Jump to content

Talk:System of a Down/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Introduction

I'm really wondering what is the use of the second paragraph, reading:

"System of a Down are noted for the left-wing political views expressed in their songs. Common topics in System of a Down's music are feelings (depression, dark memories, love, insecurity, revenge, ego, personal identity), sex, corruption of government, social norms and corruption in/of society, war, (Pearl Harbor, Armenian Genocide, War on Terror, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan), corruption in/of Hollywood, spiritual (afterlife, death), drugs (use, addiction, drug dealing, war on drugs), U.S. Prison System, censorship, mind control, commercialism and the corruption in/of corporations."

First thing, there are absolutely no secondary sources included in this paragraph. Since there is no verifiability, I would say this should be removed from the article until we can find sources that validate it. Second thing, this is going into the specifics of the subjects treated in the band's lyrics. If the sources validate those points, we should probably include this paragraph in the "Style and influences" section, not the introduction. Any objections or comments? Zouavman Le Zouave 01:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No Objections. While completely correct, it is original resource and should be deleted. However, I feel that it fits well with the introduction as it gives and opening to there style of music.--SKATER Speak. 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Style and influences

It doesn't add anything to the article to devote an entire paragraph to reiterating content that has already been established. If you've seen the work of Edward D. Wood, Jr., you would understand that it's not best to say in four sentences what can be easily said in one. Devoting an entire paragraph to extensive reiteration of one genre is Ed Wood-style writing. I don't see any detailed instances in which it is reiterated that System of a Down belong to any other genre. The spam-like promotion of Encyclopaedia Metallum is pretty funny, though. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Question

Did Wikipedia ever have any info any the SOAD demo tapes? I could have sworn reading about them a while back out of curiosity, but i'm not sure if it was here, or on some SOADthemed wiki copycat page. I can't find any info about them anymore. KMFDM FAN (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT LIST AS ONLY ROCK

this is absolutely ridicules, didn't anyone learn from the 'Indestructible' page? Don't list the general 'rock' term. it doesn't work, it is misleading and it is wrong! just rock is things like the Beatles not system of a down. It is Experimental rock, Alternative Metal and you could maybe list heavy metal or hard rock. NOT just rock, at NO stage did SOAD play straight out rock music. Anyone with ears knows that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.55.11 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see where rock is listed in the genres. There was a consensus of the Genres that are found right now, though.--SKATER Speak. 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

ok the genres that are there now are good, when I wrote that only rock was listed, it is good that that has been corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.132.103.177 (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok mabe rock heavy metal and experimental should be stuck to. it seems this page can't go long without someone editing the genres i think hard rock is more approprite than rock but its good enough as i guess it covers genres such as art rock and alt rock which they play. nu metal shouldnt be there... i kno they've been called it but seriously... apart from the lack of guitar solos they have zero nu metal elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.149.98 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

progressive metal

I gave a reason for labelling them progressive. Undoing it without any reason is practically vandalism. Please provide a reasoning for your random revert. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The revert was not random it was based on A) the edit summary for the edit was a complete violation of WP:NOR... Wikipedia is no place for individual opinions and B) look through the 5 archived talk pages for this article and you will already see endless discussion about the topic. re: WP:CON the field contains the version that was already agreed on. GripTheHusk (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Please leave comments on reverts in the summary unless they are outright vandalism.
Defining genres is not original research by the way. It's based on the themes and elements that make music part of a genre or not. It's mathematical in a way. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

soadfans.com

I noticed that this article (and many relating to SAOD) cites soadfans.com. IMHO, it is perfectly reliable, but breaks WP:RELIABLE. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, there is one going on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. TheWeakWilled 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Equipment

They do not list any equipment on the member pages..... Fun with Ahmed

Why?

who felt it nessacary to change to genres... again? they were fine the way they way they were. Alt Metal, Heavy Metal, Experimental. What was the problem with that?? Ducky610 (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What?? Rock, Heavy metal, Experimental?? It's really funny cause when critics want to define alt.metal, they recall SOAD. How can Alt.metal not be included?? And ROCK?? It's really stunning! Also heavy metal! Cause when we put heavy metal in the infobox it means Traditional heavy metal which refers to bands like Metallica and Motorhead! What was wrong with Alt metal and experimental metal, anyways? Who changed it to this? 213.217.38.254 (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your going against the consensus that was found, the current genres are fine as that's what was agreed upon.--SKATER Speak. 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (I missed that signature)
It's not enough. You should have sources for that and only because something's agreed doesnt mean it should be here! Do you have ANY sources to say SOAD is a rock band? What about traditional heavy metal? This is strongly against the rules they use in wikipedia for sourcing the data.213.217.41.75 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll direct you to all the past archives, as all the sources and the Genre battle are scattered throughout. The Mediation of which is found here.--SKATER Speak. 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

well considering people are dissagreeing, theres not much of a 'consensus' is there?? anyway it was listed as Alt Metl, Heavy Metal and Experimental for the longest time with little to no dispute, then out of the blue it was changed back to this so called 'consensus'. At Metal and Experimental Metal are the best way to discribe there music, and I'm sure would be the most easy to source although I havent look yet. on that i'm sure pure 'rock' can not be sourced at all, and heavy metal prehaps but not commonly. These to genres are very inaccurate at describing SOADs music. Ducky610 (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

I really don't think these genres even pass WP:CON as I really don't see anyone who thinks SOAD is a rock band. And it also doesn't pass WP:RS as there's no source for it. Also for Traditional heavy metal. I'm really surprised to see the admins letting this go for this long time.I think an admin just thinks the genres are fine and that's why none of us can do anything about it in this long time. Pleas stop this funny protest and do what WP:Policies say. I think a RfC will do the problem. [and pleas stop clearing every discussion about this in talk page].Solinothe Wolf 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems no one has any comments on this. I wonder if no one has any comments, why do someone keep undoing the edits. There IS something wrong. Usually these things dont happen in wikipedia! (possibly an admin so determined to put what he thinks in here)Solinothe Wolf 09:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has cleared the discussion, The bot's have just archived them. As for an Rfc, I'm in full support of it, I will alert Ibaran and Zouvman to get there opinions since they were the ones that found the original consensus.--SKATER Speak. 21:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It was decided that since hard rock, alternative metal and experimental rock were the best sourced, that it would be generalized to rock, heavy metal and experimental. "Heavy metal" by no means refers specifically to "traditional heavy metal"...I don't even think there is such a thing, since the genre has been all across the board in terms of influences. And, no matter how you slice it, System of a Down are a rock band. "Rock" doesn't mean "rock and roll". It refers to all forms of rock music. Heavy metal is a form of rock music. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC))


I'd like to know where experimental came from... But I did some searching myself and pulled these sources as the most reliable.
From http://www.systemofadown.us
"The stylistic variety and level of experimentation in System of a Down's music have made it difficult to describe. Though they have evolved their sound with each album, System of a Down has, for the most part, maintained a single style throughout their body of work. This style mixes elements and influences from a wide variety of genres such as alternative rock, punk rock, folk music, psychedelic music, classic metal, thrash metal, and progressive rock. This has made them difficult to categorize, prompting the press to describe them with several different genre handles, among them alternative metal, hard rock, nu metal and progressive metal."
From allmusic.com ( http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifuxqqjldfe~T1 )
"Genres: Rock/Pop
Styles: Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal, Hard Rock"
From mtv.com ( http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507049/20050805/system_of_a_down.jhtml )
"While both bands have been dubbed leaders of a new progressive-rock movement, System are still a metal band at heart, while the Mars Volta are more of a psychedelic jam band. "
From Jim Dero (Chicago sun-times music critic) ( http://www.jimdero.com/News2005/SpinMay8.htm )
"The album doesn't break any new ground, but that hardly seems necessary with a group like this. Tracks such as "Revenga," "Sad Statue" and "Question!" already feature such a wide-ranging and disorienting swirl of disparate sounds -- veering wildly from pile-driver hard-core to thrash shred guitar and double-bass drumming, and from beautiful, pseudo-psychedelic arena-rock to Middle Eastern folk music and flourishes of progressive-rock virtuosity -- that adding one new ingredient to the complex musical stew would only cause indigestion."
From about.com music ( http://rock.about.com/od/systemofadown/p/soad.htm )
"Bouncing between prog-rock, metal, hard rock and arty exotic sounds, System of a Down now seemed to be a genre unto themselves."" (under Mesmerize/Hypnotize)


These pretty much all agree on Alternative/Metal/Progressive (Though All music in its supposed all-knowing-ness doesn't list experimental or progressive). The first is a first party publication, but the others are certainly Reliable sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody wants to dig through 5 archives to find the correct discussion. Someone offered valid points for it being brought up. Those links in the archives should be on the article, not the talk page archives, if they are indeed a RS claiming SOAD as experimental. Allmusic describes experimental rock to be more along the lines of Frank Zappa, Mogwai, Tom Waits, Brian Eno, etc. Groups that clearly break down the rules of rock and bear little resemblence to it, often with spacey noise and FX in the background supplementing the melody. System is very very clearly a rock band, and their style is far more reminiscent of avante-garde/progressive rock/metal. Consensus is not permanent - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You're very opinionated, but what's sourced is sourced. How does "avant-garde" better describe SOAD than "experimental"? John Cage is avant-garde, and SOAD are, as you say, are very clearly a rock band. But they are an experimental rock band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC))
And you think everything is set in stone. Whats sourced can be sourced better. Please provide the sources that say experimental and we'll see if they are more reliable, or more common, than the several sources that do not say experimental. Go listen to a Mogwai song and you will know what experimental music sounds like. It's spacey, it has no structure, and it defies the common attitude of what a song really is . - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, it is your opinion that SOAD are not experimental, and that experimental songs are "spacey" and have "no structure". SOAD are one of the best known experimental rock acts in recent years, and have been compared quite heavily to Frank Zappa, whose music is very experimental, but is not "spacey", and is very structured. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

How can a consensus get to Hard rock , alt metal and experimental rock and the infobox turn out Rock, heavy metal and experimental? Why not putting what sources and consensus say? Alt metal, hard rock and experimental ??94.182.83.85 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The gerne in the infobox more refers to a band such as ledzeppeline. I mean Rock, Heavy metal and experimental?? This is funny !

Sorry but I think its a long time since no one is to use Allmusic's genre section for the genre in the infobox. It is discussed a lot before. If you wanna use allmusic as a source for the genre in the infobox, you should use the reviews in allmusic, not the genre section.Solinothe Wolf 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:System_of_a_Down/Archive_5&oldid=1137215707"