Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Archive 5

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

Assessment request

This may be the wrong place for me to put it (if it is, just tell me where I should make the request), but I was wondering if someone could do a quality and importance assessment for Virtual band, please? --JB Adder | Talk 13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Your opinion requested on Folk/Traditional?Roots/World music project consolidation / expansion proposal

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roots music#Expand the project?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Is noise music a genre

Input at Talk:Noise (music genre)#Requested move would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Witch house

Hi folks, the Witch house (music genre) community is not happy, at all, with the way its genre's Wikipedia page is being handled. We want an accurate history and portrayal of the genre and we want the page protected. It's being badly abused. I'm the owner of one of the main indie labels in the genre and represent a large grouping of involved artists and other labels that would like to set the record straight on what defines our genre and what its history is. There have been numerous erroneous articles surrounding its history and its definition, we would like this corrected. Can you help? Baku Shad-do (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have COI and appear to be engaged it a very long drawn out edit war. Also a warning about using the term we. First it's not polite to talk for others. Second, edit as a group is strongly discouraged. Work it out on the talk page and stop edit warring. Also be careful of a WP:Boomerang. Ridernyc (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do speak for the bulk of labels and with the encouragement of the bulk of the lead artists in the scene on this matter, there is a consensus that wikipedians are mishandling the genre terribly. Why would a group of contributors acting in an unbiased manner, strictly attempting to define their genre properly, be a bad thing? It appears that the current contributors can't manage to do it successfully, as instead their work has managed to insult the majority of artists and labels involved by a biased and incorrect representation. To the majority of the genre and yes, the labels and musicians do feel like this, we feel that wikipedia editors are treating our genre like a joke. Lots of people put lots of hard work into it (the genre). It needs to be corrected. If I need to bring a petition in here I will. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you were acting unbiased it would not be a problem. Again I highly recommend you read WP:Boomerang. You are not going to get any help here and forum shopping is just making things much much worse for you. Ridernyc (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am acting in an unbiased manner, the problem is that none of the people contributing to the page show any knowledge of the workings of the genre on any real level. Is Wikipedia, as a community, really so idiotic that it considers people who actually have a real knowledge of their topic to be automatically slanted or biased? How curiously backward. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I'll make sure to post these conversations in the forum for our scene, along with the other comments I've gotten whilst trying to correct a flagrantly incorrect definition. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah posting these conversations on a forum and recruiting people to come here is another in a very long list of things that are going to get you blocked from editing. Not allowed here, end of story. Ridernyc (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2012

Well, if there's no interest in honestly defining a genre instead of allowing it to be insulted why should I need to care about that rule? It seems like Wikipedians have very little concern for fact and far more for biased and uneducated posting and you've done nothing in our conversation to dissuade me from that opinion. You claim to be a music genre task force, but I come here asking how the members of the genre can have a situation rectified, you shoot it down and let something incorrect and biased stand instead. You're a music genre "task force" by your own definition, yet when a music genre has a representative come and ask for assistance you offer no assistance. Since I came representing them, of course they will be made aware, that's what a representative does. Baku Shad-do (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


I recommend you go back to your thread on the administrators noticeboard. No one here can help your problem and your hostile attitude. Ridernyc (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, in addition, do you see this little bit there at the bottom of the page? "This page was last modified on 13 May 2012 at 01:11. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. 

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization."

Just so you know, I'm a law clerk. That little bit there means I can share any conversation on here that I please without fear of retribution and that Wikipedia has granted that legal right. Baku Shad-do (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Again go back to your previous thread at the notice board. Ridernyc (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No point, I'm done wasting my time, I'll just share all of these conversations with the forum for the genre instead, have a good night. Baku Shad-do (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


CfD nomination of Category:Spoken word soul

Category:Spoken word soul has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Livetronica

The article Livetronica has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single reference is a self-published primary source and doesn't really corroborate any claims made in this article (other than the meaning of the portmanteau). Tagged with {{Refimprove}} since May 2007.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Urban jazz

The article Urban jazz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since March 2007. Some websites (primary sources) describe "urban jazz" as a radio format, but if this is a distinct musical style, usual sources (like allmusic) do not offer any definition.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Urban jazz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urban jazz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban jazz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Acid blues at WP:RFD

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 5#Acid blues. Gyrofrog (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cyber jazz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cyber jazz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber jazz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Witch house (music genre) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Witch house (music genre) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch house (music genre) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

genre names

FYI, a number of genres have come up for renaming at WP:RM recently. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion occuring here, regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant policies?

We just received protection on Within Temptation based on IP edit warring. What policies or guidelines exist in rearguards to listing a genre on an article? I see Flyleaf (band) isn't listed as Christian metal, though there would be sources for that, and there is a note regarding its disputed status. Same on WT, Band states that they don't consider themselves gothic rock, and I see Evanescence seems to have encountered the same issue. Has there been any consensus in this area? Or should we blank the genre on any disputed article? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the policy violated for that one is a lot simpler. Discuss it in talk rather than edit warring. I think that this is particularly relevant for genre classifications, because what makes it tough is that there often isn't a right or wrong answer, or anything clear from sources. But what helps is that I think that requiring folks to discuss it would tend to settle a lot of these. BTW a self-statement by the band should carry weight but is not absolute. Just like a famous actor who wants to be a director but hasn't made it there. If they say "I've done some acting, but I'm really a director" that's a correct statement of want they want to be, but not a correct statement of what they are. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
IP's don't seem to have a penchant for talking, hence the restriction. However, if I am to bring the issue back up for discussion, i'd like to be more informed of any relevant policies or guidelines. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
These two come to mind: wp:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. I'm guessing that what you had in mind was more guidance on the genre question specifically. I doubt that that exists as a Wikipedia policy or guideline; others may know of more guidance available from somewhere but I don't. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
For those that are unfamiliar, I would recommend reading WP:GENREWARRIOR, as well as some of the other essays attached there. These pages specifically address the issue of genre feuding/bickering. I personally think that if the feuding is severe and/or unproductive enough, then the infobox mention should be removed. I've done that to some of the Anathema (band) album pages (specifically, Alternative 4 and Judgement), with good results. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe disputes could get posted here and we could go there and make sure that a discussion takes place. It sounds like Genrewarriors refuse to discuss.....extreme cases like tend to get resolved more quickly. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Adoption of New Zealand reggae

I have decided to adopt this article and am currently attempting a total rewrite here on behalf of the Music genres task force and in support of WikiProject Reggae and WikiProject New Zealand.

If anybody wants to help, has any suggestions, constructive criticism or can point me in the direction of potentially useful and reliable sources they would be welcome. ThurstenEgorGreene (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Amon Amarth and Viking metal

Editors and IPs continue to go back and forth over whether or not Amon Amarth play Viking metal. Please join the discussion at Talk:Amon Amarth#Consensus on Viking Metal or not. Please keep discussion there, not here. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Does "blues rock" genre addition belong in the infobox for Black Sabbath's debut album? Discussion here. ChakaKongtalk 20:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Electronic music colours

There is a debate on whether to split the different forms of electronic music infoboxes into different colours at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours#Black for uptempo electronic music genres?. All views are welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad Romance genre

There's a discussion on what should be included in current GA article for Bad Romance. It involves whether or not if a source says it contains a song contains "elements" of a genre, should it be included in the infobox or not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Category: Classical music genres (newly proposed)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 13#Category: Classical music genres (newly proposed).

Please join this discussion if this interests you. LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


When is the right time to add genres to a relatively new artists info box? Misha B

We are having an interesting debate about music genres on the Misha B talk page MUSIC GENRES Misha B is a UK rapper and Singer, with 3 Official Commercial releases, 2 Mix Tapes, 2 Freestyles, and a dozen covers on Youtube). But no album yet. If you are interested please join the discussion.

Both parties of the current discussion agree that her genres should include:

  • Contemporary R&B (def Do You Think of Me + "Ugly Love" & "Silent Cry" from "Knock Knock" + her duets "Ride or Die" & "Floodgates Part 2" covers like "Girl on Fire", "Diamonds" )
  • Hip hop music or Rap ( Freestyles F64 & MishStyle, her covers of Drake's "Started from the Bottom", Jay Z and Kanye West's "No Church in the Wild" and her Rap breaks on X factor "Respect", "Rolling In The Deep", "Girls Wanna have Fun).

Beyond that I would add

But the other regular and more experienced/talented editor disagrees. She does not rule it out, saying that we should not confuse individual song genres with artists genres & that it's just not evident yet.

Possibly Pop and Dance-pop could be added too, but my main co editor is concerned that would be too many genresBodney (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus the one artist the industry experts Grammy.com aka The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (http://www.grammy.com/news/misha-b-in-the-uk-spotlight) and others have compared her to is Lauryn Hill, who is notable for neo-soul/reggae fusion.Bodney (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Bodney, it seems quite clear to me, on the basis of your evidence cited above, that this artist belongs in the "Reggae fusion" genre. I'd also agree, in spirit, with the other editor's comment that "it's just not evident yet" which genres are most relevant; but in three years' time, it may be a lot clearer. yoyo (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quality advice yoyo...I would like to add "Reggae fusion" genres on this singers info box, but I am concerned that as the were quite a few reverts/arguments against my attempted before that it might be best for me personally to wait until the is further good quality supporting evidence. -- BOD -- 09:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Acid Rap (or Acid rap)

There is a lengthy discussion about Acid Rap over at Talk:Acid Rap. Ben0kto (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of a cappella

I don't see a section where to request an assessment; however, a cappella needs to be re-assessed as it stands now is only a "Start" but it IMHO is better than that. I am not an expert on the subject matter, and I mainly re-worked the reference section. So if anyone wants to take a look. Please do speednat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Burial incorrectly labeled regarding genre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_%28musician%29

Simply put, there are some genres which do not belong to this artist, which, somehow, are listed as being so. Burial is not a trip-hop artist and the music therein has no garage influences whatsoever. 2-step is another genre Burial is NOT. This need to be rectified.

Proposed merge of Acid rock into Psychedelic rock

There is a merger discussion taking place at Talk:Psychedelic rock#Merger proposal. Input would be appreciated regarding the proposal to merge acid rock in with psychedelic rock. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think they should be merged. They are very similar, but Acid rock is louder and longer and a definite precursor to metal. Psychedelic rock, however, isn't necessarily loud or long. That's my two cents. Twyfan714 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre citation/warring policy

I have come here seeking a WP guideline regarding whether a particular genre should be mentioned on an artist's page. For example, there is currently a lengthy edit-war going on at Queens of the Stone Age regarding whether "stoner rock" is an appropriate label for the band, complete with citations both for and against, and which escalated to the point of having the page indefinitely fully protected, although that has been lifted. I am not involved in the dispute, but I have come across many others recently (e.g. are Emblem3 a pop reggae band?). I read the section above on this, but it didn't really help me. I would like to be able to refer to something like WP:V but specific to this issue (WP:V/GENRE?) for guidance, but as far as I know no such guideline exists, other than the general policies. Are any editors here interested in developing such a guideline? I have no idea how that process works, by the way. Ivanvector (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd think WP:V, and perhaps WP:NPOV, cover it. Anything in the infobox should be mentioned in the text; anything mentioned in the text should be corroborated with inline citations as per WP:RS. There are user warnings ({{Uw-genre1}}, 2, 3, 4) concerning the issue, and they refer the user to WP:V and WP:NPOV. You might be interested (or... not) in a discussion from a few months ago at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, concerning the genre field. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That discussion is helpful - I'll take a better look when I have more time. I agree that WP:V and WP:NPOV cover it, but I think there are many tidbits of other guidelines (WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:TRUTH) and certainly enough edit warring that maybe it would be useful to have a supplementary guideline that summarizes things specifically for genre discussions. Just as a sort of shortcut to hopefully stifle the debates about whether a suggested genre is appropriate or not ("the band says this!" "this blog says this!" etc ad nauseam). Also a shortcut for blocking editors who refuse to discuss controversial changes. I do know all of these things are already covered by existing policies. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Well WP:3RR covers a lot of the circumstances as well (at least for the short term). As for "the band says this," see WP:THIRDPARTY; for "this blog says this!" see WP:BLOGS. I guess it's a work in progress, but also check out User:Realist2/Genre Warrior. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but here's my view: The reason for these "genre wars", I think, is that the infoboxes for different artists tend to be specific. This leads to people editing them, believing that if they are going to be as specific as they are, then why did they have x genre without y genre, etc? This is why I am trying to start a movement that will simplify the infoboxes as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Currently, we are discussing doing this to Led Zeppelin's infobox. If you're interested, here's the link. Twyfan714 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Inactive sub-pages - or dead task force?

I'm astounded! Almost all the sub-pages of this "task force" page are marked "Inactive", with the explanation:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. [My emphasis]

I don't believe either stated reason applies to any of these pages: they are all still relevant and there's no clear evidence that their purposes are in dispute.

In particular, the To do and Guidelines pages should be active; otherwise, surely the project itself is either finished, or this task force just died along the way?

Rather than going to the village pump, I thought I'd start here on the project's talk page to see whether there's any life left in the project at all.

Please reply here if you intend to make (any, or further) contributions in the next few months!

yoyo (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A new Music genre portal?

Should we add a new portal to the (already large) list of music portals, Portal: Music genre?

This would be of practical use to the reader searching for info on music that interests them. The typical music fan can usually recognise one or more of the genre names their favourite music belongs to.

yoyo (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

RS for genre

What are reliable sources for genre? How is a decision made as to what genres should be added to a music article? Should there be a sub-genre field for singles and albums? Jim1138 (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to say exactly what are considered RS for this. Generally scholarly and academic sources that list genres are considered reliable. Mentions in text by major sources like Allmusic are usually considered reliable, but not the lists of genres that are generated from albums and songs as there is no editorial control over those. Obviously things that are not reliable sources, like self published books and user edited websites. are not considered reliable. Does that help?--SabreBD (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It might be nice to have a list of "recommended" RS-genre. This would be useful for people who are unfamiliar with adding RS for genre. Obviously, a unambiguous note about the list not being the only valid source and the source being listed is not a certification for the sources reliability. Probably would be good to add what genres the sources are reliable, questionable, and unreliable for specific genres would be useful. Jim1138 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It might be useful, I am just not sure where that would appear, or how it might be considered to have any force. There would have to be considerable discussion about the sources.--SabreBD (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should have any force. Just a page to suggest where editors could find how to cite genre, perhaps a list of genre RS or how to locate them, what constitutes genre RS, and perhaps a place to discuss what is / is not genre RS. Jim1138 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Things from WP:ALBUM/SOURCES like AllMusic, Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, and Rolling Stone can definitely be used for genre. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance template for unsourced genre

Instead of putting a {{citation needed}} on genres, why not put a hatnote / maintenance template along the lines of template:unsourced? Would that get more attention and more interest in getting the situation resolved? Jim1138 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting two templates, the inline and hatnote unsourced genre? Jim1138 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There could be a use for both. I like inline tags because they point to directly where the problem is, and I like maintenance/cleanup header tags because they communicate to readers that there are problems with the article. Both could add the page to a maintenance category (Category:Articles containing unsourced genre statements?) for easy cleanup. Ivanvector (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I would think it easy to hack Template:Unreferenced and Template:Citation needed to produce Template:Unsourced genre and Template:genre citation needed. The question is should I/we be wp:Bold or request permission? If permission needed, from where? BTW: both implement Template:Fix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jim1138 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the {{fix}} documentation, the appropriate procedure is to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. I'm going to post a notice there to invite editors involved to comment here. Ivanvector (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Adult Oriented Rock

Can this well-understood genre of the 80s have it's own page please? See discussion I've started at[[1]] Stub Mandrel (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there is a general consensus that album oriented rock is not a genre in the sense it is used on Wikipedia. It is just a radio format.--SabreBD (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Genres in the infobox - how general?

I have been involved in numerous disagreements about how specific, or general the infobox should be on artists' genres. I was under the impression that they were supposed to be as general and concise as possible. Am I wrong? Twyfan714 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Genres in the infobox should be a summary of what's listed in the article, and what's included in the article should be based on what appears in significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. If multiple reliable, independent sources say that Jimi Hendrix is a country singer, then include it. I suspect that's not the case. Ivanvector (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
But what are the guidelines for how specific they should get. For an artist as diverse as, say, Queen, how many genres should be included before it gets to be too much? Twyfan714 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You are looking for hard and fast guidelines that do not exist and for good reason; local consensus determines which and how many genres to include in an infobox. This is decided on a case-by-case basis, so there is no guideline that dictates content across all music articles and there shouldn't be one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"There is no guideline that dictates content across all music articles and there shouldn't be one." - Actually, there is a template: Template:Infobox musical artist#genre. Twyfan714 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sub genres and its parent genre in the infobox

Hi all, I'm a bit confused as to concising a genre for a song article. For example, say a reliable source deems a song ambient and another source deems the same song electronic, would it be logical to mention both or should one mention ambient only as its a sub-genre of electronic music. Likewise with dream pop and pop music. Is it not pointless to include a parent genre if a sub-genre is already sourced or vice versa? —CoolMarc 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For me, it is pointless to include a parent-genre if a reliable third party source has highlighted the sub-categorization of a song. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Definitely don't include a parent genre and a sub-genre of that parent genre at the same time. In this case, probably best to go with subgenre. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much you two for the heads-up! Will keep this in mind in future! —CoolMarc 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem :). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Always go with the most specific genre, so long as it is referenced clearly. E.g. reggae beats does NOT make a song reggae. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

AOR vs. Melodic rock vs. Pop rock

I have started a discussion here about the genres listed in the infoboxes of 1980s arena rock acts. I don't really see why AOR is listed if it is a radio format, and there is nothing on the page on pop rock that explains what difference (if any) there is between pop rock and melodic rock. I'd like for you guys to weigh in. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Melodic rock is a not a genre, as it describes rock music with melody, which is a charateristic of every song. A term that defines a genre should contain something that distinguishes it from other sub-genres. For example, the term pop rock says to the listener that the music has elements of pop and rock, hard rock means that it is rock with harsher sounds, Wagnerian rock mixes rock with the classical music of Wagner. Melodic rock as a genre is simply a nonsense. What remains to be seen is how to categorize the music of bands like Journey, REO Speedwagon, Styx, Heart, Foreigner, Def Leppard and so on, which were very often addressed in the press as AOR, referring to the US-FM-friendly format of many of their songs. Those bands fall now under the umbrella term classic rock for promotion and press, which is another radio format. In my opinion, the use of the generic term rock to indicate the music of such bands is too bland and not distinctive of their production. Their albums contain both rockers and power ballads, just like many glam metal acts of the 80s. Is it correct to have a term that unifies all those bands? Their audience was the same and their success in fame and sales is indisputable. Power pop is a term that comes to mind for that music. Power pop description says it's a "mixture of hard rock and melodic pop music", which could fit the music style if not the format of the songs. What do you think? Lewismaster (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, should arena rock be considered a sub-genre of rock music or not? Lewismaster (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@Lewismaster: I am creating a new section below that will outline your concerns on Arena rock. Johnny338 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Arena rock - Genre or not?

I recently was involved in a discussion about whether or not Arena rock should be considered a genre on Wikipedia. During the discussion, two editors brought up some sources stating that it is:

  • Journey (...) were considered one of the leaders in the arena rock subgenre, but the success of their 1982 album Escape, including new keyboardist Jonathan Cain, made Journey an early leader in 1980s rock.
  • "With 1976's Leftoverture, Kansas sounded like a lighter version of Led Zeppelin, fitting squarely into a genre known as "arena rock" rather than progressive rock." (Chris Smith, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Rock History: From Arenas to the Underground, 1974-1980, p. 29)
  • "most of the arena rock bands from the '70s and '80s produced a lot of shit, but that doesn't dilute the one worthwhile characteristic of the genre: it was fun" (CMJ New Music Report, 29 September 2003, p. 5)
  • "As the 1970s progressed, hard rock and heavy metal evolved into a more appealing, high-production genre commonly labeled stadium rock or arena rock because of its grand design to accommodate huge crowds in huge spaces." (David Lee Joyner, American Popular Music, p. 261)
  • American Popular Music – page 270: "Along the way, arena rock, progressive rock, and other postpsychedelic styles seemed to forsake the concept of dance music."
  • Music Theory Online, Walter Everett, "Making Sense of Rock's Tonal Systems", December 2004: "An effort was made to reflect in the sample the most popular and/or significant styles of the day—hip-hop, hard rock, country, alternative rock, grunge, mainstream rock, arena rock, jazz-rock fusion, pre-teen idols, and catalog artists with new releases—just as the singles chart would have done in its day."[2] (Also appears as a chapter in Allan F. Moore's Critical essays in popular musicology, Ashgate, 2007. See page 321.)
  • This Ain't the Summer of Love: Conflict and Crossover in Heavy Metal and Punk, page 10: "This Ain't the Summer of Love therefore begins not with the release of a particular record or the origin of a sound, but with the rise of a new sort of concert phenomenon: arena rock, which effectively emerged alongside the genre of heavy metal in the first years of the 1970s."[3] On page 33 in the book, the author describes Grand Funk Railroad as a band that was formed around the concept of arena rock, a band that never paid its dues in little clubs.
  • The Rock Cover Song: Culture, History, Politics – page 138: "In this way, while the first three songs on NATO are taken from three vastly different genres (classical, soul, and arena rock), they end up sounding almost identical in Laibach's détourned versions..."

These sources would seem to indicate that Arena rock is indeed a genre, however, the general consensus on the arena rock article itself seems to indicate otherwise. If one tries to edit that article, a message pops up that says, "NOTE: Arena rock is a "term" and not a genre. The genre infobox is designed for use in genre articles and not terms. Do not add a genre infobox to this article or alter any content to mistakenly refer to the term "arena rock" as a genre." Arena rock is also not listed under List of rock genres, yet it is listed as a genre under Template:Rock music. In short, there seems to be quite some confusion over whether or not it is a (sub)genre, or merely a term. Since we should be consistent, I have opened up this discussion to hopefully reach a consensus and end this debate once and for all. Johnny338 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that "arena rock" is a performance style and can also be a musical genre, typically music written and arranged to celebrate its massive size.
Regarding the note in the arena rock article, in August 2008 it was added by Wiki libs who stopped editing in 2011. There was a discussion about the issue at Talk:Arena_rock#first_sentence in November 2007, with no consensus reached. Another discussion took place in June 2008 (Talk:Arena_rock#New source) but no consensus reached. In both discussions, Wiki libs argued forcefully for the "not a genre" position, first as an anonymous IP, second as a registered user. So it appears the main champion for that stance is no longer participating at Wikipedia. Perhaps heavily involved Sabrebd can weigh in on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a tricky one. I think the problem is that, despite what the the references above might be seen to idnicate, Arena rock is not being used here in the sense it tends to be used on Wikipedia (basically as a distinct form of music with its own history of development and sense of identity). We would naturally tend to classify these bands as hard rock or progressive rock etc, long before we got around to arena rock. This one is pretty clearly an externally defined shorthand, although a legitimate subject for an article. I have long felt we could do with another infobox for these sorts of articles and for what are really musical sub-cultures rather than forms of music.--SabreBD (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"We would naturally tend to classify these bands as hard rock or progressive rock". This is clearly your own point of view, which doesn't matter here. Arena rock is definintly associated with several representative bands, including Styx, Journey, REO Speedwagon, and of course Queen. As stated above, arena rock is called this way because of its grand design to accommodate huge crowds in huge spaces. It is obviously a music genre. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's stop with this edit warring that's occurring and discuss it here. This is precisely why I started this section: to avoid this edit warring, which does nothing but antagonize editors and waste everyone's time. Synthwave.94 and Sabrebd: I appreciate input from both of you, but let's not endlessly revert each other. Again, let's try and discuss the issue, while being civil, of course. Johnny338 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I only wanted to improve an article the way I usually improve an article, but it's obvious Sabrebd "owns" this article : a typical cas of strong ownership. But anyway, it's obvious "arena rock" is a definitive genre and not a term. All the references mentionned above are here to prove it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Synthwave.94 I see that Sabrebd has brought the issue up here. Johnny338 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not related to this debate.--SabreBD (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I've seen it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, I was just informing Synthwave.94, since he told me he would be watching this page. Johnny338 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I'm bringing this issue (not the reference system one, but this one regarding Arena rock as a genre) up with other Wikiprojects in case others want to weigh in. Johnny338 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have the feeling that this is similar to the problem posed by djent. Is it a term, or a genre? It's both. Lets allow the source literature to determine how we view the topic on Wikipedia.--¿3family6 contribs 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Most music genres were first terms before being considered representative genres. Power pop was first an expression coined by Pete Townshend before becoming a definitive genre. New wave, electroclash, krautrock or even rock and roll were all expressions before being known as music genres. So why "arena rock" should be an exception to the rule ? It wouldn't make any sense. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having taken numerous courses on popular music, I would like to cite my own anecdotal evidence that the sources claiming it is a genre are uninformed or ignorant. Surely all the bands placed in this genre share a common connection, but it is not their music. Arena rock seems to encompass everything from plain rock, to progressive rock, glam rock, rock operas, rock ballads, heavy metal, etc. The connection is not the music, but the popularity of the music, the ease of audience participation, the showmanship of the bands, and how loud they are. Arena rock is a way to classify bands, but it is not a genre. Journey, Queen and REO Speedwagon are glam rock, Led Zeppelin is... progressive rock I suppose, and so is Styx (though some songs certainly fit in as glam rock). Kiss is rock (plain and simple as it comes). I think undue weight on a few sources is being used here, I'm sure multitudes could be found that correctly identify it as an attribute of a band, but not a musical genre. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been searching the digital traces of published works including the words "arena rock" and "genre". None have said arena rock is not a genre. I'm not married to one answer here—I'm willing to follow the sources wherever they lead. If any one of the sources had said arena rock was not a genre, I would have relayed that fact to this discussion. If you can find even one, let alone "multitudes", then your Google foo is very strong. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more sources:

  • Musicologist Robert Morris (composer) writes that arena rock is one of 40 "market niches" used by the American media. The 40 include "light classical", "smooth jazz" and "easy listening". The Whistling Blackbird: Essays and Talks on New Music, page xvi.
  • The software GarageBand allows the user to change the sound of their guitar to be more like the "British invasion", "arena rock", or "cool jazz". For those who think arena rock is only a performance style and not a genre, this means that arena rock can be about a sound rather than about a performance style. Marketing, page 303.
  • Rock journalist Bruck Pollock sets arena rock as a genre comparable to new wave, hard rock and pop rock: "In the early 1980s [George] Martin moved restlessly, recording hard rock (No Place to Run by UFO), arena rock (All Shook Up by Cheap Trick), pop-rock (Time Exposure by Little River Band), and new-wave experimentalism (Quartet by Ultravox)..." See If You Like the Beatles..., page 85.
  • CD Review magazine reviewing Candlebox's Lucy in late 1995: "After going multi-platinum with their first batch of blue collar rock, pundits — confused and frustrated about not prophesying their mega-popularity — dismissed them as generic arena rock, a bunch of pothead friends who loved Aerosmith and Kiss enough to pick up guitars and give it a three-chord whack themselves." I'm interpreting the word "generic" in the sense of "of or related to genre". Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Try just searching for just "stadium rock" or "arena rock". There are plenty. Examples such as this one (I'd provide more but it'll have to wait) exemplify that regardless of being called a genre by some sources, it is simply used to describe a band, not the music. That is not a genre.
  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/programmes/we-are-the-champions/ - "Stadium rock is not a genre - it exists somewhere far above the ebb and flow of genre and fashion, and is a term used to describe the music played by bands and artists as musically diverse as Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Police or U2 - acts who can regularly perform to upwards of 50 000 people.
In a strictly musical sense, there is little that connects these bands - the hopped up glam riffs of Kiss are far removed from the futuristic sonics of Bono and Edge."
The examples you gave above provide no retaliation against the points I made. #1 Light classical? Easy listening? These aren't genres. Like classic rock, these are radio formats, which is what the article is surely describing. #2 Garage Band, really? Let me guess, crank the reverb, bit of distortion? Does it add audience cheers? A sound effect or style of sound is not equivalent to a genre (generally). #3 A passing mention, doesn't explicitly confirm that it's a genre, but it's the best so far! #4 By the credence you are giving this blurb here, "blue collar rock" is also a genre. Again, a passing mention.
I'll get to the others you posted up above tomorrow or so... getting late here. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Your BBC webpage does not say anything about arena rock until you scroll all the way down to the reader comments. Reader comments do not qualify as reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Floydian, stop trying pushing your personal knowledge here. Just because you feel "arena rock" is not a genre does not mean you're right. If you're unable to support your view then give it up. Also, Binksternet and me clearly showed throughout numerous examples "arena rock" is mainly considered a genre (or a subgenre) of rock music, not as a term. I personally found one source which said "arena rock" was not a genre but I was not even sure this source was reliable anyway. So let's use common sense now. Arena rock is a music genre. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, not with the lacklustre sources provided above. And no, don't try any underhanded tactics on me to make me go away when you are both pushing a POV across multiple forums and aren't aware of our standards for sourcing contentious facts; I am using my decade of Wikipedia experience on that. You also misread the BBC page I provided, because you pressed ctrl+F and typed in "arena rock". The director/producer of a program on stadium rock provides a quote which is a synopsis to the program, go look again; Arena rock and stadium rock are the same thing (obviously, arena=stadium).
The sources provided as proof are terrible at best, taken completely out of context as worst, and passing mentions on average that don't explicitly qualify arena and stadium rock as a genre. You have not actually examined sources that define what a genre is either, or else you would know that even the sources that do describe arena/stadium rock makes it clear that it is not a genre, but a classification. I debunked the four sources provided above as not bringing any credibility to the issue. Now I will debunk the remaining sources provided at the beginning of the post. #1 Passing mention, doesn't discuss anything about this "subgenre" (which is another example of how the terminology is changed at will by some authors). #2 Surely this encyclopedia also has an entry for "arena rock" then? Enough passing mentions. #3 A minor band review in a college music chart magazine by someone nobody has heard of. However, this is a reliable source so it is indeed the best provided so far. But again, this just says "So and so is in the genre of arena rock" and this adds little credence to the mix. #4 backs up what I said. Selling out an arena doesn't change the genre of your bands music. #5 Passing mention, though this time it uses "styles" rather than genre. #6 That isn't a list of genres (mainstream rock is as much a genre as top 40). #7 again backs me up: "not with the release of a particular record or the origin of a sound, but with the rise of a new sort of concert phenomenon: arena rock" - clearly defines it as not being a genre but a way to classify bands. #8 "NATO, released October 10, 1994, is an album by Slovenian industrial group Laibach, named after NATO. It is a selection of cover versions with the theme of war." - song number three is The Final Countdown. Europe is glam rock. Their songs can be classified as arena rock, rock ballads, or rock anthem, along the lines of Triumph.
Please find better sources that actually discuss arena rock as a genre or stop pushing a POV. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources that were mentioned in the discussion I had regarding this. I did not mention them before, because I was merely summarizing the debate in my first post above:

I want to be clear that I am merely trying to provide all the evidence here, I am NOT trying to pick a side one way or another, or POV push. Rather, I am just making sure everyone is aware of the sources that were provided in the debate, so that we get the full picture. Johnny338 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Now those are some good sources! But we see here that there is again that thin dividing line that separates a genre - which describes the feel and style of a musical composition - to a characteristic or classification terms like arena rock - which describes the image of the band, the style of their concerts, and such - and radio formats such as "blue collar rock" or "classic rock" or "AOR" and etc etc - which are simply playlists of songs that gain those labels over time. These are distinct concepts. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to stress how important it is to reach a consensus on this matter to stop the edit war that is creeping around in album articles. Just to cite my experience, the term arena rock for the albums of Journey was edited out, claiming it was not a music genre, but my attempt to remove arena rock from Template:rock music was reverted with exactly the opposite reasoning.
I think that to reach a decision we should consider what is a music genre or sub-genre. A music genre is defined by the combination of instruments used, chords played, track format, eventual song lyrics and attitude of the musicians. Those elements should make music genres and subgenres distinguishable one from the other. For example, jazz and rock are very distinct genres for instrumentation, chords, and music format, while the main distinction between punk rock and heavy metal can be found in the attitude of the musicians and song lyrics. Does arena rock have elements that separate it from other genres? I don't think so. The fact that a band played large venues can be referred to Queen as well as to Fleetwood Mac, Van Halen, Bruce Springsteen, U2 and Iron Maiden. Should they all be considered arena rock acts just because they have huge live shows and play in stadiums? According to the definition provided in the article they should, but I think that style, attitude and music of those bands are so different that they cannot be classified under the same genre. On the contrary, corporate rock could be a more appropriate term to describe the kind of music and the bands that User:Synthwave.94 was talking about. Regarding this, I'm not sure that arena rock should be a synonymous of corporate rock.
Another matter is the use or misuse of the term arena rock by music critics and journalists. Unfortunately the meaning of any term changes in time and can be used in different ways. For example, in my collection of Kerrang! magazines from the 80s the term AOR is continuously used to define a precise rock music genre, which featured ample use of synths and had a standard format for the songs. Probably we would call the genre pop rock or power pop today. I agree that AOR is a radio format, but for years music critics, journalists and record buyers used the term to indicate a genre of music. The same can be said for arena rock. What we can decide is to limit the use of the term to a time period when arena rock had meaning as a music genre. But this opens the door to AOR, Adult-Contemporary, classic rock, corporate rock, mainstream rock, and so on, which were or are used to classify more or less the same kind of music. Are there sources that can pinpoint the moment when arena rock was first used to describe a genre instead of a live show? And when did it cease to be a genre? It is a tricky one indeed. Lewismaster (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I never heard of "corporate rock" before reading the "arena rock" and I'm still surprised the two terms can be considered synonymous. I think more sources should be added to confirm the two terms are really synonymous. I agree with you, Lewismaster, that "arena rock" is often misused by music critics and journalists. However, it's always the same bands which are often described as "arena rock"/"stadium rock" : Queen, Styx, Journey, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Boston, sometimes Led Zeppelin, Def Leppard and Kiss. But when did "arena rock" was first used as a genre ? I admit I'm unable to answer this question. I only know it was popular in the mid- to late '70s.
However I don't see any reason to remove it from infoboxes. I've already seen "adult contemporary" in countless articles (including good articles such as Ready, Set, Don't Go) so why not using arena rock as well ? After all, if a song is mainly described as "arena rock" or "stadium rock" then it can stay in the infobox of an article. I mean "We Will Rock You" is mainly regarded as an arena rock/stadium rock so it makes perfect sense to keep it in the infobox of the article. It should be the same with other articles. News of the World is considered an arena rock album as well. I don't think removing "arena rock" from all infoboxes is appropriate. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the "adult contemporary", that should not be in an infobox as a genre (of course, that is my POV, and I am unsure if a consensus was officially reached on that at some point, but anyway...). I think we need to keep in mind that the sources above could just as easily have "classic rock" when describing Queen. Does that mean that we should add that as a genre for Queen? No, because general consensus goes against that. On the other hand, arena rock does not equal classic rock, and therefore, we shouldn't disregard the sources just because of that argument. Just trying to present both sides of the argument here. I do think Sabrebd may have something here about creating an infobox for subgenres, although how to do that, what subgenres to include/exclude, and how we can incorporate that into an artist's article without making a mess is a different matter. It may be something to bring up at the WP:MOS talk page. Johnny338 (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting this discussion, I want to show what else I found in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Dr. Kristian J. Hammond of Northwestern University in Illinois writes that "Progressive rock is a sub-genre of arena rock, which is how [Sammy] Hagar's music is classified." This is from a paper about a music playback program called Flytrap which plays music selected from genres based on the preferences of people who are nearby. See "Flytrap" from the Intelligent Information Laboratory at Northwestern.
  • C.J. Watson gives the reader a list in The Everything Songwriting Book: All You Need to Create and Market Hit Songs, the list being a "family tree" of rock-n-roll. The list shows 35 sub-genres of rock-n-roll, including arena rock, swamp rock, soft rock, new wave, speed metal, etc.
  • Michael Wood writes in Billboard that the group Taking Back Sunday was changing members and also switching genres from "pop/rock/emo/whatever you want to call it to an arena-rock band like the Foo Fighters."
  • In the All Music Guide to Rock, the term "arena rock" appears more than 75 times, usually included in a list of genres associated with a band. For instance, Jason Anthony writing about the band Boston classifies the band as belonging to four genres: Album rock, arena rock, pop rock and hard rock. Other arena rock bands include Styx, Cheap Trick, Pat Benatar, REO Speedwagon, Journey, Foreigner, Foghat, Joan Jett, Kiss, Heart, Sammy Hagar, Loverboy, .38 Special, Jethro Tull, Supertramp, Blue Oyster Cult, Eddie Money, etc, etc.
  • Chris Smith writing in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Rock History: From arenas to the underground, 1974-1980 says on page 29 that "with 1976's Leftoverture, Kansas sounded like a lighter version of Led Zeppelin, fitting squarely into a genre known as 'arena rock' rather than progressive rock." Greenwood Press, 2006, ISBN 9780313329371.


I think we need to redefine this discussion.

We are talking about whether something fits the definition of a genre, but that definition seems to be in flux. Lewismaster said, "Another matter is the use or misuse of the term arena rock by music critics and journalists." Language gains meaning only through usage, with rules and definitions following usage patterns. (That is a central principle in college linguistics courses.) That is why the Oxford English Dictionary is constantly redefining words and accepting new words and revising its rules of grammar. It reflects usage rather than enforcing it. (English pedants find that annoying, but linguists find pedants annoying. :P) It seems we lack a universal definition of what it means to be a music genre. The WP article on the subject is a bit of a mess, but it demonstrates the ambiguity and lack of consensus. Professional journalists and music critics use the term how they use it, and if they have not formed a professional consensus about genre, how would our consensus about a specific genre be meaningful? That is like Wikipedia trying to establish a standard definition for ideal weight when medical, scientific, and academic professionals have not. We need to do our best to avoid sounding authoritative in areas where we (Wikipedia) are not.

There appear to be many examples of the use of arena rock as a genre by highly educated and notable music professionals, but none of them seems to claim to offer a universal definition of what arena rock is or what a genre is. They simply use the terms and the definition is derived from the context. That does not help us to arrive at an acceptable definition. It merely shows the diversity of opinion among professionals on the matter.

Perhaps the genre of the music should only be listed if it is given by an independent professional? I would support that. There are other ways to convey meaning than inventing supposedly authoritative definitions ourselves. A consensus among participating Wikipedians cannot cause something to be true or bring it into meaningful existence outside of WP. Sometimes it only gives Wikipedians ammunition to use against each other, or serves to make us all look foolish in the eyes of those who know better. Absent a more universal definition, the best we can do is define something as being "Wikipedia's definition." WP is not important enough to define things into existence for others.

Why is it important to come to a consensus on this matter? (I am opposed to that.) That in itself might be a mistake if the use of the term outside WP is in flux. I say it does no good to attach a fixed definition to a moving target - in general. I think we should reconsider the usefulness of listing genre in the infobox and consider something less subjective. (E.g., a Billboard-style radio format, or the musical style.) Considering what readers really might want to learn about a piece of music by glancing over the infobox, that might be enough. I am not saying genre is unimportant. Let it be discussed within the text, where differing viewpoints can more readily be covered. From what I've seen, the people who seem most invested in giving specific genres are editors who are writing and revising articles they feel passionate about, and to them it is very meaningful to be super-specific about genre. But what about the reader? Encyclopedias do not exist for the benefit of the writers and the editors (or the artists being covered); they are for the readers.

We are talking about definitions when defining something is not the main problem. Back up a second and look more broadly. The problem is edit warring and an attempt to force an authoritative definition (that in reality does not exist) onto others - to force our edits to stand. What is needed is for Wikipedians to stop edit warring, without being forced, and without being so emotionally attached to the outcomes. We need to be academically dispassionate. In reality, Wikipedians are people, and we do such things. So maybe WP needs a better solution to the problem of edit warring and excessive undoing rather than defining things that professionals have left undefined.Dcs002 (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dcs002 that it is not WP editors' job to create boundaries or to define controversial music genres. But to avoid the edit warring phenomenon it could be better to find a consensus on how and when the use of the term is appropriate. Delist it completely is fine, list it only when an independent professional used it is fine, just decide together a common behaviour! This is the consensus I was talking about. Right now at Talk:Van Halen#Genres another discussion about arena rock is going on. I think that could be avoided if we can make up some clear directives on how to behave when such volatile genres are discussed. Lewismaster (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Metal fusion bands

Category:Metal fusion bands has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Λeternus (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Pop music

I have opened a proposal for a WikiProject dedicated to pop music. Feel free to leave comments or question. Erick (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

CfD nomination of Category:World music by language

Category:World music by language has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Van Halen

Genre warring. Chime in if you'd like at Talk:Van Halen#Genres. — MusikAnimal talk 04:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal for indie dance charts (Goa, Progressive, Psy etc)

There is currently a proposal for the inclusion of the major digital music distributors, in regards to very specific music charts, which are not yet covered by Wikipedia. For input and the discussion can be found here. prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal has been rejected, and a follow up proposal for the inclusion of Beatport alone. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC of general interest to this group.

See Talk:Eagles (band). Thank you in advance for your participation. --Jayron32 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre issue on GA nominated article

Hello. An editor and I have hit a stand still in an article related to this project regarding genre. Could some editors weight in on it here please? thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are artists who attribute their own music to genres in published reliable sources considered a reliable source?

I've attempted to add "progressive pop" as a genre for the album Discover America, as it was designated such within its own Billboard advertisement. An edit war arose as soon as I did, so input would be appreciated. According to User:Binksternet: "the source is unreliable because it is an advertisement by the record company. It is not written by an agent of the magazine."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be reliable for explaining the recording artist's own opinion on what genre the album is. However, it shouldn't be used as a neutral statementing support the genre of the album, as an advertisement is by definition promotional and non-neutral. A third-party source needs to confirm whether the genre label is accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much what was stated above. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, things like genre which interpreted, rather than 100% obvious, needs a third-party source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
An advertisement or any other statement about genre by someone involved in making the music may be an interesting detail for the article body but it should not be used to categorize the work, and it should not be used to insert that genre into the infobox. What is possible is that the article body text can tell the reader that such-and-such advertisement positioned the song as 'progressive pop'. No more than that. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force/Archive_5&oldid=1202934571"