Wikipedia talk:No one cares about your garage band
- 1 The Times They Are a-Changin'
- 2 Being signed does not equal success
- 3 I LOL'd
- 4 Bringers of Darkness members
- 5 The title should be changed
- 6 Don't forget about not caring about labels
- 7 Garage rock revival
- 8 ??funny
- 9 Lesser known bands in Wikipedia
- 10 The Culture of Music is Changing — Wikipedia Needs to Get With the Program
- 11 This article is quite frankly just rude..
- 12 Misbegotten point in Complaints section
- 13 Capitals
The Times They Are a-Changin'
People Get Real. I don't find these rules/guidelines (that may have been valid in the 70s) humorous at all:
"Likewise, if your band is not signed by a record company or independent label ... then no one cares."
"if your band is not making any money, we do not want to hear about it on Wikipedia."
"You must be invited to play at a musical venue of real significance to count." ... que?
Being signed does not equal success
If that were true, there would be no page for Cake (band), Reel Big Fish, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkupine (talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC) @Punkupine: Um... they have been covered in multiple reliable sources and meet WP:NMUSIC, which is an actual rule. This is meant to be humorous, not the actual rules. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Bringers of Darkness members
I've been bold and added a singer. A garage band has got to have a singer. I also gave the drummer some credits. Both their descriptions are based on real (now speedy-deleted) garage band articles. (So, yes, I do know how to spell everyware properly ;-)
SIS 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Added a description for the band too. ("Bringers of darkness are revitalizing audiences with their raw energy live" etc.)
SIS 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The title should be changed
I'm surprised no one brought this up before. The title of this article ("No one cares about your garage band") violates core Wikipedia principles, namely WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. It's fine as an essay (intended to be humorous) but
as a policy without the humor tag it's disgusting. It should be changed to something less rude and aggressive, something like "garage bands are not encyclopedic". What do you guys think? Antivenin 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? It is an essay. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the items under "How Do I Know if Anyone Cares About my Garage Band?" appear to violate WP:CIVIL even more so than the title (namely "You just formed the band yesterday", "you don't want to hurt your brain slogging through that" in combination with the voice of the rest of the essay, and "Your only distinguishing characteristic is your placement in a Battle of the Bands competition"). Random the Scrambled (?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. This whole article seems to violate WP:CIVIL. Yes, it is funny, but it's also insulting. It's particularly insulting to me because I found it searching for information on creating a Wikipedia article for my band. I know my band might not have enough credibility, so I wanted to check the Wikipedia standards for creating an article about a rock band. This article was the best search result I got, and told me just what I needed to know. But it insulted me and my band in the process. Now, if this page is supposed to be a joke, that's fine, but it needs to be clearly labeled as such at the top of the page with a link to the legitimate guidelines page.
- I don't know it there are any special rules for editing an essay, but I'm going to add the following:
- --126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget about not caring about labels
I think something should be added to this. Second only to crappy garage bands, crappy basement-run labels are the other waste of wiki-space. Hey, wow, your label started last week with offices at your grandma's house, and has already signed your unnamed band, your best friend tamborine-only band, and the talentless girl you want to get with. It's like balling up a wad of non-notability, and then spitting it onto your computer screen. Angryapathy (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno; I think there are more "production companies" composed of two guys who make dumb YouTube videos and then want an article about their "production company" than there are bogus labels. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Garage rock revival
Whilst I thoroughly agree with the sentiment of this discussion, I don't see why the term Garage Rock Revival should be redirected here, since many bands (The Strokes, The White Stripes, The Hives, The Vines...) are by no means subject to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This one is alot better then the no one cares one, lol! I bet some idiot really has tried to make a article on his garage band. But then again, we dont want people getting this confused with Garage rock.MajorHawke (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Lesser known bands in Wikipedia
While acknowledging the usefulness and truth as far as the main message of this essay is concerned, I note sometimes with disappointment that a good number of lesser known (otherwise excellent) bands have no article. It is a pity, it reduces the usefulness of Wikipedia, at least for me. Who is looking for such bands, does not necessarily expects articles that meet highbrow standards. Fortunately enough, we have MySpace. Ferencke (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The Culture of Music is Changing — Wikipedia Needs to Get With the Program
I agree with the general tenor of the comments here. Sure, this article's funny — the way insecure young adults have a way of mirthlessly laughing at their more indiscreet peers. Every band has to start somewhere, and being signed by a major label is hardly anything like a guarantee of worth or general interest six months or a year after the fact. Bottom line is there's simply no way to abide by Wikipedia guidelines when you're dealing with stuff as subjective as art. Pages for musical artists like (e.g.) Allan Holdsworth and Kate Bush are absolutely enormous, their Talk pages stuffed with controversy out of all proportion to their influence in the wider world, because their fans happen to be extremely passionate, which, you know, is less "encyclopaedic" than not giving a hairy squirt which Wikpedia evidently confuses for some sort of Zen-like state of calm equanimity. Yet who else is going to spend the time and effort (sans compensation, of course) save those that do give a hairy squirt in some way or another. Not to sound too needlessly po-mo or anything, but "knowledge" is everywhere embodied and "unbiased" knowledge outside of a discursive framework doesn't, per se, exist.
What pushed my buttons here isn't at all Wikipedia's policy intent with this allegedly "humorous" page. I completely get it that Wikipedia isn't a free promotional service and I understand the difference between truth and verifiability (even as I have major screaming philosophical questions about it). I just really resent (as apparently a few others who've spoken up here do as well) the snickering caracature that everybody who self-promotes their own music is some pimply teenage Mommy's-basement rockstar wannabe. Yes, of course I have some original music up on YouTube which happens to be the antithesis of "hardcore." (No, of course I'd never dream of sharing the slightest word about it on Wikipedia.) But we happen to live in a world where the jazz-rock guitarist Allan Holdsworth, one of the most widely-praised musicians by his peers in any genre of music, was seriously thinking a few years ago of packing it in and getting a job in a factory because the labels and radio stations haven't a clue how to promote his music (too jazz for rock; too rock for jazz). This entire model of "verifiable" sources to "legitimate" emerging music is ever-more-quickly dying and the next generation of musicians aren't going to "first achieve notice" in commercial venues. Their first deep writeups will be on Facebook and MySpace and their first national and international exposure will be on YouTube — while the commercial media outlets chase an ever-shrinking lowest common denominator. You surely have noted this trend, however nascent it may be at the moment.
Wikipedia needs to be a little more proactive about it, is all.
This article is quite frankly just rude..
If this patronising article is considered funny within the Wikipedia circles then it's plain for all to see why you struggle in finding your funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
- I play in a band. We do about 60-70 shows a year and make some good money out of it. But not a single reliable source mentions us, so if I wrote an article about the band tomorrow, it would get speedy deleted. I have seen enough non-notable bands be speedy deleted via either WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11, or to be declined at WP:AfC to tell you that this essay is frankly for their own good. Now, the essay doesn't explain how you should deliver the bad news to the article's creator, which should be as polite and diplomatic as possible. But sometimes you've got to be cruel to be kind. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It is very rude and un-deserving of Wikipedia's neutral efforts. Lots42 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Misbegotten point in Complaints section
Regarding "You should also be aware that an article about your band is nothing to be proud of and if Billboard someday writes "Bringers of Darkness are unquestionably the worst noise I have ever had misfortune to inflict on my ears", then it can go in the article, citing a reliable source. Is that really what you want?": If your band is being reviewed in Billboard then it probably does have, and merits, an article on Wikipedia, regardless of who created it! Whether the band wants it to be there or not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)