Jump to content

Talk:List of Christian hardcore bands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something I noticed...(continued)

[edit]

How about we try this: remove all the sources EXCEPT those for bands that have been previously removed or contested on this talk page. Then, if any of the uncited entries are removed or contested, we can add them back with their previous source. That way we can see which entries are controversial and need sources versus those that are obvious choices and don't, and thereby decrease the overall size of the article. Would this be a good idea?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to rephrase that a little more clearly: on Wikipedia, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, meaning things that are objectively obvious and/or have multiple sources. In our case, it would seem (to me) to mean that bands like Underoath or August Burns Red, who are well-recognized and easily sourceable as hardcore bands, can be listed without a source. However, since some of the bands on here are not "sky-is-blue" hardcore bands, and we've only dealt with a few of them in the past, my proposition is that we remove citations from all bands who haven't been contested or removed in the past (I wrote down a list of the ones that have been to make this easier.) Each time a band is removed or contested after that, we will know that that band is not a "sky-is-blue" hardcore band and can add their sources back. This will make the page more concise due to less unnecessary citations.
So I guess my question in short is: Can we remove sources from currently uncontested bands and add them back if/when one of them is removed?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I kind of like the idea, but I have hesitations. How do we determine if a band is uncontested?--¿3family6 contribs 22:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Uncontested" meaning that they have not been removed from the list (such as by anon) or had their inclusion questioned on this talk page.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was thinking more on the lines of numerous mentions in reliable sources. When you get ten or so sources all using the term a lot, that would be common knowledge. This is standard for academic writing even outside of Wikipedia.--¿3family6 contribs 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can go by that too. I guess I just thought the one I suggested would be easier and more precise, but I'm sure either or both would be fine.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So can I go ahead and remove the references (for bands that have numerous sources available and/or have never been contested by other users)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about it so I'll just do this so we have a point at which we can indicate that the refs existed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll start now and finish tomorrow night if necessary.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I make a suggestion that you either do it in your sandbox and move it all in a single edit or tag the article with an {{In use}} template while you're making the changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little late for that now (sorry) but I'll keep it in mind the next time I do something like this.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback Kid (again)

[edit]

The last discussion we had on them was kinda no consensus, and now that I think about it, the Cross Rhythms ref might not be strong enough since it's unattributed. There's the HM ref, but they've been known to cover artist of questionable relevance to Christian music. I'm thinking we might want to remove them. Thoughts?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Van Pelt has stated that HM Magazine now focuses on "music of interest to Christians." I think that was in 2010. The link in question makes no mention of Christianity, it was there to support hardcore. The Cross Rhythms source is still valid, and it calls them Christian. However, of the two members from the "Christian" Figure Four, one of them, the vocalist, has stated the following on a date later than the Cross Rhythms article: "Like I said before I’m just at a different time in my life now. I don’t believe in the same things I did when I was 18 years old. Figure Four started in 1998 and the other original members definitely had an agenda and as the band changed ( members) I was growing up and my opinion changed on a lot of issues. Classic story I guess. I don’t know what happens to us when we die." I say remove.--¿3family6 contribs 23:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, though for the record, I'm doing it because I think the sources are dubious with regards to the band's relevance to Christian music (the HM ref makes no mention of it, the CR ref is unattributable and thus no more reliable than AllMusic's "Explore..." genre articles). While band interviews can be used to source the band's opinion on something, the general Wikipedia policy is to classify a band ("Christian", "supergroup", "side project", etc.) based on reliable sources. Just sayin'.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subgenres

[edit]

I don't know if any of my previous suggestions would actually work, but I do think there should be some indication in the list of which bands are which sub-genres of hardcore. Some way to quickly and unobtrusively explain to the casual reader why Emery and Living Sacrifice are on the same list. Any suggestions?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the earlier discussion, to have different subgenre sections should work, and it is okay if there are duplicates.--¿3family6 contribs 13:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll start working on it in my sandbox and bring it back here for approval when I'm done.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's not quite finished (I still need to work on the sources and maybe some formatting fixes), but this is what I have so far for the reformatted list. Thoughts (on the form, not the content)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: General form looks great. Very organized and easy to read. Headings explain the reasons for band inclusions, such as grunge bands, so that should help avoid confusion. Some bands need duplicate entries (for instance, The Crucified are definitely metal-hardcore fusion).--¿3family6 contribs 13:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just so it's quasi-official and I don't feel like a vandal, can I replace the current text of the article with what's in my sandbox?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I would be the one most likely to grouse about it. I still don't think it's the best way, but it's clean and less obtrusive than I thought it would be when you first mentioned it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, thanks for not meeting expectations haha. I'll get right on it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Also, just a heads-up: while doing the move, I removed the cleanup templates because the new list is slightly different from the one we had when those templates were put up (some bands I left out, some I added, some sources added/removed/rearranged, etc.), and thus they might not be applicable anymore. Feel free to add them back if anyone thinks they are still warranted.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made it more beautiful since your addition. I suspect that the templates can be re-added if needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for metalcore

[edit]

Regarding the stink I previously raised about metalcore on the metal list, I think I might have come up with a compromise. Since metalcore bands seem to be more often associated with Christian metal than Christian hardcore, perhaps we could put the bands sourced as plain old metalcore (As I Lay Dying, August Burns Red, etc.) in the appropriate section on the metal list, while bands that are only sourced as both metal and hardcore (P.O.D., Thousand Foot Krutch, a lot of the old crossover thrash bands like The Crucified and One Bad Pig) could be left in/moved to the "Metal/hardcore bands" section on this page. Would that be okay?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the previous discussions, so I don't know what problem you had with metalcore. Metalcore always confuses things, since it straddles both styles. Basically, if the source says metalcore, put the band on both lists, unless the source gives an explicit qualifier (i.e., "the band lies on the hardcore side of the metalcore fence").--¿3family6 contribs 13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion I was referring to would be this one. In any case, I am starting to see how my idea might be a bit overcomplicated, though it does seem weird to list The Showdown together with The Crucified, but whatever.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-examining some entries

[edit]

Hey guys! So I'm briefly looking over this list (briefly because I have several sandboxes full of articles to get to plus the usual real life stuff) and I'm realizing how absurd some of the artists I originally put on here are. I think back then I was just trying to get every Christian hard rock band on here, whether it made sense or not. Whatever the case, some of the refs I added I now realize are kind of vague and shaky or don't actually call the band itself "hardcore". Point being, I'm thinking of removing or tagging these bands and wanted to post an explanation so my edits don't get automatically reverted. The particular bands are:

  • 12 Stones - Source only describes them as having "post-hardcore edge" (not actually being post-hardcore), and I can find no other source for that genre.
  • Altar Boys - Don't think I added this one, but regardless, source only mentions that Ric Alba played hardcore, not specifying Altar Boys.
  • Decyfer Down - I guess "post-hardcore sound a la Anberlin and Emery" isn't that vague, but I'm a little suspicious of CT's grasp of what "post-hardcore" is, especially since, like with 12 Stones and Flyleaf, they're the only ones who call them that.
  • Disciple (band) - Quote in CR source compares their early sound to Rage Against the Machine, who are identified in their article specifically as rap metal. CT source mentions rapcore, but rap metal and rapcore are often confused and - again - no other source I've found calls them that.
  • Edison Glass - Okay, this source is reliable AND specific, but even so there doesn't seem to be another source for post-hardcore. And subjectively, from what I recall, they mostly just had some muted screaming on a couple songs. They're probably okay, just bringing it up.
  • Fireflight - This one is specific but from a college paper, which may or may not be reliable. There are a couple other sources from around this time that use the term "emo-core", but it's worth noting that the band's press bio for this album also described them as having "hints of emo-core", so it's possible some journalists went off of that rather than the band's actual sound, especially since they were relatively unknown before then. It's early at best, since it seems no one has called them that since.
  • P.O.D. - Not that improbable, they do have some roots in punk and hardcore, just maybe some stronger refs could be used. I'll probably add those.
  • Pillar (band) - Specific and reliable but kind of weird. It's a CT source describing their post-2004 sound as "melodic hardcore with an emo-screamo bent", but yet again, I haven't seen any source describe them as anything close to that. Also, I'm convinced that "hardcore metal" is just how CT describes any music with screaming, based on how broadly they use it. There is a CR source for them being rapcore early on, but that's about it.
  • Since October - Similar to Pillar, with a CT review using "hardcore metal" and "melodic hardcore" when no other sources call them that.
  • This Beautiful Republic - It's possible, I do recall them screaming a bit, but the source cited is a deadlink that I remember being kind of iffy anyway, and the other sources google turned up are kind of vague about how prominent their hardcore elements are.
  • Thousand Foot Krutch - Cited from the Since October source, so same issue. There might be sources for them being rapcore early on, so maybe we could use those instead.

So there you go. Sorry this went a little long, just want to let you guys know in advance. I might do a similar inventory on the punk list if I have time.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar is described as hardcore by Modern Drummer. JFH describes TFK on their debut as a mix of "punk, alternative, rap, hardcore, hip-hop, or pop," and though I am not a reliable source, they are rapcore in the sense of hardcore and rap mixed together. An NRT review says that the rapcore sound a feature of the band's early years. And an AllMusic review of the debut album calls the band hardcore]. With P.O.D., here are some sources that you can use: [1], [2], [3].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources. I still say Pillar is "early" since that source is from May 2004 when their most recent album was Fireproof, which still had some of the the rapcore sound. TFK is probably the same thing. P.O.D. has more recent sources calling them hardcore so they probably don't need the qualifier. On a side note, we should probably add rapcore to the list of genres in the lead.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Christian hardcore bands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better article!

[edit]

This is how it should be, even for list-only articles. The bands are sourced with references next to each entry to avoid disputes/discrepancies. The "Christian rock band" article is a catch-all cluster dump of musicians, individuals artists and secular bands. I think the same process should be considered for the Christian "rock" (strictly rock within the Christian genre only) and Christian "metal" articles according to Wikipedia guidelines/rules. 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Christian_hardcore_bands&oldid=1206680031"