Talk:Evanescence/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Logo removal

The logo is currently being used purely for decoration. As such, I have removed it. If you believe that it should be kept, add some sourced commentary about it, and place the logo in the relevent section. If no reliable sources can be found discussing the logo, it is obviously trivial information, and has no place in an encyclopedia anyway. I am not watching this page, so if you reply here, please drop me a bell on my talk page telling me that you have left a message here- don't just out-and-out reply on my talk page, as that would alienate others from the potential discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove the logo; that orphans it, leading to its deletion. I am restoring the logo. Discussion may continue while is in the article. Gimmetrow 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So what? If the image isn't being used properly, then it fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE and should be deleted. It adds no meaningful content to the article in its current state. It's not like it could never be re-uploaded. It takes approximately 5 seconds to upload an image to Wikipedia. If you're so worried that it will disappear forever and be irretrievable, I suggest you right-click on it and "save as." --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have failed to provide any reason why this does not satisfy WP:NONFREE, your edits are the functional equivalent of vandalism. Further removal without a detailed, explicit description of the precise points where this allegedly fails WP:NONFREE, and without allowing time for response, will be treated as vandalism. Gimmetrow 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, while I too would like to see the image stay, I don't think that there is much that can be discussed without going into original research...simply comparing the old and new logos is stretching credibility to the breaking point, especially if both old and new logos are used. Orphaning of an image is absolutely not a valid reason to keep, and Milburn & IllaZilla make valid points. The presence of the fair-use logo has been challenged, thus the burden is on those who wish to keep to validate its existence (beyond mere prettiness). Given this, I see no real reason for it to stay.

Also, calling IllaZilla's removal of the image "vandalism" is incredulous, to be frank. As mentioned above, valid concerns have been raised, and the typical method of progression is to leave the contested material off the page until discussion is finalised. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I said it was the functional equivalent of vandalism. Uploading from a saved copy has other policy problems. (Armando could reupload in this case, since he can attest to its history.) We could, in fact, write stuff about the logo that wouldn't be OR, but it's not clear that this is required (it's apparently not for team and company logos), and neither IllaZilla nor Milburn have explained why it required. Gimmetrow 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will pose a simple question: What informational value does the image add to the article? The answer is pretty clearly none. Does it identify the band? Maybe, but not in any way that their name and picture and the opening paragraph of the article do not, therefore it is unnecessary. As such, and since the logo is assumed to be copyrighed, it fails the following criteria of WP:NONFREE:

"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" -Since we already have the band's name in plain text, the logo fails this criteria.

"5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." -Of what encyclopedic value is the logo? As I've said before, it adds no information to the article at all. There is no text accompanying it saying what it is or why it is significant. Without any discussion of its importance, with references, it also fails WP:N and probably also WP:V.

"8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." -I think my comments above clearly show how the logo is not meeting this criteria. Its presence does not increase understanding, since we already have the name and picture of the band. Its omission is not detrimental to an understanding of the topic, as without the logo one still clearly can see/read that this is Evanescence.

I know you've been part of the discussion about logos at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist and you've made your views known there. However I think if you look back over that discussion the consensus is pretty clear: For a logo to have any value to an article about a musical act, then the logo itself must be notable in some way and be accompanied by some kind of referenced discussion of its significance. Without these criteria then it is clearly just cruft and only serving the purpose of decoration, and that is not allowed for non-free content under Wikipedia's fair-use policies. As to your comment about team and corporate logos, those have different guidelines unto themselves (WP:LOGOS) and it is not accurate to apply those guidelines to band logos. The reason that band logos are not included in those guidelines is because they are generally not the primary means of identifying the subject.

And I'll thank you not to compare my enforcement of policies to vandalism, especially when I provide a detailed and clear edit summary with a link to the relevant policies in it. It's up to you to read and follow those polices, not to me to spell them out for you. In the case of any dispute concerning non-free content, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the content, not the person who believes it should be removed. And as Huntster points out, orphaning of an image is absolutely not a valid reason to keep it in an article. Unless you can provide a compelling reason to include the logo in the article, then it should stay out and be deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:LOGOS which says it applies only to corporate and team logos to the exclusion of other organisation logos, or that WP:NONFREE does not apply to corporate and team logos. As to your explanations: 1) The band name is not the logo and does not adequately illustrate the logo. There is no free equivalent for a copyrighted logo which adequately illustrates the logo. 5) Having the logo therefore adds information about what the logo looks like. 8) not having the logo is detrimental to a complete understanding of the band, which includes the logo.

So you have explained your reasoning as to why this logo allegedly violates WP:NONFREE, and your reasoning is lacking. Furthermore, corporate and team logos would fail 1, 5, and 8 by your arguments above, if they were correct. Gimmetrow 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to see it go, I think Illa has valid points. Honestly, the logo inside of the band's infobox looked great, and gave a rather drab box a huge improvement. However, since the image isn't been released as Free, it busts the policy on non-free content. While I by no means can preach on following policies, we can't fight the vandals in the name of Wiki Policy, and then turn around and ignore those same policies when it doesn't suit us. I did some browsing this afternoon, and I couldn't find a single big name band on Wikipedia that had their logo in the article. Sad really, I'll miss that logo.  :( --Brownings (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because a set of WPians have taken it upon themselves to remove logos from a bunch of articles? No, he does not have valid points, as I explain above. Logos are the classic case of fair use - there is simply no way to illustrate a logo except by... illustrating the logo. Gimmetrow 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Illa hasn't reponded yet. If I see no response soon, I will have to assume the logo was invalidly removed. Gimmetrow 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I feel I've made my points crystal clear. WP:LOGOS is a set of guidlines that is a subset of official policy on WP:NONFREE. WP:NONFREE says very clearly here that Team and corporate logos may be used for identification. It says nothing about bands. WP:LOGOS further clarifies: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor, for example. It is difficult to explain in words what information is conveyed by such a portrait, yet most users feel that they provide something valuable. The logo should be regarded as a portrait." In the case of an article about a musicial artist, we have a portrait of the artist in the infobox. It's a visual identification of what the subject of the article looks like. Ideally this is a free image, though if one cannot be obtained then it might be substitued with a fair-use image. Why the distinction between bands and other entities like corporations and teams? Because in a vast majority of cases it's impossible to get a picture of an entire team or the entire personnel of a corporation. Also, a team/company is a non-corporeal entity: it exists independent of any individual member. A band, on the other hand, is a corporeal entity: it's a group of (usually) 3-6 people. And in a vast majority of cases it's easy to get a free picture of the entire band.

I disagree with you that "not having the logo is detrimental to a complete understanding of the band, which includes the logo." You can get a perfectly complete understanding of this band through a well-written and well-referenced article sans logo. If the logo were essential to understanding what Evanescence is, it would be in the article body somewhere alongside a discussion of its significance. Who created it? In what context is it used? Does it have some special meaning or symbolism? As far as I can tell it's just the band's name in pretty lettering, and the fact that so far it's just been plastered at the top of the article with absolutely no accompanying discussion of its significance attests to the fact that it's not really notable. As you've said, "having the logo adds information about what the logo looks like." If the only value in having the logo is to show what the logo itself looks like, then that use clearly fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE.

Please note, I'm not against having logos included in articles across the board. I just think (and I'm not alone in this belief) that in order to add any informational value to an article about a musical act, the logo itself must be notable in some way and it must be placed in the body of the article alongside a referenced discussion of its significance. You can see several examples of articles which do this very well here. If you can't tell the difference in quality and encyclopedic value between any of those examples and this then you need to reconsider your definition of an encyclopedia. Almost all of those examples also meet WP:NONFREE's criteria of being "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." What I (and others) oppose and are seeking to weed out is the carte blanche use of logos across Wikipedia in music-related articles strictly as decoration. In most cases, like Evanescence, these are non-notable images that have no significance outside of the fact that "this is the way the band stylizes their name on their album covers." In what way does that provide meaningful and informative content to a free encyclopedia? It doesn't, and these are the types of uses we must avoid if we are to continue improving WP's content. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons). Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the logo has been moved and has a bit of commentary attached to it. I don't believe that this completely satifies the criteria above (in that it doesn't say why the logo is of interest or why it is notable), but I'm leaving it for now. One glaring problem though: the caption reads "The band's logo and signature font was created by Aeryn when Fallen was in development." Who is Aeryn? That name does not appear anywhere else in the article. That definitely needs to be addressed. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"For now" - how kind. I don't think there's a verifiable way to state who Aeryn is, other than the person who designed the font. Gimmetrow 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If that information is unverifiable, then it should not be included on the main page. A mention may be warranted on the image page though. Curious, is the Aeryn the one who designed the logo for the band or just the font file floating around the 'net? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's verifiable that Aeryn designed the font. Aeryn is a pseudonym for someone involved with the band, but as far as I know Aeryn's identity is not publically stated in reliable sources. Gimmetrow 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys should settle this and stop dicking with the page. I don't know anything about any wikipedia guidelines all I know is it does look nice with the logo i even uploaded an SVG version which was very nice ;-) but there was an argument that it was somehow not fair use when the PNG was which got me annoyed! I know wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and is only here to provide certain things but i think a nice SVG or at least PNG logo is important information, if it wasn't the band would of not created it!!! The most important thing though is whether or not it is illegal to display it. As far as being free content it is free in that you can go onto the evanescence webpage and download it for free and Wikipedia would be using it in a non profitable way so i really can't see the harm. What we need is some citied reasons as to why we can/cannot display the logo and until it is agreed it can be displayed it should be removed from the page. Luke255 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for information, the logo released by EV is under a non-commercial and commercial-only-with-permission license. WP discusses the logo under fair use. Gimmetrow 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation tag

I placed the tag on the caption of the image based on the discussion above. The caption says that someone named Aeryn designed the logo, but there's no mention of anyone named Aeryn in the rest of the article. This begs the question; who is Aeryn and what significance does it have that she designed the logo? As Huntster ponited out: "If that information is unverifiable, then it should not be included on the main page." Gimmetrow responded: "It's verifiable that Aeryn designed the font. Aeryn is a pseudonym for someone involved with the band, but as far as I know Aeryn's identity is not publically stated in reliable sources." So it doesn't seem clear whether the information is verifiable or not, and in either case it isn't currently sourced. And it seems questionable whether there may be any reliable sources that can be used to source it. So the citation needed tag is certainly warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what *exactly* do you want cited? It appears you want something cited which isn't even in the article, which is absurd. Gimmetrow 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I do think that the image calls for more substantial, cited commentary in order for it to contribute anything meaningful to the article. But right now specifically I'm asking for a citation that Aeryn (whoever she is) did indeed design it. See for example Tool (band). The image caption says who designed it, and it's cited (yes, I know you've pointed out flaws in that example before, but I brought it up on the article's talk page and it's been fixed). You've said "I don't think there's a verifiable way to state who Aeryn is, other than the person who designed the font" and also that "It's verifiable that Aeryn designed the font. Aeryn is a pseudonym for someone involved with the band, but as far as I know Aeryn's identity is not publically stated in reliable sources." I'm asking you to follow through on that statement in bold, since it seems contradictory that you also state there are no reliable sources to tell us anything about her. I'm simply asking you to provide a source for the image caption: "The band's logo and signature font was created by Aeryn when Fallen was in development." --IllaZilla (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And what will be the next step in this? You'll just object to whatever is provided. Why don't you look it up yourself. Gimmetrow 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that it isn't the job of others to verify the statements of one editor; the impetus is on each editor to back up their own contributions. Why do you think I do so much reverting around here; so many folk throw random information up without sourcing it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of my whole point. The only bit if informative content that the logo relates to is a single sentence that you either can't or won't source. I'm convinced that the logo is only here for decoration, which violates the spirit, and quite likely the letter, of WP:NONFREE. The litmus test for this to me is: does having it teach me something about the band that the text of the article doesn't? No. Does having or not having the image make or break the quality of the article, or of a portion of the article? No. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I noticed this edit you made to Tool (band) and I have to raise a point here in comparison: You removed the logo from that FA on the grounds that the paragraph alongside it contained "no direct discussion of [the] logo." The paragraph does have more to do with the band's name than their logo, but it does mention their ideas about the name symbolizing "a big dick...a wrench" which is what the logo was illustrating. Anyway, the caption under the logo did have a valid citation about the logo's creator. Compare that to the logo in this article: Similarly, the caption consists only of a citation about the logo's creator, yet there is no "direct discussion of [the] logo" in the article body next to the image (or indirect discussion, for that matter). Based on your own seeming criteria for logo inclusion, how can you insist that the Tool logo be taken out, and the Evanescence logo left in, when there is clearly more discussion of the logo in the Tool article (some) than in this one (none)? --IllaZilla (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that it needs to be wirtten somthing about the Ev Logos to include an Ev Logo image on the article??? Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes. WP:LOGOS states: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." If the Evanescence logo is of interest for design or artistic reasons, then those reasons should be discussed in the article using referenced commentary, ie. in a section about the band's visual or artistic style. If no such commentary is present, it creates the impression that the logo's use is promotional (or decorative, which is essentially the same thing). Note that it is at best unclear to what degree the provisions of WP:LOGOS applies to the logos of musical acts, as WP:NONFREE (a policy of which WP:LOGOS is a subset of guidelines) only specifies that "Team and corporate (emphasis added) logos [may be used] for identification." Meaning, team and corporate logos can be used simply for identification; no supporting text is necessary. Band logos, on the other hand, require more substantial referenced commentary in order for their notability to be established. In my honest opinion, the way that the Evanescence logo is currently being used in this article gives the impression that it is only there to promote the band, or to serve as decoration. My basis for this impression is that there is no commentary anywhere else in the article discussing the band's visual or artistic style. The Evanescence logo, therefore, does not appear to be be notable or iconic in any way. And even if it were iconic, WP:NONFREE only allows "Images with iconic status or historical importance [to be used] as subjects of commentary." Simply stating who created the logo, even if it is referenced, doesn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image. Much more meaningful, referenced commentary is necessary. And in the absence of such commentary, we must err on the side of exclusion per WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough games Illa. Let's get a few things straight.

• Your insistence on a cite for something you weren't actually disputing, and which you could have found in five seconds with google, reflects poorly on your character. That you soon after removed the logo suggests worse. I have no interest in jumping through your silly hoops.
• You keep repeating WP:Notability despite being told that doesn't apply: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people)". Nobody is (at present) trying to write an article solely about the logo of this band.
• Although some bands don't have logos properly speaking, this band has a logo. They also have a signature font which is a part of their "visual style" in your words. Absence of text about this from this article (before I added it) is not evidence of a lack of significance, but that Wikipedia is a WP:Work in progress. This article doesn't really have discussion of the *musical* themes of the band, either, but presumably you're not going to argue that because it's missing, musical themes are not a significant aspect of the band.
• WP:LOGO is a guideline. So is WP:NONFREE. The *policy* for images is WP:FUC. There is nothing in WP:FUC which clearly says one set of organisation logos is held to a higher standard than others, unless you wish to make the argument that nothing about bands is encyclopedic. But I don't imagine that would go over very well.
• You seem to have some bizarre notion that *only* "iconic" images can be justified. That's a very high bar, much higher than is justified by en-wiki policy at present. As evidence, I point out that the German wikipedia is considered to not allow any fair use, yet has had a logo (B/W reversed) in its Horde (Band) article for a long time (and in the infobox, even). But you removed the logo here. (The trademark template on de-wiki is heavily used and I can find other examples.) If your interpretation of en-wiki's fair use policy ends up more strict than a no-fair use wiki, it strongly suggests your interpretation has a problem.
• If you really mean what you say, that "Simply stating who created the logo, even if it is referenced, doesn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image", why don't you remove the logos from your examplar articles, The Rolling Stones#1983-1991 and Tool (band)#History? These articles don't appear to say anything that establishes the images as historically important. This suggests to me that you might be using WP:IDONTKNOWIT to make these decisions.

Your attitude in the continuing removal of hundreds of logos is a user conduct issue. Most of the editors who work with the thankless image tasks do a remarkably good job of dealing with the difficulties. I don't have a problem with Lib's conduct regarding images, for instance, even when I disagree, but I would have no problem certifying a WP:RFC about you. Your actions are not only removing the work of numerous editors, but your attitude is discouraging quite a few and perhaps driving them away from WP. Gimmetrow 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that those stupid people that like to piss people off never stop coming to this article. Lol, I remember like 3 people like you...and yes, you guessed Illia or w/e your name is. Really, if you want to annoy people why don't you go to spam a blog or a forum or idk. Look how you contradict yourself.

So you are suggesting that it needs to be wirtten somthing about the Ev Logos to include an Ev Logo image on the article??? Armando.O

Basically, yes. [...] My basis for this impression is that there is no commentary anywhere else in the article discussing the band's visual or artistic style. The Evanescence logo, therefore, does not appear to be be notable or iconic in any way. And even if it were iconic, WP:NONFREE only allows "Images with iconic status or historical importance [to be used] as subjects of commentary." Simply stating who created the logo, even if it is referenced, doesn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image. Much more meaningful, referenced commentary is necessary. And in the absence of such commentary, we must err on the side of exclusion per WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE.

Wtf are u talking about??? Not even you believe your own 'argument'. Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1998?

Hey, I have a question. Didn't Amy said she was 13 when Ben asked to form a band? If yes, tecnically Evanescence would be formed in 1994 (Amy was born in 1981) and I don't really think it makes sense to say they were formed in 1998, just a little before they releasing "Evanescence EP" (unless they two are too are extremely fast writers). It's just a doubt, if anyone could enlighten me, feel free... ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They formed a band (or began the motions of forming a band), yes, but as far as I understand it, the name Evanescence did not come until much later, so it would be inappropriate to say that Evanescence was started in '94. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So we don't know when exactly they named the band Evanescence right? It wouldn't as inappropritate to say they were formed in 1998? Just saying - they could have release "Evanescence EP" in the end of 1998, but that doesn't particulary means that the band was formed then. ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found this....Lee, a classically trained pianist, founded Evanescence in 1995 and by the late 90's the group had released its major-label debut, Fallen, which featured the worldwide hit singles "Bring Me To Life," "Going Under" and "My Immortal." Fallen went on to sell fourteen million copies worldwide. in Out of the Shadows, but I don't know if we should cite this since they say that Fallen was released in the 90s o__O, so maybe everything in that page is wrong. Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection through Grammy awards

Although I said before this article doesn't usually get enough vandalism to justify semi-protection, after a spurt a few days ago it seemed best to semi-protect through the Grammy awards. Gimmetrow 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

anybody know the name of song #9 on her albumanywhere but home?

i couldnt find the case and im in a bootcamp so i only have acces to wikipedia and national geographic[sucks dusnt it?] emoboy557 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is Anywhere but Home; all albums are linked to from this article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah that really sucks xD Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Genres

I'm changing the genre, deal with it. Just having alt-rock is misleading as they don't even sound like the majority of alt-rockers (I just left it to satisfy you). Alt-metal is there because they are clearly metal. Goth rock/metal as the majority of people, fans or not, clasify them as goth, and symphonic metal as there is clearly symphonic influences, just listen to Whisper. And don't give me the whole "Evanescence don't like being called goth" rubbish, that doesn't matter. Motorhead hate the term "heavy metal" and Korn hate the term "nu metal". So there you go. Deal with it Titan50 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alt-rock, alt-metal can stay but they aren't gothic metal or gothic rock, maybe they have influence but while you can't provide a reference for us except some people's guess, that doesn't give us the chance to call them a gothic rock/metal band. And they have "very little" influence from symp metal, maybe Lacrymosa is a real symp metal song but there isn't another one.--Nazzzz (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are alt-metal,But they surely are not gothic.Just listen to some real gothic rock - sisters or mercy,fields of the nephilim or gothic metal - theatre of tragedy,paradise lost and you'll see there is a great difference between them and evanescence.Just because some people call Evanescence gothic doesn't mean it is true.Yeah their music is kind of moody and gloomy, but there are many styles that incorporate dark atmosphere and have nothing to do with gothic music. So just keep alt-rock/alt-metal and thats all.With some hints of industrial and piano-rock, I guess.--Xr 1 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah they surely noth goth. anyways i think tey also have some influces from symphonic metal such as the songs lithuim, whisper, lacryose, hello, breathe no more(and others but these are the strongest ones) im adding it...-written by BlackDoggie

And I reverted the changes because there are no reliable sources to back up the change. Plently of reliable websites say "alternative rock" (even their official MySpace). I'm guessing because Amy listens to Classical music, that's where the symphonic metal comparisions are coming from but really Evanescence as a whole aren't symphonic metal nor are they entirely hard rock or post-hardcore or whatever people have been changing the genres to. Sure Evanescence have been/are compared to bands such as Within Temptation and Nightwish all of the time in the media and while these bands can be easily defined as symphonic metal, Evanescence can't simply because the genre doesn't describe the band's entire back catelogue. You have to take into consideration genres/styles of the Evanescence EP, Sound Asleep EP and the Origin album as they were the first six years of the band. Much of the stuff on those EP's/demo Cd's are acousticly/rock based with very little classical/symphonic metal influences showing. So that can explain the simple "Alt rock" in the infobox, but if you have at least three reliable sources (any well known music stations/websites (like MTV, VH1, AllMusic Guide) or magazines (like Kerrang, NME) etc.) backing up the symphonic metal comparisions go ahead and put symphonic metal in the infobox. For sources please do not use any blogs, fansites or mechandise sites as they are very much someone elses opinion and so are unsuitable as reliable sources. AngelOfSadness talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that alternative rock should be the only genre there. Evanescence does not play metal, I think this is clear. Influences, most probably, but the actual result of their music is not metal. I would like to know how reluctant the editors of this article feel about removing alternative metal from the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a "Genre" section with a paragraph or two summarizing (with sources) why people think they're X or Y genre, and just have "see below" in the infobox. Gimmetrow 22:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. A "Style and influences" section would be a good way to prevent the infobox from being flooded with genres. The infobox genre could therefore be Alternative rock (see below). Zouavman Le Zouave 13:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No; it's clearly seen that there style is alt-rock/alt-metal, with some influences from symphonic metal, industrial metal, piano rock, arena rock. So it should be like that:

Alternative rock

Alternative metal (see below)--Nazzzz (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, every time you discuss Evanescence's genre, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. I don't know who created the musician infobox for Wikipedia, but I curse them for ever putting a genre line in it. --Brownings (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no kidding. Say, perhaps we can elect to remove all mention of genre period, and thus avoid this rediculously and unnecessarily contentious affair. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so that people will fight over the introduction and the categories? False-good idea. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if there was no article at all, then there would be no need for these debates and lame edit wars over something so trivial. But seeing as we can't do that, we best do with what we got....whatever that is and improve it so we'll be that much closer to seeing the article as a featured article. AngelOfSadness talk 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rolls eyes That was a rhetorical comment. However, I'd much rather fight over the introduction than genre...maybe progress would actually be made that way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in contributing to this article, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents and give a little levity with regard to the seeming disagreements over the band's genres. As far as the infobox goes, see Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre: "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])." So, "rock" or "alternative rock" should be just fine. Further discussion of what genres or subgenres the band's music falls under (ie. alternative metal, etc.) should be discussed in "style and influences" section, with references to reliable third-party sources. The only genres that should be listed in the infobox are those that are mentioned in the article body. It shouldn't be necessary to use references in the infobox, since the genres are already referenced in the article body (plus it just makes the infobox look cluttered, and it's supposed to be a simple at-a-glance thing). It should be very easy to find numerous third-party sources discussing what styles of music Evanescence falls into (Alternative Press, Spin, Rolling Stone, etc.), though I notice there's only one reference cited in the "style and influence" section right now and it seems like a weak one IMO. There's plenty of supporting source material out there, and there's no reason to go on arguing or reverting genre disputes when we should just be writing what the sources tell us. Discussions about genres shouldn't be added into the article without references, and only the genres discussed in the article should be listed in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "aim for generality" has been my mantra all along. And it seems like it would be easy to find sources, but in actuality, very few publications have any agree-ability on the topic; you also have those that call Amy Lee, for example, the 'queen of goth', when, as it has been readily pointed out before on this page, Evanescence is most definitely not goth. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree: as it seems even most of my arguments on generality back in November still stand. I said it then and I'll say it clearer now: Pretty much nearly every genre that Evanescence have been labled are derivitive forms of Alternative Rock and yes, that includes alt metal, gothic rock, post-grunge etc as the list goes on and on. It's two words, can be very easily sourced, will abide by the manual of style and is general. AngelOfSadness talk 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Huntster, I both agree and disagree with your comment on sources. Discussions of genre and style come from a variety of sources. The band may label themselves as one thing (or reject a certain label), while critics and music scholars may call them another (sometimes in contradiction to the band's own assertions). For example, I'm pretty certain I have several issues of Alternative Press lying around which discuss Evanescence's (and Amy Lee)'s links to goth, both in what ways they are connected and what ways they are not. So, since there are reliable sources to back up the idea that Evanescence are in some ways influenced by goth and in some ways reflect that influence in their own music and imagery, it would be appropriate to include goth as one of the genres that they fall under, even though there are other sources which argue the opposite point. Not that I'm doing that, I'm just saying it could be done based on reliable source material. And in my opinion there is no valid reason to exclude genres that reliable third-party critics have associated with the band. The sources don't have to agree, there can be opinions on all sides (as is normal with critical commentary). But as long as there is at least one good critical source provided for a particular genre label, then there is every reason to discuss that genre in the article and list it in the infobox. In the end it doesn't really matter whether the fans, or readers & editors of this article, agree or disagree with the genre labels. It matters what the reliable outside sources say. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever put "Styles and Influences" in, I love you!!! Titan50 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is best to write a long description about their music in the article. I started it as a stub with the name "Styles and influences", but it needs expanding. I'd like to do it, but I haven't got much time for now. Please someone write it. If doesn't, I'll try to do it but I don't promise.--Nazzzz (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.I need an external link from their proclamation that they do not want to be labeled as Christian Rock. Mr. Green^chat 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see it by clicking this link.--Nazzzz (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nazzzz. When I get the time I will edit the section. Mr. Green^chat 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed three of the references as overkill...the remaining two say everything that needs to be said. Also, whoever originally wrote the Christian label bit at the end...good touch, seeing how it nicely segues into the following "Christian controversy" section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea that was me.I'm going to get more info. today and proboly write it tommarow. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop there. When I created that section, I wrote a sentence like this "They are often called as a Christan rock band by some medias and fans, but their musical style isn't part of this genre in fact." and Mr. Green changed it to "They have been referred to as a Christian rock band by some media and fans; however, the band has publicly proclaimed that they do not want to be classified as such." The original idea was from me. You can check it from the archive. --Nazzzz (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, are you that desperate for recognition? How about I give a heads up to both of you guys; that way, no one's jealous! Zouavman Le Zouave 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

pre-Fallen EPs & albums

According to a 2003 interview with Ben and Amy on DC101, they want fans to download for free pre-Fallen material, rather than paying insane prices for it on eBay. Another Evanescence information site has all the albums up for download in MP3 format. My question is, should this suggestion by Ben and Amy be included in a EV article and should we link the album's Wiki page to the download site? Obviously, I'm not going to even post the site here, until I get some feedback from everyone else. --Brownings (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because even if they "it's okay to download", unless it is explicitly placed in the public domain, it is (as I understand it) still a copyright violation to download the music without compensation. We should not link to such. I'd also not place the information on the article for the same reasons. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just wanted at least a second opinion on the matter before I started posting stuff. I just wish that if they really did want us to download pre-Fallen stuff, they'd place it on the official EV page. I was over there the other day and I noticed that the once free-to-download music videos must now be purchased through iTunes. Perhaps they'll one sell the pre-Fallen stuff through iTunes at least so that the masses can get it. --Brownings (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of metal and I can say Evanescence is NOT a metal band. In fact, it is the only non-Metal band I love. and No it is not alternative rock. What it is? Hard Rock. There are not enough symphony to be symphonic rock. Not enough Gothic stuff to be Gothic Rock. And it surely isn't Metal I can damn guarantee you. Hard Rock. Coldplay is alternative rock. Epica is Symphonic metal. Evanescence doesn't sound like none of them. Hard Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.74.126 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales for Fallen

The sales figure in the lead is cited to [1], which says:

With 15 million records sold worldwide, and two Grammy Awards for their debut album "Fallen," Evanescence continues its stratospheric success with its latest release, "The Open Door" (Wind-up Records)...

I can understand reading this as Fallen sold 15 million. However, the first clause modifies Evanescence rather than Fallen, so it says Evanescence has 15 million in sales, which includes sales for both Fallen and Anywhere but Home. Gimmetrow 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. And speaking of sales, I reverted this edit because Media Traffic only lists an album's sales while in the top 40 and not current figures. The bottom of the ref says "The figures are the cumulative sales of an album during its time on the top 40 list". Spellcast (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, any other sources that you know of specifically point out a sales figure for Fallen? Also, while I'd prefer to not use a source like Mediatraffic in the opening paragraph, would their numbers be adequate given we already term it as "more than X million..."? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT ALT ROCK

Them fit between 3 genres, post-grunge,Nu metal, ghotic rock... alt rock is an loose definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that you started a discussion BEFORE you made changes. Oh wait, you didn't. Therefore, I've reverted your edits till a consensus can be reached here on the talk page. If you've bothered to look though this talk page, and its subsequent archives, you should be aware that you'll have a long and hard battle to sell this change. --Brownings (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. I personally consider them more Gothic Rock than anything. I mean have you heard their songs lyrics, they're all dark and creepy. Their Goth Rock. I mean, come on, the singer even dress's like a goth while on the stage. Emo777 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can "please" and "come on" all you like, but they are not a goth rock band, nor a nu metal band for that matter. They share hardly any characteristics with the nu metal genre. Sourced encyclopedic coverage of their genre should be written in the appropriate section of the article, not in the intro, not in the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Listion here! I was just stating my opinion, which, if i'm correct, is MINE! Second off I never said they were Nu metal, I don't even like nu metal bands. I don't know the guy who made this NOT ALT section but it's not me. I just stated that I thought that they were goth rock, that's all. So before you said that I said something I didn't check your source. BTW, I think SOME of there stuff is alternative rock, but I also think it's goth rock too!Emo777 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2008

I agree with Emo777, they are alternative rock but are also partly goth rock! I mean there not completely goth (if you hear Cradle of Filth, then you know what goth rock is!) but they definitely have a slightly dark and creepy sound to their lyrics!--Seán Travers (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Not Metal

Okay, I'll agree that some of Evanescence is Alternative Rock, but the are in no way or form any type of metal. They might be hard rock, but not metal.Emo777 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I think a lot of their stuff could be classed as metal, which is obviously different to your opinion- but neither of our opinions belong in the article.. "Alternative rock" seems to be the most logical label given that most of the sources I've seen seem to use it. Alt rock is a ridiculously vague genre, but if the repeated arguments are anything to go by a vague genre is all that anyone will ever agree on for Evanescence. ~ mazca ^talk 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You got a point there, I suppose. I just don't think that they belong in the metal genre, they're not heavy, nor do they use the guitar style. But yeah, our opinion doesn't belong in the article, personally I consider them more goth rock than alternative. But I guess our opinions don't belong here.Emo777 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, hehe. Genre discussions can be one of the most pointless and irritating parts of a wikipedia talk page, as far as I'm concerned if there's any dispute you just have to go with whatever genre most sources seem to use. Pretty much no band fits absolutely perfectly into a genre, because otherwise they'd all sound the same! ~ mazca ^talk 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

True, still, some discussions make no point, it's all mostly people stating their opinion's and jumping on you when you state yours for not having any sources. Even though they don't have any "real" sources either, that's happened to me several times, and on this page too.Emo777 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Section?

I think that someone needs to rewrite the styles and influences section a little bit. There's really not that much wrong with it but, after reading it several times, I've noticed that it sounds more like someone's opion rather than an independent statement. And it might confuse some people, what does everyone else think?Emo777 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather agree, after some of the recent additions. Have any suggestions on form, that doesn't emphasize any particular attribute? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have any perticular suggestions on form. I just think it needs to be rewritten as a more neutral and independent statement, because I've seen some places describe them as Alternative Rock, others that call them goth, and then some that call them something else. So yeah, I think that it needs to be written as to wear it doesn't call them a specific genre of music, seeing as no one has a direct source on what type of music they are.Emo777 (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have rewrote it but given your comments above this section, I doubt you'd approve of my rewrite. There are plenty of reliable sources identifying the band as a metal act but oddly enough, in the admittedly short amount of time I spent on google, I was not able to find anything that identifies them as alternative rock. Other than blogs, retail websites and the like. If you know of any reliable source that identify them as such, by all means add that into the article. --Bardin (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you, the rewrite sounds better now. Also, I don't know where I saw them listed as Alt. rock, I know I've seen it on blogs but i've also seen it on some websites, but I can't remember which, especally since others called them goth and others something else. Tell you the truth I found the sites by mistake.Emo777 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nu Metal?

Ok, the current listings are Alternative Metal and Gothic Metal. Should Nu Metal be added? I've heard some people agree that it should and others don't want it added. I'd like to know where everyone stands on this, should the nu metal be added, and is the current genres okay. Please, DON'T add or remove anything until it's all been sorted out, thanks.Emo777 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well first off can anyone provide verifiable and reliable sources for nu metal (or the other genres for that matter)?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you re-read the article recently? Sources are already there for gothic metal, nu metal and alternatve metal. --Bardin (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the current genres have sources, Rolling Stone and a couple other places call Evanescence Gothic Metal, while All music guide calls them Alternative Metal, are those good enough?Emo777 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see them sorry.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The article currently cites three sources that describes the band as nu metal, namely the Rolling Stone magazine here, Blender magazine here and the Allmusic database here. I'm sure there are others online but surely these three authoritative sources are enough for the nu metal tag. --Bardin (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't see it before, I added it. Thanks209.215.22.34 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal should be added. They were included in the List of nu metal bands article. --Arcai 22 July 2008, 11:56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcai (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not at all a reliable source. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre?

Okay, someone keeps chaninging the genre in the info. box. Currently their is Alternative Metal, Gothic Metal, and Nu Metal in their. All 3 of the HAVE valid and reliable sources. I didn't put Alternative rock because I couldn't find a relible source that called them that. Please, before changing the genre, again, discuss it here and have a valid source before you change it again. DON'T remove the current 3 because that all have sources that are valid. Thank-you.Emo777 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, Evanescence is not a gothic metal band. Plus, there needs to be several reliable sources for the genres to be in the infobox. I shall be watching over the page. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone removed them, there should be several reliable sources comfirming the genre change. They were their a few days ago.Emo777 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the sources are still there, only they are not in the infobox but within the article. The problem is that nobody involved in the edit war seems to be interested in observing wikipedia's policies. I really like to know where people get the idea that Evanescence is an alternative rock band given that I have not been able to find any source that indicate such is the case. Sources that describes the band as nu metal include the Rolling Stone magazine here, Blender magazine here and the Allmusic database here. Both Rolling Stone and Blender also describe the band as gothic metal here and here as does Metal Hammer here and PopMatters here. Multiple sources for the nu-metal and gothic metal tags; zero sources as yet for the alternative rock tag. --Bardin (talk)

Reviews are irrelevant. Relevant are only the interviews from the band. And the band says "We are no gothic kids. Our influences are wideranging, from Tori Amos to Björk and orchestral music." (a collection of different German interviews).

And there are their influences: http://www.mmguide.musicmatch.com/artist/artist.cgi?ARTISTID=1259390&TMPL=LONG#influences

They are not really strongly influenced by Goth or Goth metal. So you can not say, that they produce Goth metal. It's a variant of dark Alternative rock blended with modern Metal music and an influence of orchestral sounds. --Ada Kataki (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, you make no sense. 1st i'm being told that the reviews and the statments of the band don't count, then you tell me that they do. You guys in the genre war are just putting what YOU want to call them, ignoring sources, and twisting things around just because you don't like what the sources say. If this is what wikipedia has come to then I don't see any hope for it in the long-run.Emo777 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is why I no longer involve myself in these senseless genre edit wars, except where I see unnecessary disruption taking place (such as with some of the recent edits by User:Seán Travers, among others). Don't despair, you aren't the only one annoyed with the current situation. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken breaks from watching all the Evanescence articles at different times because of these Genre Wars. Honestly, I'm almost to the point again of taking them all off my watchlist for a bit. I hate that changing this crap back and forth seems to be the only attention that this article and it's sub-articles get. It's total BS. I've said on a number of occasions that Genre, at least in the intro and band infobox should be deleted to help cut down on this crap. --Brownings (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archived

Discussions from January 2008 through July 2008 have been archived. Let the new, and hopefully constructive, discussion begin below. --Brownings (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlogged albums or EPs

Wikipedia doesn't have any reference to EPs/singles in the discography section Bring me to life EP Mystery EP Not for your ears Sound Asleep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.97.197 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All offical releases are detailed at Evanescence discography (which have the tracklistings of the EPs you mentioned). Not For Your Ears isn't mentioned at all because it is a bootleg and not apart of the Evanescence official back catalogue therefore isn't mentioned. If you were referring to the Evanescence#Discography section: the Eps and singles aren't mentioned there because that section is just for detailing the main album releases in summary on the main (band) page if a separate discography page also exists AngelOfSadness talk 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

outoftheshadows.com

this domain doesn't exist anymore... -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, very odd, it worked when I originally tried it, but I might have had a cached version. Regardless, just because a site disappears, doesn't mean the citation is any less valid. If a replacement can be found, then certainly, replace it, but we don't delete references just because the site or article or whatever disappeared. We'd lose a significant number of citations if that were the case, across Wikipedia. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And if an external link is technically "dead", then it should be tagged as such using the {{dead link}} template. See Wikipedia:Dead external links and Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Sure you can discuss it on this talk page, but it will help all those who check references if the link is tagged as dead so that they know ahead of time to try and find either an archived version of the page or an alternative source (without needing to know about the discussion on the talk page). So please just leave the link tagged as dead where it is for now and move on. Anyway... I'm going to run the Checklinks tool (here) to see if there are any more dead links. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 10:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never got the site to work. Of course I thought it was perhaps it was developed for Internet Explorer and I always tried with Firefox. Anyway, perhaps we can find a Google cached version of the page to use as the linked reference? --Brownings (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The page used to work, and I recall reading it. It appears the page had a robots.txt query exclusion, so it won't show up at archive sites that recognize robots.txt. However, there wasn't much there. Lee was involved with the "Out of the Shadows" campaign about epilepsy, and the site included a brief bio saying, among other things, "Lee, a classically trained pianist, founded Evanescence in 1995 and by the late 90's the group had released its major-label debut, Fallen..." I didn't think the page was particularly credible months ago [2] and it could just as well go now. Gimmetrow 15:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying to you both: Brownings, it is better to leave the dead link there, than link to a Google cache, since it too will disappear after only a week or two (plus, I looked for one, and the cached page is the same as the dead link...points to the generic page bit). Gimmetrow, it could certainly "just as well go now", but only if you have something to replace it with. Theoretically at least, that page and the information on it was built with input from Lee, so I would hope it reflects accurate information. I'm kicking myself for not using Webcitation.org to archive it...I thought for sure that I had. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes, it should have been reviewed by Lee, and in the absence of any other information one could argue it's better than nothing. However, such bios are often written by someone on staff and may or may not be particularly reliable. Given what it says about Fallen, does it really seem all that accurate? Gimmetrow 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Three options, then. 1) Keep the reference at face value, 2) Keep date as unreferenced (1995 or 1998, which do you use?), 3) Remove founding dates. Take your pick. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead could be written to correspond to the main text "...founded in Little Rock, Arkansas by singer/pianist Amy Lee and guitarist Ben Moody after their 1994 meeting." Gimmetrow 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre removal

Good luck Nazzzz with that strong warning. We'll see how long till the troll come back and start adding random links in the genre areas. The best bet is just to remove it completely, then weather out the storm till they give up. However, we'll see how your approach works. --Brownings (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the Alternative metal tag, but hey, if it will give this page a break from another genre war then go for it.Emo777 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Will someone provide a source to the claim that they are in the "alternative metal" genre? I dont care if I get a warning, if I dont see a source I will change it myself WITH a source. Coiler fan (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And here we go again, I don't agree with it either, but there should be sources that say they are alternative metal, i've seen them. Emo777 (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot, don't remove the genre without having a discussion, let's try and avoid another genre war, at least inform someone 1st.Emo777 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's already a source for alternative metal under the Style section (last sentence of forst paragraph). But I don't know if the source needs to be cited twice for the same thing in the same article but if it'll prevent a mistaken genre edit war, citing it twice shouldn't hurt. Anyway this is currently the source used in the article for alternative metal. But I did find other sources on alternative metal which could also be used; aol.com, Allmusic, Billboard.com, metrotimes.com. AngelOfSadness talk 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing a source in the lead paragraph is unnecessary, so long as it is sourced elsewhere in the article. The lead is intended to be a summary of the whole article, making duplicate sourcing there unnecessary. If it is change, just revert and move on. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cite it twice, but I think it would be a good idea to have more than one source that says they're Alternative Metal, that way people can't argue that the one source isn't enough, and beleave me some will, I see it in other parts of wikipedia all the time. So yeah, their might be more than one source, but last I checked there was only one saying they were alt-metal. Emo777 (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you can find a second or third source, that would be fantastic. Like with alt rock, alt metal is being used because it is a generic genre, and given the contentious nature of this, generic is the best answer right now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will add my voice to any argument that the alternative metal tag be removed. Evanescence isn't, and never has been, a heavy metal band. Despite what some might think, alternative metal is at the core a heavy metal genre, it's just metal that's playing in an alternative manner, not, as so many seem to think, alternative rock with some metal tones or elements, and Evanescence do not meet this requirement. They are alternative rock with some modern gothic overtones and heavily-tuned chords. This is not a criticism, nor is it elitism, just simple statement of fact.

As it is, I won't make any attempt to change it, because it does seem there are generally reliable sources (note: Not allmusic) citing it, and unfortunately wikipedia's rules state that no ammount of logic or reason can overcome a handful of sources. That's just the way it is. But there's my 2 pence on the matter. Prophaniti (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't consider them alt-metal either, but I also don't consider them alt-rock, personally I consider them gothic rock. But that's why alt-metal is up there, we all say they're something different and only alt-metal is properly Sourced. Besides, I've never even seen a source that call them alt-rock. Leave alt-metal. Emo777 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, will this weblink count as a relible source? I haven't gotten to look at it, I just found it on the internet somewhere, it says they're alt-metal, but I don't know if it's a good source or not: http://www.mp3.com/tags/alternative+metal/ Emo777 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MP3.com isn't a reliable source, as far as I'm aware. It's just a site that sells music, like amazon. I could be wrong of course. And aye, as I say I shan't try changing the genre, and with them on haitus it's not likely to change anytime soon. Ah well, can't win 'em all. Prophaniti (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what genre they fall under, but alot of people seem to peg them as 'gothic metal'. While I'm not too sure on that either, does anyone have an actual sorce for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a mention of gothic metal in the Style section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know how big a debate this causes, but my personal opinion is that they are an alternative metal band. Fallen was a pop-rock album in my opinion, yes, but the Open Door, with its sweeping atmostpheric techniques, its simple guitar chords (which points to alternative) and its depth and feelings is what I'd call alternative metal. Lacuna Coil is progressive metal. Within Temptation is symphonic metal. Evanescence is alternative metal. Just my opinion. When will they begin working on a third studio album? User:Borr29 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

Well, the "genre" section was removed from the template per here. I think saying "American al-metal band" is better if there is no genre in the infobox.--Nazzzz (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, I mean, it's controversal as it is. Why not just keep it the way that it was and put all of the genres in the style section? Emo777 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that alternative metal is Ok, Evanescence is a band that had a lot of gender changes in all their career, I think the correct genders are Alternative Metal, Alternative Rock, Gothic Rock/Metal (on the beginings and in some songs). --Tokioadicti0n (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you meant "genre" there, or else my opinion of Amy Lee's appeal just fell quite rapidly XP

On a more on-topic note: the points above just illustrate why so many bands now are incorrectly classed as heavy metal. People use the "hopping" technique, whereby we have one band that moves away from heavy metal, but is still within it, it's just a bit different (e.g. Faith No More). Then people say "This band sounds like Faith No More, so they must be metal too". This further dilutes the definition. And so on, and so on, until we end up in situations like this where bands with absolutely no metal content get called heavy metal because they can trace some kind of comparisons link back to band that actually is.

But this is straying into far too much general discussion, sorry. Regardless, if it ever came down to an actual editor discussion, I'll firmly cast my vote against them being called any kind of metal. But given the sources, I severly doubt it ever will, we have plenty. Prophaniti (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are sources.The same sources has been used in the Gothic metal article.For citing Evanescence to be a Gothic metal act.I dont know why everytime I put it on the genre with the sources,and as Prophaniti said correctly "unfortunately wikipedia's rules state that no ammount of logic or reason can overcome a handful of sources" ,Still they remove it.Its intrestingSolino the Wolf (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to be like that too, but I soon realised that removing sourced content won't get me anywhere. There are times when I disagree with the sources, as in this case, and there's nothing wrong in expressing that. But that's just the way wikipedia is: it simply reports what the sources say, and the sources in this case say Evanescence is a gothic metal band. What I think most folks who do remove that sort of thing need to remember is that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia isn't saying "Evanescence are a gothic metal band" per se, rather it's saying "The sources say Evanescence is a gothic metal band". Prophaniti (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Evenessence are not any sort of metal, and Alternative metal isn't metal either. Alternative metal is rooted in Post-Grunge and Industrial with bits of metal,alternative rock,rapcore and post-hardcore. They are not gothic rock either, only their lyrical content is slightly content, this does not make them goth rock or goth metal. Goth metal evolved from Death/Doom that added synths and arranged the riff structure to a more gothic rhythm. evenessence are post-grunge/Alternative rock at the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True bacon222 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing bothers me; why do we need to find sources on some sites that call Evanescence this or that if we have a great source right here - Wikipedia! Most people who write for magazines or something and/or post on the internet don't even think about genres and just add something similar without thinking. I think that we should investigate genres on Wikipedia to see which one describes Evanescence the best. Many people will say that Evanescence is not metal, but they are definitely more close to some metal subgenre (like gothic or alternative metal) than to regular rock. Besides, there are very few new bands that can be described by one genre. Instead, their music is described as a fusion of genres or a bridge from one genre to another. One of genres for Evanescence that never occurred to anyone's mind is neo-classical metal - not just because of Mozart's Lacrimosa cover. There are many elements of classical music in Evanescence's style. I'll do a little research on the genres and when I'll have something, I'll write it here before I edit anything. NikFreak (talk) 20:35, 06 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia as a source, period. In order to claim a genre for a band, we must use external reliable sources, which we've already done in depth in the Style section, which has described a number of reported genres. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind a little bit since the last time I wrote. Why should anyone care what some guy from Paradise Lost thinks who influenced Evanescence (since he doesn't have a clue), or that the other guy from Moonspell (or something) doesn't consider Evanescence a metal band. And nobody even looked up what the band members said about their music. I'm not saying that we should consider Amy Lee's statement an ultimate truth, but I think it should be written down in the style section. And I think Amy spoke very carefully about the genre, she simply said that it is rock with various influences in metal, classical music and electronica. Did anyone occur that it is that simple? Most of the people who write for the magazines listens to one song and determines the genre. My point is that you could find a million sources claiming Evanescence is Gothic metal, but none of them really said WHY. They only write down what they think it could be based on listening to one or two songs (probably singles which are usually most commercial songs). And this ends in Wikipedia being the most UNreliable source. To get back on topic, there is really no need for labeling things and if someone agrees with me, let me now: I think that we should leave See Below in genre infobox. But we should change the style section drastically. We should first quote what Amy Lee and/or other members said about their music. Then we should remove statements from people that have nothing to do with Evanescence (which includes both guys from Moonspell and Paradise Lost). We also can't ignore the fact that Evanescence is mostly categorized by medias as Gothic metal and compared to Gothic and nu metal bands such as Lacuna Coil, Linkin Park, etc., but one or two sentences are enough for it. Than we might find some criticist and/or artist that actually knows something about music and can view things objectively and write down his statement. Then we would have: what the band thinks about their style, what medias think about it and what someone objective with good knowledge about music thinks about it. That would cover pretty much everything while keeping everything sourced and including opinions on all sides. Someone should, at least, consider this. Regards: NikFreak (talk)) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia that most people don't quite get is that it's based on verifiability (aka, what can be sourced) rather than absolute truths. I agree that the band members would be a good source, but it needs to be presented alongside what others have said. In this situation, if we can find quotes or other statements from band members describing their genre, then we can certainly use it (likely the the format of showing what others considering them, then contrast with what the band themselves think). But we need good sources for this, either from print or tv interviews. Until we have those sources, we cannot include anything. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But everything I mentioned can be sourced. There really are a bunch of interviews with Amy Lee talking about the genre. So if I could find some good sources for it, can I modify the style section? I will, ofcourse, leave a few sentences about how was Evanescence recognized in medias like I said in post before. I will just add more points of view because it seems to me that the whole style section is only considering what medias think. And the artists that talk about Evanescence in the section are, in my opinion, completely unrelated and I think they should be replaced. NikFreak (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide solid sources for material, by all means add in what the band considers themselves. Of course, don't go overboard...just the most brief and relevant stuff. And remember, you don't have to include whole quotations, just something along the lines of "However (or similarly), lead singer Amy Lee has mentioned in interviews that she considers the band to be ____ and ____." or whatever is most appropriate. However, I will ask that you not remove anything that already exists, at least not without a much wider consensus. Other musicians are in a much better position than you or I or news writers to judge what another musician sounds like. I'd rather keep them than anything else, but for now, I think we can safely leave everything in place. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't remove anything for now. But this musicians are completely unrelated to Evanescence and that is what is bothering me. If there were opinions from K.O.R.N or System of a Down band members, I would understand since they are related to them one way or another, but I really don't see what does Paradise Lost has to do with Evanescence. Sure, they are Gothic metal and Evanescence is mostly recognized as Gothic metal, but still there is no controversy about their genre and they do consider themselves goth while Evanescence does not and they never even mentioned Paradise Lost in any interview or whatsoever. And all that would be okay, but that guy said something completely stupid and wrong. Evanescence was definitely not influenced by Lacuna Coil and there is no reason why the generation gap would indicate that the newer band could not be influenced by some older band. I will start a new topic about this when I get some more info. Meanwhile I will just edit the style section to feature Amy Lee's statement on band's genre. NikFreak (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More news on the Narnia track

this artcile: [3] says that Evanescence WAS in fact approached about the song, two conflicting articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.212.50 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a very odd situation...we have articles that go both ways, and say two things. I'd say the article reflects this conundrum fairly well as it is, but I'll go back and try to rewrite to improve the wording. Thanks for the link! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

band formation year

Could someone please try to find a reliable source that tells what year Evanescence was formed. It previously said 1994, but now it says 1995...I don't know which is right and therefore, I need help looking.

Alice1869 (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)alice1869

As far as I can remember, it has never said 1994. That year is when Lee and Moody first met. The article did previously say 1998, which I still believe to be correct, but the only source that could be found stated 1995. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops sorry about that. I put that I thought it said 1994, but now I remember that it did say 1998. But I still do need to know when they really formed. Thanks.Alice1869 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Alice1869

I found these 2 weblinks, the first was something on youtube.com, I think it was a interview, but I didn't get to watch it all (I currently have Dial-Up), it said they formed in 1995. The secound doesn't give a date but it says they started at the end of the 90s. I don't know if these are valid, but they're all I could find, sorry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFgKzUEL9Ww & http://www.answers.com/topic/evanescence-2 Emo777 (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first link, most definitely not valid, as it is just a comment saying 1995. For the second, Answers.com really isn't considered reliable, as it isn't terribly different from Wikipedia...don't think they use experts for their material. Also, it just says late-90s, so isn't really defined. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Sorry, those are the best things I could find that said there date on it, I thought the youtube vid would be an interview, guess not, sorry, I have a slow connection for the time being so I couldn't watch it. If I see anything i'll let you know. Emo777 (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Answers.com is a wikipedia mirror site --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1998. is the year their first EP was released. The year of formation is at least 1997., since the first demo of My Immortal is from 1997., but in some inteview, Amy Lee stated that the band was unofficially founded in 1995. Until late 1999. when David Hodges joined the band, there were only Amy and Ben in the band and later in 2002, John LeCompt and Rocky Grey also joined (although they were previously playing instruments on Evanescence EPs), so we could say that the full band was formed in 2002. The idea of the band exists since the first song was written. We could leave 1995. as the band's formation year, or put that the band formation period is 1995.-2002., which would, in my opinion, be the best solution. P.S. I am going to change it, if someone thinks it's wrong, just change it back. NikFreak (talk) 12:37, 08 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming up with a date range for "formulative years" is original research, and I have reverted this edit. We have a source which states 1995, and it is in the infobox. I see no reason to expound on this subject further than we already have. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-Grunge

Evanescence sounds post-grunge. One of Amy's inspirations is nirvana. Shouldnt they also be Post-grunge along with alternative metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardulli22 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because you believe they sound a certain way doesn't mean it should be listed here (even if your assessment is correct). You will need to find a valid source which says they are post-grunge. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that they sound remotely post-grunge. I think that if you have some of the old pre-Fallen Evanescence, there's nothing grunge about it.

Hyatt (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

It's been a few months since we discussed nominating this article again for Featured Article status. While we all seemed to agree to nominate, no one pulled the trigger. Now the the genre war has seemed to have settled down a bit, I figured it would be a good time to give it a shot. Wish us luck as we push for the front page! --Brownings (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the nom because it was incompletely submitted; please let me know (per FAC instructions, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.") if Huntster (talk · contribs) agrees the article is ready, and if you need help to correctly submit the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article still needs some things addressed before it's really ready for FAC. I think there ought to be a section on themes, and a few questionable references justified or replaced. (A couple references are also dead links, which is separate from reliability questions.) Gimmetrow 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer if some well-versed copyeditors gave this a thorough cleaning. My recent experience at peer review has indicated I'm not competent at identifying such issues. I certainly don't own this article (heck, I've mostly taken a backseat and just do cleanup duty these days), however, it still feels like the genre issue is a bit incomplete for FA. To Gimmetrow, my experience here has been that despite Evanescence's fairly high profile, not a lot has been said about issues like Themes or Genres, or even much of their history. This seems to be one of those bands that get the "hey, they are superstars, go see them in concert" treatment in the press, rather than a more detailed reviewing. Both Lee and Moody seem to prescribe to "letting their music speak for them" mindset, and are rather private. Despite lots being said and published, there just doesn't appear to be much quality press to draw from. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was for a long time my baby, it has had some very good work done on it however it is not yet ready for featured status. There is a distinct lack of up to date information in the line up chnages section. It should prehaps read differently because it doesnt actually say they are on hiatus (bearing in mind that the start is merely an introduction, everything in the intro should be explained in greater detail through the article) so things like that need sorting --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure I'm going to get Heaven, Hell and everything in between for this, I am nominating Evanescence for featured article status. Well, it's open season, folks, so let's get decided on this. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

the open door double platinum

According to this artical the open door is double platinum. Just thought i would let you all know

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=106660

thanks.. 121.72.236.247 (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

According to RIAAs own website, it has not officially been certified double. More likely, Blabbermouth interpreted shipping over two million as equal to double platinum, which isn't quite accurate. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gothic Metal

In "Style" part of the article ,it's been called to many refrences that the band's been called "Goth" ,"Gothic Metal" and "Pop-Goth" So why not adding Gothic metal to the band's genre? I think it might help the readers get better description of the band's sound since Alt Metal is a good but incomplete description of the band's music.<Solino the Wolf (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)>

Because they all fall under the header of Alt metal, and for the Infobox and lede genre descriptor, its easiest to use the broad title, and leave the details to the Style section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

!!Gothic metal is certainly not a subgenre of alt metal + all Metal Genres (from thrash,Death and black to alternative,Nu Metal and etc) are subgenres of heavy metal and heavy metal itself is under the header of ROCK. But we can not call all metal bands simply "rock" or "heavy metal" cause we want the readers to have more direct and better description of the bands' music.So even if Gothic metal falls under the header of alt metal (wich is not true according to Wikipedia itself) it's better to name Gothic metal in the band's genres in order to give a better description of the band's music.Solino the Wolf (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above, ending in October, seems to me mostly for "alternative metal". But when a genre is subject to this much debate, it takes text to explain, and it can't be easily shoehorned into an infobox field. If we can't get stability on the genre, I would rather not have any genre field at all. Gimmetrow 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Evanescence has nothing to do with Gothic metal. Their influences are Tori Amos, Linkin Park, Sarah McLachlan, Rage Against the Machine und Type O Negative. And Type O isn't an audible influence. --Ada Kataki (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok.I suggest you just take a look at Gothic metal's article in wikipedia.And see Evanescence in it!And see that Evanescence being a Gothic act AND getting influences from gothic acts such as Within temptation and Lacuna coil isnt an unsources claim.(you can look at the sources number 182,185 and 186 in the Gothic metal page) Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They're METAL acts, not Goth. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about taking a look at their pages?(or simply listening them?) and besides,The are Gothic metal acts.what you said (Metal acts not goth) doesnt make any sense. Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should use your little brain. Gothic METAL is not GOTH. --Ada Kataki (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Ada Kataki, this band is neither 'gothic' nor 'metal'. Gothic metal descends from Death/Doom, and Evanescence really has nothing in common with those bands, or even bands such as The Gathering (Mandilyon) or Within Temptation (Enter). The only reason Evanescence gets this label is because the band is fronted by a female who dresses in 'gothic' attire. I have always felt Evanescence was a alternative rock band with maybe some nu metal leanings, so the current genre is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I may not agree with the way it's being said, but I quite agree with this point: if the band didn't have a female gothic-styled vocalist they wouldn't be called "gothic metal" at all. Unfortunately, we just report what the sources say, no matter how wrong or ignorant they are. Prophaniti (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok!lets talk it more serious.It's not about what YOU feel!Wikipedia is not about what we feel.its about sourcing.The sources say that within temptaion is a gothic metal band.They also say Evanescence has its biggest influence from gothic metal bands such as within temptation and lacuna coil.If you have a source wich denies these claims,bring it up.Until then,do not remove it just because you feel they dont sound like it."Gothic metal not GOTH" this still doesnt make sense.Nobody said their goth.Brain?LOL(and about Gothic metal,you're right it has originaly come from Death/Doom,But if you listen to Gothic metal bands such as within temptation and Darkseed you'll see Evanescence has strong Gothic metal elements.)Solino the Wolf (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you high on something? There is ABSOLUTELY no source that claims Evanescence is influenced by ANY gothic metal band, especially not Lacuna Coil. And if you see some similarity beetween Evanescence and Within Temptation, you should really try to listen more closely. Besides, isn't it logical that a band will search for influences in some older bands. In time Evanescence started with music, nobody even knew about Within Temptation or Lacuna Coil, so how can they be their influences? If I decide to make my music, I won't search for some bands that were founded yesterday. My influences would be already known bands like Evanescence, or even older ones, like Metallica. As for the genre, I don't think that Evanescence is completely gothic metal, but I also don't know which genre would describe it better. And the most sources claim Evanescence to be Gothic metal, so even if we don't fully agree, I think that we should state Gothic metal in the genre infobox. NikFreak (talk) 17:41, 08 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, we've beat the genre thing into the ground...we have the Style section, which provides numerous sources for genres and comparisons with other bands. NikFreak, I like your enthusiasm, but please read what's already been established regarding this subject...what is already in the article is a result of consensus here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)