bands in that list.

The term is pretty arbitrary and the perception of noisiness in rock music changes over time. A lot of the bands on the AmRep label seemed noisy circa 1990, but now seem relatively tame. Jimi Hendrix and the MC5 sounded like noise when they brought feedback full-throttle into mainstream music in the late 60's, but are now classified as classic rock. And rock-and-roll's emergence in the early 50's seemed like noise to the older generation and many diehard classical music fans still dismiss it as such. Morganfitzp 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've understood the article, it's not about "noisy" rock music in general. It's about a fairly minor style called "noise rock" which gained some small popularity during the 90's and was influenced by hardcore punk, industrial, avant-garde and noise music. By the way, I don't think so many classical music fans "dismiss" rock music.

I would like to confirm the comment made above. "Noise Rock" means more than rock that sounds noisy. It's a specific style characterized by dissonance, rapid changes in time signature, and highly distorted instruments. This article should be about those kinds of bands, and not about "noisy rock" in general. 68.193.52.220 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I go by whether it makes my ears start to bleed... But in all seriousness, I agree, most of these bands wouldn't go under "noise". 24.126.199.129 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Neil Young

Should Neil Young be added as an influence?

Much of his songs (IE "Hey Hey My My") in some ways predate noise. If anyone objects, that is fine.

I think it was in 1991 that Neil Young toured with Sonic Youth as his opening act. I don't know that it exposed Sonic Youth to many Neil Young fans so much as it made Neil Young make sense to a lot of Sonic Youth fans. A lot of his work has been pretty noisy and experimental in a wide variety of styles (the dissonance of Rust Never Sleeps, the minimalism of his soundtrack to the film Dead Man), but is this "noise rock"? Does separating "noise rock" from just plain old "rock" that happens to be noisy exclude more commercially successful artists like Neil Young and Jimi Hendrix that have contributed so much stylistically to the genre? Is "noise rock" exclusive to the underground? And what happens when that underground surfaces to the pop charts? Morganfitzp 06:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No-wave was noisey before Sonic Youth came around

I think the author is giving way too much credit to Sonic Youth on this one. Listen to DNA or Mars and tell me you don't hear Sonic Youth in the late 70's

FECAL MATTER

They should add fecal matter to this list since they are an "influencial" beggining for nirvana.

This page needs serious repair

You'd have to be insane to tell me Airiel and Daughters have even one stylistic similarity besides the fact that they use drums, guitars and basses...the list of bands includes anything from noise rock to math rock to shoegaze to mathcore, and many of these bands have absolutely nothing in common. It should be made clear as well that "noise" and "distortion" are not synonymous.

I agree, include Polvo

I think the band Polvo should be in this list, they were very influential. I'd also like to see, and I might even start working on writing one for MessAndNoise, a list of Australian noise rock bands of the 2000's as the scene here has been very impressive during this time.

60.241.193.131 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

red links

I'd like to change the list of bands to be only bands with WP articles, as a first attempt at notability and verifiability. Anyone object? Cheers, Doctormatt 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no objections so I'll do this now. Doctormatt 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum, I added some bands with red links which seem to me as necessary (I didn't know, first). I'm not sure if "red links" are gage of notability (especially in a "noise rock" article). --Pierre (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonic Youth

Do you really think Sonic Youth was still noise rock in 2005?

Pfiggs 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Band list by decade

Houtlijm just made some big changes (nice job on the timeline!) to the page. One is the switch to a "by decade" format for the list of bands. I'm not sure this is a good idea because it is so often unclear what decade a band would fall in: is it the decade they started, the first decade they had "success", the last decade they existed, or what? What if a band was around for a few years in the 1980s, disbanded, and then reformed in 2002? Without some guidelines, and perhaps even with guidelines, this could be a huge mess. My inclination is to not list by decade. What do others think? Doctormatt 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

timeline comment

Time line of notable noise rock performers The locust, black dice, and all the other should not be mentioned shouldn't be called 'harsch noise'..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.122.15 (talk • contribs)

Strange sentence

What have noise rock to do with grindcore, besides grindcore also creates somewhat "noise"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.6.74 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Noisecore

Noisecore is a curious term. It seems to be used in several different senses... firstly it is used to describe a form of dance music, which I unfortunately know nothing about about. Within the extreme metal / rock scene though it has at least two separate meanings: firstly, and probably the older usage of the term, to describe the noisy end of grindcore, although this is further confused by the use of the term 'noisegrind'. I remain to be convinced by the legitimacy of this term as I'm yet to see a reliable source for it, just lots of Internet fan or review sites. The second meaning, which is certainly easily sourced to verifibale sources like Terrorizer magazine, is the discordant, amorphous group of bands including DEP, Coalesce, Converge and even Neurosis, some of which have recently acquired the mathcore label. For instance, the Terrorizer retrospective of the 1990s devotes an entire section to the rise of the 'noisecore' scene over that decade. However, this usage seems to have no presence on Wikipedia, despite such a prominent source. We could do with deciding exactly what we want to write concerning this term. Any ideas? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) it's natural that the names of musical genres are combined in order to refer to "hybrid" genres. and it's natural that the genres delineated by these terms remain a bit "amorphous." "noisecore" is an an almost inevitable coinage (like "electrotechno," "industrialectro," etc.) reflecting the hybridization of the musical community. to me, "noisecore" would appear to signify a cross between some form of noise rock (or "noise music," in general) and hardcore punk (or a derivative, even a ninth or tenth generation derivative, of hardcore punk). so the term could have quite a wide application. i am for expanding its application, not contracting it. as long as people talk about noise rock or noise music, and use the term "hardcore" (or some other word ending in "-core"), critics and fans will want to put the two concepts together and label certain types of music as "noisecore." wikipedia certainly should acknowledge and document this continuing tendency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.206.70 (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OR Banner

routine banner addition. No citations in place therefore the information is subject to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Please improve by adding verifiable sources. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does, in fact, cite sources; the bibliography lists 11 of them. There are no inline citations, however, so that's the appropriate banner to use. It's true that citations should be added, and I've left the OR banner up, since the lack of citations makes it unclear what's OR and what's not. Aryder779 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but just to be clear - I could be misinterpreting something - but I'm not sure a list of books constitutes a list of sources if means to validate the references are not evident. You may know that the information on the page is supported by information in the books listed, as could another specialist, but other readers cannot know this. It's impossible to verify anything without citations, and currently none exist, but I have no doubt you will endeavor to improve this situation. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few references, and removed the OR tag. I replaced it with the banner that says that more references are required. If you (or anyone else) suspects original research, feel free to replace that disclaimer. Aryder779 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

well it's not so much about suspicion as about the article failing to demonstrate otherwise. There is also a new issue with the fact that the references cited now have undue weight, plus they appear to be self-published sources. The OR banner just saves having to add citation requests throughout the article, which I would rather not have to do, so the choice is yours. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand something about Wikipedia, but I don't feel that every article that doesn't have a citation at the end of each and every sentence automatically requires an OR banner. That's why the "this article requires additional citations" banner exists -- it's more specific, and somewhat milder. My impression is that the OR banner exists in cases where someone feels strongly that much of the included material is original research, e.g., not supported by any of the cited sources. There are a number of different "disclaimers" available on Wikipedia, so I don't think that a few gaps necessarily require the OR claim. If you do, feel free to put it up there, but if you're under the impression that's it's automatically required, I don't feel that's the case. I'll point out that Wikipedia says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." WP:CITE. The question is whether material here has been challenged. I feel like most of it's pretty standard.

As for the references -- I don't see that cited references have "undue weight", it's a just few points where direct substantiation can be indicated. I don't think that this is at all unusual on Wikipedia. I'm going to have to be adding sources piece by piece, so it's going to be a little uneven by necessity. I don't think we need to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

One of the cited sources looks like it might be self-published (the "noise rock FAQ", which I'll admit is not a great piece of work). The other sources are Azerrad's book, an article in Spin magazine, and Allmusic, which I think are pretty solid. Aryder779 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UT

yes sorry I meant just the web source. Generally it depends how rigorous you think things should be, my personal view is that guidelines exist for a good reason and if followed will help in producing good articles. There is a lot of erroneous information on the internet, wiki is the one place where readers can be cautioned regarding the potential inaccuracies or biases that may exist in what they read. Never assume someone has prior knowledge of the subject matter, it is a mistake to view the material as common knowledge. Note: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. see WP:NOR, also, check WP:UNDUE to clarify that point. WP:BETTER is also useful. Finally, No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

just by way of example, the following is what I would expect a well sourced article to look like, in terms of citation usage 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Note also that the lede can generally avoid having citations if the material is dealt with elsewhere in the text, with appropriate citations provided. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I recognize your point, I agree that Wikipedia should be improved to the best degree possible, and that verifiability is a goal. I also agree that prior knowledge shouldn't be expected. However, I think that music genre pages involve certain difficulties that news events (such as the page you indicate as a model) do not. There's not a large amount of print media covering marginal experimental pop music styles, and what there is tends to be highly tendentious. I'm going to make an effort to track down sources for everything in this article, but one thing that makes it a bit tricky is that unlike, say, screamo or drone metal or powerviolence, which are fairly strictly delimited, noise rock has a very long history (as the article presently indicates).

I'm going to put the OR banner up, as on repeated reading there is some unsourced info that in the article that could certainly be contested. Aryder779 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've provided sources for the first two sections of the article, so I've moved to the banners to the "History" section. I'm working on tracking down sources for the rest of it, mainly from the Allmusic Guide (which can substantiate most of the claims). Pretty boring work, to tell you the truth. Aryder779 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I've provided sources for everything up through the "2000s" section, now, which I think is pretty good. Aryder779 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Someone added tags about clean up and requiring additional sources. Please provide specificity about these perceived problems. The entire article other than the "2000s" paragraph includes references, and that paragraph is already tagged, so I don't see a reason for these tags to be here. Aryder779 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)