Jump to content

Talk:Punk rock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.34.227.166 (talk) at 12:52, 2 March 2008 (→‎off the back of the mod scene). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articlePunk rock is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 21, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
December 4, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
January 18, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:Releaseversion Template:Omnimusica-comprehensive

Archives


Germany

The earliest German punk I remember was PVC from Berlin. Abwärts from Hamburg were punk and experimental, laying groundwork for Einstürzende Neubauten. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either or both would be great. Just needs to be sourced appropriately--clearly shouldn't be a problem for Abwärts.--DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Finland

There was an anonymous contribution today about Finland that got reverted for being uncited but is, to my knowledge, factually correct.

Punk in Finland Briard 1977, Pelle Miljoona, Eppu Normaali and Maukka Perusjätkä in 1979-1980. Most famous Finnish Most popular Hardcore punk bands from finland were Terveet Kädet, Kaaos, Riistetyt, Bastards, Rattus and Appendix. 90's punk bands Ne Luumäet and Klamydia and Apulanta.

Finland was an early adopter and has always been an enthusiastic supporter of punk rock. Terveet Kädet particularly influenced hardcore worldwide. Riistetyt represented Scandinavia played at the Olympic Auditorium international hardcore show during the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is a category Category:Scandinavian hardcore punk groups. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly reintroduce some of these bands to the article--a couple of the formative bands in the Second wave/Rest of the world subsection and Terveet Kädet and perhaps Riistetyt in the hardcore subsection. We just need to identify appropriate sourcing.—DCGeist (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey im kayla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.126.188 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist arguments false and weak

Once again, an attempt has been made to delete the well-established image of the Ramones' ground-breaking debut album.

Once again, the false claim has been made that "no source...specifically discusses the cover." In fact, as has been pointed out before, two sources cited in the section specifically discuss the cover: Bessman (1993) and Miles, Scott, and Morgan (2005).

Once again, the false claim has been made that there is "no justification" for illustrating the album. In fact, as has been pointed out before, the album has been described as "set[ting] the blueprint for punk" (Erlewine, AMG) and as a "cultural watershed" (Isler and Robbins, Trouser Press)--and those are just the two sources quoted in the article. There are hundreds of similar judgments about the album and its significance to punk rock available.

Once again, it is falsely suggested that our image policy demands that the visual content of a fair-use image be specifically discussed in order to justify its inclusion (though, of course, in this case the visual content is); in fact, our policy demands that the item be of verifiable significance to the article topic and the subject of well-sourced critical commentary.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot stay, as it is replaceable and replaced by free content. The lack of discussion of the image in reliable sources clearly shows that seeing the cover is not essential to understanding the subject. We can certainly use text to state the album's cultural importance, citing the sources you stated, the image does not add to that discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanna interject with a simple note - I couldn't care less about the use of the image in this case - my edits related only to the picture caption (scroll down), which in its original form was vastly misleading. Thanks. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To DCGeist, above) I note you stated that your rationale was proper. However, you state only that the album cover illustrates "The Ramones" in the nonfree image rationale (aside from the standard no-commercial-harm etc.). I can understand you'd want to have the Ramones illustrated, they are an icon. I was able to find a free image of them performing (actually a couple) in the Ramones article. I hope that this can satisfy both of us—we can illustrate the band without needless use of nonfree content? (There are other free images if you don't like that one.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, first, I no longer know how to interpret your comments. Once again, the image of the Ramones' debut album cover is discussed in multiple reliable sources, which are cited in the section and which form the source of commentary within the section. This has been stated to you multiple times. The sources are clearly cited within the article and have been named for your personal benefit above. Here is the relevant article text: "The classic punk rock look among male U.S. musicians harkens back to the T-shirt, motorcycle jacket, and jeans ensemble favored by American greasers of the 1950s associated with the rockabilly scene and by British rockers of the 1960s. The cover of the Ramones 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by Punk photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk." And once again, here are the cited sources: Bessman (1993) and Miles, Scott, and Morgan (2005).
As for your proposed substitution, the image is not of encyclopedic quality. The point of including an image of the Ramones is to (a) illustrate one of the most important and influential bands of punk rock and (b) to show the specifically influential look that they established (in significant part with the cover of their debut album, as the sources describe) and that is the topic of critical commentary in the section. The free image you have provided is unfortunately too dark and dense to be of illustrative value. If you have identified any free images of illustrative value, why not post them here on the Talk page and we can consider them—DCGeist (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a free image need not be very good to replace a nonfree. It need only be on-topic and free. We don't use nonfree where free is available, even if quality is better. There is another free image in the Ramones article, perhaps you'd like that one better? There may also be more on Commons, I could have a look if you'd prefer a different one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To continue from above) There are actually a good number of them, now that I look.[1] Any preferences? I kind of like the full band one myself, but you seemed to think it was too dark. I could certainly see about lightening it up some. There are some clearer face shots as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the cited source, a single sentence about the cover is not significant commentary, certainly not enough to justify inclusion in the face of free replacements being available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're voicing your personal opinion as if it is policy. It is not. The item in question (the Ramones' debut album) is significant, as many reliable sources indicate. The visual content of its cover is significant, as multiple reliable sources indicate. No free image is available that will represent the significant item and/or its significant cover. The fair use image is thus not "replaceable." That's our policy. You clearly have a problem with our policy, so try to get it changed.
Your comments about "cited source" and "single sentence" are very revealing. Seraphimblade, how many times do you need to be told? There are cited sources on the importance of the image.
Again, I'm happy to participate in considering the inclusion of any free images that are of encyclopedic quality and have illustrative value. I "like" the live band shot as a photo too, but it has virtually no illustrative value in the context of this article. I am afraid that the "face shots" you are suggesting will also fall well short in the illustrative value department for different reasons, but by all means, let's take a look at them.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It illustrates the Ramones. We're discussing the Ramones. (In fact, it's from near the exact same time period.) How could that fail to have such value? The sources are discussing, mainly, the appearance of the band, and the shot of the band certainly serves to illustrate that. I could see if some better gamma correction could be done to it, but it certainly serves to illustrate what the sources above are discussing. (Mentioning the album cover in passing is not coverage of it, it's a name-drop. Unless a source covered the image, went into depth about it, rather than just mentioning it, we're not talking about significant commentary.) Regarding policy, while you may have been right a year ago, see the policy on replaceability from our own policy: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" In this case, free image plus text can convey information regarding the iconic look. The nonfree image is replaceable. As to the basis for this, the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution mandates it, see requirement #3: "Such EDPs must be minimal....Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Now we've got free content to replace the nonfree, so the nonfree must go. The policy was changed the moment WMF made that resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, you include a very revealing parenthetical in your comment: "(Mentioning the album cover in passing is not coverage of it, it's a name-drop. Unless a source covered the image, went into depth about it, rather than just mentioning it, we're not talking about significant commentary.)" You imply that is not the case here. But you have clearly not taken the least effort to actually familiarize yourself with the cited sources. Bessman, for instance, mentions the cover photograph at two entirely different junctures in his book. The primary discussion of it runs to over six paragraphs.

When addressing matters of "significance," when identifying what constitutes "the same encyclopedic purpose," it really is vital to be familiar with the subject matter under discussion and the relevant literature. Yes, we are all aware (I hope) of the shift in general philosophy on the use of free and nonfree images; but the specific appropriate application of that philosophy often requires a certain knowledge of a topic or the willingness to spend the time and effort learning about it.—DCGeist (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had that source available, unfortunately I do not. What you cited earlier was a sentence regarding the cover. I wouldn't expect a few paragraphs on the image to change anything significantly, but I'll see if I can locate the source or at least that part of it then. The fact remains, if the image were being discussed in context of the "punk rock look", or an example of it, we could use any picture which illustrates the "punk rock look" to replace it. Let me see if I can locate that source, and hopefully a satisfactory image can be found. In the meantime, however, the image is still replaceable by free content, and still must go. That's not my choice to make, nor yours. WMF has mandated that this be done without exception when the image is replaceable, and especially when it is indeed replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, it would help if you would not only educate yourself on the topic, but actually read the article you want to take a whack at. What I "cited earlier" was the text of this very Wikipedia article under discussion.
You have still made no case that the image is replaceable. It illustrates a very significant item, whose significance is confirmed by multiple sources. Do you have a free image that illustrates this very significant item? In addition, the visual content of the image itself has specific historical significance, as confirmed by multiple sources. It is thus per se nonreplaceable. No free image you might come up with will have the same historical significance (i.e., serve "the same encyclopedic purpose"). I will be interested to see if you come up with anything that has verifiable historical significance at all.—DCGeist (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are using the wrong standard. A free image need not be as good as a nonfree one, not as nice, not any such. It need be adequate, and that is all. A free image with text is adequate to illustrate the point. Maybe not as pretty, maybe not as nice, but none of those are relevant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, maybe a third voice will help to break this deadlock. The Ramones are a seminal group; nobody doubts that. And their look and style set the tone for decades. And - this part breaks my heart - Wikipedia's fair use standards are too strict to have their album cover here. Or any other copyrighted album cover. Gnash your teeth along with me. Fair use only applies to the article about that album. Not the band, not the artists, and not the genre. Yeah, it sucks. That's standard site practice. And I wish a lot of fair use images could be used more widely. Gotta be consistent, though. Dangit. DurovaCharge! 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tend to believe that FU allows the use of the album images here. They are relevant to punk rock and its development. If the album is discussed and referenced. Use of the image should be allowed. --evrik (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're actually correct—insofar as your analysis goes. United States fair use law would pretty unambiguously allow us to use the image, and it's relevant to punk rock. So, yes, it's fair use, and it's relevant. What prohibits its use is the nonfree content policy, and the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution upon which that policy is based, both of which require that nonfree images be removed if a free image can be found or created to serve the purpose. In this case, we have plenty of free illustrations of the Ramones. They need not be as good, only adequate. And they are. Therefore, we must get rid of the nonfree image and replace it with a free one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I agree: replace the album cover with a free image. The Ramones played small venues for over 20 years so there shouldn't be a problem getting material shot near the stage. Thank you for the correction; I've seen closer interpretations of fair use than what you argue here. DurovaCharge! 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Seraphimbalde has rather baldly misrepresented the case here. (Misrepresented it in good faith, to be sure!) The image is not there simply to represent the Ramones, which, of course, other images could satisfactorily do. It is there, per policy, (a) to illustrate their debut album, widely regarded as one of the most important and influential recordings in punk rock history, often as the most important and influential such recording, as attested to by our cited sources and many others, and (b) for the specific image itself which is of particular historic significance, as discussed in the article and as attested to by our cited sources. If the image was there solely to provide "an" image of the Ramones, it would certainly be replaceable by a free image. But it serves an encyclopedic purpose that goes well beyond that, a purpose that cannot be approached by a free image.—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about an article content request for comments and open this for broader input? (It's late and I wanna be sedated.) ;) DurovaCharge! 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection there. To DCGeist, why can we not represent the album's importance using text? I'm certainly not disputing its significance, nor the fact that such is sourceable, as clearly both are true. What I do dispute is that this point cannot be adequately illustrated using text with a free image, describing the album's significance while depicting the band in that time frame. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa & MI and Captain Beefheart

The article completely missed Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, and Captain Beefheart. Freak Out! (1966), Absolutely Free (1967), and Safe as Milk (1967) are such influential "protopunk" albums. They were protopunk 2-3 years before the MC5 album Kick Out the Jams. I think that they must be included in the Protopunk section or somewhere else in the article. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we have an entire article on protopunk. Given the length of the present article, I think we really have to reserve discussion of those predecessors (and the several others that also might be mentioned) for that more specific article. The fact is, Zappa and Beefheart are simply not considered in the literature (which includes the testament of the early punk musicians) as nearly influential as were the MC5 and the Stooges (or, for that matter, the Kinks and the Who).—DCGeist (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats happened to this page?

I'm sure when I read it a few months back it was for informative. Has someone sabotaged it?

Why does it not emphasize more on the start of the punk rock being the three cord punk groups influenced by the Kinks song "You really got me going" as this is what the music critics first referred to as "Punk Rock". Its not right to change history just because some people caught onto the scene years later and want to hold onto their little piece of history as the legit thing. The word Punk means "Amateur" or "worthless" from the original old meaning of the word being 'Rotten wood used as tinder'. The original punk bands were inexperience amateur bands just making songs out of a few cords. This developed the later publicized scene that McLaren learned from New York and took to the world.

Just because of some pro-Sex Pistol image lead Brits who loved their era so much they won't accept anything else as being Punk, we should still accept the original invented use of the word “Punk Rock” and not change try changing history by inventing the term “Garage Rock”. McLaren stolen image and music style became a major visual aspect of punk, but this is not what Punk Rock is. Punk Rock is a far bigger movement first influenced by the Kinks. The origin punk image grew from the Mod scene only with a rebellious nature influenced by the mood of youth growing in that era that turned it into uniqueness or being original with what you had.

Also what about "Positive-Punk" and the popier "Dark-Wave" which is a large branch of the punk rock image (better known as "Goth") surely this should get more credit as much of punk movement went this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Felice

A proposed deletion template has been added (not by me) to the article John Felice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated ...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punk_rock&oldid=195313338"