Talk:Black Flag (band)

Genre

Is it really appropriate to simply label Black Flag hardcore punk? Most hardcore bands, today and in the eighties, have only a superficial connection to a group like Black Flag. Henry would probably just say they were a rock band, that's good enough for me, but it's certainly misleading to label them hardcore punk. I have a problem with the way labeling is used in general but I think alternative rock or indie rock (it was used back then) may be a more accurate context to place them in considering their relation to other bands in America at the time. Jonas.E.B. 06:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have at least 8 books on punk and alternative music sitting on my shelf which call Black Flag "hardcore" and describe them as one of the first and most important bands in hardcore punk (alongside Minor Threat, Circle Jerks, and others). They experimented with other styles later in their career, but "hardcore punk" is, if anything, the main genre they are associated with and should probably be the first one listed. To suggest that labeling Black Flag as hardcore punk is "misleading" is completely incorrect. In fact every single source I have that discusses Black Flag discusses them in the context of hardcore, as they were one of the originators of the style. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying Black Flag had NOTHING to do with hardcore punk whatsoever and that it should be removed entirely, I just think it's absurd to only label them hardcore punk as it currently stands. By that logic, we should only have glam rock listed on David Bowie's page. Jonas.E.B. 06:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talk • contribs)

They're definitely a hardcore punk band, but I think Black Flag is also a noise rock band. See their Allmusic Guide entry and Azerrad's book. They also have definite and documented connections to punk jazz. The My War album is also seminal for grunge, sludge metal, metalcore, and mathcore, but that probably shouldn't be addressed in the context of the genre box. Aryder779 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla and Aryder. While later they might be considered other genres, this band throughout most of their career is practically the definition of "hardcore punk", particularly "Los Angeles Hardcore Punk." To say this band is not punk is grossly inaccurate and doing a disservice to readers. --Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First, no one said they weren't punk. Second, "this band throughout most of their career is practically the definition of hardcore punk"? It's well documented that the hardcore crowd hated what they did after Damaged. The "scene" rejects Black Flag yet they still demand that Black Flag simply be considered a hardcore band? Everything after Damaged isn't hardcore (that's half of their career). They produced far more material that isn't hardcore. Black Flag, Husker Du, and Minutemen were a part of something much bigger than hardcore (which, like its parent punk, just became a generic brand name for unoriginal music.) Everyone knows Black Flag pioneered hardcore music, that's why hardcore punk should remain, but they did so much more after that. That's what's misleading. Jonas.E.B. 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talk • contribs)

Frankly, I don't think "hardcore punk" goes far enough. I basically agree with the above comment. Like Bad Brains, the other indisputable formative hardcore band (Minor Threat were just a tad later), Black Flag quickly moved beyond hardcore and helped pioneer what we now call "alternative metal". Any citations to back this up would be terrific, and we can add it without unneccessary controversy. Nobody's saying the "hardcore punk" tag should be removed - I think most would agree it should by all rights be the first genre listed in the infobox - but it doesn't go far enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.137.75 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you would be hard-pressed to find sources describing Black Flag as "alternative metal". Yes, many sources talk about how the band moved further and further from hardcore over the course of their career, from the sludge-y B-side of My War all the way through the instrumental jams and spoken word etc., and some sources note their influence on other fusion genres/subgenres. But in my reading of a number of sources none of them actually placed Black Flag themselves in any specific genres that weren't some variation of punk rock. And of course the term "alternative metal" didn't come along for well over a decade after Black Flag's breakup. Of course if you want to build a "Style" section in the article and draw from different sources describing the band's musical evolution (and cite them, of course), that'd be fantastic. The infobox is supposed to summarize details from the article itself, so as long as the infobox reflects the (referenced) content of the article body, I'd be satisfied. Ultimately it's up to the sources and what they say. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

how is pettibon's band logo reminiscent of the anarchy symbol?

how is pettibon's band logo reminiscent of the anarchy symbol? Fp cassini (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not, if you're thinking of the "A" with a circle around it as "the" anarchy symbol. However that is not the only symbol that is or has ever been used by anarchists. A black flag is also a symbol for anarchism (see Anarchist symbolism#Black flag). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Discography

I just created an article for their discography. It needs a lot of work though, all I have put in at this point is their studio albums. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start. I've been working on a similar discography for one of my favorite bands, Rocket from the Crypt, but I've been developing it in my userspace. I suggest you use a featured discography as an example (ie. Metallica discography) and work from there. Also, it's probably pointless to have all of those "chart position" fields in the table for a dozen+ countries, since to the best of my knowledge (and I've done research on this) none of Black Flag's albums actually charted in any country they were released in. I would just cut those fields altogether. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-Black Flag.

I added the sentence about Kira Roessler continuing to perform and record in DOS with her ex-husband, Mike Watt of the Minutemen. However, I don't know how to make links, so I would appreciate some one linking "Kira Roessler," "Mike Watt," "Minutemen," and "Dos" to any relevant Wikipedia articles. Thanks.71.220.29.227 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

There has been a revert war lately (that I am ashamed to say I have been a part of) over the wording in the lead sentence. About 3 and a half weeks ago, Tim010987 edited the lead paragraph to say:

Black Flag was an American rock band formed in 1977 in Hermosa Beach, California. The band was established largely as the brainchild of Greg Ginn: the guitarist, primary songwriter and sole continuous member through multiple personnel changes. They are widely considered to be one of the first hardcore punk bands alongside Middle Class, Bad Brains, Discharge and Minor Threat.

This was in response to a discussion that Tim and I had at Talk:Misfits (band) where, based partially on WP:LEAD and partially on the difficulty of summing up a band's style in 1 or 2 words, it was decided that aiming for generality in the first sentence was the best solution, with specific genres/subgenres/styles described in subsequent sentences (as above). The most relevant portion of WP:LEAD considered was "Opening sentence", which encourages us to "give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." The idea here is that nonspecialists, ie readers who are not knowledgeable about genres and subgenres of music, will be better served by having the lead sentence say "rock", which is a more general term and puts the band in context within the wider field of music, and then describing their more specific genres and styles in the following sentences.

Since then, the genre in the opening sentence has been edited, reverted, and changed back-and-forth between "rock", "punk rock", and "hardcore punk". As one can see from the "Genre" discussion further up this page, which pertained to the genres listed in the infobox, Black Flag's music is difficult to describe in just 1 or 2 words. It is well-documented (though I admit that the article itself needs further improvement including some kind of Style section to reflect this) that Black Flag's music changed over the course of their career and incorporated various genres such as punk rock, hardcore, jazz, sludge metal, spoken word, etc. It is therefore my opinion that opening the article with "Black Flag was a rock band...", and then describing their more specific genres/styles in the subsequent sentences of the lead, provides the best context to our readers. Given the recent edit warring which has resulted in the article being protected, I would like to ask for other editors' opinions so that we can form a better consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The user Tim010987 subsequently changed it back to "punk band" and even reverted your change when you attempted to insert "rock band". [1][2]. IllaZilla, you are the only person who wants this change. You are totally outside of WP:CONSENSUS on this. --Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does change of lead-in sentence have consensus?

From the article's creation in 2002, the lead sentence has designated this band a "punk band" or a "hardcore punk band". In December 14, 2008, one user changed the designation to "rock band" [3]. That user soon self-revered the content back to "punk band" [4]. However, one other user, User:IllaZilla, and only that one user has continuously reverted the designation back to "rock band", this despite at least 4 editors attempting to keep the designation as "punk band." IllaZilla keeps reverting them. [5][6] [7][8]. Not only has there been community exposure for over 6 years has demonstrated WP:CONSENSUS has settled on the "punk" designation, but every user except one has wanted to keep it that way. There is absolutely nothing close to WP:CONSENSUS to change the lead sentence designation from "punk band" to "rock band."

As there was edit warring, the page got locked. --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is dispute about the issue, I have started a thread here in the hopes of building consensus, rather than simply relying on de facto "it's always been that way" consensus. I would specifically like to hear from Tim010987, who was the one who initially changed it to "rock" and then subsequently changed his mind, to see how he feels about it now. All of this "every user except one has wanted to keep it that way" stuff is rather disengenuous, making it seem as if there are a large number of editors objecting to this change: there have only been a few editors involved in this at all – myself, Tim010987, and Oakshade, plus a couple of one-off edits by anonymous IPs. I'm making a good-faith effort here to get a broader range of opinions on the issue. Simply because it has said "hardcore" or "punk rock" for a long time does not mean it can never be re-worded or a new consensus cannot be formed, since of course consensus can change. We need to discuss this to determine what wording the editors actually working on this article can agree to, and the fact that it has been one way for 6 years means very little in the case of a B-class article that clearly needs improvement. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla, you are free to build a consensus for your desired change, but you have to build that consensus first before you make and insist upon that change. If there's determination that consensus has changed, so be it. But so far you are the only user in the 6-plus year history who wants to change the designation in the lead sentence. --Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla, I appreciate your previous comment about giving readers some context with the words "rock band." However, I'd say more people are aware of the context of "punk band" and those who are not can simply click the link to the relevant article to gain more context. There must be a balance between giving all relevant information and keeping the article concise. I would err on the side of brevity. Thus my vote: "american punk rock band". Satch69 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement more people are aware of the context of "punk band". That is like saying "more people are aware of the context of ungulate than they are of mammal" (ungulates being several groups of mammals). Invariably, more people are aware of general terms than they are of specific ones. Your statement seems to totally contradict the meaning of specificity vs. the meaning of generality. To a nonspecialist, general encyclopedia reader, ie. someone who is not versed in various genres of music, a general term is undoubtedly easier to understand. "Rock band" is general enough to be immediately understood by a majority of readers, but specific enough not to be ambiguous. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My vote is for: "American punk band." I originally agreed with IllaZilla's idea that lead-ins should be very general, so I originally changed it to "rock band" but the more I thought about it the weirder "Black Flag is an American rock band" sounded. It's awkward. The exact same thing goes for the Misfits page where IllaZilla also contends it should say "rock band." I vote that both the Misfits and Black Flag pages should say "American punk band." --Tim010987 (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Mainly because they were! And that is all I am saying because normally I don't get involved with genre wars. Too much effort - no net gain. – B.hotep •talk• 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Like so many other things, this particular "tempest in a teacup" comes down to not using our own observations, but relying on sources. I know without even checking that the vast majority of sources would refer to Black Flag as a punk band. They practically defined the LA punk sound. "American punk band" works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As consensus in both edit history and this RfC has indicated that only one user wants the introduction designation of this band as "rock band" as opposed to "punk rock band" or "hardcore punk rock band" (not to mention all reliable sources refers to this band as a "punk band" as indicated by Beeblebrox), the intro has been reverted back to "punk rock band" and I'll be closing this RfC.--Oakshade (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A2qmtk60x9krj

--CactusBot (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed J04n(talk page) 22:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One user completely removed "External links" section

A user a chosen to remove the entire "External links" section with the edit summary: lacking an external links section" is not a bad thing. ELs are not requisite (WP:EL/WP:NOT#LINK). fansites are discouraged, & allmusic should be cited as a source.[9]

First of all, WP:EL does NOT require external links to be inline citations. WP:EL states:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Simply because a valid external link isn't included as an inline citation, WP:EL does not in any form "ban" that link.

As for the "fansites are discouraged", there is not guideline anywhere discouraging fansites in External links sections.. WP:NOT#LINK states:

"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." (emphasis mine)

Let's stop ownership ownership of articles and let all editors contribute useful information.--Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not required that articles have external links sections. A well-written article shouldn't need one unless, as EL says, there is relevant, reliable material that can't be included in the WP article due to amount of detail or copyright issues. The majority of fansites are notoriously unreliable and full of copyright violations, and it is difficult to determine if one "major fansite" is more appropriate than another (inevitably this leads to an EL section that is a list of fansites). For reliable, informative sites, it is greatly preferred to use them as sources to reference the article rather than slap them on as ELs. For example, the Allmusic biography would be useful as a source for the article content, and could be linked via a citation. Ditto the interviews: If they contain information useful to explaining the band's history, use them as sources & cite them. If they don't, then what's the point of linking them (again, an inevitability as evidenced in many musical artist articles is that the EL section becomes a list of interviews, most of which would be much more effectively applied as sources to verify & enhance the article). One should always consider a link's usefulness as a source first, and try to apply it as such, before slapping it in an external links section.

Note that I'm not saying "no external links". I'm saying "consider using them as sources instead", which is of much better service to the article in the long run. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Simply because a link is not used as a source is absolutely no reason, either per WP:External links or WP:NOT#LINK do delete them. The Allmusic link is currently not used as a source, yet it is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." If you find a place in the article to use it as an inline citation, go ahead and link it that way. Otherwise, it's still a useful link per WP:EL. Other editors have considered "using them as sources," but have found not place for them as citations, yet have found these links useful. Avoid ownership and respect other editors, please. --Oakshade (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)