Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ALT. Metal

these guys obviously seem to be a little harder then alternative ROCK. maybe theyre altrernative metal due to the fact that most alternative metal bands have a few screaming vocals that maybe arent consider hardcore but are still screams u know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.146.98 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Feud with Deadsy?

maybe someone should post the orignal version of 93 million miles as an mp3. or maybe include the pre album lyrics somewhere so people know what the refrence to deadsy is. i've tried to include them but it always gets removed as "vandalism". ORIGNAL LYRICS REFERING TO DEADSY IN THE SECOND VERSE OF 93 MILLION MILES "Just like a Deadsy song, pretty but somethings always wrong. Show me your secret Mason sign."

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.49.222 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 

can anyone find anywhere in an interview or anything where this is mentioned? i find it odd that the article stated that the lyrics to "93 Million Miles" were changed due to this supposed feud, yet members of the band perform on the cd. were there really a feud, wouldn't 30 seconds to mars re-record those parts so that the people that he had this "feud" with wouldn't get payed for performing on his cd?68.255.228.152 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interview wise there isn't anything because it occurred when both bands were just beginning to get known, so it was very low key. However from what I've heard from Echelon members that have been to Deadsy shows, the lead singer continues to speak ill of the band so the feud still exists, 30 seconds to mars I guess has chosen to put it behind him. As for not re-recording the instrumentation, my guess is either they were under time constraints or the Deadsy members wrote those instrumentation sections so the band had to give credit to them, even if 30 seconds to mars did re-record them. Hackstar18 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Unofficial" Track Listings

"The Struggle", another track that is officially the end of "Year Zero", has been incorrectly placed in other tracks or by itself in unofficial tracklistings. For example, it has been claimed by a few sites that "Year Zero" is only 4:38 long, and that "Anarchy in Tokyo" replaces it as the last track on the debut and is the one that houses "The Struggle" as it's end. Another has claimed that A Beautiful Lie [Advance] has "The Struggle" listed as it's last track (known as "[Hidden Track]"). These are all false, as "Anarchy in Tokyo" is not present on the official release, and "The Struggle" is not present on A Beautiful Lie [Advance].

A) The track listings are unofficial... what's the point in listing them? B) "Anarchy In Tokyo" is on numerous import releases, hence why it would be listed as the last track on numerous releases. C) Not to sound rude, but who cares if they list "The Struggle" as being last? Technically it is.

Enfestid 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

merissa's dad is a raper

Progressive Metal?

Forget whether or not it should be capitalized. I'm questioning whether or not 30 Seconds to Mars should be classified as progressive at all.

I mean, I realize that to a large extent assigning bands to genres is somewhat of an arbitrary process. But as much as I like 30STM, I fail to see any real elements of progessive metal (strange time signatures, unconventional chord or progressions, different instruments, otherworldly themes) in the music of theirs that I have heard.

If someone can provide me with evidence to suggest that a significant amount of their catalog is indeed progressive, then I'll drop the argument. As it is, I think it is fairly insulting to bands with more demonstrable chops to include them in the progressive metal category. I realize it's popular nowadays to apply the progessive tag to try to differentiate bands, but I mean...come on. --Petey

First off: Please sign your posts by using a tidle (~) four times.

And, if you have any questions on the genre, listen to their first album. All of what you mentioned is pretty much in there. I didn't put the progressive label in the article, but I'm guessing the person who did was referring to their debut album.

Enfestid 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

555

I don't have a lot from their first album, but again, none of what I've heard could seriously be considered progressive other than essentially having a synth/dj effect. Can you give me an actual song or example? I just don't think the evidence holds up. 65.175.206.68 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Petey

For one, it is obviously a very conceptual album. One of your very issues with progressive metal is extremely prevalent in the album: otherwordly themes. Just listen to the album and it's obvious.

The term "progressive metal" fits the band perfectly when you read the progressive metal section. The band uses all the "typical instruments" as described by the article. Their debut album fits perfectly with the concept album article. I don't see your qualms with the band being classified in progressive metal, as the article practically describes their first album to a T.

Enfestid 16:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they have anything to do with progressive. A concept album doesn't make them progressive if they are musically just a general alternative rock band. Claiming that they are progressive is just plain misinformation... I actually think it's really absurd people are so intently trying to say they are prog when they obviously aren't. A marketing trick? 85.217.34.191 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it has merely changed to 'Progressive Rock'.... Hm, I am finding that rather incorrect.

--Discharger12 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Concept album =/= progressive rock album

get it right. The only proggy thing about them is the use of syntheizers as stated above.

i dont hear anything 'metal' about them at all. i cant imagine these guys in a genre with tool. they are far too different to belong to the same category. i think progressive rock may be suitable.The undertow 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Using synths doesn't put them in the same realm as Dream Theater, The Mars Volta or ELP. Removing the progressive rock note.

24.184.39.98 02:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on if they are in the "same realm" as the bands you mentioned is completely baseless in this article. Unless you can dispute what I've already been over numerous times, don't change it. There is another section in this discussion page on it too. The band fits the progressive rock definition as defined by Wikipedia.

Enfestid 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen to them, and then listen to Dream Theater. They are not prog metal. Doppelganger 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparing them to other bands is completely irrelevant. I could say “compare the track ‘Attack’ to the nursery rhyme ‘Twinkle Twinkle Little Star’” and 30STM would be more progressive! Just as I could compare 30STM to Dream Theater. OldSongsNewStereo 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing 30STM is progressive rock. Maybe comparing them to other bands is irrelevant, but still. Yes is progressive, King Crimson is progressive, Camel is progressive, Tool is progressive (metal). But 30STM has more in common with a band like Angels & Airwaves...pure, radio-friendly alternative rock. Even if their first album was a concept album, that doesn't automatically classify them as "progressive" (My Chemical Romance has a concept album but I wouldn't call MCR progressive either). CillaИ ♦ XC 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really no use, I've tried giving reasons to remove it but he's determined it fits. I'd suggest ignoring it and moving on Zanders5k 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Logos

Honestly, why do we need three logos? The phoenix emblem is the logo that is primarily associated with the band. The skulls logo is simply for the most recent album -- why have it on the 30STM page instead of the one for the album? The page simply does not look good at all. It does not show the progression of the band's logos. The first is not even the "original" logo... it's simply another promotional image for the most recent album.

Yes, sports teams have multiple logos. This is not a sports team though, now is it? Do you see the Linkin Park page with all of Linkin Park's numerous logos? No, it simply has pictures of the albums and bands. It is a far lengthier article as well. Look at similar articles of similar length: Adema, Slipknot, 311 (band), Alkaline Trio, Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, Blink-182, Cold (band), Disturbed, Evanescence, etc.

None have as many pictures, and they're all longer. Enfestid 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Lifeless"?

I've had a little confusion in the past with a track by the name of "Lifeless" in Limewire and Frostwire P2P file sharing networks. I've listened to it and it is quite obviously not by 30 Seconds to Mars (it's a metal song that has those extremely loud drums, screaming, ect). However, it appears very commonly when you search for 30 Seconds to Mars in one of those 2. Should this be mentioned?

Also, if anyone knows, does anyone know who the real artist of "Lifeless" is? I thought it was a good song. I'm thinkin' it might be by death metal band Shadows Fall, but I'm not sure.

The Wretched

No, it's not 30STM. And since it's not, honestly, there's no point in mentioning it. Listening all the songs 30STM didn't sing could take a while! haha

Enfestid 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• The song's "Life to Lifeless" by Killswitch Engage. –Wlmaltby3 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oftentimes songs on P2P networks are mislabeled, so there's really no point in mentioning those tracks on wikipedia.

recent edits

Befor my uncle shot himself he said "the world had been blown away so i have to blow my mind" thats what the song the fanisty is about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.238.54 (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be three confusions that need to be cleared up — two general, one specific to this article.

1. As soon as an editor has added material to an article, it's part of Wikipedia. The person who added it has no special ownership rights. For example, removing a section because "I added it, so I can take it out" isn't acceptable.
2. A minor edit isn't an edit that you don't think is important; it's fairly specifically an edit that doesn't involve the adding, removal, or change of content, but simply involves the format (spelling, grammar, organisation, etc.) of what's there. This isn't 100% precise, as even those changes can be non-minor, but the definition still clearly excludes, for example, removing a section and removing the caption of an image (as here).
3. The infobox gives a list of names of members; there's also a list of members that gives their rôles/instruments. The latter doesn't merely duplicate the former. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I would appreciate it if you would stop patronizing me with your comments. Also, your personal perception of Wikipedia's rules and information does not have to pertain to everyone if it comes down to personal perception. I was removing a section that was outdated. I was not removing it because I created it. I was removing it because the information given was redundant. The band members are already mentioned, and the instruments that they play are also already mentioned. Please understand this concept -- everything in that section was already displayed in other areas. I was not removing it for the sake of removing it, nor was I removing it to be a vandal or in malicious intent. I know that you understand this aspect, so please stop trying to deny it simply to make yourself look correct in the matter. You thought I was being malicious, but now you know otherwise. Your point is moot.

I understand what a minor edit is. Again, please stop patronizing me in this regard. I do not appreciate you speaking down to me as if I do not know Wikipedia's rules. I understand this concept, just as I comprehend the previous concept you mentioned as I've clearly explained. Again, this is your own personal opinion. Removing an "entire section" if it pertains redundant information is a minor edit. And let's just refer to it as what it is -- a list of names. A list of names is a much more apt title than "entire section." Yes, it is both, but you're making it appear to be something that it is not.

What the matter comes down to is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems -- personal perception of what is good for the article. I believe it's best that the list of band members is removed, as it's already there in another section.

Enfestid 17:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the page to remove the list and include the instruments in the band info box. If this does not appease you I don't know what will.

Enfestid 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that you have to be so touchy and unpleasant about it, and it's worrying that your personal view of what constitutes a minor edit is so much at odds with the Wikipedia definition. Still, although cramming all the information into the infobox looks to me ugly and more difficult for readers to use, I don't want to set you off again, so I'll leave it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations: you can attack a member for their beliefs. Much easier than admitting your own fault, right?

Enfestid 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert Wars

OK Mel, it is readily apparent to me that you are not acting in "good faith." Your edits are nothing more than mere attempts to retaliate for a disagreement in the article. All your edits have done are change everything I have done to the article, no matter what it is.

For example, I changed the name from "Leto" to "Jared" to avoid confusion with his brother. You, in turn, changed every mention of Jared to "Jared Leto," even though his last name has already been mentioned in the article numerous times. This is a widely considered to be a grammatical "no-no" when referring to multiple persons with the same last name. You do not want to repeat an entire name multiple times for the issue of redundancy. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) article also does not seem to make mention of what particularly to do, so my revision was properly done. Your change of this did nothing to benefit the article.

I have no ill-will towards you, yet all of your edits have done nothing to benefit the article, and all of your edits are also made directly after mine to change something which I have done. If you need to talk to me, simply ask for me e-mail or other contact information, because this conflict is obviously not in the best interest of the article. Thank you. Enfestid 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Your claim about my changing more than one occurrence of the name is false, as the diff shows.
2. I have explained my edits at your Talk page, even providing a link to the relevant MoS page concerning the linking of years, yet you still revert my edit with the claim that I have given no explanation.
3. You also still assume bad faith, for no reason that I can see other than that we disagree. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave you your years, and I gave you the name. What more do you want? Stop removing parts of my edits. This obviously indicates bad faith to me, when you can't trust that my edits are for the betterment of the article, why should I trust that your's are? Maybe if you would assume good faith as well then we wouldn't be having this problem.

I have already given you proof that the image does not need to be 200px, yet you still insist that it be that size. I then moved the logo to another part, and you changed thumbnail when this is obviously not what I intended at all. You still have given no proof about the lack of capitalization of "Progressive metal," which you keep reverting. I, on the other hand, have given you links to featured articles that have musical genres capitalized when on second lines.

Also, the period goes inside of quation marks, as do comas. I am not sure why you keep changing this and keep changing the phrasing of certain things, but whatever, I'll give you the rephrasing if that's what makes you happy. I've made concessions on my side to improve the article, when are you going to?

Enfestid 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to cite my last edit, since I've cited everything else and you still insist on changing it all... maybe it's worth a shot, however. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial -- you do not have to have a thumbnail in an article, if you merely want to resize an image.

Enfestid 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And, finally, some last citing for you: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please see the very first section ("Disputes over style issues"), which states the following: "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The style of my formatting the picture to 250px is acceptable, and the lack of a thumbnail for the logo is also acceptable. Please stop reverting them. Also, the capitalization of "Progressive metal" is also acceptable, please stop reverting it.

Also, please see the "Punctuation" section of the article regarding quotations. Thank you.

Enfestid 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. It's not a matter of your "giving me" things, nor is reverting your edits proof that I'm editing in bad faith (any more than your reverting mine proves that about you). You seem determined to make this a personal conflict; it isn't, or shouldn't be.
2. In a list of genres, why should capitalisation suddenly appear in the middle? It certainly doesn't in most articles, and it's out of keeping with normal English style.
3. You're reverting my changes to punctuation which are clearly mandated by the MoS (for example, punctuation is only to be included in quotations if it's part of what's being quoted).
4. The reason for thumbnailing images, and for not making them too large, is that it makes reading Wikipedia easier and pleasanter for those on slower, dial-up connections.
5. You quote from the MoS about disputes over style, as if only one of us is reverting; this is an approach which I've seen a few times recently: I'm labelled petty and confrontational for reverting when the other person is doing precisely the same. But I suppose it's different for you because you know that you're right? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, please read the MoS Punctuation. It is not only included if it's in the quote. You obviously did not read the punctuation part, because one of the issues it clearly states when a period is included in the end of a quotation: Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation. It is also capitalized because it is a LIST. In a bulleted list, you capitalize on the start of a new line, no matter what. Same logic applies here.

Your opinion on #4 and #5 are null because you have been reverting what I've done. Anything I edited automatically gets reverted. After you reverted my changes, I change them back. My additions to the article are clearly in accordance with the Wikipedia guidlines -- you have no right what-so-ever to edit them when it comes to a style issue and both can be used. Please stop editing them or I will bring in a third-party to settle this dispute. Thank you.

Enfestid 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to hit on another one of your issues: I was trying to give you concessions in hopes that we could work these style issues out on our own. That was my entire point. I don't want to have a third-party settle the issue for us. I have already allowed numerous changes you've made to stand that are merely style differences, why can you not allow me any -- especially when you are the one who has been reverting my style to begin with? Again, please read the first section of the Wikipedia MoS. Thank you.

Enfestid 16:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Where in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks do you find the claims that you make?
2. There's a disagreement, and each party has reverted the other; your claim is that my reverts are evil and yours good, because you wrote the original text.  ??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also that referring to non-vandalism as "vandalism" in edit summaries, merely as a way of attackign another editor, is very much deprecated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, now you are just vandalising the page. When you revert edits that conflict with the MoS and have absolutely no reason to make them, it's vandalism. I am not attacking you in any way, shape or form.

1. Examples: Arthur said that the situation was "the most deplorable [he] had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)
2. I never said your's are evil. Read the section please: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk... my version was clearly acceptable, and it is inappropriate for you to change it from one style to another when there is not substantial reason for the change. I was the one who made it 250px, and you are the one who is continually reverting it -- there is no substantial reason for this change. You also keep reverting my formatting of the logo for no reason at all. Please stop reverting this as you are again conflicting with the same area of the MoS.
3. "Was" is a dead verb in the sentence you keep placing it in. Why do you insist on having it? "Leaked" conveys the meaning of the entire sentence, "was" is not even required.

Please stop reverting the article. I have already given you numerous concessions that conflicted with my edits (which you should not have changed due to the MoS statement quoted above to begin with). Next time you revert I am going to arbitration. Enfestid 15:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the MoS, I am incorrect about the quotation part. It demonstrated in this example:

Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The full stop [period] is not part of the quotation.)

I still stand by my other edits, however. Please refer to the above portion and read the MoS section referred to. Thank you. Enfestid 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by a "dead verb"; the point is that things don't leak themselves, nor is the album a bucket; things are leaked (to the press, to journalists, etc.).

You have ignored my reasons for thumbnailing one image and reducing the size of the other; instead you're trying to make it an issue of mere difference of taste. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Mel, I've had it. I've given you concessions on every single issue you've had. If you changed something, I let it all be except for the images. I've given you every single edit you've made except for the images, even though it is a matter of personal preference and conflicts with the Wikipedia Manual Of Style. I don't know if your mommy lets you get your way everytime you do something, but I am not standing for this anymore. You are clearly in violation of the first section of the Wikipedia Manual Of Style, and I am posting a new arbitration case.

It doesn't matter if you're doing it in good faith -- it violates the manual of style, and I do not appreciate you changing every single modification I make. You can keep claiming I'm assuming bad faith, but you are doing the exact same by changing everything I've done in the name of "good faith" -- what a riot, considering that's not good faith at all.

I have ignored your issues of the image sizes because they are personal preference, and you are changing my edits every single time I make them! I have already cited numerous instances stating that my edits are within the Wikipedia guidlines, yet you keep changing them back. Please stop reverting the page and allow arbitration to hear the case. Thank you.

Enfestid 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to the arbitration case: Enfestid v. Mel Etitis: Revert Wars Enfestid 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is "The reason for thumbnailing images, and for not making them too large, is that it makes reading Wikipedia easier and pleasanter for those on slower, dial-up connections." a matter of personal preference? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that answer why you keep reverting the band image? And I've already responded to that by stating it is not required and citing my source. Please stop violating the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Thank you. Enfestid 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, for citing, please actually read these entries, Mel:

1. Wikipedia: Picture Tutorial: Although thumbnails are preferred, you may nevertheless want to display an image at a particular size.
2. Wikipedia: Manual of Style - Dispute over Style Issues: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

According to Wikipedia, you have no right to remove my modifications. You have repeatidly violated the Manual of Style with blatant disregard for the Wikipedia rules. You have yet to give substantial reason for your image modifications. The image size of the logo is hardly big enough to slow down dial-up users. Please stop reverting the article in which you have no right to. Thank you. Enfestid 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've explained why I believe that the images should be resized; all that you've done is talk somewhat incoherently about your rights. I take it that that means that you have no good grounds beyond wanting your own way. Varieties of English are utterly irrelevant to the issue. Why, though, given that "thumbnails are preferred", do you insist on reverting my thumbnailing one of the images? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, honestly, you're a riot. You say something about me that can easily be contributed exactly the same way to yourself. You've explained why you believe the image should be in a thumbnail, yes, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter that my formatting works just fine, and is in compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. There is no reason for you to change it other than personal preference. I'm viewing the page on dial-up, and it doesn't take me long to load at all -- so what other reason is there for changing this? It may be preferred in some cases,but it doesn't mean that always fits.

Secondly, I am not the one reverting your edits. Last time I checked, I moved the image and had it set like that to begin with. If you want to get in a war over who started this revert war, it was obviously you, as is evident by the history page. You have no right to revert my edits when they comply with the manual of style, as it clearly states.

You still have given no reasoning for the band image other than it's "standard" for some articles. Yet I have read absolutely nowhere that states it's "standard" -- can you try citing your source for this? Some images use 200px, some do not. I had the image formatted at 250px, you changed it.

Enfestid 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two Beautiful Lies

An EP called Two Beautiful Lies was released on iTunes only. Someone should list this as an EP, 'cause I don't know how to put it in one of those grey boxes.

The Wretched

I believe that Two Beautiful Lies was inteneded to be an iTunes-only Single, not an EP (as when I downloaded it the "album" name was Two Beautiful Lies from Thirtysecondstomars - Single. Also, there were only two tracks, one being a radio-edit for The Kill.

New Album(s)

Any news at all of upcoming/possible upcoming albums yet? I guess it's probably doubtful because of Leto's career, but I wanna be up-to-date on this, 'cause 30 Seconds to Mars is 1/2 of my two fav bands. The Wretched 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You want a new album a year after an album was just released? Patience, young grasshoppa.

Enfestid 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sales

For those that keep putting it: a gold record is for albums shipped, not albums sold. It does not matter what source you have cited; it's incorrect. Thank you. Enfestid 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Green Tour

Last night at the VMA's 30 Seconds to Mars rode up in army covoys and announced they were going on "an all green tour with some of their idols". Is this notable enough to add to the article? 68.117.17.150 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not yet, as it could mean anything.

Enfestid 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong high point

I checked on the modern rock chart and the highest point that it says the kill reached is 3 and wikipedia has it at 2.

Meaning of the Name

Is there any information on the meaning behind the name? It would be a useful addition to hte article if someone knew. --Offput 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

it's been explained several times in earlier interviews, and although i do recall what he said, i don't want to repeat it here, as i would not be able to phrase it properly, therefore not getting the message across.65.43.211.208 11:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

all i remember is that it was Shannon's idea and that the phrase was in a book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertgforces (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I added the origin of the band's name on March 13th. I'm not sure if it will stick, but I did the best I could and put in the reference to where I found the information. -- Brinklej 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I just fixed some grammar errors on the source's part.

Enfestid 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From Yesterday article?

Where is the From Yesterday Article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.187.69.217 (talk • contribs).

There is none, hence why the link is red. // PoeticDecay 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one now, partially because the song was a #1 hit on the Modern Rock charts. Doc Strange 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Genres

I recently added art rock and post-hardcore as genres, and although these are legitimate genres, they were reverted. I would just like to ask whoever reverted them why he/she did so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.211.141.105 (talk • contribs).

See the edit history. The user said, "They do not fit those descriptions at all. Go read the pages." Also, please sign your comments with 4 ~. // PoeticDecay 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign that one. He did say, but his rationale was weak, at best. 69.211.141.105 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My "rationale" was "weak, at best"? I'm going by the Wikipedia definitions. The articles that you linked to do not fit 30 Seconds to Mars at all. How are they post-hardcore at all? With all due respect in the world: Your opinion of them being in a genre does not make it so.

Enfestid 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See the album pages. Debut is listed as alternative/space rock. Beautiful Lie is listed as alternative. YOUR opinion of them being in a genre does not make it so, either. 24.184.39.98 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The album page was edited AFTER the term "Progressive rock" was added to the band's page! For all I know, you were the ony who edited it! People keep changing the genres to suit their opinions. The band does not fit the descriptions of "space rock," "art rock," "emocore," or "post-hardcore," as some users keep implying. It is not my "opinion" that they are alternative rock and progressive rock. They fit the definitions as given by Wikipedia.

Enfestid 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let's look at the Wikipedia article:

"Progressive rock acts often combine elements of jazz and classical music, folk and world music influences with rock formats, often rejecting specific genre norms, and instead utilising relatively uncommon musical structures and ideas."

Where in 30STM's debut album have you found any of these elements?

To continue:

"Form: A piece of progressive rock either avoids common song structures of verse, chorus, bridge, etc, or blurs the distinctions by extending sections or inserting additional ones, for example, via musical interludes."

From listening to the first album, it sounds more like the typical verse-chorus-verse structure.

"Timbre: (Instrumentation and dynamic): Early progressive rock groups added additional instrumentation to the typical rock group lineup of a guitarist, bassist, and drummer, often adding keyboards or synthesizers."

They do use synths, agreed. I don't necessarily agree that the use of synths alone qualifies a band as progressive rock, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll give you that point.

"Rhythm: Use of time signatures and rhythmic techniques uncommon to rock music."

The first album doesn't stray away from 4/4.

"Harmony: There are few pieces of progressive rock that adhere to the I - IV - V chord progressions of early rock - indeed, this is almost invariably avoided in favour of less predictable progressions. Simple triads are frequently built upon - a common jazz technique - so that 6ths, 7ths and so on are layered to build more indeterminate harmonies that can push some pieces of progressive rock into the atonal or dissonant."

Well, they use distorted guitars, but I wouldn't consider their music atonal or dissonant.

"Melody: While the Ionian mode is still prevalent even in progressive rock, the blues-associated pentatonic scale is conspicuous by its absence. In progressive rock, melodies tend to be long and often meandering, especially in instrumental solo passages, often with little or no clear indication of cadence."

I don't hear a whole lot of long, meandering instrumental passages.

Truth be told, I'd really like to hear your point of view on this. Apart from "Wikipedia says so", I'd like to know why you consider 30STM to be prog. Better still, I'd like to see a cited article where the band says that they consider themselves prog. Until then, I see no reason to consider them prog anymore than, say, the Smashing Pumpkins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.39.98 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear God, not this again.

First off, you were the one who removed the progressive rock title a long time ago simply because it didn't suit your opinion. Anyone can clearly see that by scrolling up to the "Progressive Metal?" section of this discussion page. Your argument for removing them from progressive rock, which we had come to the conclusion fit better than metal: "Using synths doesn't put them in the same realm as Dream Theater, The Mars Volta or ELP. Removing the progressive rock note."

That said, please listen to the band's first album. If that isn't a concept album, I don't know what is. Furthermore, to quote the article itself: "The characteristics of progressive rock can be difficult to define, for example the above mentioned bands bear little resemblance to one another in their respective sounds and fan bases." Progressive acts are hard to define, and they don't always fit the mold of jazz-classical infusion. Just look at the list of artists on that page (Sigur Rós combines jazz with anything?!) and it's not hard to see that isn't the end-all, be-all definition.

And do you have any proof that the album sticks to a 4/4 pattern? "The Mission" isn't 4/4, buddy. The instruments listed clearly fit the uses of the instruments in the first album as well, and even you admit as much. And the band clearly fits the harmony section of the article as well -- your opinion of whether or not it is "atonal" or "dissonant" doesn't matter at all, since you're taking that out of context: that can push some pieces of progressive rock into the atonal or dissonant. It says it pushes some pieces of work in the genre to sound atonal or dissonant. It does not say that is a criteria.

As for melody, yet again, you took the quote out of context. It says "In progressive rock, melodies tend to be long and often meandering, especially in instrumental solo passages." It does not say "progressive rock must have instrumental solo passages."

It doesn't matter what a band considers themselves. Lots of bands don't consider themselves nu metal, but they are. Lots of bands don't consider themselves many things. Hell, Good Charlotte considers themselves punk, but they don't fit the definition in the least.

Please stop taking the article out of context to fit your personal vendetta. Thank you.

Enfestid 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you want to see what the band considers themselves, look at their Myspace page. Clearly listed next to "alternative" is "progressive." Check their official biography, too: "In addition to being more lyrically direct, A Beautiful Lie has undergone a musical transformation as well. Progressive, multi-tracked passages have been replaced by leaner and far more impacting constructs and some of the eclecticism has been focused in order to compliment the honesty of the songwriting."

Enfestid 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So because their debut is a concept album, they're prog? Better rush over and change that Green Day article...

From the Progressive Rock article: "It is important to realise that concepts and concept albums are not the sole domain of Progressive Rock, however - the first noted "Concept album" is Frank Sinatra's "In the Wee Small Hours" (1957), and conversely, that not all Progressive Rock albums are concept albums."

So because they use synthesizers, they're prog? Better rush over and change, well, every electronic, new age, and 1980's pop band's article.

Because one song on their debut album uses a time signature other than 4/4...

Again, they may have some proggish tendencies, but that doesn't make them any more prog than Tool, Primus (both of whom wear their King Crimson influences on their sleeve), The Smashing Pumpkins, or even Linkin Park (Mike Shinoda name-dropped King Crimson and ELP as influences for their next album [1].

24.184.39.98 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read anything that I said? I never said a concept album was the sole criterion for being a progressive act. I gave you everything you wanted. I showed you where the band considered themselves progressive (even though that really shouldn't matter). I showed you how their sound fit the definition as given by the article. What more do you want? And stop putting words in my mouth -- I never once even remotely implied that a concept album made them progressive. Furthermore, I never said them claiming to be progressive made them progressive... although you implied as much! I gave you reasoning that fit exactly with the definition of the article. Now please stop changing the genres if you can't combat my claims.

Enfestid 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and point for point, I feel I disproved those claims.

This isn't solving anything, though. I won't revert your changes, but I'd still like someone else to weigh in on this.

24.184.39.98 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Point-for-point you blatantly excerpted what you wanted out of quotations. You relied on things that aren't required of the genre, but rather things that are possible in the genre. And please, next time you want to rely solely on one criterion of whether a band is or is not in a genre, don't complain and change your stance when I give you exactly what you asked for (the band considering themselves to be progressive).

Enfestid 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow ... I meant to call them post-hardcore because of the characteristic screams and prominence of guitars in their songs (which is exactly what the post-hardcore article says are common to post-hardcore acts). There's my rationale, I'm changing it back, and I don't plan to have a revert war over this; I just wanted to make this article a little better. 69.211.141.105 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you consider them to be post-hardcore? Because of screaming and guitars? The guitars aren't really a prominent feature in any of the songs on A Beautiful Lie, as that is obviously what you're referring to. It's a mix of synthetics and snare drums that are the prominent features of most songs.

According to the post-hardcore article: "Post-hardcore is usually moderately fast and normally contains shouting (not always screaming)." I don't see how this fits A Beautiful Lie at all, personally. Can you give me some instances in which you believe 30 Seconds to Mars sounds post-hardcore? Songs, examples? I don't see how 30 Seconds to Mars is hardcore at all, and I also can't find any descriptions on the internet that state as much. Post-hardcore is similar to hardcore punk, as the article states, and 30 Seconds to Mars simply do not fit that much. Please continue the discussions before changing the page. If we can come to a consensus, we'll change it (as happened with the Progressive label).

Thanks.

Enfestid 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit strange but I think we should add emo too-they have some kind of emo lyrics and emo screaming. 88.87.6.72 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I was't logged in when I wrote that. Xr 1 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The band, and their fans, hate being called emo. If you put emo on here, I guarantee it would start an edit war. Personally, I don't think they're emo at all - but then just about everyone is being labelled emo these days. Perhaps a mention in the article about how the band is seen by some as being emo (with a source) would be suitable, and perhaps an interveiw where the band address how they feel about it? That would seem like a good comprimise/addition to the page Guylikeu 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Personaly I didn't know that they hate being called that way...I'm their fan too, but here in Bulgaria they're not very popular.I'm not saying they are emo, but I think they had emo elements in their music.I agree with you that mentioning about emo would be suitable, but with a source.Xr 1 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how they fit the definition of emo (music) at all. If screaming makes a band emo, there would be a lot more emo bands. I don't dislike emo, I just don't see how they should be classified as that. But I suppose if there's an interview with their feelings about it it'd be worth mentioning.

Enfestid 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying there not emo is fairly....retarded. First of all....Emo is usally defined by looks and lyrics. Listen to their lyrics...its deffinently fits into the whole emo culture. They also dress/look like emos. Their black makeup and emo styled hair is all emo, they are one of the definitions of emos, and if you say they arnt your an emo yourself whos trying to call himself punk or some bullshit. Im a huge emo, and they are emo, dont pretend ot be what you arnt you fucking dickheads.

(The above unsigned comment was made by 121.209.48.95

Please, read the page for the emo genre. We have addressed all of this already. And please stop with the insults. Thank you.

Enfestid 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Every song by 30 Seconds to Mars follows the common song structure of verse, chorus and bridge. Also, they never use time signatures and rhythmic techniques uncommon to rock music, which are "The most typical characteristics" of progressive rock. Go read the "Characteristics of progressive rock" in the progressive rock article. I don't think that anyone would have considered labeling them as "Progressive rock" if they hadn't have claimed that they were Zanders5k

Perhaps every song on A Beautiful Lie, but not on the self-titled debut. Please listen to it, as even you admit you have not done so. I have also addressed the numerous issues which makes 30 Seconds to Mars fit progressive rock above. They fit the article perfectly.

Enfestid 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the tracks "Capricorn", "Buddah for Mary" and "Edge of the earth". please tell me how those tracks fit the description of "progressive rock" perfectly. Also, are you familiar with any of the artist used to define "Progressive rock" in the article?Zanders5k

Bands like Nine Inch Nails do more "progressive" things than 30 Seconds to Mars. Nine Inch Nails have a song in a 7/8 time signature and several songs with unusual structures. and what about radiohead? they have several songs in odd time signatures and a bunch of others with odd structures. If 30 Seconds to Mars are "progressive" then I guess Progressive rock is dead Zanders5k

Yes, I am familiar with almost all the bands in the progressive rock article. I already gave examples above, as well. Please stop skipping over all of that.

Enfestid 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would explain how the songs I mentioned off of the first album fit Wikipedia's description of "Progressive Rock". Zanders5k

Dear goodness man, would you please read what I have written above? It's rather annoying trying to explain yourself over and over again when answers to questions have already been addressed. Furthermore, one song does not make a band a particular genre. No, "Capricorn" is not a progressive song, but listen to the entire album before you formulate your opinion on what genre it is. I've already discussed how the album fits the progressive label above. Maybe you should listen to the entire album before disagreeing? That'd be like me listening to "Only" by Nine Inch Nails and calling them a pop music band.

Enfestid 17:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I already read how you believed that they fit the "Progressive rock" label and I don't believe that they fit. It's already obvious that the only reason you would even consider putting them under "Progressive rock" is because the band likes to make a point out of saying that they are. Also, I said I have heard "Buddha for Marry" and "Edge of the earth" and it all just sounded like alternative rock with some industrial touches. You are lucky that your opinion is superior because you started the article. Everyone I've asked disagrees with them being "progressive rock" so I'm just going to have to ignore your article because you have no idea what you are talking about. And I have no desire to continue conversing about this. Zanders5k

I will repeat the exact same first sentence as last time: Dear goodness man, would you please read what I have written above? You are not reading any of the previously stated debates of genre! Will you please at least do so before you deem that they are not a progressive rock band? There is also another section of it above -- please read that as well. I very seriously doubt you've read any of it as that was actually one of the prime areas we went over (that someone asked that I cite where the band considered themselves progressive, so I did so, but made sure to mention that was not the sole reason, and that I only brought that up as it was requested). I am glad you have no desire to continue conversing about this because, quite honestly, I do not appreciate someone who only bases what should be in an article on their opinions. Wikipedia is not the place for opinions. It is for encyclopedic content, and information that can be backed up. I've backed up the fact that 30 Seconds to Mars are (or, more specifically, were) a progressive rock band with numerous reasons. You have yet to cite any reason other than 'This song isn't progressive rock,' 'My friends don't think they're progressive rock,' etc. You have not even listened to their original album, you have not cited anything, and yet you insist that they are not progressive rock. Why? I have already detailed, in-depth, why they are above. Please read it, I am begging you. I know you may not want to read it, but it would help your understanding, since you haven't even listened to their first album.

Enfestid 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I did give reasons why I believe that they are not progressive rock by comparing them to the "Characteristics of progressive rock" in the progressive rock article. Neither of us are going agree so I won't argue about the genre anymore.Zanders5k 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Enfestid, you're pretty alone here with your opinion. Please let us remove Progressive Rock from the genres. Ah, and yes I did read all of the things above and I still consider your opinion wrong like everyone else does, so please stop playing the dictator here, okay? --80.139.38.209 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty alone here? Three people wanting to change the genre makes me the alone one? Read the history of the article. More people are reverting it back to Progressive rock (I just happen to do it most often because I'm watching the article closely) than there are people who disagree with me. Furthermore, tlel me how I'm "wrong" -- you haven't refuted anything I've said. You can say I'm wrong all you want... why don't you prove it? The band fits perfectly with the progressive rock label, as defined by Wikipedia.

Enfestid 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fits perfectly is quite a stretch. We already gave reasons why they didn't fit the genre, have you not been paying any attention? We pointed out how they barely fit wikipedia's description, why don't you go back and read? Zanders5k 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please stop with the insults. Secondly, we've been over this numerous times, and the things you have "pointed out [about] how they barely fit wikipedia's description" have already been proved incorrect. You can't pick and choose small segments of the section and cut out key words in a phrase to justify your "point", which is what you did.

Enfestid 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok Mr. Efestid, ALL of their songs are in even time signatures, ALL of their songs are in a usual song structure, none of their songs go over the length of a usual radio song and their music is not technical. And lets face it, those characteristics are necessary if you want to be labeled a "progessive rock" band and they haven't used any of them, and yes, I have heard their first album. Also, plenty of musicians in any genre use "otherworldly themes" and have concept albums and are not progressive. The other people that were putting them as progressive rock obviously got the idea form their myspace. I'm staying neutral and would gladly leave them as progressive rock if you could give me some real proof that they are, yet it seems that you can't. I think you need to read the progressive rock article again Zanders5k 04:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Zanders, I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU PROOF! Read the entire discussion! I have given you proof multiple times, you just choose to ignore it! And, no, all the songs are not in the same time signature. If you would READ what I have written you would comprehend that. We've been over this multiple times, and everytime you continue to blatantly ignroe what has been posted.

Furthermore, Please stop vandalizing the page.

Enfestid 17:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say all of the songs were in the same signature, I said they were all in even time signatures, have you ever had any musical education?. And I have read everything you have typed before and it was not convincing. by the way, it's not vandalism, you may have started this article but that doesn't give you the right to dictate it. Wikipedia is meant to be able to be editied by anyone and everyone, you can't dictate an article buddy. Plus discussing something in the discussion board is NOT vandalism, please quit saying that over and over. And you can't really deny any of the facts I pointed out in my last post about basic characteristics of the genre. Zanders5k 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am dictating the issue here? Gee, I guess you better tell the person that added the note about genres in the article, because it wasn't me. Guess you better tell the other people who keep reverting the edits removing progressive rock, too, because it's not only me. Here's the thing: you are the only one who has insisted that they are not progressive rock. Pretty much everyone else who contributes to the article thinks they are. If that's a dictatorship, it's not by me, buddy.

And yes, I know what a time signature is. But read the progressive rock article. Just because something's in an even time signature doesn't mean they aren't different time signatures. First you whined that all their songs were 4/4 time signatures, now when you know otherwise you say that different time signatures doesn't matter. Make up your mind.

Please stop defining the terms of what does or does not make a progressive band. Every time I give what you request you seem to think of a new definition of what a band has to be to fit the progressive rock label. Heck, weren't you the one that thought the band's opinion of their genre mattered? As soon as I proved that the band's official sites labeled them as progressive you quickly decided that wasn't a factor at all. Again: Make up your mind.

I have already been over how they fit the progressive rock standard set by Wikipedia. And it's Wikipedia's standard that matters, not yours. The last time we went over Wikipedia's standard for progressive rock acts you then decided to quote and put together pieces of the article, and omit key points (such as ignoring the very key word "sometimes" and implying that solos were required for progressive rock.

I know the article's free to edit. Anyone can edit, and if they're making the article better, I hope they will. But when people with your elitist attitude about bands contribute to the article and make it worse, I do have a problem. I have a problem when anyone on Wikipedia does that to any article.

As far as vandalism: I asked you to stop vandalizing the article because I have reason to believe you're the "anonymous" IP address user who kept adding non-existent genres and blanking the page. Kind of ironic that as soon as the article's protected you suddenly come back after the IP user can no longer edit, no?

Enfestid 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not the person who has been vandalizing the page and blanking it. I can prove it if you look back to the edit that was made right before I got my account. My IP address will not match the vandal. I do not vandalize articles. Zanders5k 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, as you can see my IP address does not match the one vandalizing the page 70.149.132.42 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I was incorrect about you vandalizing the article. I am sorry.

Enfestid 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm back to say a few more things. Earlier, you said something about Sigur Rós not having any jazz influence and being considered "progressive". Notice, Sigur Rós use odd song structures and go against mainstream musical norms. 30STM do not use odd song structures or go against any radio friendly musical norms. Not that they aren't artistic, but they don't push any boundaries. Saying that "The characteristics of progressive rock are hard to define" is true, but it clearly states that progressive rock musicians use odd musical structures and techniques. Saying that 30 Seconds to Mars fit these characteristics makes no sense to me. I would like you to point out another band that is commonly referred to as "Progressive rock" that doesn't use odd song structures or anything uncommon in mainstream music. Zanders5k 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me that you're not going to seriously come back and respond after having almost a month to think about something every time you decide that you want to disagree with me. Furthermore, we've already been over this. Being "radio friendly" or not has absolutely nothing to do with progressive rock. Progressive rock is not defined by being "different." Do you know what the definition for "alternative" is? Something alternative to the norm. But we don't consider most alternative rock bands to be different from the normal rock bands, do we?

And again, stop picking and choosing parts of the article to use. You're taking things out of context and implying that everything has to fit the article's description, which is not the point. The article clearly states key phrases along that say as much.

Enfestid 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it doesn't really matter. Fans of the "Progressive rock" genre won't be attracted to 30STM, and fans of 30STM aren't going to find many "Progressive rock" groups interesting. Enjoy your article. Zanders5k 04:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Holms

It's definetely NOT progressive genre at all... you have never listened progressive rock? like YES, NOVALIS, WISHBONE ASH and etc? it's real bullshit to call them progressive at all... they are just simple alternate rock.. they song structure is in rock style, they do not have long intrumental peaces.. they have songs and simple songs is not equal to progressive at all.. progressive it that something is being progressed... to take a theme and make it to progress to another theme and etc.. delete that stupid progressive rock genre from their profile because it the same as to call Beatles - hard rock.. [even white album is very far from hard rock genre] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holms (talk • contribs) 19:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion we've already had. And please do not imply that one band being progressive makes another band not progressive. I already stated how they fit the progressive rock category based on their first album and in accordance with the Wikipedia entry for progressive rock.

Enfestid 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Enfestid, I haven't seen anyone in this genre discussion that agrees with you. Shouldn't the majorities opinion count? Honestly, there have been a more facts brought up that prove they are not progressive rock than the facts you claim prove that they are and the only other people I have seen put them under progressive rock are not fans of the genre and never discuss how they are, which clearly shows that it is most likely people who saw it on their myspace. What you have previously posted shows that you don't really have any experience with the progressive rock genre and only think they fit by some of the things you read about it in the wikipedia article, if you aren't a fan of progressive rock and don't really know much about it then why do you want them labeled as it so bad? Not to mention pretty much every reliable source cites them as "Alternative rock". The fact that this even has to be debated is ridiculous. Zanders5k 02:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Zanders, then maybe you should read the discussion again. It's been pretty even with the people who think they are and the people who think they aren't. And, quite honestly, the people who think they are not progressive are uninformed. They are basing it only on singles and only the most recent album (including you yourself, as you've already admitted). I've already aptly told you how they are progressive... and you have never been able to dispute it according to the Wikipedia definition.

And please, get your facts straight: YOU WERE THE ONE WHO ASKED ME TO POST WHERE THEY HAD SAID THEY WERE PROGRESSIVE. I DID AND CITED THEIR OFFICIAL MYSPACE. Please do not lie and imply that was the only citation I gave you. I gave you numerous citations and tied it directly to the Wikipedia definition of Progressive rock.

I am well aware of the progressive genre -- please do not assume I am not simply because I don't listen to the same music you do or simply because I edit bands that are primarily alternative rock. I listen to numerous progressive acts, such as Pink Floyd, earlier Muse work, Tool, Queensrÿche, YES, The Mars Volta, Dream Theater, etc.

Furthermore, as I've stated numerous times, I am a fan of progressive rock, and I do know a lot about it, unlike some people who think progressive rock is only defined as a select few bands and have some sort of elitist attitude that certain popular bands can't also be progressive.

The fact that you almost exclusively use Wikipedia to argue this is the ridiculous part to me. It seriously means that much to you to not have them classified as progressive rock simply because you have an elitist standard that does not fit the Wikipedia definition -- something we've gone through repeatedly. It's absolutely asinine to me. The funny thing is almost everyone who agrees with you is the same way -- the few people that edit out the progressive rock category barely ever edit any other pages. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Enfestid 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it seems like I am a complete Progressive rock elitist, but I have heard their first album and it doesn't fit the genre as described by Wikipedia or anywhere else. Honesty, progressive rock is quite an elaborate genre and 30STM are artistic, but Progressive rock is usually used for bands that are more extreme in experimentation. 30STM seem to be more of an artsy rock band than a prog rock group. And I don't think just because a band is popular that they shouldn't still be called progressive, "Tool" and "The Mars Volta for example, are very popular yet they are progressive rock and fit wikipedia's description. I also don't only like Progressive rock, 30STM are still a good band, and I like plenty of other non progressive bands. I will quit wasting time arguing my point in the discussion board, even though the genre of art rock fits a lot better. Zanders5k 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Enfestid, give it up already. You've been given plenty to counter your points. Stop vandalizing the page. 69.69.102.229 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated numerous times how 30 Seconds to Mars fit the progressive rock definition as given by Wikipedia... if you have some reason as to how they don't fit that definition, by all means, share it. Please go back and re-read our debates if you have nothing to add. It's funny how many anonymous users come in here and say I'm wrong and never back up their statements. I have a strange feeling you're a sock puppet, however...

Enfestid 05:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that this really proves anything, but that honestly wasn't me. Plenty of people other than I have given you reasons. You are the only user that has actually argued the opposite by trying to find reasons Zanders5k 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how you keep claiming people have given reasons, yet you can't back any of that up. Please provide these "reasons" you speak of. I've already stated how they fit the genre above, and I can go back and copy and paste that argument again if you wish, but all you have to do is scroll up to see how they perfectly fit Wikipedia's definition of progressive rock. Now, more people than me have been reverting it back to progressive rock, so I think there's more people than just me who disagree with your stance. Meanwhile, all the people who remove the genre are anonymous IPs or are vandalizing the page.

Enfestid 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

" "Progressive rock acts often combine elements of jazz and classical music, folk and world music influences with rock formats, often rejecting specific genre norms, and instead utilising relatively uncommon musical structures and ideas."

   Where in 30STM's debut album have you found any of these elements?
   To continue:
   "Form: A piece of progressive rock either avoids common song structures of verse, chorus, bridge, etc, or blurs the distinctions by extending sections or inserting additional ones, for example, via musical interludes."
   From listening to the first album, it sounds more like the typical verse-chorus-verse structure.
   "Timbre: (Instrumentation and dynamic): Early progressive rock groups added additional instrumentation to the typical rock group lineup of a guitarist, bassist, and drummer, often adding keyboards or synthesizers."
   They do use synths, agreed. I don't necessarily agree that the use of synths alone qualifies a band as progressive rock, but for the purposes of this argument, I'll give you that point.
   "Rhythm: Use of time signatures and rhythmic techniques uncommon to rock music."
   The first album doesn't stray away from 4/4.
   "Harmony: There are few pieces of progressive rock that adhere to the I - IV - V chord progressions of early rock - indeed, this is almost invariably avoided in favour of less predictable progressions. Simple triads are frequently built upon - a common jazz technique - so that 6ths, 7ths and so on are layered to build more indeterminate harmonies that can push some pieces of progressive rock into the atonal or dissonant." "Every song by 30 Seconds to Mars follows the common song structure of verse, chorus and bridge. Also, they never use time signatures and rhythmic techniques uncommon to rock music, which are "The most typical characteristics" of progressive rock". Oh and quit using the Sock puppet excuse to try and discredit me. Zanders5k 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zanders, please, I have already addressed that argument NUMEROUS times on here.

First off, you're taking the quotes out of context. It says "progressive rock acts often" it does not say progressive rock acts are, or progressive acts must, or progressive acts do. I have already told you this before. It's funny how you give me all of the "reasons" that I have already disproved. Because you couldn't simply scroll down to the next post, I will repost my exact response for you:

Dear God, not this again.

First off, you were the one who removed the progressive rock title a long time ago simply because it didn't suit your opinion. Anyone can clearly see that by scrolling up to the "Progressive Metal?" section of this discussion page. Your argument for removing them from progressive rock, which we had come to the conclusion fit better than metal: "Using synths doesn't put them in the same realm as Dream Theater, The Mars Volta or ELP. Removing the progressive rock note."

That said, please listen to the band's first album. If that isn't a concept album, I don't know what is. Furthermore, to quote the article itself: "The characteristics of progressive rock can be difficult to define, for example the above mentioned bands bear little resemblance to one another in their respective sounds and fan bases." Progressive acts are hard to define, and they don't always fit the mold of jazz-classical infusion. Just look at the list of artists on that page (Sigur Rós combines jazz with anything?!) and it's not hard to see that isn't the end-all, be-all definition.

And do you have any proof that the album sticks to a 4/4 pattern? "The Mission" isn't 4/4, buddy. The instruments listed clearly fit the uses of the instruments in the first album as well, and even you admit as much. And the band clearly fits the harmony section of the article as well -- your opinion of whether or not it is "atonal" or "dissonant" doesn't matter at all, since you're taking that out of context: that can push some pieces of progressive rock into the atonal or dissonant. It says it pushes some pieces of work in the genre to sound atonal or dissonant. It does not say that is a criteria.

As for melody, yet again, you took the quote out of context. It says "In progressive rock, melodies tend to be long and often meandering, especially in instrumental solo passages." It does not say "progressive rock must have instrumental solo passages."

It doesn't matter what a band considers themselves. Lots of bands don't consider themselves nu metal, but they are. Lots of bands don't consider themselves many things. Hell, Good Charlotte considers themselves punk, but they don't fit the definition in the least.

Please stop taking the article out of context to fit your personal vendetta. Thank you.

Enfestid 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Zanders5k, please stop trying to beat a dead horse here. I have already disproved all of your claims. It's funny how every time I answer your disputes, you wait a week or longer, and make the same dispute yet again. You asked for where the band has classified themselves as progressive rock, and I gave you multiple sources. Following that, you then said that the band saying they're progressive doesn't make them progressive. Quit trying to have your cake and eat it too, Zanders5k. And time signatures? Hell, their most popular song isn't in 4/4! "The Kill" is a 6/8 time signature.

Quit reverting the genre simply because you disagree with it. It's funny that your reversion says "More people need to discuss this. Only you have been arguing that they are. And quit accusing me of using sock puppets as an excuse tp discredtit me," yet you're the one who keeps changing what the genre is. If "more people need to discuss it," Zanders5k, quit changing it to fit with your ideals.

I'm going to keep claiming they're sock puppets until you can prove otherwise. It's funny how each and every one of the IP addresses changing the page only change that aspect if you look at their contribution history. It's also funny how a good majority of your changes are to articles where you're removing the progressive rock genre.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

Enfestid 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Platinum Record

I thought platinum meant the record sold 1,000,000, not that a million was shipped. They're are alot of sources that say it went platinum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zacksfansite (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Platinum and gold records are given for units shipped, not units sold.

Enfestid 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Matt's Departure

I added the following paragraph to the "Band History" section. On March 1, 2007, Matt Wachter announced his departure from the band live on stage in El Paso, Texas. This was confirmed the following day with a statement on the band's website [1]. Wachter stated that he would like to spend more time with his family.

Also, a link to the official statement on the band's website, that reads:

A New Beginning

3/2/2007

After five wonderful years on the road with Thirty Seconds to Mars Matt Wachter has decided it is time spend more time with his family at home.

We love and support him completely and accept his decision with respect and understanding. This is not an end, it is a new begining.

There are times we all wish for things to stay the same but change is inevitable and we believe it must be embraced as a gift, not as anything else. There are only positive feelings between us all and we will always remember the wonderful contributions he has made to this project.

We care for our brother Matt very much and wish him the best with everything.

-Thirty Seconds to Mars

PROVEHITO IN ALTUM' Guylikeu 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Leto's Guitars

I've just been reading, and I think there should be a section to mention Jared's custom made guitars - the Steve McSwain models, whcih McSwain has called "Gryphon" (both the black and the white ones) yet Jared has named the white one "Pythagoras" after the Greek philosopher and mathematician, and I can't remember what he called the black one - but it will be something Greek.

The design was drawn by Jared and given to McSwain, who made the guitars from scratch, and the image of a Griffin / Gryphon has been carved into them, they use a single Seymour Duncan pickup at the bridge and only have a volume control.

In general, I think there should be more information on the gear that the band use (I'm a gear-nut heh) Kudasai 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would only be proper to mention Jared's custom-built guitars on his article. It's not relevant to the band as a whole, because the whole band doesn't play with his custom-built guitars. I'd like to point out (because of the previous discussions on this talk page) that this is not a matter of opinion, rather a matter of relevance to the article. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but could it be included in trivia? Just a sentence for a bit of band trivia simply stating something like "Jared Leto uses custom made McSwain guitars"? Kudasai 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are being gradually phased out. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TRIV for more information. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so where could it be placed on the page then? Kudasai 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

it could be placed on Leto's page. Matthew Bellamy of the band Muse uses custom guitars made by Hugh Mason. if you go here, you'll see that it discusses the guitars on his article and not the band's. it really makes a lot more sense. if you're really that concerned about it, i suppose after adding the info to a new section of Leto's page, you could place a link to it in the "See Also" section of the 30stm page.68.255.172.238 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unannounced track"

I've gone ahead and deleted this row from the 'Discography, Singles'. Due to the fact that it is an "unannounced track" it would be impossible to give citation. If you have any problems with this please leave a message and sign your post. OldSongsNewStereo 15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Emo?

I think that emo should be added to genres. They are quite emo.

Great argument. If you're the one who keeps vandalizing the page, please stop.

Enfestid 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And could you sign your posts? or is he a random troll. Look, not every single alternative rock band in the entire planet is "emo", i mean i've had to revert vandalism of musicians as varied as Talking Heads, The Cure, Jimi Hendrix, Biffy Clyro, Spacehog and Jason Mraz. Look: just because some of their songs are emotional does not mean a band is emo. Doc Strange 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly on wikipedia, they don't call any bands emo. Even the most prominent bands like Fall Out Boy. There might as well not even be an article for emo on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.4.101 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Post Hardcore

I think one of the genre's should be "Post Hardcore". Due to the fact that some of their songs consist with thi particular genre. Songs such as: Capricorn(A brand new name), Welcome to the universe, Oblivion, and much more are much more described in this genre. Nardulli22 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the Post-hardcore page and get back with my opinion.

Enfestid 18:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the page, and I'd have to disagree. Post-hardcore is considered a genre that evolved out of punk music according to the page, and I don't think that 30 Seconds to Mars fits that description at all. The vocals are often sung in whispers or screams according to the article, which isn't the case with the band. There are occasional screams, but no more than any other alternative rock band. I also don't think they fit with any of the bands on the List of post-hardcore bands.

Why do you feel they fit that genre? I'm trying to understand why, but the Wikipedia page for it is rather lacking. Thanks.

Enfestid 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally think they are that Genre due to the fact of their low guitar tuning and occasional screaming. Thats why I dont consider them "Hardcore", i consider them "Post Hardcore". They have alternative rock music, but i feel they are a little bit "Harder" than that particular genre.Nardulli22 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Occasional screaming is part of almost every rock sub-genre, though. Also, alternative rock is very encompassing -- look at the bands labeled under it.

Enfestid 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see alternative bands, and they are usually in standard tuning with no screaming. But 30 Secons To Mars seems a bit harder than Alternative Rock. Nardulli22 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this; and "expediential"

There's this box that read, "This page is 64 kilobytes long.", so perhaps it'd be a good idea to archive some of this, firstly to store previous comments "for the record", and secondly to perhaps reduce the loading times of this page.
As for "expediential" ("actually comes from a thesis that [the band] found online [that] was written by a former Harvard professor. And one of the subsections of the thesis was titled 'thirty seconds to mars' and he goes on to talk about the expediential growth of technology that relates to humans and saying that we are quite literally thirty seconds to mars. What it means to us is, we thought it best described our music, in short."), what does expediential mean? Would it be, by any chance, exponential or something? I'm not natively English or anything, but the level at which I speak is more or less native by the way. If it is in fact expediential, please elaborate insofar as to defining what "expediential" means (of course, without using the word "expedient" or derivatives of the word); if it isn't, well then, perhaps the bit on the band's origin should have a little [sic] behind it, indicating that it is an error. Just suggestion and requesting help, that's all really. Qwerty (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ANTONELLA

Hola

me encanta la cancion the kill y a beautiful lie 

no tengo mucho que decir kiss bye bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.78.20 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)