Talk:Hinder

updated after defacing, somebody want to check for correct info? -david Palmer

Help

Off jayski.com

Hinder Remakes Rock Classic "Born To Be Wild" for TNT’s 2007 NASCAR Coverage: Turner Network Television announced that they have teamed with multi-platinum rockers Hinder to remake Steppenwolf’s classic hit single “Born to be Wild” as the network’s beat-driven anthem to promote its 2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series coverage. The song will serve as the primary musical bed for all six of TNT’s races, as well as for the network’s multiplatform marketing campaign surrounding its exclusive race coverage. To accompany Hinder’s cover of the rock-and-roll classic, the network is also producing a full-length music video of the song for the band that will debut exclusively on NASCAR.COM on June 6.(TNT PR)(5-2-2007)

How am i supposed to add that onto the bands wikipedia site? it wont let me.

Pop Metal?

Pop Metal is Glam, so I believe Pop Metal should be changed to Glam... Even if they don't have the look.

• They aren't Hair Metal either. Heck, post-grunge is a style, not a genre. On top of that, any rock from the 90s is considered "grunge" so if it was made after the 90s, its "Post Grunge." Its all ridiculous. DJKingpin 04:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Hunh. You'd've thought Firehouse, Trixter, and Nelson were Hair Metal, not grunge. lol

Look not all music is post grunge, Metal is gonna make a comeback I assure you. Not all rock was Grunge in the 90s. It was popular but doesnt mean everyone was on its awful bandwagon.

What are Hinder? people Post Grunge or Heavy Metal, cause I am fed up of seeing pseudo punk untalented school kids controlling music.

Hinder is a Modern Pop Metal/Post Grunge band. The get mis-classified, but how can you not hear any GNR or AC/DC in the band. If they're post-grunge, start calling GNR post-grunge. I think Post-Grunge is a dead genre. All the Post-Grunge bands of today are considered Metal anyways, Staind, Hidner, Stone Sour, Nickelback, etc. HINDER IS POP METAL! They are no different from Buckcherry, which is a Pop Metal band. Also, the guy who said not all rock in the 1990's was grunge is right. AiC and Soundgarden are considered Heavy Metal and I think that the same goes for Hinder, if you consider Hair Metal to be Metal.

-Hinder, Staind, Stone Sour, and Nickelback have never and will never be considered any kind of metal. Metal requires technicality that none of these bands even remotely posess. At best they could be considered Alternative Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.225.131 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an ignorant statement, Buckcherry is far from "Pop-Metal" They don't even sound remotely the same as Hinder or Nickelback...

Alice in Chains and Soundgarden are pretty much the epitomy of grunge. Whoever said they are heavy metal and not grunge doesn't know what they are talking about. --BennyD 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Staind, Stone Sour, Nickelback, etc. considered "metal"? On what planet? AiC and Soundgarden were not "metal" either. Not even close. Those statements are completely ignorant, and any article on a site that's meant to be factual should not call Hinder a "metal" band. Not "Pop metal" either, because there's no such thing. Hinder sounds exactly like every alternative rock band of the early-to-mid 90's, so they should be called alternative 128.237.250.77 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the guy who said not all bands in the 90s were grunge & its true. But the media fed grungers seem to have a problem with glam metal. Buckcherry are more of a 70's hard rock band with some glam metal in them. So they are not post grunge. The guy is right AIC & Soundgarden are very much Heavy Metal bands. Plus all the alt-metal bands post 98 have included metal in there sound as well as punk & grunge. Right now thankfully most bands are becoming metal in the main!

• Imagine for moment that it's Axl Rose singing the song, and it's not hard to hear a strong GNR influence there, with 00's Nickelback sound production, complete with cliched chord progressions a la Firehouse. The band would have been multi-millionaires had it been released in 1991. They still might end up that way, but it'll take them two years rather than two weeks to rake in the bling. Daskunt 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to remember that Wikipedia is not a message board. This is not the area to discuss if Hinder "rawx/suxxx" Doc Strange 12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At least I see someone has a bit of a mind here. For the people who grew up in the 90's and after, I could understand why they would have a hard time seeing Hinder as a rock band. You don't really have a lot to compare it to. To really see it, you have to do as mentioned above, pull out the Guns & Roses, the Whitesnake, Van Halen, Queensryche and the like. If the only example of rock you have to compare them to is Nirvana and the rest of the Grunge bandwagon, you have a very misconstrued view of what rock really is.

i think you have a misconstrued view of what rock is. besides van halen and gnr the above bands are joke rock bands. they all played into the same stupid "party Time" rock and roll. listen to zeppelin, flolyd, sabbath, cream etc that is rock. not crappy hair metal bands who can't not fail to write a song from the perspective of a penis.

the only reason media thinks that grunge hates glam is cuz of nirvana. nirvana spread interest away from glam, and onto grunge. and hair metal isn't all that bad, sure it may sound really repetitive, but there are still good hair metal bands out there, like twisted sister. also, hinder is not metal in any way. guys, please, get real. it's already getting on my nerves just to call them "hard rock", since they're not even quite as heavy as nickelback (who isn't heavy at all). Itachi1452 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC) tehyre alternative rock and post grunge im cahnging so dont fucking revert it geez. and how are they hard rock theres nothing hard about them. Zakkman (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But notice that 99% of your edits are reverted because 99% of the time you are 100% wrong. So, as always, best to lean on the side of caution and keep your track record intact. Try this. Before you hit the 'edit this page' button think to yourself... "I will not edit based on my personal opinion", "I will not edit based on my personal opinion", "I will not edit based on my personal opinion", "I will not edit based on my personal opinion", "I will not edit based on my personal opinion". Repeat that over and over and then maybe... someday... you will make an edit that won't get reverted... like todays. Libs (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF??

um...where the hell is the page??????

Mention feud with OK Go? 70.145.154.52 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many errors

This article is littered with errors about Hinder. Not opinion based error but fact based.

I second that, "Lips of an Angel" peaked at #3 on the Billboard Hot 100, not #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.243.96 (talk) 00:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Biased much?

Maybe I'm wrong but... "The band's second single, "Lips of an Angel", became a smash hit as the song made its way up the charts and the band received nationwide attention."

Is smash hit a technical term? If so how is a "smash hit" defined? This article definitely needs some editing from someone who has never heard of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.102.159.206 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

It is leading the iTunes charts. Thats a pretty good indicator. I actually changed "nationwide" to "international" in that sentence, which I felt as being more appropriate as they are also acheiving significant success on the Australian charts. AussieNickuss 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Style

The article reads like a fanzine not an encyclopedia. -- Beardo 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why two of the same article?

Am I the only person who's noticed the article was duplicated on the same page? Tried to delete the second one but was told i was blanking pages anmd committing vandalism. Little help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.211.253.57 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I am watching it intently. Someone keeps adding the bottom part back on, so I am going to keep deleting it until they go away. DJKingpin 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of the same article, and fake site

I noticed the double article problem, I've been cleaning that up as well. But also, on the links, someone keeps putting www.ilovelipsofanangel.com as a source.

Dead?

A few days ago, I read on this page that the lead singer of Hinder died late December/January ((I forget what I read)) of alcohol poisoning. Now I can't find it. Was the "he's dead" thing a lie, or was it real?

I heard he died of an OD Wikizilla ^{(Signme!)Talk} 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Austin didn't die, all you have to do is go look at any news page on the web. I constantly keep watch on this page to delete things like that when they come up. DJKingpin 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Austin got a DUI in december 07 after leaving his engagement party. he was driving his then fiance's mother's car because she was too drunk to drive and he was stopped because he didn't have the headlights on because he didn't know how to turn them on, and was arrested when the officer smelled alcohol. However no further action resulted from the arrest... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.26.39 (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are vs. Is

The band name "Hinder" is a collective term, therefore when using the name of the band in a descriptive manner, it should be said that "Hinder are a..." etc, rather than "Hinder is a..." etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.3.79 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Can this be locked?

Every time I check Hinder's page, there is at least one comment about them being gay. Something probably should be done about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merzie250 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC). yeah people should stop deleting those

Jack Ingham's Next Album

Does this information need to be on the Hinder page?

"whose next album is tentatively titled This is It?(the fans will surely think the same thing" Has nothing to do with Hinder.

Narmowen 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hinder is currently on tour with Burden Brothers and Black Stone Cherry and is currently being reamed by any who is willing. The band played three dates with the mega suck band Aerosmith in December 2006.[1] Hinder jumped on to the rock scene with their debut single "take it in the ass".

Narmowen 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Videography

Note that the Videography has been merged here from Hinder discography as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinder discography. See that history for GFDL attribution purposes. DES ^(talk) 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Locking the Page

After many bouts of vandalism, is there anyway to lock the page? Narmowen 07:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Years active vs. Year formed

the first paragraph says they were formed in 2001, but the years active says 2005. WTF? Jt_200075 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jt 200075 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC) They formed in 2001 but have been signed to a label since late 2004/early 2005 and released their first cd in September 2005.. Thats why it says they've been active since 2005..because thats when their first cd was released and they really became known.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.26.39 (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

CD+DVD Deluxe Edition

Has anyone else picked up on the track, Running In The Rain, noted in the Deluxe Edition booklet, leading to it being the Get Stoned (Piano Version). Also that on the Get Stoned single it has a different person doing the drumming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.35.79 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

their was an article a while back like during the bad boys of rock tour that said cody didn't record Extreme Behavior, didn't say why, just said they had someone else doing it, and the band has never talked about/revealed it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.26.39 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hinder homecoming queen.jpg

Image:Hinder homecoming queen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lipsofanangel.jpg

Image:Lipsofanangel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard rock

I reverted the addition of the genre "hard rock" from the infobox for three reasons:-

1) Hard Rock Hideout is not recognised as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In fact, it's closer to a blog/fansite, than to a credible third-party music information website.

2) Even on that article above, at no point during the whole page does it label Hinder as "hard rock"; it only refers o them as "bad boy rockers", which isn't a genre. This is a moot point anyway, as it's an unreliable source.

3) Post-grunge is already listed as a genre. And post-grunge is a specific style of hard rock. Isn't it a bit redundant to have a specific style within a broad genre listed, as well as that broad genre? It doesn't make sense to list both the specific and broad style. If we have the specific, then we don't need the broad.

121.222.163.191 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it refers to Hinder as a "rock 'n' roll" band, so at the very least this genre could be added.

Secondly, the source actually says the band is NOT post-grunge, not that I'm trying to argue against that because there are enough sources where it would be pointless to do so. The source is not calling the band post-grunge at all.

Post-grunge is also a sub-genre of rock, not hard rock. Hard rock is not a metagenre, so while post-grunge is a heavy type of rock, it does not fall under hard rock. That would be like saying that because post-grunge has heavy metal influence it is a heavy metal genre.

There is no reason why that site wouldn't be accepted as a reliable source. It isn't available for the public to edit, it's professionally written and isn't just a fan review, since plenty of other reviews are available on the site. It is a site dedicated to reviewing albums.

Just to satisfy you though, so there are no possible doubts and since you're clearly not convinced, here is a source referring to them as "Oklahoma hard-rock quintet Hinder".

Washington Post review of Take It To The Limit

Since that source is reliable and there are no sources for pop metal, I will add hard rock to the infobox and if citations are not provided within a week, I propose we remove pop metal. James25402 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-grunge is a sub-genre of both rock and hard rock, actually; that is to say "rock > hard rock> post-grunge", but whatever, that's a debate for another time and place :)

Yeah that new source is pretty good, I'd be happy with that. On the subject of "pop-metal", perhaps we should just remove it now? The only reason I re-added it that one time is because a while ago there was an edit war happening over "post-grunge" and "hair/pop metal", and it only stopped when both were left in the infobox. I just restored the "status quo", but since we have two reliable sources confirming both "hard rock" and "post-grunge", I think we can safely remove "pop metal". Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.163.191 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think we should have pop metal in the infobox because although I have seen some articles mention the band's influence from this genre, I haven't seen the band actually labelled pop metal anywhere. If anybody disagrees and has citations, by all means provide them and we will add it again. James25402 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hinder is't post grunge. they are alternative rock and hard rock. which is why people get confused. and the singers voice doesn't help.--Greenday21 (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Greenday21

Hinder are post-grunge. The inclusion of "hard rock" is dubious at best, but the consensus was to keep it. As for "post-grunge", there are enough news articles, bios, and music websites that confirm they are post-grunge - essentially, to be post-grunge, you need to be derivative of grunge music, and Hinder clearly are derivative. apart from this, there is absolutely nothing "alternative" about Hinder; the claim is ludicrous.

I think the only reason you object to post-grunge, is because you're another one of those immature people who see terms such as "post-grunge", "nu-metal", "emo", "pop rock", etc as derogatory, and you don't want one of your favourite bands associated with the term. Please grow up. Genres are merely a categorical label based on the style of music a band plays, and they say nothing about the actual quality of the music itself. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

my favorite band is somewhat pop punk (Green Day) and my second favorite band is Linkin Park (Nu Metal). So Yeah. NO. I dont believe hinder is post grunge. besides, i also really like NIckelback, and they are post grunge. You need a new argument.--Greenday21 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Greenday21

Actually, I don't "need a new argument". You, however, need an argument, as your own silly original research contradicts the thousands of professional critics, reviewers, and industry insiders who all agree Hinder are post-grunge. Do a bit of research on the subject, and you might understand why this is an appropriate label for them. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Green Day aren't "somewhat" pop punk; they are pop punk in every sense of the word. Don't kid yourself, they're not a real punk band. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

all right....sorry....do i detect a bit of animosity in these replies? i start a discussion, the first person replies correctly, (other than calling my statement ludicrous, which was...unnecessary..) the second implies im immature, and the third disses my favorite band. i thought wikipedia was a place where you can discuss certain topics and reach a fair conclusion, not be completly shot down. so....thanks....

Stance on Violence/abuse

i'm not putting this on the main article because i can't remember the name of the website the interview is on. however, about 2wks ago i read an interview they did where they were asked a question about Domestic Violence as well as Rape, the interviewer i believe asked them: Recently one of your favorite bands Savin Abel has been dealing with rumors and allegations of Rape. How do you guys feel about issues such as Rape and Domestic Violence? and does it ever worry you when "hooking up" with female fans that you yourselves could be acused of this? to which they replied: We don't worry about it because we make sure any of the chicks on our bus are over 18... On top of that, we know the meaning of the word NO and don't force the ladies to do anything they don't want to do...A man who beats his girl or Rapes a woman is not a man at all...he is a coward....thats just not something we would ever want to be a part of...ya know... (the response was made by all of the members...they each added little parts to it...) Cody then spoke up and said: We may like to party and have a good time, but I think we were all raised right, and have good heads on our shoulders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.197.186 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Feud with Saving Abel

This section is pointless. It has no notariety and only exists thanks to obscure interviews and some YouTube videos. This page needs to be cleaned up as it is, so adding things like this is just making it look worse. DJKingpin (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)