|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deerhoof article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Musicians||(Rated B-class)|
I updated the link to the discography, but I don't know how to name it, so it would be cool if someone could rename that  at the bottom of the links.
The forum that is linked to (deerhoof.org) is just a bunch of spam. not really worthwhile.
I can't think of any one singular genre that would describe Deerhoof, but it certainly isn't noise rock ...
George Michael Brower 23:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I like to refer to them as Avant-Garde Pop. I think the term fits them very well. — Cursif 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people seem to agree on "noise pop". But Deerhoof incorporate a lot of different sounds and just because they sound "cute" or "cheerful" people seem to want to slap them with "indie pop" or twee and just leave it at that. It's important to consider their entire discography, including (The Man, The King, The Girl and Halfbird, for example) before attempting to prove noise is not a legitimate descriptor.
...and most important is that probably 80% of music journalism floating out there concerning Deerhoof describes them as noise rock or noise pop or experimental rock or all three. Isn't this article based on sources like that and not just a few errant editors on Wikipedia?--22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, hadn't signed in.--Jentizzle (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Bibidi Babidi Boo
I deleted the album Bibidi Babidi Boo from the discography -- I can't find any references to it on the web. Some people are sharing an album with that title on P2P but that could have come from anywhere. 126.96.36.199
- Here you go: . Reverted.
Hahahaha, why does "Japanese native" in "Japanese native Satomi Matsuzaki" link to the Wikipedia article "Japanese-american"?
I re-added it. There's numerous reviews and it was an actual, online-only release.--Velvet elvis81 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we do something about the picture? Cohen has left the band.
did greg saunier and satomi matsuzaki really get married? if so, why did that disappear from this page (it seems relevant....) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I can't see any reference to Joanna Newsom on the label's factsheet for the band. unsubstantiated? 184.108.40.206 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The neutrality of a lot of assertions and wording in this article are not very neutral at all... for example:
"played in a wild improvisational style, and produced using a wide and bizarre sound palette."
I don't find it that bizarre.
"The austerity and detachment of the performances concealed the intense emotion within the songs."
That sounds like a press release.
"One could say that all of Deerhoof's subsequent albums have fallen between the aesthetic extremes posited by these first two."
One could say that dinosaurs wear suitjackets too.
"When it was released in 2001, it revealed an increasing compositional sophistication, as well as a more subtle and layered orchestration that belied their modest DIY recording methods."
Well, Sgt. Pepper's was recorded on an 8-track. Recording by yourself doesn't mean you can't create subtle and layered orchestration. This is just another press release sounding tidbit, telling us how awesome Deerhoof is.
"and Deerhoof has come to be widely recognized as musical innovators and trendsetters."
I'm updating the page now and some of these comments are helpful. But because some descriptions sound like a press release to you does not necessarily make them untrue. For instance the first two sentences quoted above. These are not the same as saying that the songs are good. They simply describe features of the music or put the music into context. See other musician's wikipedia pages for comparison. Attempts to describe the music are basic to an encyclopedia entry, and while they are open to discussion and change, they do not require citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually Sgt Pepper's was recorded on a 4-track, but that doesn't mean it used modest DIY recording methods. It was the absolute vanguard of recording, technically and financially, of its day, and Abbey Road Studios was one of the most advanced and well-equipped studios in the world in 1966-67. And it was not DIY, they had a producer, several engineers, two arrangers, and close to one hundred session musicians in total. Halfbird was recorded on cassette 4-track, the cheapest multitrack recording option available. It was self-produced, self-arranged, self-recorded, self-mixed, and had no outside musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the original unsigned poster's point has some merit. While as an English major I'm loathe to remove perfectly good descriptive words, I think it's pretty clear that some of the writing on this page wouldn't fly in other parts of wikipedia. Because it's a music related article, there is always going to be some difficulty translating the experience to words. That doesn't mean we can revert to hyperbole and fandom. I might think they're a great band, too, or I might not, but I feel the article needs quite a bit of work, even if it is, unfortunately as it were, a pleasure to read right now. Might look into that soon...just the wrong time of night for it right now Clemenjo (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
In case no one sees my comments further up the page, I'm repeating them here:
"A lot of people seem to agree on "noise pop". But Deerhoof incorporate a lot of different sounds and just because they sound "cute" or "cheerful" people seem to want to slap them with "indie pop" or twee and just leave it at that. It's important to consider their entire discography, including (The Man, The King, The Girl and Halfbird, for example) before attempting to prove noise is not a legitimate descriptor.
...and most important is that probably 80% of music journalism floating out there concerning Deerhoof describes them as noise rock or noise pop or experimental rock or all three. Isn't this article based on sources like that and not just a few errant editors on Wikipedia?
There was a careless paragraph saying classification was difficult but that most people classify them as "indie rock" which was UNSOURCED. If the editor who added this can find one of the few reviews which actually merits such a description, I'll find many more which describe Deerhoof as a mix of genres (usually including noise). Just because classification is difficult does not mean an editor should take it upon him/herself to say one genre fits definitively better than others, even in the name of simplification...without any sources. For now, I'm just removing the paragraph.--Jentizzle (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm deleting the following genres from the infobox: avant-garde music, post-punk revival, post-rock, post-modern music, progressive rock, and 21st century classical music. The entire list is unsourced and that's grounds to delete the entire thing right there, but I'm only removing the worst offenders, i.e. the ones that don't make any sense or are the biggest stretches. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)