This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I just read this
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=88225
Joke or no joke? Jay794 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.spinner.com/2008/02/19/ac-dc-ready-to-rock-again-with-new-album/
"Strap It On"?????????Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article's date for "Anal Fudgecakes" is clearly incorrect, being listed as 198 (instead of 1978 perhaps?). The correct date needs to be filled in. 141.213.247.14 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Febuary 20th, 1980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.25.66 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The correct date of Bon Scott's death is February 19th, 1980. A search of his gravestone will show that as the correct date. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Bon_Scott.jpg Archangel-22 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally the band's pioneering long term influence on the genre's accepted. But as we all know that doesn't make them metal. Otherwise every band that influenced metal would be metal. And thus in expanding metal, every band that influenced them would be influences on a metal band too. And it would go on and on until every genre ever was metal.
In the last discussion on if AC/DC were or were not metal, user "Helltopay27" tried to convince people AC/DC are metal. "Captanpluto123", "KingCfr", "Bretonbanquet", "JNCooper" and "highvoltageacdc" all stated they are not metal.
In the discussion before that, "HK51" said he didn't mean they were pure metal in some statements of his. "'74 Jailbreak '74 Jailbreak" said they are not metal. "Bass Mast" agreed.
Discussion before that: "No-Bullet" started an argument saying they're not metal. "HK51" said some of their songs were metal and since things had said metal before he was reverting edits (i.e. they made enough metal songs to count as metal, even if this was few). "The Archer" suggested the band are not metal though did not comment on what genre they should be listed as since he also mentioned their metal influence.
"HK51" by the way stated that if the majority of people didn't want to call AC/DC metal, he was ok with that.
Looking back there's been about 7 debates when the over-riding decision has been that AC/DC are NOT heavy metal. So why are they still listed as such?(The Elfoid 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
AC/DC are a hard rock band, and hard rock often has overlaps with heavy metal. Most record shops put AC/DC in the metal section, and their reputation is of a heavy metal rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.123.241 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that at all relevant? That just suggests they're often misunderstood. (The Elfoid 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
AC/DC is undoubtedly metal. Bands like Queen are considered proto-metal and hard rock. AC/DC is heavy metal, though, not just an influence on the genre. Even if you consider their early stuff just an influence on metal, there is no doubt that there later stuff was DEFINITELY metal. Therefore, as they for sure played metal at some point in their career, it should be listed as a genre. I mean come on, even in the articl its goes on and on and on about how they were pioneers of the genre and how they've been named about a gazillion times over as one of the best metal bands of all time. I listed metal as a genre and I hope everyone agrees. Navnløs 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No one said they don't influence metal, just that they aren't. Black Sabbath had a huge influence on thrash metal. They invented metal most would argue, and also some of the earliest thrash riffs are in Sabbath songs. Would ANYONE consider them a thrash metal band? Influencing a genre's not enough.
Rolling Stones had a huge influence on AC/DC. This if AC/DC are metal for influencing metal bands, Rolling Stones are metal for influencing a metal band. And so all the bands they liked, artists like Howlin' Wolf, would also classify as metal! IT COULD GO ON FOREVER UNTIL ALL MUSIC IN HISTORY WAS METAL. Influencing a genre just can't qualify.
Navnlos, don't edit genre during a debate. As I put in my initial comment on this page, there's been many, many debates on genre which all ended in them not being metal. Thus after about 5 or so debates with no one coming up with a reason to list them as metal...they're not. Lyrical content of their music shares little with most metal bands (other than the hair/glam scene which is a bit of an unusual one and I doubt you'd call AC/DC hair metal), the riffs are almost entirely blues based, the basslines are much more passive and simple.
I know the look of a band doesn't define them, but it's worth thinking about. No metal bands dress remotely like AC/DC.
Musical identification and genre specification are not the same. A lot of people call them metal, but none of them can tell you why. They're rock 'n' roll that happens to be heavy enough to be metal - but the riffs, chord progressions, lyrics, vocal stylings and key influences are not remotely metal. Metal bands were typically influenced by Led Zep, Deep Purple and original-metal-band Black Sabbath. AC/DC don't carry any of those influences.
They pioneered the genre in that they brought it to a much wider audience, as a stepping stone from rock to metal for crowds that needed a little bridge. The band carried metal's heaviness without any of the other styling, helped people move accross.
Look at bands they sound like - it's all late 50s/early 60s stuff like Chuck Berry.
There's sources saying they're not metal, but where is there that says "anyone saying AC/DC are not metal is wrong"?
(The Elfoid (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
acdcis a rock no metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian33 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we get a photo of the whole group with Bon Scott, and put it in The Bon Scott Era and another group photo with Brain Johnson as the main photo?-RREDD13 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That'd be ideal. (The Elfoid 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
Other featured music articles do it (see: Slayer), and there's absolutely nothing that states you can't in Wikipedia's guidelines. Besides, with the re-opening of the heavy metal debate, it seems that citations might be the only things keeping heavy metal as a genre. Helltopay27 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
My guess would be that since people wanted to prove AC/DC are metal, there was a thousand odd citations or something at some stage. But I have no idea. (The Elfoid (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
It didn't look like a rule, more a recommendation for the topic at hand (The Elfoid (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
List the band as all present genres bar heavy metal. State it also as 'disputed', and lower on the page list something on genre dispute explaining it all. Most emo bands do it, why don't we? (The Elfoid (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
Yeah. It said not to edit it BEFORE someone added heavy metal a while back actually. I took it down, and suddenly people who have it in their watchlist are on it like hawks, kept putting it back.
Hidden text is not law though. The genre IS disputed since reputable sources both call them metal, and also state they're not metal.(The Elfoid (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
AC/DC themselves. Garry Sharpe-Younge from rock-detector who is author of the mammoth "Metal: The Definitive Guide" book recently published. Ian Fortnam and Sian Llewellyn both wrote about it in "Classic Rock" Magazine. Rock historians Clinton Walker and Ian Christe. Sleazegrinder.com. Grinder's a music authority that's fairly well respected in it's fields, despite being an 18+ website
In terms of genre debate, there's also the fact that in 1970s rock press they were strongly associated with punk rock. Can you see that making sense either?(The Elfoid (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
I think a decision on a genre is of course not just influenced by POV, but it's the direct result of it. But one of the longest standing and most respected rock music magazines in British publication history, a professional music reviews site, a professionally written book by an editor of a well known professionally run rock music site and qualified rock historians count as being just as much of an authority as say...allmusic.com, Rolling Stone magazine and all the other relevant sources.
Wikipedia accepts written sources, anywhere. The fact something's in book form matters not. Especially if you can give ISBN numbers, page references, correctly spelt author's names etc.
Verification of written materials is not required, provided it is accurately and correctly referenced. Though I can provide a direct quote for your satisfaction if required. Infact, The professional rock critics' quotes can be found on Wikipedia articles. It's either hard rock or heavy metal, I'm not sure.
Lets see what the relevant information pages say on sources shall we?
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
Classic Rock, and the publisher for "Metal" (it eludes me now) are both highly respected. A professional rock historian's obviously fully qualified at degree level. I'd imagine they're university pressed, though I'm not sure. The CR writers are frequent contributors by the way.
"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."
Sleazegrinder's DEFINITELY a website that can be trusted, in terms of credibility. Wikipedia cites it frequently.
And as for AC/DC themselves...it's written on the booklet with one of the remastered albums. The Razor's Edge I think. So it's self-published, definitely not a misquote. AC/DC are obviously not qualified music experts from a technical and historical standpoint, but an already weighty argument suggesting the genre's highly disputed can be added to by this as well.
You're honestly putting "professional websites", as more accurate than professional websites, professional music writers, rock music historians and the band in question? I say drop the metal tag, but call it disputed because so many damn people argue about it. And look at all the reviews for their albums that just don't mention metal at all eh? There's them too.
Is another source that claims they are not metal. Somewhere in a music section by one of their 'professional blogs'
(The Elfoid (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
You're failing tosee the point. There is no website out there who can describe a band's genre that will not involve some degree of opinion. Because it is a decision you must come to based on your own attitudes, values, ideas and thoughts.
The blogs are not blogs in the conventional sense - not on blogspot.com or anything like that. They're just an easy way for authors on a site to make contributions. They're columnists, effectively. If you look at the site and the context, you'll understand.
Biased? How is this anything relating to biased attitudes? It's not like someone is gonna say "I like AC/DC so I am gonna say this band is not metal" then write about it - that's insane. Quoting a source can lead to misleading results, yes. So I've offered you seven.
You are making a huge mistake thinking Wikipedia does not accept personal opinion. It does, provided it is educated and qualified - someone who can make an intelligent, well informed opinion who has proven their understanding and knowledge of the topic. We, as users, can't do that. These sources can. You will find no sources better or worse - a music genre's too open to opinion.
And all these things explicitately state the band are not a heavy metal band. There's no "find a slant" to it - they just lay it bare. As said, I can find quotes for you if you really need them.
There was NOT a strong consensus!!!! On the presently archives pages (which I don't think cover the page's entire history), there's some 7 extended arguments over it. And other asides on the matter too. And generally, people who claimed we can put them down as metal really, really struggled.
Users involved in past discussions, and what they said -
Not Metal: "Captanpluto123", "KingCfr", "Bretonbanquet", "JNCooper" , "highvoltageacdc", "'74 Jailbreak '74 Jailbreak", "Bass Mast", "No-Bullet" , "The Archer"
Metal: "Helltopay27", "HK51" (who's opinion was 'not pure metal' - a bit dubious) were the onles non-anonymous users who made and decent responses suggesting they are metal.
It was quite clear the band were not to be listed as metal. Then it crept in. Read archived debates before you comment!(The Elfoid (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
The source stated that the band are pioneers of the SOUND of hard rock and heavy metal. Here it says they are pioneers OF heavy metal. That's totally different! I think they have elements of the sound since they're as heavy and hard hitting as metal, but that doesn't mean it is metal, since there's more to a genre than that. I CORRECTED the text to bring it more in line with the source. How dare you accuse me of any sly tricks or snide play. How. Dare. You.
I am not saying do not call them heavy metal due to my opinion. I am saying do not call them heavy metal due to several (SEVEN!) conclusive debates on Wikipedia, a varaiety of credible and respected sources and due to the band's own view that it is not an accurate description of their sound. Christe states that the band are prominent in heavy metal due to influence and audience, but not actually heavy metal (check the hard rock or heavy metal pages and search for a specific quote).
A bunch of credible sources say one thing. Another lot say another. Who are we to pick one over the other? I'd pick the one that supports my theory, but unlike you I just thought of something! EDITOR POV IS NOT IMPORTANT! That means we can't decide if they are heavy metal or not, right? So we can't just say they are. You're choosing to ignore a variety of credible sources.
And "genre classification dispiuted (see below)" with a link to text further down the page is perfectly respectable. There's nothing wrong with it. Who cares who put it on on other pages? It still works!
If a user is not banned from Wikipedia, he/she is still just another user. And that means their point of view counts. If they're known sockpuppets, why are some of them still here?
Oh, and don't assume because someone's edits have been reverted they are a total idiot - they just might not know their way around Wikipedia yet. Don't assume teenagers know nothing. Don't assume anyone makikng edits you disagree with are soapboxing and know nothing about music. Stop being an elitist. I find your behaviour immature, offensive and not nearly open ended enough for a community like this(The Elfoid (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
If I don't get a reply by the 25th, I'll assume no one has a constructive argument to present and remove the tag, writing up on the dispute. (The Elfoid (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC))
In addition to that, it's not such a great idea to set deadlines, it doesn't help in terms of being constructive and/or WP:NICE. ScarianTalk 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If I put in 8 reliable sources from groups that are trustable, of high reputation and fairly qualified to comment on the matter saying they are not heavy metal, we simply cannot state that the band are without a doubt. We can state it is possible they might qualify as such, but in no way can we make a blank statement.
Scarian, I was just hoping to either motivate a reply or make people realise I won't just drop the matter because no one is replying. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC))
Motorhead's a bad example. Lemmy's just about the only person to claim they aren't heavy metal. CORNERSTONE OF HEAVY METAL'S RESURRECTION. That does not specifically state they are metal at all! They attracted attention to the metal scene. To quote Wikipedia's page on hard rock, which specifically quotes Christe:
"The issue is not only one of shifting definitions, but also a persistent distinction between musical style and audience identification: Ian Christe describes how the band "became the stepping-stone that led huge numbers of hard rock fans into heavy metal perdition.""
Stepping stone - see. They had features of metal in their sound but not style, so attracted people to the genre.
You are ignoring me anyway. I'm not arguing about the right to claim they are metal. Simply that the counter-argument is too major for us to issue a carte blanche statement on genre. When a band and several large and well known members of the music press claim a band is not heavy metal, it is more than a minority in opposition. It becomes a debatable claim which lacks complete legitimacy.
As I have already told you, I have 6 sources, and quotes by two of the band members. This is nothing to do with a lack of information. Allmusic's just as good as any of them, as are many other sources. But we cannot simply state that a stack of 8 important sources mean that all we can say is "some people disagree on the genre, but really, the band are metal".
(The Elfoid (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC))
I moved your comment to put it in chronological order with the rest Bullet, that ok?
I'm not getting any comments from 'the opposition'. I managed to knock the Christe quote suggesting the band are heavy metal out of the window, as well as the one in the lead (due to the 'sound' part being ignored). I also got Christe agreeing the distinction is a little hard to be made.
And on the note of
"There's room for one on this article right before the Band members section. Debates like that are editorial and don't belong in either the lead... or the infobox. "
I was suggesting list it is debated and provide a hyperlink to further down the page. What you are suggesting is "we accept the heavy metal tag is not one we can state is probably true, but we have to put it in since we can't have a debate that high up the page". It's just silly. A lot of bands list genre as disputed sub-genres, it is nothing un-usual or un-acceptable.
Now offer me a reply, you know who you are, and you're editing this page so quite clearly active. To get into an argument then walk off is to drop out of a challenge you accepted. It leaves me feeling "Well I didn't win, but he walked off...". I feel without replies I have the right to edit the page in my favour, but I just know it would be reverted.(The Elfoid (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
"While we're at it, recognise that this book is about Metal with a capital M. Ask AC/DC, Aerosmith, Kiss, Bon Jovi, Rush or Def Leppard if they are metal - you'll get a resounding "No!" Believe me, I've asked them all. Motorhead? Well Lemmy is right about most things - except one".
"became the stepping-stone that led huge numbers of hard rock fans into heavy metal perdition."
My opinion is they are definetely Heavy Metal. When Heavy Metal evolved as a sub genre from hard rock, it wasn't any where near as heavy as many of the groups are today. To categorise what metal actually is we mustn't define it by these modern extreme metal / punk bands but rather consider the groups that the genre label were applied to. AC DC are definetely heavy enough to fall into the category of bands that the Heavy Metal genre of hard rock was applied to. If they call themselves rock. So do most heavy metal bands as it is a form of rock, the same way punk is. The Beatles even called themselves a rock n roll band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not about your opinion, it's about feeling. Bands like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple have evolved metal styles you can still find in todays music, they're very complex and the broke up with the rock 'n roll style. AC/DC just took Chuck Berry's and the Stones style and made it a bit harder but they still got the blues/rock 'n roll style. Rhythm and chordprogression, 12 bar blues chords, etc etc etc. AC/DC always kept their music simple. (Heavy-)Metal did not. Early metal might have been a sub genre of hard-rock but todays metal is a genre you can't compare to hard-rock anymore. And last but not least, the band always said it was hard-rock, rock 'n roll or blues-rock. The band doesn't make metal, they don't want to be called metal, and the music is almost every rock style, but no metal. Compare Highway To Hell or High Voltage or something with Smoke On The Water and Kashmir. --83.135.19.166 (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a discography table just like the one on AC/DC discography. I say we convert it to a simple list. Any thoughts? No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that AC/DC are pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal alongside Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. That doesn't wash. Those bands predate AC/DC by years and they all released albums at least five years before AC/DC did. AC/DC does not stand alongside them. There is no way that a band that releases their first album in 1975 can be considered a pioneer of hard rock and heavy metal. Those genres were thriving before AC/DC showed up. Also, none of the sources cited back up those claims. The lead needs to be rewritten. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Saying For Those About To Rock is the first hard rock album to got to #1 in the USA is also ridiculous. Led Zeppelin II did that over a decade earlier. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The citation for 150 million albums sold is dated long after this article claimed it. A source needs to be found that meets WP:RS criteria and predates its first mention here. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The RIAA certainly does keep track of these things. Volts has technically sold 1 million copies, as Bonfire has gone platinum. The same is true for Live at the Atlantic Studios and Let There Be Rock: The Movie.
Also, should Volts be listed as reaching #90 on the Billboard charts (that's how far Bonfire reached)? Helltopay27 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |