Talk:Psychobilly

Stylistic Origins

'Driven by the rhythmic pounding of a stand-up bass, the music swings with the snarl of punk rock while sometimes thrashing alongside speed metal or crashing headlong into country icon Hank Williams'

Is that being used to add 'speed metal' to the stylistic origins? It seems unsuitable since it says sometimes which means it doesn't go for much of the genre.

'The music appeals to fans of punk, indie, metal, new wave, goth, rockabilly, surf, [and] country'

This? Surely not? Appealling to fans of other genres does not make the genres stylistic origins for this one. Munci (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those are genres which stylistically influence psychobilly from approx. the third wave onward (as the history section elaborates). I could give quite a few specific examples, amongst them Tiger Army who have songs on each of their albums that are either heavily country-influenced or just straight-up country (see the music samples), and Nekromantix, who as the style section explains had one of their albums nominated for a Grammy for "best heavy metal album". The magazine article that I used to source most of this article gives mentions of how each of the genres listed has influenced psychobilly and affected the style over the years. The quotes I chose just seemed to sum it up best and rather succinctly. Again, I could give examples such as the HorrorPops whose music shows strong influences of new wave, pop, and goth (note there is a reference for this as well: a review of their latest album in Alternative Press). I'm going to look for additional sources, since one of the article's weaknesses at this point is that it relies almost entirely on a single source, but I don't think any of these genres should be removed from the infobox. They are all styles which have influenced psychobilly throughout the genre's history. The bottom line is that there are reliable sources supplied in the article body to support the genres listed in the infobox, which is more than can be said for a majority of music articles on WP at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The quotes chosen are inappropriate for showing that another genre was part of the stylistic origns for psychobilly. The fact that many of the bands are x-influenced psychobilly does not make it that psychobilly is For example, Tiger Army are both country and psychobilly. This does not mean that psychobilly as a whole is influenced by country. Psychobilly may well be influenced by country, but the fact that Tiger Army have elements of both is not evidence that it is. Also, these are taken from the third wave you say. Stylistic origins is for how the genre started out so it should be the genres that were inspiration for the first wave that should be in there and it should be genres that influenced a majority of the bands not just some. Munci (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the article the stylistic origins should be punk rock, rockabilly, horror films and garage rock. Munci (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me give some direct quotes from the magazine article that I used as a source for most of this article:

• "Psychobilly is both a sound and a way of life, with roots as deep as street punk, Two-Tone ska or the Oi! your friendly neighborhood skinhead is rocking." (p. 77)
• "It's a mix of U.K. scooterboy, skinhead, punk and rockabilly aesthetics." (p. 77)
• "...the music swings with the snarl of punk rock while sometimes thrashing alongside speed metal or crashing headlong into country icon Hank Williams." (p. 77)
• "...while there were certainly rockabilly and garage-rock bands who influenced what would become psycho, it wasn't so much about one morphing into the other, as it was all of them happening simultaneously." (p. 77)
• "These bands are characterized by their ambitious experimentation, as hardcore, metal, country, goth and ska all got stirred into their psychobilly brew." (p. 78)
• "The music appeals to fans of punk, indie, metal, new wave, goth, rockabilly, surf, country." (p. 78)
• "Largely influenced by punk rock and Oi!, as well as rockabilly's simplified instrumentation..." (p. 82)

Obviously it's pertinent to paraphrase/synthesize these various influences into the article body and the infobox. I see no reason to remove genres from the infobox that are discussed in the article body with appropriate references. The biggest problem with the "origins" field in most genre articles (and the "genre" field in most musical artist articles) is that the genres listed are not supported with any commentary or references elsewhere in the article. That being the case, why nitpick about the genres listed in this infobox which are supported by referenced commentary in the article body? --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed in the body of the article with references is not sufficient for them to be considered stylistic origins. These sources need to say that the genres are actually influences, not just vaguely related.

• p77:Having roots as deep as something does not mean they have the latter as origins. By this sentence, the article is comparing this subgenre of punk to other subgenres, saying they are similar in that the other 3 subgenres are also considered to have 'deep roots'.
• p77:This is fine because it talks of the genre as a whole being influenced by these.
• p77:This I have already talked about. The operative word here is 'sometimes'. It doesn't apply to all or even a majority of bands and therefore should not be put as stylstic origins.
• p77:This is fine.
• p78:This talks of bands experimenting with an established genre called psychobilly, not mixing these genres to create a new genre called psychobilly. It also uses 'their psychobilly brew' implying the mix was specific to the particular band or particular bands, rather than being added to psychobilly as a whole, in which case it would use 'the psychobilly brew'.
• p78:Having the same fans as another genre does not mean they are influenced by that genre.
• p82:This is fine. Munci (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While there are issues with the actual wording of this article, I think someone needs to address the stylistic origins block up in the corner. I mean, there's almost no precedent for this kind of genre-packing. Look at any of the more heavily-trafficked and popular styles of music. Heavy metal lists two genres, pop --- pop music for Christ's sake, lists five. We might as well include everything from here and let's not forget this. Because who knows...they're might be some super-hip band with a 2" demo out that somehow managed to incorporate all of them simultaneously. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and may I suggest just stripping that section down to say, country, rock and roll, punk rock and deathrock? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, every single one of the genres listed is referenced in the "style" section. How would we discriminate which ones to cut out? My first instinct would be to trim it down to just blues, garage rock, punk rock, rockabilly, and rock and roll. However, as the "style" section explains, most current psychobilly acts now draw from most of the genres listed. They're not listed because only 1 or 2 acts draw from them, they're listed because many acts draw from them. I see no need to remove genres that are properly referenced & explained in the article body. Also note that "death rock" is not included at all, as the references do not refer to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Just explain to me why this article is the only one you feel unimpeachably requires every single possible outgrowth to be incorporated. I was not aware that the "stylistic origins" meant not only the actual genres which were stewed together to demarcate this style as original, but also to mean any type of stylistic diffusion, which of course must be retroactively mentioned. This is just stupid. It neglects all sense of consistency and encyclopedic tenor. Like I said, the article for pop music, which is something that has found time to incorporate just about EVERY other genre, doesn't include all of them in its stylistic origins, not even the ones it mentions in it's History section. Oh, well, though, if you're heart's consolidated around the issue that much, then please take the time to mess up all the other origins sections for other genres. I can't imagine how many obscure African rhythm genres have been incorporated into rock music. Oh...I won't spoil the rest. You'll find 'em and can tell everyone else about this....theory. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've trimmed the genres in the origins down to 6 (Blues, garage rock, rhythm and blues, punk rock, rockabilly, rock and roll), but I want to make it known that I still disagree with this assertion that there should only be a minimal number of genres listed. Why arbitrarily limit information that is properly referenced? We have enough difficulty getting editors to stick to genres that are referenced in the article, instead of just inserting their own POV into every music-related infobox. That was the point of the hidden message I placed and the criteria it set up for adding/removing genres from the infobox. That said, there were some that I was definitely willing to compromise on. For example hardcore punk, oi!, and street punk are all subgenres of punk rock, so trimming it down to just "punk rock" was pretty easy. A few of the others were subgenres of rock and roll or blues, so those were trimmable too. As for the 6 remaining: the references in the article clearly list punk rock, rockabilly, and garage rock as the most immediate precursors to psychobilly. It also describes how the Cramps, the progenitors of psychobilly, based their sound on blues, rhythm & blues, & rock & roll. Since these all formed the framework for psychobilly, I chose to leave them. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main gripe with it was that many of the terms overlapped or umbrella'd the others, as well as the fact that some of them weren't exactly prevalent amongst early psychobilly bands (things like speed metal or overt heavy metal influence), but were incorporated later on, and it wasn't sticking with the precedent set by other articles. Rather than a prismatic, exhaustive list of genres, we can state the core influences, rather than every dabbled-in or minorly incorporated techniques and sounds. And really, isn't that the definitive definition of stylistic origins? Oh, I must say that it is. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration/Influence for Psycho....

I hate to be a nit-picky prick.... but at least half of the bands listed (and audio sampled) do not fit the genre of Psychobilly "proper".

I mean Living End? C'mon..... not even close to Psycho. It even violates the "No politics-just rock" Law of psycho.

What ever happened to the Klingonz? The Frantic Flinstones?

This wiki reads like it was written by a 19 y/o hot topic kid that found out about psychobilly last week when he jacked one of his older sister's Tiger Army albums. I hate to sound like an elitist music snob, but one must ask onesself... "what would Fenech say?"

Seary6579 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand a little corrected... (been drinking, read more thoroughly), but still, the music samples to represent Psychobilly still kinda suck. Tere are far better examples... maybe when I sober up a bit I'll hook it up with some.

Seary6579 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole article from basically a stub. For the record, I'm a 27 year old who is actually writing his master's thesis on the impact of punk & alternative music. The problem with working on this article was a lack of secondary source material. I really wanted to improve it, but I only had 1 good magazine article to use a source. So I stuck to what the source said, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I'd love to have included some of the groups you mention, but I've never heard of them, much less found any sources from which to write encyclopedic content about them. As for the Living End, the article addresses their relationship to psychobilly. They share many of its musical characteristics and are a highly notable band with (loose) ties to the genre. For the music samples I stuck to acts/songs that were discussed in the article's prose. I feel they are good examples of some of the more notable psychobilly acts. Though you are welcome to suggest improvements, I'd ask you to be more civil and assume good faith both on my part and on the parts of others who've contributed to this article. Wikipedia is not a fan page for "true psychos" to gush about their favorite bands and rip on those they think suck. It is an encyclopedia, and we have to stick to notable subjects and reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1st and 2nd wave?

Not to be a grump, but there was a Euro scene at the time you call 'UK 1st wave' for instance Batmobile (1983, headlined numerous festivals including te KlubFoot), so the evolution written here is wrong and incomplete.--JJHammer (talk) 06:16, 09 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be your estimation, but the article sticks to what its sources say. I'm sure there were bands elsewhere in Europe, but the main source for the article is pretty clear on London being the epicenter of early psychobilly in Europe. It's not me calling the first wave British, it's the source. I've never heard of Batmobile, and they're not mentioned in any of the sources currently used in the article. If there were a source, then it would certainly be worth mentioning in the article. But at the moment there isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on London being the place where it all started back then. I was only stating that there was a big scene in Europe as well before the peiod that's called 2nd wave. And Batmobile was and still is one of the main bands in the scene, I just think the article isn't complete without them.--JJHammer (talk) 08:43, 09 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this website: http://www.wreckingpit.com or http://www.wreckingpit.com/psycho/bands/batmobile.php3 or you can check out this myspace site: http://www.myspace.com/batmobillly (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are good links, but unfortunately not appropriate for this article. Per WP:V and WP:RS, articles must rely primarily on third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The wrecking pit appears to be a fan page/forum and therefore not suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, either as source or an external link. The myspace, however, would be a appropriate in an external links section of a separate article about Batmobile themselves (see WP:EL for guidelines on external links). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that you are wrong about the Wreckingpit. This is the oldest database about psychobillybands (online since 1995) on the internet. It's just a classification of all bands that exist/have existed since the early 80's. So I think it can definately be seen as an informationsource. By the way the reluctance to name Batmobile in the article for me is an exemple of not wanting to do research on the subject. I'll give you a few links from which you may see the relevance of Batmobile; The Dutch Popinstitute: http://www.popinstituut.nl/act_pagina/batmobile.5178.html The dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batmobile_%28band%29 Batmobile at the KlubFoot (which you mention in your article): http://www.cherryred.co.uk/anagram/artists/batmobile.htm Some clips from the band, 1985 Musix Box: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF2sPEOzAmE 1986 @ The KlubFooot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqKtGhz2Z58&feature=related 1989: Dutch National TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59C7oHRpq8U 1991 Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv8ILbppvcs and more recently in Hollywood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyLPwt0xRMg&feature=related If you don't feel the need of doing a little more research, maybe you can listen to the advice of people who are into this scene for over 25 years? (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you to assume good faith on my part. My reverting your previous edits is not due to a "reluctance to name Batmobile in the article", it is merely a reluctance to include unreferenced/unverified information and sidebar-type commments in an otherwise fairly well-written and decently-sourced article. Per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to include the information. The onus is not on me go out and do background research on Batmobile just because you think they should be mentioned in the article. As I've said, the English Wikipedia does not even have an article on Batmobile. If you think there should be one, and you think they should be mentioned in this article, the onus is on you to do the research and writing. I am active in many other areas of Wikipedia as well as in real life (a full-time job and graduate school). As much as I would like to spend countless hours searching the internet for reliable information on bands I've never heard of, I am unable to do so. My answer to this is: why don't you do the research? You clearly have the ability and interest, as you've demonstrated by providing sources here. Whether you have been "into this scene for over 25 years" or are more of a newcomer to it, such as myself, is irrelevant; Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and therefore we all have the same opportunity to contribute constructively to articles. Besides which, insinuating that because I haven't been "into" psychobilly for as long as you have, that I can't write a decent article or make judgements on content that does/doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards is highly elitist and makes other editors not want to collaborate with you. I may not be a self-professed expert on psychobilly, but I'll wager that I likely have more experience working on Wikipedia and might actually know what I'm talking about when I explain the policies and guidelines for article content. Again, please assume good faith and try to remain civil; don't reprimand me for not offering to do research that you aren't willing to do yourself. That said, thank you for the links you've provided. I will go through them and do what I can to add content to the article based on the ones that appear to be good, reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. It's just that if you have been a part of something so long and someone decides to write about it (which is a good thing), you'd like to have the facts right. And reading the comments here, I was not the only one that felt that way. And instead of only complaining, I was just trying to contribute a bit to further improve the article by offering links and the knowledge of someone who was there at the time. (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your efforts to help make the article more complete. I got a little riled up by the last sentence of your previous comment, which seemed directed at me in a condescending and slightly elitist way. However I do appreciate your contributions and, like you, I want to see the article made more thorough. I'll have a look at those links and I'll also do some searching on my own to see what else I can dig up on Batmobile that might be good to include in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me the phrase. Good luck with the links. I just saw someone started an article on Batmobile (band). I'll get my butt overthere and give some (constructive) input —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHammer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It also might be interesting to say something about the KlubFoot recordings that were recently bought by Anagram/Cherry Red from Link Records and they are restoring the old material, with the first release just being a fact (Batmobile in 1986 at the KlubFoot); see link above(talk) 19:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you want to use reliable sources. However, I consider knowing bands such as Batmobile background knowledge. A quick look at their discography should be evidence enough for their important role in European psychobilly. Alsoit should be noted that Great Britain is part of Europe as well, so the geographical devisions applied in this article are misleading for readers that lack this information. I might add that a scientific research simply can't be based on one article or one interviewee only. As there is little "proper" material written on the subject, one has to rely on primary sources such as people who actually were there when it happened. Oral history can't be limited to Nick 13 who made his first visit to Europe not until the mid nineties and can't be considered an expert on early psychobilly. (Lohmax (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

It's not merely that I want to use reliable sources, it's that reliable third-party sources are required by Wikipedia for all article information, per our policies on verifiability and original research and our guidelines on reliable sources. Considering that there is no Wikipedia article on the band Batmobile, we can't assume that readers will get "evidence enough for their important role in European psychobilly" by looking at their discography. If you want to start an article about Batmobile, by all means go ahead if you have some good references to build the article around. Those references could also be used in this article to discuss their significance to the genre. But in the absence of any references mentioning them, I'm afraid we can't include them simply because we assume readers will understand their significance. The geographical divisions thing is how the primary source for the article describes it; I should also note as a historian that there are longstanding debates about how much Great Britain really is a part of Europe, geographically, politically & culturally. That's off-topic from this article, but the bottom line is that the major source for this article describes British psychobilly as being rather distinct, and as taking place somewhat before psychobilly really took off anywhere else in Europe. You'll also notice that the article only uses 3 brief 1-sentence quotes by Nick 13, and also quotes other figures like Lux Interior and Poison Ivy of the Cramps, Johnny Bower of the Guana Batz, and Kim Nekroman of the Nekromantix, so it is not based only on 1 interviewee. The reason the article relies so heavily on the 1 source (the Alternative Press article) is because that was the only good source I could find discussing the history of the genre. If you have other reliable third-party source material to add to the article, please do. But unsourced information should stay out per Wikipedia's article content policies. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The album Voice of America by The Quakes came out in 1990 not 1992- You can check the Quakes website www.thequakes.com or the Nervous records web site www.nervous.co.uk you have obviously referenced the article in Alternative Press(nov 2004) but it is incorrect. Please do not believe everything just because it is in print(or on wikipedia). I have to agree that Batmobile was unquestionably at the top of the scene in the 80's and I would suggest that you do some REAL research on psychobilly or just stick with punk rock articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do the research? Wikipedia is, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Just check out the policies and guidelines first, particularly these ones. Verifiability and no original research are probably the most pertinent here. As I say above, I'm sure that Batmobile are significant, but I can't find any sources that discuss them. Wikipedia's policies require that articles be based primarily on reliable secondary sources. This article may rely almost entirely on only 1 source, but it's certainly a reliable one and the only good third-party source that anyone's presented so far. If you can find more good secondary sources, then by all means use them to improve the article. You appear to be correct about the year Voice of America was released, but that's really a minor error and there's no need to be insulting about it. The point of providing a date was that another editor was repeatedly changing the mention of Voice of America to the band's first, self-titled album, since the way the sentence flowed made it seem like it was discussing their first album. But actually the source (the AP article) is specifically discussing Voice of America as the influential album, so I changed the sentence a bit to add the date and make this clear. Finally, don't insult other editors (me specifically) by telling them to "do some REAL research on psychobilly or just stick with punk rock articles"...anyone has the freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia, and is encouraged to do so as long as they act in good faith. Considering the major work I put in rewriting this article from this state into what it is now, sourcing it, and adding images and sound samples, I find it very insulting that you would say something like that. I did plenty of research, believe me (even searching my university library), I just couldn't find any other good sources discussing psychobilly. Insulting my contributions while calling yourself the "psychobilly police" isn't going to make you many friends here on Wikipedia, and is probably just going to encourage other editors (myself included) to hit that revert button on you. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...and because YOU cant find any articles in any punk magazines,Batmobile didnt exist..right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.214.71 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has presented any good sources for Batmobile, even in the Batmobile article itself. I looked, and couldn't find any. And not just online, but also through library and article database searches (I'm a graduate student, so I used the resources I had available). Please stop being condescending and try being civil; it makes people want to work with you instead of against you. I never said anything to the effect that Batmobile didn't exist, I simply said that to include some discussion of their significance in an encyclopedia article we need some outside sources (as required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) that discuss that significance. Since nobody's presented any reliable secondary sources, it's not appropriate to just slap mentions of Batmobile in the article simply for the sake of having their name dropped in their. Particularly when the rest of the article does stick to source material. If you know of any good sources that discuss Batmobile's significance to psychobilly, please post some links here and I and other interested editors will be happy to check them out. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thats just it- There Are and were no articles in music papers or books about psychobilly until maybe just recently- This is a total underground scene. A scene that you know very little about.Im not being condesending, its obvious. I stick with my statement that if its not in a book or a magazine then it didnt happen (according to you). Why not ask Nervous records how many records Batmobile has sold. Why not look on you tube and see their videos dating back to the mid 80's Why not check the psychobilly-online.com and wreckingpit.com web sites. Your only source seems to be what Nick 13 has said in Alternative press 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again with the Nick 13 tear-downs. The article quotes Nick 13 only 3 times for a total of 4 sentences. It also quotes Poison Ivy of the Cramps twice, and Johnny Bowler of the Guana Batz, Kim Nekroman of Nekromantix, the writer of the AP article, and the Epitaph/Hellcat publicist each once. I fail to see what the problem is with quoting several figures from various eras of the genre. You see the name Nick 13 in the article and immediately assume that whoever wrote it knows nothing about psychobilly, which is anything but true. I may not be the authority on psychobilly (which I've never claimed to be), but I'll wager I have much more knowledge about the workings of Wikipedia. In answer to your accusation that "if its not in a book or a magazine then it didnt happen (according to you)", my answer is that I've never claimed anything of the sort. What I have said, rather, is that Wikipedia cares whether information in its articles has been previously published by reliable sources, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I have never claimed that Batmobile doesn't exist. I know for a fact that they do. What I don't have are any sources to cite explaining their significance, particularly any third-party ones. This might work but it doesn't say anything about their significance and doesn't appear to be a reliable source (as it reads like a fan page). This doesn't help either, as messageboards aren't reliable sources. There are some interviews here that certainly would be helpful to the Batmobile article but aren't of much use to this one. Same thing with their myspace (it does mention their origin & date of formation...I think I will add that in). This might be helpful if it were in English or had a translation (for policy on non-English sources see WP:VUE). This isn't a source at all, but an advertisement. As for Youtube, the bottom line is that Youtube is almost never considered a reliable source and often isn't allowed to be used as a source because of copyvio (besides, what would it verify? "Batmobile made a music video for this song"...how does that explain their overall significance to psychobilly?). Yes, I would really really like a book, magazine article, or album review that talks about Batmobile and discusses their significance to psychobilly. That would be fantastic. It's not enough to simply say "Batmobile exists". For the context of this article, which is about the genre as a whole, we need to know why they are important. Who have they influenced? Why do they stand out? Which of their albums are considered essential to the genre? I haven't found any good sources that mention these things (and as you can see, it's not for lack of trying). I have added a couple of things from their Myspace profile, but this can't be relied on too much as it is a self-published source (see WP:RS). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It took me just a couple of minutes searching to find that there are a number of books that could be used as sources. Craig Brackenridge has written some [1] and there are other sources as well such as [2]. I'm sure there are plenty more sources that could be used if you searched harder. --JD554 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Those look like great sources. That's the kind of thing I was hoping to find by searching my university library, but they didn't have them. If I have the time I may order 1 or 2 of those books and do some more reading. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Hello JD554! Fancy finding YOU here- It seems you DO have some axe to grind... well what a surprise. Both of you fellas certainly know more about wikipedia than I do- In fact I know know very little and I dont have time to learn. What I am learning from both of you that something has to be in a book or a magazine in order to have happened regardless of who wrote the book or article. Who will check THEIR accuracy? Obviously you didnt check the accuracy of the AP article- you just ran with it. Why dont you guys turn off your computer and go outside? PsychobillyPolice

No personal attacks, please. And why should we doubt the accuracy of things published in reliable sources? No one's challenged the accuracy of anything in the AP article, you're merely upset that there were some bands it didn't mention. There's a difference between being inaccurate and being concise or selective. We have no reason to doubt the source, just as I'd have little reason to doubt the accuracy of any of these books JD544 has brought to our attention. In fact, now that I know they exist, I'm interested in reading them and possibly using them to add more info to this article. After all, that's how you write an encyclopedia. Accordinng to you we should disbelieve information that comes from an informative article in a nationally-published music magazine with multiple firsthand interviews, and information from published books, whereas we should readily accept information that comes from fan sites of dubious value, message boards, and people like yourself who say "I'm a bigger psychobilly fan than you are so you must listen to me because I'm right and you're wrong". And again, we're not arguing about whether things happened or not (no one has said that bands like Batmobile didn't exist), we're arguing about how we should discuss their significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok sir- How do YOU know that "Voice of America" was an influential album by The Quakes? Because it said so in the AP article? And who wrote that article? Couldnt it be said that this is an opinion? Was it influential? I know that YOU dont know...you are taking APS word for it. Did Nick 13 say it was influential? To him or to the whole scene? Dont you see that your whole article is full of opinions and not facts? Stick to punk rock Please! PsychobillyPolice- Now please report me or delete me or anything you can do to silence me because I have challenged you...right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that Voice of America was influential because a reliable source discussing the album says so. With respect, I'll trust the analysis of a professional writer and music critic writing for a nationally-published alternative music magazine over somebody who calls themselves the "psychobilly police" and does nothing but start arguments. Welcome to the world of research writing, where we trust in reliable sources rather than inflammatory fans. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"I am a music elitist nerd" You said it! bye for now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No Punkabilly?

So I saw that the punkabilly article had been taken away and was basically replaced with... nothing. I have to *strongly* disagree with that. I think there needs to be at least something, if not its own article, then at least a paragraph or a section detailing the difference between bands that would qualify as punkabilly such as Rev. Horton Heat, Three Bad Jacks, and Amazing Royal Crowns, and more horror-influenced bands like the Nekromantix and Demented Are Go. Inquisitorgeneralis (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "taken away" & "replaced with nothing". It was merged into this article (as was the Gothabilly article). There were quite a few suggestions/requests on the Punkabilly talk page for this, and general consensus was that a merge was appropriate. The main issue was that both the Punkabilly and Gothabilly articles had no sources at all and were almost not even articles, but rather lists of red links to bands with no Wikipedia articles. There wasn't a single reference in either (see [3] and [4]), and they both described their genres as "rockabilly + punk rock", which is what psychobilly is. If the only distinction is the lyrics and/or amount of horror influence, that doesn't really distinguish a separate genre. Reverend Horton Heat, the Living End, and others are discussed a bit in this article, but there aren't any sources to verify the information. If you can come up with some sources (most importantly third-party ones), then by all means go ahead and add them to the article. In the absence of sources, though, we really shouldn't just arbitrarily create new sections that would qualify as original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you need third party sources, that's fair. What about the Urban Dictionary? It defines the word "punkabilly" [5] and the word "gothabilly" [6]. Also, there is an interview with a band called The Limit Club where they describe the difference between gothabilly and psychobilly [7]. So there you have it. There are your third party sources. My point is that these words are out there, they have meaning, and I didn't make them up. So it's worth discussing them and putting them in the article in some way. Also, if you look at the Urban Dictionary articles, you'll notice that people vote on the term and *several* people have agreed with the top terms for both words. Inquisitorgeneralis (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquisitorgeneralis (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)