Jump to content

Talk:List of psychedelic rock artists

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

Organization

[edit]

I see artists from the 1970s too... and as far as I'm concerned, Ash Ra Tempel are not neo-psychedelia. I think the first list shouldn't be including only 60s, but early to mid 70s bands. --186.87.18.30 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Which bands/artists are you mentioning about? They sure can be replaced. A new section in between '60s and neo-psychedelia can be created or, early '70s title can be merged with neo-psychedelia which I'd find more organized. About Ash Ra Temple, they were a krautrock / space rock band which both genres include psychedelic style. Ash Ra Temple's many albums have include psychedelic characteristics. You wouldn't consider them neo-psychedelia, because they were formed in '70? ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, going by Wikipedia's art-- oops, I mean, section on neo-psychedelia, Ash Ra Tempel wouldn't fit into such category because Neo-Psychedelic acts are the ones that appeared after punk explosion/the birth of post-punk (making the earliest bands fitting into that category people like, well, Teardrop Explodes or Echo and the Bunnymen, which didn't appear up until 1978, and well, have also strong bonds with post-punk) and I also think that even if some krautrock bands appearing on the list (except for Ash Ra Tempel) formed during the late 60s, they only found critical (and some moderate commercial success) during the early 70s (first examples of that being Can, releasing Tago Mago, Ege Bamyasi and Future Days during that era; and Amon Duul II that released Yeti in 1970). I don't know, I personally wouldn't find it appropiate to put early 70s psychedelic artists along with the ones of the end of such decade... I just think that the first section should be renamed to "60s/early 70s psychedelic bands" so it would, idk, fit more with krautrock artists? Including Ash Ra Tempel themselves, that have more to do with that late 60s/early 70s psychedelic sound than with the more post-punk/"alternative" influenced neo-psychedelia --186.87.18.30 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see your point. But when the title is settled as '60s bands it wouldn't mean that the bands were exactly active in '60s. There are some bands that were formed in late '60s but disbanded in early or mid '70s, for instance, The Electric Prunes, The Idle Race, etc. The title would state that those bands were formed some time in '60s. The only idea behind not to add Ash Ra Temple was because the band was formed in '70. But if we must consider the band was disbanded kinda before the neo-psychedelia era, it couldn't be just moved up to '60's section without changing any title maybe? I'd like to hear what others think of the situation, too, though. ~ Elitropia (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Idle suggestion, split 3 ways - something along the lines 1) Classic psychedelia 1960s 2) Post psychedelia Early 70s 3) Neo-psychodelia late 70s - present Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wwwhatsup! Thank you for giving your opinion. And, it sounds nice actually. Though, I have to go all through the bands to see which of them would fit in the 'post psychedelia' section. I don't think there are many. I'll see what I can do later, in few days. ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were really not so many bands fitting the post-psychedelia. Instead of creating the section I simply renamed the first section and moved Ash Ra Temple up there. If you still have doubts, please don't hesitate to discuss. Cheers! ~ Elitropia (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bands with no Wikipedia Article

[edit]

Good morning, when the list was created, there were bands listed that had no Wikipedia article but by time the amount of the red links increased. Then I cleaned up the list as per WP:REDDEAL. A red link for the band doesn't mean that the band is non-notable though, it could be only that the band has no article created. On the other hand it can be that the band is really not notable enough to have its own article. For that reason it's for now best that we don't add the bands that have no article to the list to keep the list clear. I'd like to hear what others think on this topic. ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would be prepared to hear suggestions for other bands for which reliable sources can be supplied, but lets not go back to the large number of unsourced redlinks. This is a pretty solid list now, lets keep it that way.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SabreBD. When I created the list first my intention was to keep the bands that have no Wikipedia article, supporting them with a reliable source, but this somehow encouraged the editors to add any band with or without a source.. Keeping track then became difficult. As I mentioned earlier, the band could have no article yet or be non notable to have its own. I would like to add a lot more bands that are obscure in here but as I said, I want to keep it clean from the red wikilinks. (black = no wikilink, and red and blue clear) I used to keep them as black as we have one now in the list but then editors started to add red without references, once you have the black in the list even with reference then you get no right to delete the red but go find a reference for it. Either we delete them all, red and black, or we let the red links increase.. The dealing with existing red links article makes it clear though, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article [...]" I don't think any of those red linked bands added here would have a Wikipedia article. ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fair point. There is no reason to have redlink bands that could not plausibly have an article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I consider black and red as the same, because the black we have turns out to be red when we add the wikilink. I go for keeping the list without blacks and reds for now. If there are any other opinions regarding this, please let us know. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear then, unless there are arguements to the contrary that is consensus on this article for the time being: no black or redlinks (and sources needed for others).--SabreBD (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that's the only way to keep the list clean. I thought you were already in agreement with me. So I went to clean the list : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was. This was just for the record.--SabreBD (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to the list.

[edit]

I am a listener of the current Neo-Psychedelic movement that has been active for the last decade. I have been searching for a site that has an interest in cataloging these bands. I can supply homepages to these bands, as they do not appear to have a wikki page. I guess what I am asking is if I can help to contribute to this page.

Thank you,

Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyshone (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, thanks for posting here rather than jumping in to the main page. Unfortunately to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies and to maintain the quality of this list, bands need a reliable source. A band's own homepage is insufficient I am afraid and what are needed are independent reliable sources, like a reputable review for a site like Allmusic or a mainstream music magazine, that describes then as neo-psychedelic.--SabreBD (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite check

[edit]

OK, so I've clicked on many of the sources and none of them so far ever use the words "psychedelic" or "psychedelia". Another bogus list.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do mean bogus as in - its poorly executed/poorly cited; bands are on here that don't belong; or that it shouldn't exist at all? Herbxue (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there are many "list of [x] artists" articles like this where the sources never corroborate the listing. I don't know whether most of these artists really are "psychedelic rock", but I know that a good number of the sources certainly don't call them that.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this article is going to list neo-psychedelia artists, then it should be renamed to "List of psychedelic musicians". There is nothing that suggests "neo-psychedelia" equates to "psychedelic rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid sources

[edit]
Do not indicate [AllMusic's] "Album Pick" designation, do not use genre sidebar ... Websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. This may include other general wiki-style sites such as Wikia, and album-related sites such as Discogs, Rate Your Music or Last.fm.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add more reference that you think necessary. But deleting the content which are clearly psychedelic rock artists is not helpful editing. Thanks and cheers. Elitropia (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly psychedelic rock artists"? According to which reliable sources? (WP:VERIFY)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted 13th floor elevators from the list which clearly shows that you do not have enough knowledge about the topic. Please stop deleting the content. If you think there are bands here which needs better sources, list them to us and I am sure we would find the time to add references to them. Please stop acting on your own in a list page where it was created by many editors and stop deleting the content. Thanks and cheers. Elitropia (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know 13th Floor Elevators are psychedelic rock, but as WP:TRUTH will tell you:
Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.
WP:VERIFY puts it more succinctly:
... content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and have no objections if you wanted more references for a band which even has its own wikipedia page with references. Then you can make a list and add references to those bands or ask help from others and work on the article. And many of them bands has also their own allmusic page which clearly tells these bands are psychedelic rock bands, it is not just the side bar. We can improve the list altogether. Please do not delete the content. Thanks and cheers. Elitropia (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work like that. We need the sources BEFORE we can add the content. What part of "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" don't you understand? We can't just write "the moon is made of cheese" and then say "oh it's obvious, just Google it or look on the Wikipedia article for cheese." NONE of those bands I removed were properly sourced. AllMusic's "list of [genre] artists" are determined using the data it gives for its sidebars. It is no different from using the actual sidebars.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is more important than individual guidelines one can use to include or exclude material. Please respect the request to not delete content and instead request appropriate sources. This is a subject about entertainment - no one is being hurt or misinformed by bands being included without proper sourcing (as opposed to an article on vaccination for example). Herbxue (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except they are being misinformed into thinking that Rateyourmusic and Discogs are reliable sources. And there has been a consensus - the consensus says that those sources should be avoided. Nobody on Wikipedia should be arguing for the inclusion of unverified content. Verifiability is one of the site's core fundamental policies.
All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources (WP:5P2)
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I undestand. I prefer your proposed solution to broaden the scope rather than remove most of the content.Herbxue (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 5 August 2016

[edit]


Can the article be reverted to the revision from before the edit warring? The only changes remove sources to AllMusic sidebars/genre picks, Rateyourmusic.com, and Discogs, which are forbidden by WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. Thanks [1]

Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, generally the only reason for using a particular version of the article when it's locked is if there's an egregious policy violation if you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After the whole month of the debate, I don't see a consensus to either move the article or change its scope (and changing the proposed title half-way did not help). My thanks to Andrewa who nicely summarized the whole matter, below. No such user (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


List of psychedelic rock artists → List of psychedelic musicians List of psychedelic music artists – Not all of the artists here are described as "psychedelic rock". This presents an issue with WP:SYNTH. Instead of removing 75% of the article, a better solution would be to broaden its scope. Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"List of psychedelic artists" would include visual art, which would be too broad. I don't believe the part about individual bios is true - look at how Category:Rock music groups is a subcategory Category:Rock musicians. A musical group consists of musicians, no? I think "List of psychedelic music artists" is an awkward phrase.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Sounds reasonable. — JFG talk 02:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The list is made to be psychedelic rock artists. I do not agree that 75% of the list is not fitting the category. I would tidy up the list with necessary changes and references to fit the current title better than to see it changed to psychedelic musicians. If it goes in that direction, it would be impossible to keep the list in order. Even now, it is pretty challenging. ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elitropia: See WP:TRUTH — regardless of whether you believe the artists are psyche rock, they need to all be verified by the sources, which they're not. The bands that are merely called "psychedelic" will have to be removed - and it'll be very tedious to go through every source individually. Also, the list is definitely not made with "psychedelic rock" in mind - it includes people like Donovan and Animal Collective who are certainly not known as psyche rock artists (the source for Animal Collective is from Rateyourmusic; the source for Donovan is from AllMusic and calls him psychedelic pop, not rock). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Synthwave.94: Would you care to demonstrate whom those sources call psychedelic rock? As I skim through, I see
"In addition to the Grateful Dead, West Coast psychedelic bands included Love, the Charlatans, the Doors, and the Jefferson Airplane ..."
"Led by the wayward talent of Roky Erickson, a gifted musician who was later hospitalized for mental illness, the 13th Floor Elevators released four frenetic albums featuring bizarre jug-blowing blues"
"On the East Coast, the Velvet Underground symbolized a nihilistic cool version of psychedelia"
"Established rock bands also began to introduce psychedelic elements into their music—notably the Beatles"
"the avant-garde Soft Machine, the operatic Crazy World of Arthur Brown, the Nice, and the more consciously political anarchist Tomorrow."
"In 1965 and 1966, disaffected folk musicians formed the Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, the Charlatans, the Great Society, Country Joe & the Fish, Big Brother & the Holding Company, Quicksilver Messenger Service, and many other less famous combos with equally (for the time) outrageous names. ... hey introduced a whole new spacy element into the psychedelic brew
That basically sums up the state of this article. If the words "psychedelic rock" don't appear in the sources, then they're not "psychedelic rock" bands. It's as simple as that (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). To put this another way, the Beatles and the Beach Boys were rock bands who became "progressive". But they are not called "progressive rock bands" by any source. Why are we giving them special treatment for "psychedelic rock"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would take less time and effort to start another "List of psychedelic rock artists" article than it would to verify every source in this article for the words "psychedelic rock", which almost none of them use.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context matters, Ilovetopaint. Simply read the title of the two articles and you'll realize the essay by Richie Unterberger and the Encyclopædia Britannica entry by Lucy O'Brien (two notable music journalists) are about "psychedelic rock", not "psychedelic music" or "psychedelia". Even if the artists mentioned in the articles are not explicitly called "psychedelic rock", the articles are still about this specific genre, which means all the artists mentioned in both sources are automatically associated with psychedelic rock (unless the authors state otherwise). Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even if the artists mentioned in the articles are not explicitly called "psychedelic rock", the articles are still about this specific genre, which means all the artists mentioned in both sources are automatically associated with psychedelic rock"
You couldn't have used a better phrasing to demonstrate why exactly that is WP:OR.
Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research ... This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion.
Consider these two statements:
  1. "Established rock bands also began to introduce psychedelic elements into their music—notably the Beatles"
    "Psychedelic rock"
  2. "... progressive rock represented a concentration and heightening of all the trends in rock music that were set against the merely "pop" sensibility: the underground and developmental aspects, the complete album approach, generosity and synthesis. After the time of progressive rock, the dynamic that extended from the originators, through the Beatles, and to the broad progressive trend, was broken. ... this generous synthesis is already well along with the Beatles' Rubber Soul ... at this moment, for rock musicians who were pursuing the underground and developmental possibilities of the music, the album rather than the song became the basic unit of artistic production."
    Listening to the Future: The Time of Progressive Rock, 1968-1978
Both claims are implicit in that the Beatles are a rock band who played "psychedelic" or "progressive" rock music. But are they actually "psychedelic rock" or "progressive rock"? The answer is...
...Not clear. And so it would be pure WP:SYNTH to advance "the Beatles are progressive/psychedelic rock" based on these sources alone. Even WP:CONTEXTMATTERS clarifies that citations must "directly support" the material. We are not supposed to guess that a band is "psychedelic rock" just because they're mentioned in an essay about psychedelic rock. We need the claim to be explicit in its wording.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily find reliable sources which explicitly associate the Beatles with "psychedelic rock". An article from the magazine Paste says they helped pioneer the genre. A book called Hippies: A Guide to an American Subculture says that "the Beatles consistently ranked as musical and cultural innovators, evolving from pop to psychedelic rock to singer/songwriters, as those same trends were rippling through the U.S. music scene". There are probably other sources I didn't find yet which may say the same thing. Anyway there are countless sources which can be used to improve the list and which explicitly describe the Beatles, but also the 13th Floor Elevators, the Grateful Dead, Love, the Charlatans, the Doors, Jefferson Airplane and many other artists and bands from the list as "psychedelic rock", and not just "psychedelic" or "psychedelia". Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then use those sources!--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sounds like a no brainer to me. If most of them can't be verified as "rock" then remove rock from the title and make it a broader category. There isn't enough scope for "rock" and "non rock" specific versions.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the proposed "psychedelic musicians" sounds like they are psychedelic people (which would be a fun thing to be) whereas we are listing groups that make music that has been characterized as psychedelic. I think the other proposed term "Psychedelic Music Artists" is better. However, in absence of a consensus new name, I vote to not move the article at this time.Herbxue (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbxue: That's a good point; I've changed the proposed article name.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We must follow the sources. We can't do original research to figure out what the bands specific genre is, and AllMusic and Encyclopedia Britannica are not reliable sources. Waggie (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not convinced it really matters. This list seems to really be a List of all the bands and solo artists that at least one journalist has at least once labelled "psychedelic". It represents a lot of work but its encyclopedic value is questionable, and it will never be anything like complete. Category:Psychedelic rock and its subcategories is all we really need. IMO not even worth the trouble of deleting, it does no real harm, might even be useful to someone someday... sorry to be such a wet blanket. But the problem is it's now a difficult close, and we need to move on... how about you count my !vote for whichever result the closer likes? I hereby assign them my !vote as my proxy, to exercise as seems good to them. Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of psychedelic rock artists. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of a band.

[edit]

Dr. Dog, a 2000s psychedelic rock band is not included on the list. Ghosts 'n Goblins (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_psychedelic_rock_artists&oldid=1256995938"