Talk:List of indie rock musicians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delete all names without Wikipedia articles

• This list is way too long. All names without links to Wikipedia articles should be deleted. If they aren't notable enough to warrant an article, they aren't notable enough to be on this list. Spylab 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Walkmen

THE WALKMEN should be on the list. There is an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.254.116 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would a Category page be better?

Shouldn't this page be converted to a category, or is it better as a list? Does anyone think it might be a bit too much work putting the categories on all the pages - or is there a way to automate it? --rjcuk 12:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most music genres have both a list of artists and a category. They are both useful and serve different purposes. One should not replace the other. If there is no indie rock category, feel free to create one. There is no automation method. Spylab 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help, Spylab. I took at look at the guidelines for Categories and I understand that lists are just as good as categories. Plus, I have found the category - Category:Indie rock groups, but it isn't linked in this article. I will add the link for reference. Thanks again, --rjcuk 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of these bands are not even close to 'indie'.

Most of these bands are not even close or belong to the genre 'indie'. Especially, Panic! At The Disco. That band shouldn't belong under this category. Also, this list is quite long and needs a little bit of shortening and cleaning up.

The ones that don't have wiki entries are probably just fans or musicians trying to shameless pimp their band out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptonz (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2007

I cleaned out all the bands without articles and also removed some obviously misplaced bands such as the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Paramore, etc. I let a lot slide though. I would suggest getting rid of anything not labeled Indie Rock. This includes any indie pop, electronic, post-rock, folk, noise, etc. Easiest way is to just look at what it's all labeled in the article. You may be able to argue semantics for some of these in a straight "Indie" list but "Indie Rock" should imply that at least standard rock instrumentation is the primary component of the music. ie Built to Spill, but not LCD Soundsystem. That's my two cents. 65.122.125.226 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Juliette and the licks

I think Juliette and the licks should be on this list too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.104.31 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And the Fratellis??!?!?!?!??!!!!!!

i added the fratellis because i didn't see'em anywhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.165.238.7 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up: necessary

Instructions: 1.) Click on the Boston link in this article 2.) Notice that you are linked to the incorrect Boston page 3.) Navigate to the correct Boston page 4.) Look in the info box under genre. Notice that indie is not listed 5.) Press CTRL + F and type "Indie". Notice that there are no instances 6.) Use your pop culture knowledge/read the entire article 7.) Realize that this is not an indie band and that it makes no sense to be listed here 8.) Realize that there are probably more links like this and remove all of them that make no sense being here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.250.188 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 September 2009

• Why not just be bold and get rid of them yourself?

...oh wait, the article's protected from IP/new user editing right now. In any case, there are definitely some bands on this list that make no sense whatsoever being on there, I'll try to prune what I can out from it. TheLetterM (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Mountain

Add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.213.111 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed some bands...

I've just removed some bands because they've got nothing to do with what indie rock is. The mere fact that indie rock fans like them doesn't makes them indie too. It's ignorant to suppose such thing, and it's remarkable that no multi-platinum band can be considered as indie. 190.71.30.198 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you there. There are Alot of bands that need to be looked over because this article is in such poor condition. I started watching this page recently to approve any add-on bands, in addition to looking through a few bands. I've looked through the A's, but I can't find the time to do all of them yet.--猛禽22 ^•• 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Feeding Fingers and Dead Man's Bones are both well-known indie rock bands. Why were they removed? --Maninthewomb (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is claiming that Feeding Fingers is indie rock, and there is one small text off Dead Man's Bones that certainly doesn't meat notability standards.--猛禽22 ^•• 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll give you Dead Man's Bones, but Feeding Fingers, by definition, is indie rock-- listen to their music, read their story. Another band that should be on here as well is Entertainment. I'll work on their Wiki next... --Maninthewomb (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for an addition to the list

Reel Big Fish.
they are definitely a well established indie band. they even have been in at least one movie i can think of, that movie is called Baseketball (Made by/starring Matt Stone and Trey Parker). So yeah, i strongly feel they should be added to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.92.136 (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They're not an indie band.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say they aren't an indie band? I think they are. Every thing about them screams indie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.92.136 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to say why are they indie? They're a standard ska punk band, and are about as indie as No Doubt or Sublime. Come up with a few reliable sources saying that they are indie rock, and I'll consider it.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First on the list of sources is indierockreview.com I agree that they are ska, but there are multiple indie bands that can be considered under multiple genres, and I'm sure you can agree with that. And also according to www.surfthedrift.com they are independent of any record label whatsoever and support themselves. It also just so happens that Wikipedia itself states that the definition of an indie band is a band that exists independent of a major record label. How is that for starters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.92.136 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First, that indierockreview.com webpage looks like a fake, and I don't know what I'm looking at in www.surfthedrift.com. Secondly, "band that exists independent of a major record label", must also apply to the style of the music, that is why it doesn't apply for every single band on or once on an indie label. Atreyu, Bad Religion and Avenged Sevenfold were on indie labels, but they do not have their sound. Anyways, I still have yet to see a source that says Reel Big Fish are indie rock.--猛禽22 ^•• 03:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've checked Rolling Stone/[2], and I didn't see anything saying they're an indie rock band.--猛禽22 ^•• 03:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Antlers

The Antlers.
--24.12.250.221 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for the suggestion.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Radiohead

Is Radiohead cosidered indie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysonclinkscal (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jaysonclinkscal, 25 April 2010

Shouldn't Radiohead be considered indie

Jaysonclinkscal (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't think so. Spitfire19 (Talk) 01:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Neon Trees

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysonclinkscal (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jikipoiopo, 22 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Add Kay Kay and His Weathered Underground.

Jikipoiopo (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Blur, Oasis and Muse on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.162.121 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Indie band that tours with MGMT Ilikesalami, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Tame Impala

Ilikesalami (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a source stating they are in-fact an indie group. SpigotMap 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from InsightDice, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Remove The Spill Canvas from the list because they are not under an independant record label. They are currently under the record label Reprise Records, according tp their Wikipedia page. And when you click the link for Reprise records, they are mentioned as an independant record label. Their Wikipedia Page:

The Spill Canvas Origin Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA Genres Alternative Rock[1] Years active 2002–present Labels Reprise Records

InsightDice (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done SpigotMap 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jaysonclinkscal, 14 August 2010

{{'''She Wants Revenge'''}} http://www.last.fm/music/She+Wants+Revenge and ther wiki page states She Wants Revenge as indie. should they be on the list?

Jaysonclinkscal (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Samieworlock, 18 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Hai, I would like to add the Plastic Inevitables to the list that you've already collected. They're a local and just getting their name out, but very popular within the Cincinnati Area. Please look at their reverbnation (http://www.reverbnation.com/plasticinevitables). They play music along the lines of the White Stripes/Black Keys/Kings of Leon.

Thank you, Samie.

Samieworlock (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done:, but welcome to Wikipedia. Here, it's all about the notability. All the artists in this list have blue links, meaning they have articles on Wikipedia, which are supposed to have actually established WP:Notability with enough independent, WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable sources. Many articles are so bad that they're at risk of deletion due to non-notability.

• Because the band is so new, I suggest you start the article in userspace (WP:Creating an article) such as User:Samieworlock/Plastic Inevitables (band). Then, as the band accumulates notability (press coverage, reviews, puts out press releases, does verifiable interviews on radio/tv, actual newspapers, magazines, gets reviewed outside of Cincinnati, puts out more than one CD, tours like crazy with reviews in lots of towns, appears on Letterman, has a song used in a TV show, etc.) put that in the article listing the sources, with urls, titles, dates, etc. Develop the article. I see they have Facebook and Myspace pages, and an article in Metromix, but that's not enough yet. At least three more WP:RS before local notability is established.
• Finally, after the article has developed sufficiently, it can move to the main space without fear of immediate deletion due to notability issues. Good/bad examples: A middling-good article example is Ladytron, though it needs more sources. A bad example article is Elbow (band), because it's not neutral and goes into ultradeep detail of little interest to non-fans. There are editors who will help you with article development/grammar/etc when asked, so boldly write the thing, and be ready for accept constructive criticism. Most of us WP:Do not bite the newcomers. --Lexein (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Weezer leaves major label and goes indie

This artical states that Weezer is now an indie band. http://beatcrave.com/2010-04-26/weezer-leaves-major-label-goes-indie/ They should be on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.198.77 (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Claim is supported in article Weezer. --Lexein (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ladyhawke points to the wrong article

Fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fix it, please." . Correctly points to article about Pip Brown. --Lexein (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove?:

dandy warhols, decemberists, death cab for cutie, Dresden dolls, yeah yeah yeahs, the strokes, regina spektor, sonic youth, the smiths, Sigur Rós (maybe), radiohead, polyphonic spree, placebo, PJ harvey, muse, modest mouse, mewithoutyou, LCD soundsystem, kings of leon, the killers, kasabian, kaiser chiefs, hot chip, the go! team, Franz Ferdinand, be your own PET (maybe), Ben Kweller, Babyshambles, ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead,

http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp

why are those removed? (Letuce? (talk) 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

those seem like the most necessary names to be on the list!

I concur, a lot of these bands still have serious indie credentials, despite being signed to major labels. Some of these bands aren't even on big labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roche Tomson (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MicahProffer, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to add two bands to this list, they are Sunset Soundtrack (www.myspace.com/sunsetsoundtrackmusic) and Glimmer In The Ganzfeld (www.myspace.com/glimmerintheganzfeld) I feel that both bands fit the standards of classification as "Indie Rock" bands by all forms of the definition, and would love to see them added to this list. Thanks! Micah Proffer

MicahProffer (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: In order to be on this list, a band needs to have its own wikipage. If you create (either after your account becomes confirmed, or by using WP:Articles for Creation), the pages, then wikilinks can be added here. Note that to do so, you'll need to demonstrate that the bands are notable--this usually means that they have received multiple, substantial mentions in independent reliable sources. Just existing, recording music, and having a myspace page won't be enough. If you have questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK Go

Was with Capitol Records in the past, but split with them. Enigma^msg 04:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

When they release an album of Paracadute Recordings and only Paracadute, then maybe I'll consider it. OK Go's majority work is capitol records power pop.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To F-22 Raptored, I quote you: "Allmusic and Amazon are not only reliable, but they are some of the most respected and trusted sources on music" from [[3]] on your talk page. You might then want to consider AllMusic's designation of OK Go as indie, and Amazon's designation as well http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=node%3D468300&field-keywords=OK+Go&x=13&y=16 Try to overlook your preconceptions and view the evidence. -- Waterglyph (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't respect nor trust Allmusic. Pitchfork Media on the other hand refers to them as power pop, not once did they describe them as indie rock, and they're far more reliable when it comes to alternative music.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Adams

There's a Citation Needed tag next to Ryan Adams. He's a notable musician, but is he indie rock by the standards of this list? He's a musician, has done rock, has his own label, and releases on it. Is that enough? In the meantime, I've changed the tag to "Dubious" to call attention to the question, and invite discussion. --Lexein (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OR tag

The OR tag seems inappropriate, since all musicians have pages supporting notability, and no claims are made in this list requiring citation. I've removed it. --Lexein (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Much cleanup has occurred, and can now be addressed for individual entries. So I've removed the Cleanup tag. If an entry is suspect, please tag with {{dubious |date= }} to encourage discussion! Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad links

The links to "Beirut" and "Bell X1" do not go to the band's pages. Normally I'd fix a detail like that in the course of reading, but I can't do that in this case due to its semi-protected status. George Dance (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

More links that don't go to band articles:

Calabi-yau, Cesspool, Chairlift, Chotchke, Coconut Records, Coronette, Days, Dunes, Duotang. George Dance (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done DAB'd Beirut, Bell X1, Chairlift, Coconut Records, The Days (British band), Duotang (band).

Can't: Calabi-yau WP:AFD/Calabi-yau, Cesspool (band) deleted, Chotchke (band)- no band article ever created, Chikita Violenta deleted 2010-09-16, Coronete/Coronette no such band article, The Dunes no such band article. Sadly, there's no George Dance band. --Lexein (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Chikita Violenta notability established, so link restored here. --Lexein (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Weezer is now on an indie label shouldn't they be considered indie?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysonclinkscal (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 April 2010

answered below. --Lexein (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Blur and Gorillaz labeled as indie on their wiki pages

Blur and Gorillaz are considered indie band on their wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.199.33 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blur was added. Gorillaz was not, because they, and their record labels, are not indie, per their article & sources. --Lexein (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yukon Blonde

Add them. Here is a source stating them as an indie band http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukon_Blonde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.57.132 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please. Seems to have been done --Lexein (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice?

Would it help if, in edit mode, a banner proclaimed the inclusion criteria? An example of this is shown in Norm Macdonald and List of common misconceptions (in edit mode only). Such a banner will appear whether the whole article, or just a section, is opened for editing. I would propose the text:

Each band in this list must already have a Wikipedia article with sufficient reliable sources establishing the band's notability, and its Indie status.

--Lexein (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely worth a try. People are always trying to promote their band on the page so it can't hurt. I'd almost suggest semi protection as most of them are IPs but the edits don't constitute vandalism, so that's not possible. Valenciano (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it.--SabreBD (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've requested its creation, so it should start appearing soon. --Lexein (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's live. --Lexein (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Milk Hotel

Removed for not having a source. Indeed there are several over at Neutral Milk Hotel to verify this. With all the unsourced items on the list, I'm hesitant to copy/paste some from the band page for a band synonymous with the genre for many, but will point to a few here: Slate, Pitchfork, Vice, Austin Chronicle, IndyStar, Believer, Post-Gazette... --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Synthwave.94: -- You reverted me again after this with edit summary "I think you should read WP:LISTPEOPLE, and take a look at the page notice too." Given that I'm familiar with both of these, could you explain? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

All new entries must be sourced. WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly says that "the person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." As you didn't provide any source (you simply put it back without any reference) then I cancelled your addition. And of course, I imagine you didn't see the huge tag at the top of this article, did you ? This biographical list needs additional citations for verification. See also WP:BURDEN : I'm not here to look for references for you. It's up to you to use references within this list to prove an artist is actually an indie rock artist. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Yup. Established by reliable sources. And the way Wikipedia works -- as is visible on this list and on 90% of other lists -- is that if the selection criteria is used whereby an entry on a list must have a Wikipedia article, the suitability for the list can be established by sources on that article.
2. No rule can apply only to new additions. If you want to enforce the requirement of citing sources within the list, you have to apply it to all entries.
3. The huge tag at the top of the list says "Each name in this list must already have a Wikipedia article with sufficient reliable sources. (1) establishing the band's notability and (2) establishing its indie status. Any name added without such an article will be deleted." And, of course, NMH has a WP article with sufficient reliable sources establishing its notability and establishing its indie status.
4. Yes, and per WP:BURDEN when you reverted me I came here to list a bunch of sources, but you still removed it again. Given all of this, if you do so a third time I'm going to assume either (a) there is past consensus among editors here that every entry must be accompanied by sources regardless of sources at its article and therefore you will be removing most from the list, or (b) you're being disruptive. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I had followed the above with mention that it didn't appear you added refs when you added sources, which is incorrect (replaced with this line). You did. I respect holding yourself to the same standard. Nonetheless, there's no precedent that I know of to only apply inclusion criteria only to new additions. Sourcing would be required on the page if the WP article didn't sufficiently establish their belonging, but otherwise unnecessary. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just added one reference for this band. But the next time you (or another editor) will add an unsourced, it wouldn't be the same. You still didn't add any reference within the list, which is unacceptable. I've already undid some edits before you, and I exactly did the same thing for you. Lists must be perfectly sourced, even if the genre/subgenre is already mentionned and/or sourced in the artist's article (see the list of electro house artists for example, which should be a model for you). They work like an ordinary article, and if you don't provide sources then it is not accepted (see this edit for example, which proves what I'm saying is true). And what about the tag "This list biographical needs additional citations for verification" ? You seems to ignore it, don't you ? However I can perfectly edit this list in order to remove all unsourced entries, just like this editor. So between both of us, you are clearly the disruptive editor who doesn't seem to know how a list works (also, in my opinion, adding a reference is not really complicated to do). I hope you will understand all of this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't respond to what I said. Of course you can find examples of particular behavior elsewhere, but that doesn't create a rule you can assume to apply across the board. While it is, the vast majority of the time, acceptable to defer to sources at list items' own articles (see, for example, almost all of the lists of bands other than the one you linked to), local consensus can set an inclusion criteria that requires each entry to be sourced in the list itself (among other things), but it would apply to every entry, not just new ones and only applies to that article. A cleanup tag also has absolutely no bearing on rules for inclusion -- cleanups tags can be added by anyone to any article that person views as having too few references, with the hope that people will add references or, in some cases, remove contentious material that doesn't have a ref. If you know of past talk threads here that show consensus for the inclusion criteria you're imposing -- such that it would apply to all entries rather than just new ones -- please do link me to it. Otherwise you can feel free to start a thread to come to such a consensus. Until that time, if the band's article contains proper sourcing for inclusion here, don't remove it. If you feel that I'm wrong about this, I welcome you to bring it up at WP:ANI or WP:DRN. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This list is definitly not a good list. The links I provided show you how a perfect list looks like. Also I'm afraid artists from this list don't belong here because the genre "indie rock" is not sourced (or simply not mentionned) on their own article. This list clearly needs additional sources anyway, and this is the reason why I cancelled all unsourced entries so far (WP:BURDEN). Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Should this page just be named indie musicians?

It's seems like this list has many bands that aren't really indie"rock" but instead are indie pop , indie folk, indie electronic, etc and aren't really rock. Should they be removed or should this page just be named indie musicians? Banjobison (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Obscurley suggestion

Obscurley - indie duet from Portland, OR Seotreo (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References