Talk:Queens of the Stone Age
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queens of the Stone Age 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.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.|
- 1 Rate of Success
- 2 OFFICIAL RESPONSE
- 3 Discography article
- 4 Lanegan and the self titled
- 5 Genre
- 6 Natasha Schneider's Death...
- 7 Can somebody clean up
- 8 Members section
- 9 6th album release date
- 10 Josh Homme in 2009
- 11 "Dance-Orientated"
- 12 Nick Oliveri and self title 2010 release
- 13 Changes to article!
- 14 Current members
- 15 Members
Rate of Success
I'm a manager trying to gain some insights from the band's history. About how many gigs did you play in 1996? 97? 98? 99? 2000? Was it a curve? Was there a disciplined choice about how many gigs to play out, ie. 2 a month, 4 a month? Who paid for the gigs-- the band members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was over at the discography article, and it has a long list of B-sides and bonus tracks on it. However, these aren't explained over there and most of them aren't mentioned elsewhere that I can find. Just by way of suggestion, people might find it useful if this list offered up a brief comment on each track explaining where the tracks can be found.Warhorus (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion, all it would take is a brief comment (As you mentioned) and a link to the respective release it came from, if applicable. I would start, but I'm lazy and am procrastinating for the time being. Red157 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Lanegan and the self titled
Here's a video clip to use as citation on the Lanegan not participating on the s/t due to 'circumstances beyond his control.' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teePMuiCRpY The extenuating circumstances were actually drug rehab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't stoner rock be added to the infobox? I know there are some editors of this article who absolutely believe that the band are not stoner rock, there are also others who believe that because the band reject the term it shouldn't be added, but it is cited by two sources at the beginning of the article that the band are frequently described as stoner rock. Shouldn't this override POV opinions and the band's own descriptions? Wikipedia is made up of third party sources and it seems to me that enough of these third party sources exist in order to add the genre. If I could find five reliable sources that described Metallica as a hardcore hip hop band, that would surely need to be added as well (unless of course, there were sources that specifically attempted to discredit this opinion, in which case it would be disputed). That might sound stupid, but that is the way this site works. James25402 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's information is of course based on references from third party sources, but not if those are blatantly wrong. An argument broke out when a guy found two(!) sources from established sites, both stating Mark Lanegan sang the song I Wanna Make it Wit Chu on the Desert Sessions. This isn't true, but by what you're proposing, false information would have been added to the article until equally established sources could be found to counteract it. So, basically, I don't think Stoner Rock should be added. My personal opinion, but then again, it also happens to be the opinion of every single person with the stones to call them a fan of this band. Red157(talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is an entirely different thing. If facts exist to the contrary, it can be disputed and then removed. However, on an entirely subjective matter such as genre, it is therefore reliable sources that would be used to determine which information is in the article. If sources stated Mark Lanegan sang that song, but other sources were available which disputed it, that's a different thing, because it can be factually proven who sang that particular song, whereas genres are all based on opinion. However, not on wikipedia editors' opinions, but on the opinions of reliable third-party sources. James25402 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nope.Not an entirely subjective matter. You are not an third-party source unless you make an official publication regarding to your opinion.
- So far, there has been presented strong, reliable sources that clearly indicate that Queens of the Stona Age do not go under what we call as "stoner rock". Therefore, shall it be removed.
- Dear James25402, you can contribute to this article by finding reliable sources supporting your very views. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Only me who think Neo-psychedelia should be added? They've got many psychedelic songs like "A song for the dead", "Misfit love" and "I think I lost my headache" etc.
- It used to be on there, but was removed when stoner rock and such was removed. Though I agree Neo-psychedelia is kind of fitting. Red157(talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Later today I saw someone had put only "Heavy Metal" as genre which I think the most of us can agree is misfitting for them, so I changed to only "Rock" so long. /Mullweiser
- Moved all the recent genre discussions together (For further info, look back on the last 'Genre' discussion further up the talk page. Gonna' conduct my own personal edit of the main article about the genre's, so I hope folk agree here, and feel free to tell me about it if you think I've added a completely wrong genre. Red157(talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Many articles of QOTSA list single songs and albums as "Hard Rock". I think this is incorrect. I consider "Hard Rock" to be Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Free stuff...I'm not questioning the fact that they ARE Hard Rock, but Hard Rock on it's own seems incorrect to me. If someone is replying to this can please put a reply on my talk page so I know there is a reply here. tsunamishadow (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, I had to remove "stoner rock" from the genre list. So far, there has been provided no reliable sources ever implying that Queens of the Stone Age would be stoner rock. On the contrary, there has been references where the band even rejects such a classification (http://thefade.net/oldsite/articles/jam991124.html)!
Second, I don't think it is really nice that you just make changes to the article without ever even discussing about it here. So dear Shallowmead077, please discuss any further changes first here before applying them. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Revised the two new sources suggesting that Queens of the Stoneage would be "stoner rock". Short comments on both references: 1. http://observer.com/2013/12/stoner-rock-royals-queens-of-the-stone-age-play-brooklyn-on-saturday/: A mere headline is not a "valid source". The article itself doesn't even mention the term "stoner rock". 2. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/queens-of-the-stone-age-mn0000376422/biography: The AllMusic sidebar may not be used for genres. Also the fact that the band is "formed from the ashes of stoner rock icons Kyuss" does in no way indicate that Queens of the Stone Age would fall under "stoner rock". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- If I'm honest, I think we should stick with "Rock" or "alternative rock" and leave it at that. Each album sounds so different from each other that labelling them as "stoner rock" or whatever is just inaccurate. Stoner rock (they aren't stoner rock to anyone with fucking ears, but whatever) just causes too many debates, alternative rock will do just fine in my opinion because no one can argue that they're not rock, right? More genres are just unnecessary. It's worked fine for the Like Clockwork page and its singles, so I say just go ahead and impose it on the band's article. TheBronzeMex (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sources for Stoner Rock label: Spin Magazine, MTV, NY Daily New, Fuse.tv, SFGate. Whether Homme likes it or not, lots of publications still refer to it as stoner rock (at least for some albums and songs). OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you guys. Here is an original pdf from the published article, where Josh himself states that their music is not stoner rock . (Shout! Weekly. Cover story. Uncompromising rock: Queens of the Stone Age bring summer tour to Stir Cove. August 1-7, 2013.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk • contribs)
- They've strong connections with the stoner rock genre, (as suggested in some of these sources, , , , , , , , , , , ) However, the majority of these sources seem to suggest that that the band shifted away from their early stoner rock sound in their subsequent albums (like this). Simply "alternative rock" or "alternative rock, hard rock" (or "alternative rock, hard rock, stoner rock (early)", to be precise) would work fine for the infobox in my opinion. The 100% omission of the term "stoner rock" from the article is disruptive as they've been previously labeled as such; this should be explicitly covered in the musical style section. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That works for me. It's a waste of everyone's time to quibble over the genres in the infobox. It should be sufficient to cover it in the musical styles section. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Totally agree. I do think we should just leave it at rock, but if people want to stick in "stoner rock (early)" then that's cool too. As Myxomatosis pointed out, most of those sources imply that they've deviated from the whole "stoner rock" thing, so simply sticking "stoner rock" in the genre would be incorrect even when taking these sources into account. If someone wants to cover the whole stoner rock thing in the "musical styles" section, I say go right ahead. TheBronzeMex (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how "stoner rock" can be omitted considering the plethora of sources that called the band/their music "stoner rock" at some point in their history (see my reference for it in the music style section). Maybe Josh Homme doesn't like the label, but he's not an unbiased secondary source, nor is it up to him how his band is covered. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've protected the page since you're all edit warring with one hand and discussing the issue with the other hand. Let me know when you've worked out a solution. --Laser brain (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Natasha Schneider's Death...
...Is irrelevant in this article as it is presented right now (one random sentence in the Era Vulgaris section, taking into account she was a Queen of the Stone Age only during the Lullabies to Paralyze tour), in my opinion this should only be mentioned in her own article, along with Eleven's article. Any thoughts?
- Only just seen that edit and I have to agree. I was one of the folk on the keeping the notice up on her wiki page when there wasn't a proper reference, thus breaking wiki rules, so it's not like I don't care about Natasha Shneider's death. But it doesn't belong in this article. And it pains me to say that. 01:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody clean up
Changed all the code words and such since there is no need to save the space when the former menbers are in a separete section. Should the same be with the Queens of the Stone Age contributors article?
Yee or ney..?
6th album release date
Someone added the upcoming sixth album to the discography section with a release date of 2010. This is unconfirmed, seeing as there is so little news about it and most rumors say its coming out late this year. I changed it to 2009/2010. Is this OK, or should it just be removed altogether from the discography seeing as so little is known about it?--Wolfemiester (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Josh Homme in 2009
Nick Oliveri and self title 2010 release
Only source that says anything about a re-release is http://www.qotsa.com/news/default.aspx?nid=27027 and that's of Rated R. It no where states that Nick Oliveri is joining to play with them. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Changes to article!
Hey everyone. I've decided that this article has been crap for long enough, and that it needs a serious overhaul. To start, I just removed
- "which has been described by Homme as "robot rock", stating that he "wanted to create a heavy sound based on a solid jam, and just pound it into your head".[this quote needs a citation]"
- Edit Report for Aug 25 Okay, just spent some time doing some clean-up. The article, when editing, is a friggin' mess. It seems every time someone added something, they just added more citations instead of seeing if the old ones could be re-used. While this isn't always bad, as more citations are usually good, there's now 50 citations and each one is used maybe twice or three times, at most. So one of my goals is to see if it is possible to consolidate the citations. I also added some quotes, specifically I found an article where Homme mentions the 'robot'-like sound, but I added it not under the lead paragraph where it was but under the Rated R section, as this is the time period in which he mentioned it. Plus, the robot rock doesn't seem fitting in the lead, as it's not really that major of a genre to QOTSA, especially with the newer albums which are more melodic and flowing. So my overhaul is not complete, but I need some rest and a smoke before I keep going. Any help is always appreciated!AC (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that currently the core of the band is really just Van Leeuwen, Castillo and Homme. Shuman and Fertita are on and off members, while Castillo and Van Leeuwen have been touring and writing consistantly from Songs for the Deaf. Any thoughts? AC (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dean and Mikey are most definitely proper members. This is their second tour with the band (remember, both Joey and Troy didn't contribute to SftD - only toured it) and have both recorded with them on B-sides to Era Vulgaris singles. Red157 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there – just wanted to know what was wrong with the edits that I made to the members/timeline sections. If you wanted to discuss it, now's a great time. I'm just trying to get your opinion here. All I did was use the contributors page and some of the individual articles to help neaten up the section, removing all of the touring members, guests, etc., leaving behind only the proper, full-time members. These are the sort of edits that I make across a lot of pages (in other words, they look similar). What say you? Maybe we could come to a consensus here. Regards, 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, the reason why I put Grohl in the timeline for a second time is because it stated on the contributors page that he was also a full-time member from 2012–2013 (and that he recorded majority of the drums for ...Like Clockwork). I felt as though he was more than just a temporary replacement for Costillo, so that's why I put him in for a second time, making him out to be a full-time member until the band enlisted Theodore. What is your opinion on this? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yo - I reverted your (appreciated) edit due to a number of errors with it, including the removal of members such as Lanegan and Johannes, omitted information (such as Mikey doing a little bit of keys now). I can understand the confusion with the whole touring member thing, but it's important to remember that Josh and Josh alone is the only consistent member of the band (QOTSA is pretty much Josh + band). Everyone is temporary, but everyone you see on this timeline are official members (including Dan Druff, however short his stay might have been). That's why Dave's Like Clockwork contribution isn't noted, because he was a guest on the record; not an official member (not in million years would Dave tour with QOTSA for that record, for a myriad of reasons including TCV and Foos). It does say on the liner notes "Queens of the Stone Age Are; Joshua Homme, Dean Fertita, Michael Shuman and Troy Van Leeuwen". As Jon not being included in the aforementioned quote from the album, it's probably because he was a late addition and his contribution to the album was very small (drums on one track). Your timeline is a lot neater looking, but because of that misses a fuckton of important and necessary information such as this. Is it a bit messy? Yeah, it is. And that's how it is. Cheers for going about this the correct way, and I hope this clears it up a bit. TheBronzeMex (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see – I know this might sound kind of silly, but if this article is, as you say, one of those articles that guaranteed to be messy or lacking correct or accurate information in places (and if "that's how it is"), then why don't we use this discussion to work out what we can fix, and how we go about it – as in what comes in, what stays and what goes. This way, we can largely improve the article so that it is (almost) GA-worthy. How about it? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Go for it. I will be honest though, I've been very hard pressed to find ways in which the timeline section could be tided up without omitting essential information (which is why I always stress that no one touch the fucking thing without talking about it first). Information first, aesthetics second. If anyone else has any ideas, by all means spill your brains. TheBronzeMex (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- For starters, using the contributors page, I think we should expand the members section so that it includes the former full-time members (or at least... the former members that have worked with Homme on a full-time basis). The biggest thing that needs to be looked at is who needs to be omitted from the timeline. There are people being represented in the timeline that are only known for touring with the band (such as Natasha Shneider, for example), and it needs to be fixed so that it includes only the aforementioned former members, along with the current members. After putting enough thought into it, the members that I think should be included are: Mark Lanegan (simply as "vocals"), Dave Catching, Brendon McNichol, Nick Oliveri, Alain Johannes, Alfredo Hernández, Gene Trautmann, Dave Grohl and Joey Castillo. I think Dan Druff is in the same boat as Grohl (in terms of his second appearance, as he seems to have only been a session member), and people like Matt Cameron, Chris Goss and Shneider are session/touring members that aren't essential to the article. All others that are in the timeline should then be omitted. If you want, I can provide a draft for you here, and if you approve of it (although it shouldn't have to be like that), then we can implement it into the article, and then at least one of the sections is tidy. Let me know your thoughts on this. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- It needs to be clarified what is meant by "Former Members". Is that the people who appeared on albums (in which case it's a massive list btw) or is it the live members? And it also needs to be clarified what instruments are listed for those members. For example, Michael Shuman played guitar in the studio for Like Clockwork, but has never played it live. Josh has played drums in the studio on two albums and bass on four albums. He played bass live too on the Lullabies tour. As did Troy, who played bass on Lullabies and Era Vulgaris.
- Sorry for the confusion. The former members part doesn't include former session/touring members, but only full-time members with their main roles outlined (for example, while Shuman did indeed record guitar for an album, that was all it was, and was never his main role in the band). I like to combine everything in the legend anyway so that there is only one instrument per person. And I wouldn't just revert it all back because one or two things need fixing. I hope you understand my point of view. Regards, 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)