Jump to content

Talk:That's the Spirit

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

Nu metal removal and hardcore punk

[edit]

So, nu metal isn't BMTH's genre, Oliver Sykes has even rejected it:

and I think that there are some songs that is hardcore punk than nu metal, shall we remove nu metal and replace it with hardcore punk? Also, arena rock is this album's genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardWay86 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to go with no. My question to you is how in the hell do you think that some of the songs in this album are hardcore punk? Maybe post-hardcore, sure, but hardcore punk? No way.Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oli Sykes has stated on BMTH's official website that this album's genre includes hardcore punk.. Gerard is HERE! (Talk to Me!) 9:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Where? And even if he did (which I honestly doubt), I hve added "post-hardcore" which includes hardcore punk. If anyone else wants to but in and help me out, feel free please. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new/alternative version of Drown

[edit]

While I keep seeing these edits regarding a newer version of the single Drown I don't see any sources supporting this, could someone provide one please? Otherwise this small bit of info will have to be removed. SilentDan (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is true, it doesn't seem like "Drown (new)" is the proper way to label it in the track listing either, unless that's literally how to band has written out the track listing. I don't see songs being listed like that usually. I would have changed it, but I'm not entire how it should be portrayed. Maybe something like "album version"? Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I believe a note should be added with the fact that it was re-recorded for the album, I also agree that using the term "New" seems informal, "re-recorded" or "album version" would be more formal in this instance, however I have, for now, removed this info since no one has provided a reference. SilentDan (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

[edit]

EthanLewis1173737 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to include the requested edit with your request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

[edit]

Could i have a genre for this album?

It releases in two days.

173.174.138.220 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop rock, and Alternative rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.138.220 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources though... Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

[edit]

Please add the following into the article, as it is straight from the jacket of the CD

Personnel

[edit]


Imyourfavourite (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with stylistic changes.--MASHAUNIX 19:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

[edit]

In relation to this edit, there was no consensus to begin with. Kokoro20, you added the hidden note to support your version of the infobox genres, and though I agree that stability should be a goal, there is no additional authority to its claim. You have not responded to the actual reason I gave for my edit. Do you disagree that infobox genres should be kept at a 2–4 and prefer generality over specificity?--MASHAUNIX 19:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I generally prefer specificity. As for 2-4 genres, it's one of those things I think should be treated on a case-by-case basis, as it's only a recommendation anyway. As I've already told someone else, I'm just trying to establish a middle ground here, as in not listing too many genres (as in 7 or 8), but not listing only 1 or 2 broad genres either. These 5 cover that middle ground fine, as far as I'm concerned. Since nu metal is well cited and is cited at two of the album's single articles, I think it should stay. But I wouldn't agree with listing heavy metal and EDM too (both are cited in the article too), with two heavy metal sub-genres listed and electronic rock listed (EDM is more of a catch-all term than an actual genre anyway). Kokoro20 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although if we were to remove any genres, I would remove pop rock, since it's the most controversial genre for this album out of the 5. The Rolling Stone source also called it pop rock before it even came out. I know Wikipedia prefers what reliable sources say over personal opinions, but I do not consider this album pop rock at all, aside from the songs "Follow You" and "Oh No". The more melodic aspects of the album can be covered by alternative rock and electronic rock. What do you think? Kokoro20 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pop rock despite being denied by fans is noted heavily by critics. Nu metal is only sourced once so i doubt in it. Anyway the balance between dance/electronic with metal is very notable and seems like the main objective of the band with this album. I think that this The Guardian note should count as another electronic rock source. I doubt in alt metal against sources. Opinions? Thank you. Anonpediann (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pop rock, alternative rock and alternative metal are all well sourced and I generally agree with them. My point to removing nu metal was that it is a subgenre of alternative metal anyway, and thus it can already be considered to be covered by that (if we agree that keeping infobox genres to a minimum is a goal). Dance music is a broad term, and one that I do not understand being applied here; the prevalence of electronic influences should be noted, and I think including electronic rock in the infobox is sufficient in that direction. So I like the current version, at the 4 genres mentioned, without nu metal or EDM.--MASHAUNIX 22:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that the album is pop rock, other than just 2 songs, fair enough. As I mentioned, Wikipedia prefers what reliable sources says over editor's opinions on what the music is. As for nu metal, fair enough in that it's only cited once, as opposed to the other genres, but if more sources for it are found, I would argue for re-adding it, which I'll bring up here when/if it is.
As for the order the genres are listed in, I would have alternative rock and alternative metal listed before electronic rock, as they are more strongly supported, and electronic rock just doesn't seem overall dominant enough on the album for it to be the first genre listed. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nu metal and alternative metal, despite being two different genres, one is coming from the other. This later fact should be valid enough to source alt metal with that nu metal source. Pop rock as i said is heavily suported by sources and why we have to be against this extended opinion? Pop rock can be showcased in different ways, it is a broad genre in my opinion. Not just Kelly Clarkson and Avril Lavigne-wannabe early Miley Cyrus albums. And about electronic rock i think it should be the main genre. It is backed with some sources regarding its electronic nature. So dance and metal mix by The Guardian could be considered a electronic rock source? Anonpediann (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the AllMusic source does kind of mention nu metal. They state "That they manage to keep the edges of those populist tendencies razor-sharp is what keeps That's the Spirit from dissolving into a puddle of alt-rock/nu metal bandwagon treacle" Note that they also refer to it as alternative rock earlier in the review, but not nu metal. I wonder what they really mean by this.
I'm not excluding pop rock. All I said is that I personally disagree that the album is pop rock, but it can stay listed, based on it being well-cited. As for the order, more sources more explicitly state "alternative rock" and "alternative metal" as well, so that should count for something. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would considerate that AllMusic source as alt rock and nu metal. So this later should be added. Being a subgenre of alt metal could be noted that alt metal is shoucased as nu metal. What do you think? And maybe putting every source like you do "described by Toronto Sun", " noted by Ghost Cult Magazine" is a little bit messy so we could omit that. Anonpediann (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have both listed in that case, as they are both are cited by multiple sources. Listing both the parent genre and sub-genre is fine, depending on the case (which I would argue for here for the reason I mentioned). And yeah, the wording in the "Composition" could use some more changes. I'll admit that. Maybe we should attribute the names of the authors there too, like we do in the "Reception" section. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to list every genre we have a source for. In my opinion, nu metal is a type of alt-metal, so there's no need to list both. However, if there were a lot more sources for nu metal than alt-metal, I would not be against it. I might look for more genre sources later, and make further changes. Until then, I think the current version works fine.--MASHAUNIX 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know we don't necessarily have to list every single genre that is mentioned in a source, but I thought nu metal might be notable enough to list, since there's now two review sources by two very notable publications supporting it. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't put more than 4 genres in the infobox. I agree with that, alt metal or nu metal; the most sourced genre. In my opinion, less genres are better. I'm in favour of using just rock or both rock and electronic as unbrella genres. Or at least just genres with an amount of 4-5 backing sources. What do you think? Anonpediann (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version is good. Other genres that are not included are closely related to the 4 we have. I also don't think it's a huge problem to include 5 when consensus deems it appropriate, but right now I see no need to change anything.--MASHAUNIX 15:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 4 is the recommended (that being the keyword) limit, but 5 or 6 genres is appropriate as well, depending on how well sourced they are (which is why I argued for nu metal as a 5th genre here) and overall consensus. And simply "rock" and "electronic" are way too vague. I would stick with the current version (even though I would still prefer the addition of nu metal to that). Kokoro20 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt rock and pop rock

[edit]

What do you think about change the genre to just alt rock and pop rock? They are massively sourced upon the other genres and they perfectly describe the style of the album. Maybe we can add electronic rock due to the electronic influences heavily noted + electronic rock source. I'm open to oppinions. Anonpediann (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Anonpediann (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to keep it at the 5 we have now. This album after all, still has some metal in it, and multiple sources do still support that. Also, I think the order should be like this: Alternative rock, nu metal, alternative metal, pop rock, electronic rock.
It seems that we are both in agreement that alternative rock goes first, since that overall has the most sources supporting it. I would put nu metal ahead of pop rock and electronic rock, since that's supported by two very notable review sources, while pop rock is supported by only one very notable review source, and that was before the album even came out, so they may have not heard the whole thing, but does still have quite a few other sources supporting, even if they aren't as notable, so I think that should be listed the second last. With electronic rock, several sources support the album having electronic influences, but only one explicitly says "electronic rock", so I would list it last. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I found a new source for alternative metal and nu metal each, and cited them to the article to give them additional weight, while moving them up two spots. If you still disagree with the order the genres are listed in, feel free to bring it up here. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i think that pop rock has to be over alt metal because it has more reliable sources in its back (Music Feeds, Ultimate Guitar ends up being very notable, Rolling Stones...). Not over nu metal because its two main sources are really strong. And Rolling Stones is very reliable, and when they call the album pop rock when it is not even out yet they probably say so because the staff had the oportunity to listen to the record before. Reliable sources as big as RS don't need to not be questioned anyway. Anonpediann (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And alt metal sources are so weak except Toronto Sun compared to the electronic rock sources (and yes electronic backed album in my opinion should be a source for electronic rock if we don't want to explicity add electronic). And The Guardian should be considered a source for electronic rock because it says that mixes dance (a subgenre of electronic) with metal. And electronic metal redirects to electronic rock. Alt metal should be the last source i think. Anonpediann (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about pop rock. Alternative rock and nu metal should stay listed before it though. In that case, I think the support for alternative metal and electronic rock are pretty much equal, so whatever one is listed first should be up to discretion, I guess. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that pop rock should be added before nu metal. First of all, we have to put the more sourced genres before (i was mistaken). Anyway, pop rock has more notable sources than nu metal: nu metal has AllMusic and The Guardian. Pop rock has Rolling Stone, Music Feeds and Ultimate Guitar Archive. Anonpediann (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The notability and quality of the sources should also be taken into consideration than just the number of them. I'm not sure if Music Feeds and Ultimate Guitar Archive would be as notable as AllMusic and The Guardian. Rolling Stone is, but I'm not sure about the other two. But since that can go either way, maybe I'll just keep it to your recent adjustments, unless more source for nu metal (or any of the other genres) can be found. Kokoro20 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Song

[edit]

Happy Song is getting a US release as it will be sent to Active Rock stations in the US next year per AllAccess according to here: http://www.allaccess.com/rock/future-releases

Is it ok that I put it in the singles section? -Daerl (talk)

Do you know of any further coverage on it? Also do you know of any physical release? I'm pretty sure if it's just a radio release it's only a promotional single. In any case, I believe we should wait for more information; this source alone is not enough. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 04:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arena rock

[edit]

I believe we should put "Arena rock" in the genre, because sources --> [1] [2]

Per current consensus on Wikipedia, arena rock isn't considered a genre here, so it doesn't belong to the infobox. It being described as arena rock can probably be mentioned in the prose though. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many singles by Queen have "Arena rock" in the genrebox. 5.55.147.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://musicfeeds.com.au/album/bring-me-the-horizon-thats-the-spirit/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/thats-the-spirit/id1021582747. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Remove nu metal

[edit]

I never supported the "consensus" that nu metal should be included in the infobox. It is a subgenre of alternative metal, so even if we accept it as a valid genre for the album, it can already be considered to be covered by alt-metal in the infobox, especially because infobox genres should be kept general as per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre. Furthermore, I do not think That's the Spirit can be considered a nu metal album; the genre is only supported by one source, the Guardian, and it may well be that the author had alt-metal in mind when he wrote nu metal, as the names of the 2 genres tend to be used interchangeably. Seeing as this one reference is insufficient (as opposed to multiple references for the other genres), it would be good to remove a genre from the infobox (as there are 5 rather than 4) and recent IP edits have attempted to remove it (further destabilising the consensus which was only ever established between 2 users), I hold that nu metal should be removed. Unless someone provides more sources for it or other users express that it should be kept, I'll go through with this.--MASHAUNIX 19:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping it, per my previous reasons. The AllMusic review mentions nu metal too, but it was removed, for some reason, even though there was an agreement in the previous thread that AllMusic supports nu metal too. IP users trying to remove the genre doesn't mean much of anything. IP users have also tried to remove alternative metal and pop rock, despite there being an agreement between the 3 of us to list them. IPs go against consensus all the time. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned the IP edit because it made me pay attention to this again. My other arguments are more important. Seeing the close relationship b/w alt-metal and nu metal and the fact that the first is far better sourced, I think nu metal deserves no more than a mention in-text.--MASHAUNIX 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've now found another source for nu metal, and have added it to the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm for removing it as well, mainly because it is a subgenre of alternative metal. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

post-hardcore?

[edit]

I believe we should remove 'electronic rock' in favour of 'post-hardcore'. I have found slim to none sources that state that it's an electronic rock album, but I have found multiple that state it's post-hardcore. I will add them in the references. --Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These genres are sourced and don't necessarily have to go in the infobox. They're in the bulk of the article. Just cause there aren't any tags there doesn't mean that it's not cited. You can add that, but please do not remove the other one. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pop?

[edit]

I would like to add Pop because Allmusic talks about how it's pop, and Allmusic is considered a very reliable source here on Wikipedia. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Keep in mind that "pop" is often used a general term, rather than a specific genre. Pop rock already covers any pop elements the album has. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have another valid source calling this pop, may I add it? Pop and pop rock are two different genres. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My previous message still applies. Come on now, this is no way a pop album anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard rock?

[edit]

I found quite a few reliable sources that label, not only the album, but also the band as hard rock? One being The Independent.co.uk, and some other sources I'll list if I can add it. Thoughts?

Thanks Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term hard rock is overused and I feel that's often used as a general term in the same way pop is. I think 5 genres are enough anyway. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

[edit]

This article is a complete mess. Is bad written, is FULL of unreliable sources and needs an urgent remodelation. Syle guide and ref tagging is completly ignored here. I think we should all do our best to make it better. Anonpediann (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this electronicore?

[edit]

This isn't an electronicore album, it has to be metalcore in order for that to work. Also, the reference cited for it doesn't directly state it being called "electronicore". It should be removed.Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:That%27s_the_Spirit&oldid=1219359126"