Talk:Noise rock

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

Untitled[edit]

is pink floyd considered to be noisy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.246.68 (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no 2600:100F:A014:4D7C:90C5:A44E:8E66:99A8 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking out an obvious plug for some crappy San Francisco band who has sneaked some accolades for themselves on the page.--67.251.109.85 (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot?[edit]

90% of the article seems to be WP:SYNTH, where the majority of sources mention a band being "noisy", but saying nothing on whether their "noisiness" directly contributed to the development of this specific genre. This causes a huge problem, particularly in figuring out whether the sources actually consider the mentioned bands noise rock, noise pop, or just plain noise. I suggest that this article be "rebooted" in the same way that Experimental rock was a year ago (diff)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this page is a mess and needs to be sorted out, I'm definitely in agreement about a reboot. OBLIVIUS (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on this reboot with other users, so it will never or never allow it to be realized, especially since you describe "The Velvet Underground, who are credited with creating rock in 1968" without presenting any reliable source

There are 2 sources that describe White Light/White Heat with defining the genre.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources say that the velvet underground created the genre "noise rock", absolutely none — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.189.140 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check them?
  • [1]: "It’s a cult classic, a first-side-first-cut favorite of “High Fidelity”’s Rob Gordon, and an all around masterpiece of melodic antagonism. So, perhaps it’s an obvious starting point, but it’s also the starting point. Period. Noise rock was born in 1968 out of an artsy New York band’s bad trips. "
  • [2]: "This is noise rock's ur-text. As for the world-historical closer, Jon Spencer sang it best: "My father was 'Sister Ray!""
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these are only opinions, you didn't cited one reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.189.140 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reliable sources, and genres are subjective, so they always come as part of somebody's opinion. See WP:SUBJECTIVE--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists order[edit]

Would it not be better to list artist by year instead of alphabetically, or is it standard on Wikipedia to do lists in alphabetical order? OBLIVIUS (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a list ordered by year of formation. These lists are meant to be ordered the same way as categories (see Category:Alternative rock musicians).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noisecore[edit]

@OBLIVIUS: Do you have a copy of the Stewart-Panko article? If it doesn't explicitly use the phrase "noise rock", then the paragraph needs to be reworded, or kept at Mathcore (per Talk:Mathcore#question and WP:STICKTOSOURCE).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC) No I don't have a copy I just got it from the previous version of the article, so I'm not sure feel free to remove it if you feel the need to. OBLIVIUS (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This article seems to have been destroyed and truncated for arbitrary and pedantic reasons. It was much better and more informative some time ago. I believe the earlier version should be restored. I do not understand the motivation regarding the mass deletions. 68.112.58.221 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were creating noise? – AndyFielding (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godz paragraph[edit]

The addition of the Godz being a forerunner to noise rock is not sourced well at all, Lester Bangs never mentions them as being a progenitor to noise rock, it looks like original research to me. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.5.144 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a matter of contention for months or years, bordering on an edit war. Rather than remove it yet again, I added a failed verification tag in hopes that we can reach some consensus about what should be done rather than continually revert each others' changes. Klintron23 (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand it was reverted again Here's the edit summary for future reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noise_rock&oldid=1159995070
At the moment the reasoning for excluding Godz seems to outweigh the reasoning for keeping them in. Verification failed and no one has provided better sourcing despite all the back and forth. Can someone please provide better sourcing or at least comment here with their reasoning before restoring again? @Victortrevor do you have any thoughts? Klintron23 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet What's your reasoning for reverting back to a version of the article with this paragraph? Can you provide better sourcing for the claim? Klintron23 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BANREVERT was my only motive there. I did not look at the Godz material even a tiny bit. All I did was revert Special:Contributions/92.9.57.106 and Special:Contributions/92.14.107.24, both of which represent block evasion by User:Aradicus77.
Feel free to do the right thing. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think they made some valid edits, though overall I'd prefer to consolidate the "Forerunners" section into something more compact anyway. Klintron23 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noise_rock&oldid=1210740844"