Talk:List of Christian hardcore bands/Archive 1

You've managed to do it again

Invisiboy, you've created an article and included bands that you know nothing about. You look for words and phrases that make bands seem as though they're hardcore bands and then you conclude that they are. Many bands on this list are not hardcore in any reasonable sense of the word. I can only come to two conclusions: you have a POV to push or you're wilfully ignorant. For instance, the 77s, a new wave and alt-soft rock band are not in any way hardcore. Just because Skillet has screaming in some of their songs does not make them hardcore. Family Force 5 are a dance band who use distortion on their vocals, but that doesn't make them hardcore. dcTalk are a rap/pop band. Kutless are a hard rock band. Disciple are a metal band. This list is a complete joke.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down. You are clearly bringing way more passion to this than necessary. "This whole page is an ignorant lie"? "I find your ignorance disgusting"? No matter how much you disagree with it, it's a list of bands, not a holocaust denial.

• The fact that a "hardcore band" (define that however you want) may play other genres besides hardcore doesn't keep them from being "hardcore". Most musicians, being mostly human beings with free will, are capable of playing music that fits more than one genre.

• Most importantly (and I'm quite sure you know this), neither your opinion nor mine of a band's music has anything to do with whether they get on this list. Being that this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite, all entries require a reference from a reliable source (WP:RS) describing their music as some form of hardcore. All of the entries on this list were sourced long before I moved it to the mainspace. I admit the reliability and/or specificity of some of them may be a bit questionable, and you're welcome to start that discussion with some examples. However, you won't get your way by making bald claims that so-and-so "is not hardcore, they're some other genre" without a single source to back it up.

• To respond to your examples based on sources that are already on the list:

• The 77s' Drowning with Land in Sight album is described by AllMusic as being "submerged in...warmed-over grunge" (grunge, according to the FA status article, combines elements of hardcore and metal).
• Skillet also played grunge early in their career (per JFH, Cross Rhythms, and Christianity Today), hence their appearance on this list.
• Family Force 5 was described in an AbsolutePunk review as including "post-hardcore" in their "mix".
• Per Cross Rhythms (most clearly stated, although JFH and AllMusic have made statements to the same effect), DC Talk started as pop rap before incorporating grunge into their sound beginning with the "Jesus Freak" album and single.
• Kutless have multiple sources describing either them or their first album as grunge, as discussed on the punk list's talk page. Also, "hard rock" rules out hardcore? Underoath and Blindside must be soft rock then.
• Disciple is yet another used-to-be-grunge, and again, metal excludes hardcore? Looks like Advent and A Plea For Purging have to come off, then.

Again, if you have an issue with how the sources are used, feel free to list some examples so we can actually get something done. However, if you're just going to fill the talk page and edit summary with whining about how this list is an insult to hardcore, you might be more satisfied focusing your attentions elsewhere and letting editors with more professional distance help with this page.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

While dcTalk incorporate grunge as a sound for a single song on their Jesus Freaks album, that does not make them a grunge band. And as stated elsewhere, not all grunge is hardcore punk. Just because it informed the genre at one point, doesn't mean that it is that genre. If that were the case, all modern rock and pop is rock-a-billy. They used lounge music as an influence more often. Does that make them a lounge band? They used a reggae/soca feel on another. Now they're a calypso band. I'm sorry. I don't believe that any more than you do.

I'll use an example that may go over your head. The romantic music period of classical music started with composers after Beethoven and went until the early part of the 20th century. The late composers in this period have definite influences of jazz, some even composed ragtime music. Claude Debussy, Erik Satie, Aaron Copland, and George Gershwin are all composers of classical music. While Debussy and Gershwin wrote some jazz music, the other two were just influenced by it. Only Gershwin is considered a jazz composer and a classical composer though. Why? The bulk of Debussy's music was clearly classical and so his brief forays into ragtime do not place him in that school of music. Satie and Copland just mad music influenced by jazz. Their music was still romantic.

How does that apply here? DcTalk, if they're truly a grunge band, which I don't think they were or are, created their own fusion: grunge rap as the song in question mixed the two genres. It was one song on one album. However, they were a rap band with pop overtones and their form of grunge was certainly a sanitized version of it. I have references to that effect. Similarly, The 77s experimented with the sound. That could explain their Fun with Sound album. Doing so in no way makes them a band of a specific genre.

Similarly, some bands that belong here had crossover songs that are ballads or CCM (I'm thinking of Demon Hunter in specific), but they're not going to be held up as CCM bands.

So in short, there are a few bands or artists who should not be included here just because their main focus was never hardcore, emo, or even grunge. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So now you're calling me a liar

OK. What part of your reference indicates that the band is in any way hardcore punk? "A murky, muddy mess", or perhaps "transforms The 77's from rock re-toolers to by-the-book bar band". Oh I know, you think that hardcore punk is "a murky, muddy mess" or is it simply that "the band strives to evoke a mood of desolation" that makes them hardcore punk. It's certainly not the line "a big, bloated dinosaur rock record" or the "prog histrionics" bit. Perhaps the "melody-grounded songs" or it's "urgency and despair" or maybe "straight-speaking gospel number" (oh no, now they're a Gospel band!). It could be the "controversial lyric" and "offending line". Nope. Are you going to make me go through every reference in equal scrutiny or will you please stop the nonsense and include only hardcore bands? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see it now "submerged in dank, sludgy blues riffs and warmed-over grunge". That's not hardcore in any way. Add it back and it's pure ignorance. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify the issue: you don't know anything about the band's other dozen albums nor do you know this album, you're simply imposing an entire genre on a band because of a throw-away phrase from an album reviewer and ignoring the bulk of the evidence that the band is a rock band and this album is essentially a rock album with the exception of the song "Snake", which is closer to Led Zeppelin than it is to any post-grunge sound. Is that a correct assessment of the situation? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And this is the issue I made reference to above: you find one phrase or two in a review, ignore the bulk of the review and then you state boldly that a band meets your criteria for falling into a specific genre. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear your review of the band's entire career, as well as exactly what's going through my mind with every edit. Not only does the one album still qualify as "have played Christian hardcore" (read the lead paragraph before editing), but the source is reliable and grunge is a legitimate subgenre of hardcore. See my comments in the above section (thanks for the edit conflict, by the way). As for me manipulatively quoting sources, again, if you could present some actual examples instead of just vague whining, it would be much more helpful--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If they played hardcore, then add them. And they did not play grunge, they are referenced as post-grunge. Which is not hardcore punk. and that's not even an accurate reference for the whole album. They do not belong on this page. I removed them. You're misrepresenting the facts. Please stop. Now. I already showed you how you manipulated material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are we still talking about the 77s? If so, you're just blatantly lying as you yourself quoted the source as saying "grunge", not "post-grunge" (either one counts, as post-grunge is simply grunge made radio-friendly, but that's beside the point). Either you have really bad eyesight, you're mistaken, or you're lying. Either way, you've failed to convince me that your objections are based on anything more than your own opinion, so I'm going to re-add them and consider any further removal of them vandalism. Thank you for your time.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not grunge, it's "warmed-over grunge". Find one other article that indicates they have any grunge tenancies. Even that album. You're pushing POV again on this article and I'm sorry, you're lying with references in hand. I hate what you've done to Wikipedia you ignorant punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of in the middle here. The grunge mention is certainly valid, but is one mention on one album enough to list a band?--¿3family6 _contribs 10:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because a genre has its stylistic origins in a genre doesn't mean it inherits all of that other genre's attributes. If so, all modern rock and pop music is rock-a-billy. You must look beyond a single term and look at the music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Accprding to the grunge Page. It merely says Inspired by Hardcore indie etc. Inspired by doesnt mean is. The emo page now says that modern day emo is more of a pop punk indie rock mix. For the sake of continuity I think these should be removed. DCcomicslover (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

More ownership exerted by Invisiboy42293

When the article was created, the following comment was added (emphasis mine):

Per Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:V and WP:NOR), all additions to this list require one or more reliable sources (see WP:RS) that describe the artist or at least one of their albums as some form of Christian hardcore.

There is no policy regarding how many albums so this is up for debate. As discussed on the punk page, it should be a significant number of albums so as to not skew opinion. Please explain. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No discussion? I've been looking for a policy to back stating that a band can be classified as being a particular genre by a single reference even against evidence to the contrary. We can't add that evidence as a reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Emo

Just to add a new wrinkle into the mix, bands described as emo (I'm thinking of Owl City) are not necessarily hardcore or even punk. I've done extensive online research into this. These two sources 1, 2 discuss how emo has become a pop-punk style, with the second source going so far as to say that punk has been almost abandoned. This source says that with some bands, punk has been completely abandoned: 3. Basically, "emo" is now an interchangeable term with "emo pop," and as far as I've seen, any modern band that plays the old, hardcore style of emo is described as "old-school emo" or referenced in some other way to the original emo style.--¿3family6 _contribs 11:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is so hardcore. Listen to all that emo in there. I'll let my nine-year-old daughter know that she a hardcore fan now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable that first ref is, and AllMusic, as usual, is a little shaky in it's phrasing (They stopped "looking" like authentic punks? Does that mean the sound stopped being punk?). However, you've clearly researched this genre way more than me, so my objections are limited. I would just like to point out, though, that even some of the newer emo bands aren't totally removed from hardcore; for instance, The Almost is (or was) apparently close enough that some critics compared their Southern Weather album to a screamless Underoath. (1, 2). For something like this, it might be a good idea to take it on a case-by-case basis, is all I'm saying.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of the point I was making. Generally, emo is punk, just pop-punk now instead of hardcore. I was crawling through my bookmarks, and though this source is pretty tongue-in-cheek, you can still get the main point of the article: [1].--¿3family6 _contribs 12:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an article for you, but when screaming is used as a technique, it's not emo. Case in point, the hard rock band Kutless uses it on the occasional song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So Underoath and Showbread have nothing to do with emo? Several reliable sources seem to disagree with you on that. More importantly, please read WP:V; if an RS hasn't confirmed it, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's not true.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mu. I wasn't talking about either band. Your problem is that you go in, see a term, and immediately reduce it to a single concept. Sorry, not everything can be treated that way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss the 77s here

Let's get this all in one place so we can get a solid consensus and move on to other issues with the list. Everyone state your stance on this issue with as little emotion as possible so we can look at the facts and work something out. For my part, I'm starting to think a parenthetical along the lines of (one album) or (Drowning with Land in Sight) might be a good compromise.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote a lengthy response above. I don't think playing with a sound should make a band part of the genre. The bulk of the band's works at the time must be taken into account, not just a single track or even two. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the punk list's talk page, but I think one album should be the minimum (I would never propose going by one or two tracks) because the overall sound of an album tends to define a band's sound for that period, at least until they release a completely different album. If we were only going by more than one album, As Cities Burn, And Then There Were None, and Dizmas would all be gone, even though they were all blatantly hardcore for that one album. Now, I'm admittedly not that concerned at this point if you're hellbent on getting the 77s off the list, especially if it will allow us to move on to more important subjects. I'd much rather defend a must have like Advent or Underoath than a borderline case like this. However, given that this source seems to be largely undisputed (outside of our little spat), that it is quite clear, as 3family6 stated above, and that there seems no reason to dismiss it outside of a few editors who seem to strongly disagree with this reviewer's assessment, I really see no point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

One whole album is reasonable. In relation to that, Daniel Amos started as country, went to a Beatlesesque sound, then to Talking Heads-inspired new wave to non-mainstream rock sound in the vein of 90s Neil Young. The odd thing is that in almost every later album, they include a song with a bit of a country feeling.

Mad at the World's first album was synthpop. Their later six albums were much darker goth and hard rock. Should they be considered synthpop? Yes. Should they be considered hard rock? Yes. Are those genres at all related, not usually, but that band was certainly in both genres over time.

I understand that bands change their sound over time, so that's not my issue. My issue is when a single song defines a genre for a band. In the case of The 77s, it's one song. Similarly with dcTalk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's actually not, for either of them. If a single song were the issue, we wouldn't be talking. Going by the references (which, whether you agree with them or not, do meet WP:RS), we are talking about a whole album by the 77s and the latter half of DC Talk's career. If you agree that one whole album is reasonable, there really shouldn't be an issue.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A single song is the issue. You don't know the album do you? Find one more RS that says the whole album is grunge. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm guessing that since, in your opinion, only one song on the album is even close to "real" grunge, you're assuming that I must have based my addition of them on that song. This is in fact not true, as I added them with that ref without having heard a single song from the album. The fact that I am not particularly familiar with it is irrelevant in light of WP:V. Also because of that policy, there is no need for me to find another source, unless there's another RS that says they never had anything to do with grunge at all.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm guessing you read the word grunge and deduced that the whole album was grunge. I already know that you don't know the subject. It's not your fault, but the ref is wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I read the sentence stating that the album was "submerged in dank blues and warmed-over grunge" and deduced that the whole album was some combination of blues and grunge. The one word on it's own had little to do with it. Also, while it's completely that you're right and the album is the polar opposite of grunge, again, WP:V comes into play. It only matters what you can prove with an RS, not what's "true" but undocumented.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1. "Nobody's Fault but Mine" - Led Zeppelin music. Blind Willie Johnston lyrics.
2. "Snowblind" "The next track, “Snowblind” ... continues in the same Zeppelin tradition."
3. "Snake" - This is the only song that could be really considered grunge-y: "Roe debuts a brand new style, laying a distinctive growling vocal over the top of heavy blues riffs; it is a sound he would use again, finally perfecting it on “The Stellazine Prophecy” for his Safe As Milk album. Here, the song done in that style is “Snake,”"
4. "Indian Winter" - "“Indian Winter ” is another heavy Zeppelinesque song, this time incorporating some of that band’s fondness for Middle Eastern music."
5. "Film At 11" - "“Cold, Cold Night” is the album’s strongest cut, an appropriately chilling hard blues-rock number (drawing from the Stones again) with shouted lyrics".
6. "Mezzo" - an instrumental track with soft rock overtones.
7. "Cold Cold Night" - electric blues
8. "Dave's Blues" - electric blues
9. "Sounds O' Autumn" - another instrumental track that plays with digital effects on the drums
10. "The Jig Is Up" - pop, in the vein of The Turtles or The Byrds
11. "Alone Together" - pop. A drum loop with keys. Sort of Sarah McLachlan meets Sting.
12. "For Crying Out Loud" "finally concluding with the acoustic “For Crying Out Loud,”".

• The heaviness is broken only occasionally by a handful of pop-oriented tracks (“Film at 11,” “The Jig Is Up,” “Alone Together ”)

all quotes from The Encyclopedia of CCM. pp815-6, including "Although the Zeppelin references throughout Drowning are plenteous, the Seventy Sevens put their own distinctive stamp on everything" and "True Tunes would claim, “the themes of despair, loneliness, loss, fear, and hope could not be coupled with more appropriate musical fare than this". Finally, quoting Roe: "“It’s deep into the theme of abandonment—complete loss of moral foundations and moorings, both emotionally and spiritually.”". Perhaps this is why All Music thinks it's grungy.

Pretty much all that the All Music review got right was "At least part of the angst that went into Drowning was public: Roe’s marriage was disintegrating and would soon end in divorce. In addition, guitarist Leonhardt was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease at the outset of the recording and was undergoing cancer treatments throughout the entire process."

For Powell, the album is a rock album. The True Tunes review and interview isn't online and I don't have a copy. However http://www.rru.com/~meo/music/77s.9405.rev.html references it, but it's a concert review from the time. Not sure where http://www.77s.com/reviews/drowning.html this interview is from, but the author is Dwight Ozard. But the key, again, is not a mention of grunge.

So I don't know which album the All Music reviewer was listening to, or how he sees a grunge-y feeling in the album, but it's not at all grunge and the 77s are not grunge.

Even if they were, this form of grunge is certainly not hardcore since it's interspersed with pop songs and instrumental numbers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources contradict AllMusic's claim. The fact that the band included other styles on the album doesn't exclude grunge from being among them. A contradictory source, again, would be one directly disassociating the band from anything grunge or hardcore. Unless a source like that turns up, we can't remove them without violating WP:V.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. AllMusic's claim that the album is grunge is either wrong or incorrectly interpreted and as such it is not a reliable source. No other source agrees with AllMusic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No other source disagrees with them either, so unless you can obtain a written confession from the writer that his claim was "wrong or incorrectly interpreted" (or at least an RS that thinks so), the source meets WP:RS and the band's inclusion meets WP:V.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This is another instance where Wikipedia is messed up and you're just an ignorant editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And technically my WP:RS says your source isn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that editor, J. Edward Keyes, is not an official editor according to http://allmusic.com/explore/writers-bloc. So I'm not sure that this is a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That only proves that he's not currently on their staff, not that he wasn't when he wrote the review. Also, some research reveals that this guy wrote the AllMusic reviews for every 77s album except 88 and The Seventy Sevens (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9), so he's clearly familiar with the band. He also has written several articles for Rolling Stone (1 2 3 4). I'm pretty sure all this qualifies him as WP:RS.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The conversation we've been having on Facebook indicates that the phrase is only for the one song "Snowblind". He's reluctant to clear the issue up because "Is it that big a deal? It's a wikipedia page." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Email response from All Music:

Hi Walter,

Thanks for the feedback about the 77s album -- the music on that album isn't necessarily grunge. The language in the review simply reflects an attempt by the band (or the producer) to fit in with prevailing currents in the music scene at the time. The album is much more accurately characterized as Christian Rock.

Thanks,

John Bush

AMG Senior Managing Editor, Pop Music

I think that we can safely remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Emailing the site without providing a physical or a web-based proof/transcription is not considered reliable, as decided in this entire section of a debate I somehow got involved in. It makes this 77s one look tame in comparison, but there are some similarities, chiefly because it is Allmusic that is the problem(!).--¿3family6 _contribs 02:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of proof you would like? The email headers? I'd be glad to provide them to you. Facebook, I can provide a screen shot of the discussion. In short, the entry is not reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a screen shot of the e-mail and a link to the Facebook discussion (more the former), they definitely should go. I personally trust your info, but we do need concrete proof.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to screen shots to both: http://gorlitz.homeip.net/Wikipedia/ Since the Facebook discussion was private messages, it's completely closed to outsiders. I suppose you could always message the reviewer directly. I'll be removing those images and that directory in a few days. Don't want to leave them on the family server. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I'll remove them shortly. Not DC Talk, though, as they have way more sources available.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, you seem to have saved me the trouble:)--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But all of the sources that say dcTalk is grunge are for one song: "Jesus Freak". Not for the whole album. In fact the track is rap-grunge. However the rest is just as clearly pop as the remainder of dcTalk's music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Walter! Though that editor was probably a little weirded out. Nothing I've seen for DC Talk is strong enough for inclusion. If there was something, we possibly put "(on Jesus Freak)" in parentheses after the entry. But most of the stuff I've seen that makes any mention of grunge refers to the song "Jesus Freak." I think "So Help Me God," "Day by Day," "Like It, Love It, Need It," and possibly "Mind's Eye" all have some grunge aspects to them, though I don't think that they are hardcore and there aren't any sources to make me up anyway.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

3family6, look at the sources I listed a couple of sections down and let me know if you think they're good enough.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Grunge and Emo discussion

Mkay. I've decided to come back from wikibreak to corrrect the emo grunge thing. I think that it doesnt matter what type of fusion it may be I think thaat if has -core at the end its good for inclusion. But ONLY then. Harcore is my favorite genre of music and I hate seeing it ruined by having it in the same section as Owl City.... DCcomicslover (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

No! You can't remove Owl City from the list. My nine-year-old daughter, who is a huge Owl City fan will be confused. I just convinced her that she's hardcore because they appear on this list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats actually kind of funny. I think we should get 3family back here and either take a vote or forum over it. DCcomicslover (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

We use discussion to achieve consensus, not voting. I can tag your talk page with that if you'd like =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ok fine... Not voting... Consensus of the majority. You know what I mean DCcomicslover (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Pretty much any "emo" since the 2000's we can assume not to be hardcore, unless a sourced indicates that it is the "old" style of emo.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some possible solution for emo

I have some ideas for figuring out which emo bands should be removed the list. Just for starters, I believe both the sources and the other editors on this list are in agreement that "emo-pop" bands (Hawk Nelson, Owl City, etc.) are, for the most part, not hardcore and can be removed. Correct?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on my part.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Emo-pop is closer to 2000s bubble gum pop than it is to hardcore. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Next, since we've established that the simple term "emo" does not always refer to hardcore bands, I think it might be a good idea to look carefully at some of the reviews. For example, even if you've never heard of Capital Lights or The Fold or other such bands, it's easy to see from the way they're described in their respective sources that we're talking more Simple Plan than Rites of Spring. On the flip side, as I demonstrated above with The Almost, the same approach can yield the opposite approach. In this way, I think we can remove some of the more obviously not hardcore bands while still respecting WP:V. Thoughts?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its important to remember.. Grunge and Emo are differant genres than Hardcore. They had their roots there. But they are differant genres. I think we should at least find something with at least the word -core in it before adding it to this list. DCcomicslover (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Emo I might agree with you, depending on the band, but all the sources I've seen directly identify grunge as a hardcore/metal fusion, and I haven't seen any sources saying it changed. For right now anyway, grunge and occasionally emo belong on the list.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Grunge is another discussion. This is about emo, and more correctly pop that includes elements of emo. Consensus is against its inclusion, at least in this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Grunge

The hardcore-ness of this genre and its relatives seems to be causing an issue here, and I'll admit that, just as a listener, I'm not entirely sure about some bands (Lifehouse comes to mind). Because of this, I was wondering if anyone knows of any RS that indicates grunge moving away from hardcore at some point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Grunge isn't an issue for me, although I don't see Nirvana, the pinnacle of grunge, as particularly hardcore punk. With that said, I do take exception to interpretations of all use of the words assuming that they should be on this list (see the discussion on The 77s above). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just removed the pop grunge bands (77s and dcTalk) as they're certainly not hardcore to the core and simply use it as a style in one song on each album and it's certainly not reflective of a style for either band. The supposedly reliable sources do not indicate that they are grunge bands, rather they use it as an adjective. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Pop Grunge can go. I'm having a problem finding Refs for grunge. The statement in the grunge page about irs roots in hardcore punk are unsourced. Actually heres an Allmusic Ref saying that Grune no longer means a connection with Hardcore. Again, Proving my poinr http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/d2679 DCcomicslover (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Already saw that AllMusic ref. All it says is that grunge lost its "punk connections" when it went mainstream. Doesn't say anything about the sound changing. Also, an earlier sentence in the review states, "Both the lyrical approach and musical attack of grunge were adopted from punk, particularly the independent ideals of early '80s American hardcore."--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you play semantic games like that? If it went mainstream it certainly changed its sound. Just imagine what dcTalk would have sounded like if they were hardcore. The vocals in their music certainly don't have the screaming: clean vocals that break into full three-part harmony with rapping breaks. That's not hardcore by any stretch of the imagination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, hardcore doesn't always have screaming, but it is always very "noisy," tends to be discordant, and, in my personal opinion, most of the time it doesn't have the "roll" part of rock and roll music, if that makes sense.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I still say tha ADOPTED By hardcore punk is not the same as HARDCORE punk.Theres a big differance between came out of and is DCcomicslover (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Exactly.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Same with Emo they were influenced in the beginning by hardcore punk, but they are 2 COMPLETELY seperate genres. As is grunge DCcomicslover (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

When a band is "influenced by", and "informed by", and "uses techniques from" they all fall into that category as well. My point again is going back to rock-a-billy out of which all modern forms of rock music came. They are not rock-a-billy, but they can trace their roots back to it. They are not polyphonic chant, but can trace their roots back to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Grnunge draws from... I think 2 other sources. Does that mean we list them as all 3 or simply as grunge? We're going to list them as grunge of course because that is the genre. You cant label a band in a genre that because their genre had rooots in hardcore + 2 or 3 other things. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Okay, here are my sources for DC Talk:

• "The band's progression from pop rappers to articulate purveyors of a brooding grunge-pop-rock-rap synthesis..."
• "The trio's journey from hip hop to grunge to Europop..."
• "...[T]hey introduced more grungy elements for 'Jesus Freak' [the album]...[T]his time round they have dropped all the rap and grunge influences of the previous albums.
• "...the three friends formed the highly influential Christian pop group dc Talk, which mixed elements of gospel, grunge, and hip-hop into an immensely successful hybrid."

"...the stylistic shift from the pop/rap stylings of their early work to their more grunge rock approach with "Jesus Freak" was a shock to the system."

So it seems that DC Talk, at least on their "Jesus Freak" album and single, played what several critics consider "grunge". Whether grunge is hardcore is another issue. I'm looking through some sources regarding grunge to get a better idea of what we're looking at, and I would really appreciate some extra eyes working on that. Let's get this settled once and for all.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You missed "'Jesus Freak' (a fierce Generation X alternative to 'Smells Like Teen Spirit')". However you've shown your penchant for misinterpretation. I read "synthesis", "elements" and "influenced/s" all through the reviews. Nowhere do I see, nor should I see, "the grunge band dcTalk", "dcTalk were at the pinnacle of grunge", "dcTalk epitomize Christian grunge".

Even so, you've missed the point. This grunge isn't hardcore. It's using "elements of gospel, [and] grunge.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Walter! Grunge is a seperate genre from hardcoe and should not be included here. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I understand Invisiboy42293's desire for inclusion of the genre, but we have to distinguish between bands who were grunge (Prayer Chain, Grammatrain, etc.) and those who used elements of it in their music. DcTalk was the most notable, but Chris Tomlin can be considered grunge in the same way as more than one worship magazine has credited him with importing the influence of the quiet verse and a loud, droning chorus similar to grunge. There are also others such as Audio Adrenaline and even Petra who used elements of grunge. If this is a list of hardcore (and grunge) bands, then they need to be bands clearly within the genre and not simply those who used elements of the genre and influences within their compositions.

In the language of the Hegelian dialectic, you have a thesis, and its antithesis (ant-thesis) and the result of the interaction is a synthesis, which becomes the new thesis. The synthesis may bear resemblance to the two former thesis, but it is an entirely different entity. This theory is usually used in relationship to philosophy, but it also applies to the arts.

We must be careful not to read a word in a review or interview and assume that it applies to the band as a whole, nor should we presume why it is present. As we saw from the 77s discussion above, album reviews are not always neutral and may carry buzz words requested by the band or the label in order to market the music rather than to describe the band. While dcTalk's most popular song (measured in terms of sales and other means) was "Jesus Freak", and the song has definite grunge elements, it was performed by a pop/rap band, not by a grunge band. The fact that they used grunge elements in their song doesn't make them a grunge band and it doesn't even make the song a grunge song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But they are clearly not the same genre! The allmusic ref proves this. I have nothing against creating a list of christian grunge bands but not here with the hardcore list. DCcomicslover (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

DCcomicslover, the AllMusic ref says nothing of the sort, and anyway AllMusic's "Explore Music" articles are of shaky reliability since they're not attributed to any one author. I'm still looking into sources constituting positive proof (i.e. that grunge is hardcore.)

Walter, I would think that even just the single would be enough, given how much of the band's reputation it occupies, but I agree that the sources are a bit nebulous and might not warrant inclusion. I personally would like to hear 3family6's thoughts so we can get some sort of consensus on this.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're thinking is not correct. A single song is not enough. The band's reputation is still solidly entrenched in a different genre. The song simply uses elements of this topic's genre. I think we have consensus, but I'll be glad to hear what other editors have to say. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that grunge is a different genre no matter what it had it's roots in. Same with emo. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

True, emo and grunge are different genres from hardcore. So is metalcore, yet we have metalcore bands on here because it's an obvious hardcore/metal fusion. For that matter, pop punk isn't the same classification as punk, yet pop punk bands are on the punk list. Punk and hardcore had a huge influence and have spawned a fair number of styles that incorporate one or the other. Within reasonable limits, there's no real reason not to include such styles on their respective lists.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems if the lede indicates that this is the case, and if they're clearly grunge, not just using grunge as a sound for a song or two, or if they have a grunge-influenced guitarist. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore n my opinion is to broad of a term to have. Some people consider anything with screaming hardcore. Its kind of up in the air as to what this list is listing. Post hardcore and metalcore are fusions. Emo and grunge draw influences from. HUGE differance DCcomicslover (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Switchfoot

I was planning to bring this up later, but since it's been brought up in the edit summaries I might as well make my case now. While the fact that Switchfoot has also been described as power pop and pop rock certainly indicates more of a modern (read: not hardcore) emo, the same AllMusic ref indicates that the band was playing post-grunge on The Beautiful Letdown and Nothing Is Sound. Depending on what sort of information we end up finding about grunge and it's evolution, this might be enough to keep them on the list.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Does "California Christian-emo rockers Switchfoot" mean that they are emo, dress emo, or have created a fusion genre that has no bearing on the genre? Based on real emo bands, Switchfoot is more of a surf-rock sound. The closest they come to emo is that when they are at their hardest, they sound a bit like Weezer, who are more mainstream than most emo bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but again, the mention of them playing post-grunge for two albums might override that, depending on how "hardcore" original grunge was and whether that's carried over to modern manifestations of it. I'm considering posing the question on the grunge talk page.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll buy post-grunge, but that's not hardcore. Taking it to the grunge page would be a good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...it seems there was a big dispute about the connection on their talk page a little while ago. From what I can gather, the sources in favor included a documentary on grunge and a couple of print sources, while the sources against were just a bunch of links someone grabbed off of Google that mentioned grunge without mentioning hardcore. On a side note, I did find this ref, which calls grunge "the Seattle-based hybrid of punk and big-riff metal", which might count for something.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, the two literary sources were brought as evidence against the connection as they include quotes from a number of grunge musicians, including Chris Cornell of Soundgarden, expressing boredom with hardcore at the time, and even the documentary (or at least the portion quoted in that discussion) requires quite the subjective reading to support grunge and hardcore being related in more than influence. On the other hand, both the article I linked to above and some other sources I've seen make a much more concrete connection between grunge and punk/metal. I'll wait for consensus, but I'm thinking we might want to start moving some entries.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure where this is going but does this still have to do with Switchfoot? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, should have been more clear about it. Since Switchfoot played post-grunge for a significant period of time, if grunge and/or post-grunge (based on sources, they seem to be more or less the same except for post-grunge being more commercial) were actual hardcore genres, that alone would justify them being on the list. However, as I explained above, this does not seem to be the case, so you were correct in removing them. If anything, it would seem from the sources that Switchfoot and other grunge/post-grunge bands should be on the punk list rather than here. Clearer now?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New info on Grunge

Given the information I presented above in the Switchfoot discussion, it would seem that grunge is closer to punk and metal than to hardcore, and thus that all grunge and post-grunge bands should be moved to those lists. However, since Wikipedia goes by consensus, do any of the other editors agree to such a transfer?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness.... Closer to metal and punk.... I'd buy that. DCcomicslover (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Agreed, but that doesn't make DC Talk a grunge band. Please recognize that adopting styles doesn't put you in the mainstream of the movement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. According to sources (and apparently consensus), it's an issue for the punk and metal lists now.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Crashdog

I'm a little confused about my sources for possibly adding them and would like some input. One of the sources, from JfH, (1) starts off praising the band "for not losing any of their hardcore punk edge music over the years", yet two paragraphs later the author writes, "It's not pop-punk, it's not hardcore punk, its not really old school... it's Crashdog." (emphasis added) He might just be emphasizing the band's unique sound, but I don't know. This other ref, from The Phantom Tollbooth, (2) probably balances it out in favor of adding them, but I thought I should get a second opinion first.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Crashdog is plain punk. It's certainly not hardcore. I suppose you don't care and will just continue to take one word out a review that you're looking for. I've essentially given up on you and all your ridiculous "references". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:KEEPCOOL. If you honestly want to improve this list, helping me figure out some of these refs is the fastest way. Getting back on topic, ignoring the obvious point that hardcore punk and punk aren't exactly exclusive of each other, I probably should have quoted the Phantom Tollbooth ref, which states "And Crashdog still romps alone on the edge of things, maintaining their late 80s old school hardcore/punk sound...". The link's up above; if anything in the rest of that review that contradicts this statement, please point it out to me. Again, my main issue is the seemingly contradictory JfH review and whether it either a)should count as a source or b)should contradict the much clearer PT ref. Any thoughts on that?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to help you and you've waived a red cape in my face labelled "reliable source" and claim that because a word that fits your definition of what the article's genre is then it meets the requirements of being a reliable source. That's pure ignorance. You don't want to improve the list, you want to engorge the list with artists whether or not they are actually part of the genre.

So what is the Wikipedia definition of "old-school hardcore"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If I might step in here, Invisiboy42293 is actually trying to discuss for inclusion or exclusion of Crashdog from the list, and is not simply trying to engorge the list. The JFH review is a mess, and right now there is a debate going on over whether JFH is actually a reliable source (if anyone wants to help out in that discussion, please do, it is kind of dying right now). Phantom Tollbooth might end up with problems as a source because it is similar to JFH. Anyway, JFH is, like I said, a mess with their review, so we should probably throw that one out. Tollbooth makes more sense, and I also found an article in Christianity Today that refers to Crashdog as hardcore punk.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In my personal opinion, Crashdog is absolutely, definitively hardcore punk, unless hardcore punk is crossover thrash like Discharge or The Crucified, or modern metalcore. They incorporate some alt-rock into their songs and have a more conventional punk structure than a lot of hardcore bands, but they are still very, very hardcore. This is just my personal opinion, and should not be used to support the argument one way or the other.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on further listening they do have some metal influence in the vein of Discharge.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject. If it can be reliably soured having the word HARDCORE in it I say add. There are a few other bands I would like to talk about removing though if anybody has any objections DCcomicslover (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Consensus on individual emo bands

Since we've established that emo's "hardcoreness" can vary from band to band, I was thinking this might be a way to remove the non-hardcore ones while still respecting WP:V. My idea is this: for every band on the list sourced only as "emo" (there aren't actually that many), we make a subheading in this section under which sources that indicate one form of emo or the other can be put up for consensus. To start with an easy one:

The Fold

From AllMusic: "The Fold are the freshly scrubbed face of emo, a completely mainstream and radio-ready pop/rock band outfitted with just enough of the signifiers of a currently salable subculture to give the quartet a hint of street cred." Remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mhm. No mention of Hardcoreness at all and given the subenre of pop\rock DCcomicslover (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

So is that a "remove"? (I know it is, but we might as well be clear about this.)--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is a remove. DCcomicslover (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Done, unless anyone objects. I'll bring up some other bands tomorrow night (religious holiday starting now).--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiros

This is one of the ones I saw that got me. It had a ref on it so vague Walter would have blown a gasket. Personally I see no warrenting for their inclusion DCcomicslover (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I would have blown a gasket? I have to look at it now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And from Edmonton. That's just a 13 hour drive from here (in the summer). But not sure I'd want to drive there for "melody-driven, emo-infused pop rock". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

: ) I thought you might like that. I'm completely serious by saying that is the most VAGUE referance I have ever seen in my life. DCcomicslover (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC) DCcomicslover

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking adding them with such a weak source. I'm surprised they even have an article, given how the one they currently have doesn't cite a single source. They're definitely gone.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance

One Allmusic review notes that the band "embrace melody and singing over dissonance and screaming", and another one (by a different writer) criticizes the band for, essentially, not being hardcore. That and the HM ref in the list identifies them as "indie rock/emo". Remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually have more to say on this, but the edit summary for the previous paragraph didn't clarify that this was a new section so I felt I needed another edit to do so. I apologize if this goes against any Wikipedia protocol.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I actually had to read through and think about this one. I'm BARELY seeing any evidence of emo so I think it's best if they're removed. I think it's best if we get another opinion though. This ones a tad more grey than the others DCcomicslover (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

No objections to removing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's three...looks like they're gone.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Capital Lights

On one hand, the ref's description of their album as "a combination of Green Day, Anberlin, Relient K, and Jimmy Eat World, fusing together power pop, emo, and punk rock" seems to indicate that we're not talking about Rites of Spring here. On the other, that ref and another from Cross Rhythms (also in the list) confirm that Capital Lights started as a screamo band called Aftereight (I've seen various typesettings of it, but I'll go with that one). I currently have both band names in the list (not sure why I did that), but since Capital Lights is most likely not hardcore, I was thinking we put it as "Capital Lights (as Aftereight)" and the two screamo refs. Opinions on this?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

They're mostly a pop-punk band. Since it's the season I'll mention their song "His Favorite Christmas Story" on the X Christmas album is a cowpunk song. The only other song of theirs that I'm familiar with is "Outrage" on the X 2009 album. Much more pop than punk, but that's the nature of those albums. Don't have any print on the band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ANd even if they did fit the definition of screamo that still doesn't make them hardcore punk. Or metalcore. That's a pet peeve of mine is when anything with screamed vocals is called screamo. So if they were screamo originally than that still doesn't warrent their inclusion. If they were post-hc etc. Then they are warrented DCcomicslover (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

The problem here is that we would need very strong evidence that a writer is referring to "screamed vocals" as screamo, and not the hardcore sub-genre.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Screamo is a hardcore punk genre, a sort of "re-hardcored" emo (1, tenth paragraph of 2), and is anyway more or less indistinguishable from post-hardcore nowadays. If they were originally screamo, that's good enough to list them. That wasn't my question, which was how to list them in such a way as to indicate this.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "Capital Lights (as Aftereight)" would work. Or maybe just put "Aftereight" with a wikilink to the History section of the Capital Lights article.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "Capital Lights (as Aftereight)" would work. The main reason is that Jacob Dement left the band taking that style with him. The band itself was not notable (no article for them alone) and so no mention should be made of the band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If afterEIGHT has more than just a trivial mention in sources, than it is notable, and I think it should be added to the list, in the hopes that this would spur the creation of an article. But only if it has notable mentions.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia guidelines. If you don't agree that the band isn't notable, create an article for them. That has been the foundation of the lists: notable artists, i.e. those with their own articles. It doesn't matter if the band changed and the changed band went on to meet notability guidelines, the mention here must be of notable artists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:NNC and WP:NOTESAL, that's not the case. As long as the list topic is notable, the individual items therein don't all need to be. Some list are limited to independently notable items or those with articles, but that's the editors' discretion, not Wikipedia policy.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually only the first item discusses stand alone lists. I'll agree that it's not Wikipedia policy, it is the Christian music project's unwritten policy. You're opening a can of worms if you start listing otherwise non-notable subjects in the list. You'll end up having to argue what reviews constitute notability and which don't. But honestly, why am even wasting my time writing. You're going to ignore my suggestions because you think I'm against you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Patience Walter... Invisiboy I side with Walter here. The band is only mentionable as a past version of Capital Lights and is barely mentioned in their artical at all. Actually their artical doesn't even say they are a screamo band. So I just don't think that allows for their inclusion DCcomicslover (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I agree. My above comment was only if there is significant coverage of aftereight itself in reliable source.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think DCcomicslover was talking about the Capital Lights Wikipedia article, although the mentions in the two sources (1 and 2, just so we're all on the same page) might also be considered a bit trivial. However, my original concern (before the conversation got sidetracked) was not whether afterEIGHT was notable, but whether they had sufficient ties to Capital Lights to be considered an early version of the band, much as Skillet was originally a grunge band or ATTWN used to be metalcore, and if so how to indicate that with the listing.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, I'm considering putting some project templates on this talk page to attract outside editors who are probably more knowledgeable about this subject. Sound good?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well theres a big differance wbetween those 2 bands you just named and Aftereight. Those 2 bands styles changed. Maybe just a little, or maybe drastically. Here the band's membership, style and name changed. To me that signals an entirely new band. Members of a band that was not noteable are now in a band that is noteable. That doesn't warrent the old band's inclusion. For um... Becoming the Archetype or Means I think it's a little harder to say. I think here they shouldn't be included as a past version of Capital Lights here because they essentially WEREN'T Capital Lights then. DCcomicslover (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I agree, but I'm not sure how much the two bands are separate. While the style and name most certainly changed, I'm a little dubious about how much the lineup did; the Christianity Today review categorizes the change as "Some departures from their original line-up as the screamo band afterEight forced bassist Bryson Phillips to step into the role of lead vocalist," and their profile on Jesus Freak Hideout only lists one guitar player as a former member. The only source I've seen for their being a major difference in the membership of the two bands is the band's Wikipedia article (which has anyway been tagged for having unreliable sources) and a brief mention in the Cross Rhythms review that Capital Lights "rose from the ashes" of afterEIGHT. It seems that the two bands had more or less the same line-up, in which case they could be considered the same band under different names and thus listed as different versions of the band.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief lineup changes, genre change, name change, and "Rose from the ashes of" That indicates 2 seperate bands to me. I dont know. What does everybody else think? DCcomicslover (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Aftereight is a different band than Capital Lights. Remove.--¿3family6 _contribs 11:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

COMPLETELY remove. DCcomicslover (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I don't think there's enough evidence, by Wikipedia standards, to classify them as two separate bands. The JFH page and comments from the lead singer make it seem like only one or two members left between the style/name change, and even the Cross Rhythms ref is rather vague. It would be one thing if there was official announcements of more band members leaving, or of Capital Lights as a separate project or some such thing. As it stands, however, I don't think there are enough reliable sources that justify a complete removal.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a post by some of the band members. I know it isnt reliable secondary source but it should make my point clear. http://www.oklahomarock.com/blog/?p=774 DCcomicslover (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Okay, I found a couple of news articles from the band's hometown published around the time they were signed to Tooth & Nail. The articles are 1 and 2. While both confirm lineup changes, I'm getting the sense of one band making major changes rather than two separate bands with nothing in common. Also, since both are reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to "Aftereight" (not Capital Lights), I'm thinking that both refs would establish the band as having some notability outside of Capital Lights and thereby justify them being on the list. I don't know if any of this would really work, but it's something.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

2 problems. 1: No artical. Ive written... 3? Articals I think... to get an inclusion onto a list. One was deleted but let's not go iinto that. The other 2 were notable bands that deserved coverage. Aftereights artical would not be qualified as notable. 2: The band had seemingly large membership, style, and genre change. That indicates differant bands to me. A vote may be what's needed here because I don't think either one of us will ever be able to come up with an RS that says one thing clear cut and in stone, still It's a band without an artical. DCcomicslover (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

They don't currently have an article, but the fact that two sources which appear to meet WP:RS make non-trivial mention of the band outside of their connection to Capital Lights would seem (to me, at least) to qualify them for WP:BAND, in which case it wouldn't matter if they were different bands or not.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No. You know why. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reversing my earlier opinion. The sources given indicate that the Aftereight is the same band as Capital Lights, it just went through a name, style, and member change. A lot of bands go through this type of thing. The O.C. Supertones used to be called Saved, and dabbled with punk, rap, metal, disco, and funk. But that doesn't make them a different band. The lineup change is a stronger argument, but the above refs seem to indicate that they are the same band.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... If it's going to stay on the list I don't like the way it looks now. I guess you could just put afteright and link it to the capital lights page. And MAYBE if you had time, clean up the page and add some stuff about their earlier days as Aftereight. Do that and I have no objection. I'd appreciate it if you did that. DCcomicslover (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

That sounds like a good solution.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sullivan

While we're working things out with Capital Lights/afterEight, I thought we might as well get some more clear cut bands out of the way. In the case of Sullivan, their source, an AllMusic bio, specifically distinguishes them from hardcore: Sullivan "sticks to the straightforward, Sunny Day Real Estate-inspired end of emo instead of the increasingly prominent post-hardcore and screamo bands." Remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Im actually a fan of that band but I don't think they fit in here at all. remove. DCcomicslover (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Because of the ref? (Just want to make sure we're not violating WP:OR here.)--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because of the ref. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Done.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Almost

The source only says Aaron drummed for the hardcore band Underoath. But later on in the artical it says basically ... The Almost is everything underoth isnt. Theyre more punk in my opinion. Remove? DCcomicslover (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

If that's all it says, then yes. Is this another example of editors looking for words and phrases out-of-context and using them here? The quote used is "[The album sounds like] a more structured and accessible version of hardcore band Underoath..." it doesn't call them hardcore. It calls UNderoath hardcore. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Look and see for yourself. Welcome back btw. DCcomicslover (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I never left, I just didn't bother to discuss things that I didn't think had a hope in change the opinion of article owners editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one value your opinion. Youre stubborn and ornery sometimes but you're a good editor and your contributions on this artical's band consensus would be greatly appreciated : ) DCcomicslover (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I added that ref since it was the most specific of several comparing their Southern Weather album to Underoath. However, I realize that it is a pretty weak basis for addition, so I have no problem with them being removed, should consensus support it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So does consensus support it?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As do I DCcomicslover (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Onerepublic

Theyre sourced as emo rock in the source while their artical I THINK sources them as pop. Remove? DCcomicslover (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I would argue that the ref was written before they released their first album and may be referring to their pre-fame work, but that's a pretty weak defense; also, if Cross Rhythms simply used emo rock to mean "emotional rock", it wouldn't be the first time. Remove.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I obviously vote remove DCcomicslover (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Ever Stays Red

The ref just calls them emo and compares them to Panic at the disco. ANybody feel like removal? DCcomicslover (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

That and the ref calls them "atmospheric emo rock", makes no other mention of emo in the rest of the review, and also compares them to Dashboard Confessional, father of acoustic emo. Yeah, I'd say remove. Anyone else?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Philmont

The Christianity Today ref describes their sound as "emo pop/punk" and compares them to "other emo/power pop hopefuls". They do mention "a vaguely Underoath-like techno undercurrent", but I'm not going to pretend that means anything. Remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I'd say thats a remove. No mention of any other style save pop punk in their artical either. DCcomicslover (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Done. By the way, just as a side note, we're not supposed to go by a band's Wikipedia article since it could have been written by anybody.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that but usuaully you cn tell alot about the artist style by looking at the artical and the genres there. It isn't reliable but if nothing is even listed that relates to hardcore it's a pretty good indicator. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Amber Pacific

Ref describes them as "emo-punk" and makes comparisons to Relient K, Stellar Kart and Simple Plan. Also mentions "catchy" and "radio-ready" choruses, and seems to make the connection to pop-punk more than emo. Remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My second-least favourite site for interview indicates "Amber Pacific is unabashedly emo, as their song titles suggest" so it seems that one site thinks they're emo, although they do seem to lean towards pop-punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say remove. Seems like a pop-emo band to me. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Walter, that's the same ref I was talking about originally. As demonstrated, it's clearly not talking about the hardcore kind of emo. I also vote to remove.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edison Glass

Ok... this one will be more controversial. They are sourced as emo and Post-Hardcore. But I can tell you from listening they are a soft rock\indie rock kind of thing. Upon looking at the PHC ref. I saw it had comments on it that said basically... This isn't hardcore! What's this doing here!?!? I doubt I'll be abe to find a referance that says Edison Glass isn't PHC but I doubt just as much that anybody will be able to find any more refs that say they are. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I saw that comment too, but it falls under the category of user-generated content, so unless the commenter is a professional music journalist or something like that (I checked his profile on the site; he's not), we can't take his opinion into account.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that but that wasen't the point. I was merely calling into question the ref based on user reaction. I just don't think that ref should be all we stand on. Find me something ellse and I'll drop it. But I believe that's a mistake. HEH. I could ask Walter to email the reviewer... Hes good at getting what he asks for. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I personally don't think it's that big a deal, especially since the guy's just stating that they're not hardcore without giving any evidence, but if you really want something else...the other ref in the list, a Cross Rhythms review, specifies '90s emo, which (as near as I can tell) was much closer to hardcore than the modern stuff. I still think the other ref is perfectly valid, but there you go.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I still think that ref is a mistake. But whatevs. DCcomicslover (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Mae

There are a ton of sources that would merit their removal, but to stick to the most concrete ones:

• From the AllMusic bio:"Boasting a sound that straddled the border of alternative rock and emo-pop..."
• The JFH review currently in the list only mentions emo, but in another review, the exact same reviewer retrospectively identifies the same album (their debut) as having a "unique blend of pop/rock and emo influences".

So...remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Emo pop. Ugh. Remove. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Done.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Watashi Wa

Sourced as alternative pop\emo. Remove? I think so. DCcomicslover (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Based on that and many other refs too numerous to mention, yes, remove.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fighting Jacks

This one is more a lack of evidence than evidence against. The JFH ref in the list tags them with a "raw emo/punk type of rock", AllMusic describes them as melodic pop punk, and my attempts with Google have yielded no usable sources for post-hardcore or emocore or anything like that. So they probably belong on the punk list, but I'm not seeing any reason to keep them here. Remove?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely because lack of sourcing.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Forever Changed

While the JFH ref in the list only mentions emo, most sources seem to associate the band with non-hardcore emo (such as a CT review calling their Chapters album "melodic power pop and emo rock and describing their overall sound as "emo-influenced modern rock"). However, the problem is this ref, which identifies the band's sound as "emotional post-hardcore". While the site doesn't look that reliable to me, the writer or someone with the same name has written for San Francisco Weekly (1,2) and NME1), and according to a profile on the Not For Tourists website, "has spent much of her career writing about punk and hardcore (publications include the UK's biggest selling music weekly Kerrang! magazine, and Revolver)". I'm honestly not sure on this one. Thoughts?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Late Merrry Christmas to all 3 of you before we dive into business. This guy obviously knows what he's talking about. Kerrang is a respected publication. DCcomicslover (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I agree. BTW, something else I noticed...the CT ref notes that the band's sound "has evolved from the heavier sound of Further Seems Forever into the more melodic styling of Mae". (FSF seems to be on the more hardcore end of emo, while Mae, as previously established, is not.) Given that the post-hardcore ref is a review of their first album and the CT ref is reviewing their second, maybe we should put an "(early)" qualifier next to them? Just throwing that out there.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I wouldn't worry about it. As long as they have played something hardcore at some time I think we're good. DCcomicslover (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Number One Gun

This one I have some justification for, though probably not a very good one. While several sources can be brought for their better known work being on the pop side of emo, this Christianity Today piece, a review of Kids in the Way's Safe from the Losing Fight, describing the album as "emo-screamo hard rock [a la] Spoken, Anberlin, Further Seems Forever, Number One Gun, Finch, and The Juliana Theory"(italics added). Now, assuming that review was done close to when the album came out, the only album Number One Gun had released at that time was Celebrate Mistakes - the same album JFH described as containing the "melodic screams" of Further Seems Forever (a post-hardcore/emo band) and Too Bad Eugene (a pop punk/emo band according to sources, although I've never heard them). On the other hand, Russ Breimeier, author of the KITW review, also reviewed Celebrate Mistakes, wherein he described the band as "pure melodic rock and power pop laced with emo and punk sounds" and the overall album as "emo and punk-tinged melodic rock", complete with comparisons to Jimmy Eat World and Relient K. I've probably already killed my argument, but what does everyone else think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. SUPER grey zone. I think that those refs aren't really Solid enough to justify inclusion here. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Yeah, that's what I thought. I might as well remove them, unless anyone has any objections.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This Beautiful Republic

While were sorting out everything else, Sourced as Emo Rock I think. Does anyone think we should remove them? DCcomicslover (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

The source says "emocore", not emo rock. If you want a back-up source, this source calls them post-hardcore.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It says a little emocore thrown in for flavor. Not very reliable if you ask me. Walter would have a cow. DCcomicslover (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Double post. I actually read over that other source and Im calling it into question. The author is a co-editor for a college paper and apears to have no other musical articals. Thus making his view on the subject doubtful. He really slips up when he pulls my pet peeve which I previously discussed. He calls Those 5 metalcore bands on the end "screamo". It's a misuse of the term. He using it to say anything with screams is screamo. He clearly shows no knowlege of the subject of his writing. 02:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Well, the source is reliably published (in that the site seems to have affiliations with College Media Network and MTV Networks based on the bottom banner). I admittedly agree that he seems a little unprofessional in his writing, but that's not for me to judge; I think some of AllMusic's writers sound a little novice-y too. I don't know, any other opinions?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper has also won several awards. The key point that DCcomicslover makes is that this article is the only one regarding music that was written by this author. I don't know here, the paper looks reliable, but does that mean we can overlook the lack of music articles by the author? At the end with the metalcore bands, I've seen AILD, Blessthefall, and TWPD all called screamo in multiple publications. I'm not sure on BTA, and I haven't read anything on Confide. I would say that the first three do use screamo elements, but BTA certainly doesn't, though again, I'm not sure if they've been called screamo in other reliable publications or not.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thinking is that, since a reliable source is publishing him (and he also is apparently "co-editor-in-chief" of said reliable source), he technically counts as an RS regardless of experience. It's like how we can assume that an article in Rolling Stone or Revolver is reliable without checking out the author, since both would only publish material that fit their reputation. On a strictly OR note, the only thing that really seemed off to me was the listing of BTA as screamo, but I've only heard a couple songs by them so I can't be sure. Unless there's some instance of the paper admitting that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, I think it's an acceptable source.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But heres the thing. Screamo has become so misconceptualized that people who don't know about the topic just call it that. That shows he isn't experienced in the area. At those other sources 3family talked about, Im betting none are published by a BIG accepted magazine like revolver or even Allmusic wouldn't make that mistake. BTA is a melodic\progressive death metal\metalcore. Underoath is the only one of those that comes CLOSE to screamo DCcomicslover (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Actually, all the bands the writer mentions except for BTA have reliable sources identifying their music as screamo including some on AllMusic and other reliable sites, BUUUUT we're not looking at the guy's opinion on screamo, we're looking at his opinion on post-hardcore, none of the four bands he lists for that genre seem out of place, and, most importantly, the fact that the article is apparently reliably published means that (to a reasonable extent) the opinions contained within is reliable and may be used as a source (though probably not his statements on screamo).--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comeback Kid

It has a discuss tag beside it, so let's discuss. I thought we decided they weren't christian as of the List of Christian metal bands I don't remember where that was decded but I do remember it. DCcomicslover (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I can't remember the discussion, but they were on Facedown, which is a Christian label. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why were they removed from the metal list? Maybe an anon did it. Idk. I don't remember. DCcomicslover (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

The source used does not mention them being Christian, and in an interview the frontman and vocalist said he is at a "different part of his life" now. [2]--¿3family6 _contribs 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but another CR news piece specifically does. Also, they've gotten considerable coverage elsewhere on Cross Rhythms as well as by HM Magazine, and I'm not aware of a source that specifically says they're not (the interview is WP:PRIMARY, and anyway only represents the opinions of one band member). I can add an extra ref if you prefer, but they definitely merit staying.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'Christian' mention was made in 2005, the interview was done in 2007. Primary sources can be reliable for things like this. In this case, the band leader is clarifying where the religious nature of the band. And HM Magazine often focuses on artists that are not Christian, but have some ties to the Christian market. And here we go: In this article, HM Magazine says that the band is not really known as Christian, but that it has roots in that scene.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Aren't really known as" is not the same as "is not and has never been". To my understanding, primary sources are supposed to be used to verify the subject's own opinion (i.e. "Brad Pitt says/feels that XYZ is true" could be supported with a primary source) or something only the subject would know (such as how the members of a band met or what music they're influenced by), and I don't think this falls under either of those categories. Even if it does, in the IVM interview, the lead singer only talks about his own personal beliefs rather than those of the band, and he doesn't even specifically say he stopped being a Christian or anything like that, just that his "opinion changed on a lot of issues". I may be wrong, but I don't think any of those are enough to remove them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Do you have a source that HM sometimes covers non-Christian artists? I'm just wondering because that might affect other entries here and on other lists.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Switchfoot may say they don't want to be known as Christian band, but that doesn't mean they're not. Other examples abound. The definition of who is and isn't can be fine on the margins so we have to take the word of reviewers.

I've never known HM to review non-Christian artists, although their definition of who is and who isn't a Christian artist would definitely stretch the boundaries. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to dredge up this old discussion... A christian band is only a band that presumably has christian lyrics and is marketed as a Christian band. You can be in a christian band and not be a christian as christianity is a personal belief system. Sorry to say, but one band member that isn't a christian doesn't really make a band Nonchristian DCcomicslover (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

I will note that Switchfoot keeps being brought up in discussions of these type, but there is an important difference: The members of Switchfoot claim Christianity but don't want to be known as a "Christian" band, while in a case like this it is more a band being called Christian while the members aren't Christian.

That said, it is a good point that the vocalist didn't really talk about other members of the band, only himself.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A Christian band, according to the encyclopedia of CCM is any band that is identified by its fans as a Christian band. That makes it much more broad. That would mean that U2 are Christian since many fans consider them to be Christian. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just quickly: in keeping with Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature, I think we should rely on reliable sources to determine whether a band is "Christian" or not. However, in the case of sites like JFH or Christianity Today which purport to only cover artists they consider Christian, I think that even covering an artist should constitute a claim of Christianity by the source, unless the actual review/interview/news piece makes claims to the contrary.

Getting back on topic, I think a good compromise would be to source them with the Cross Rhythms piece calling them Christian and this HM ref, which identifies them as hardcore. Would that work?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Does that work? I don't know anything about this band So I'm impartial on the subject DCcomicslover (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

The Classic Crime

I'm trying to get discussions going on everything with a dubious/discuss tag by it. I'll move on eventually back to our old trusty christian Metal bands list and start looking over some of those tags there. But back to The Classic Crime.Personally I don't think they're hardcore. Or christian for that matter. I've seen them live. DCcomicslover (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

That's kinda WP:OR. Besides the fact that they've been covered on nearly every Christian music site (even JFH), the two sources are an Absolute Punk staff review mentioning that the band is "known for" a "pop punk/post-hardcore blend", and an HM review identifying the band as "hardcore-lite". However, 3family6 seems to have an issue with the HM Magazine source. Can I ask why?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hardcore-lite" seemed to be a weak statement, if anything, it's saying that they're not hardcore.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not objecting to the list (though the band itself has stated that it's not Christian and has some non-Christian members), I am just objecting to the HM Magazine ref. The Absolute Punk one is okay.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. To me, "hardcore-lite" just seems to indicate a softer hardcore (the same way that pop punk could be considered "punk-lite") rather than no hardcore at all. In fact, "hardcore-lite" is pretty much what post-hardcore is anyway. Plus, the fact that it's coverage in HM might provide basis to the casual reader for listing them as Christian. Nothing major, but I don't think it's necessary to remove.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't interpret. The problem with most of the additions is that you've interpreted what was written, usually with astonishing conclusions. If it doesn't come out and list a specific genre, then it's not the genre. So "hardcore-lite" isn't hardcore, but pop-punk is a child of punk, but it's not punk either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just googled hardcore-lite. It's not even a genre. SO I have no IDEA what he was trying to say there. It definitely is NOT the same as Post-Hardcore though. I think it's a made up genre. Like Crabcore, or Partycore. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

As an aside, I've worked on researching crabcore, but the article was rejected because so far professional blogs are the only reliable sources that have really dealt extensively with the subject.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)--¿3family6 _contribs 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Crabbcore? That would be music by southern gospel act, The Crabb Family. I'm not sure how Kemper Crabb fits in, but he was an early Christian prog-rock/medieval rock musician. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha. This seems like something for Uncyclopedia.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really Walter. And 3family that made my day right there. thank you. DCcomicslover (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

You're welcome. I'm not sure how I got involved with it, I think I just looked it up and things just took off from there.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on topic...I didn't mean to suggest that "hardcore-lite" was an actual genre in the sense that punk rock or death metal are, or even that it was synonymous with post-hardcore. I just meant that the reviewer seems to be using a nonstandard term (I've seen plenty of reviewers do that) to describe the band in terms of their sonic relation to hardcore, and not necessarily in wholly dissociative terms. I just think "hardcore-lite" can be more easily interpreted as "lighter hardcore" rather than "completely divorced from anything hardcore". I wouldn't use that as the only source, but, of course, we're not.

Also, if it makes the slightest bit of difference, a CT review of Red's End of Silence album, which is also in the list and which would have been released a year before the HM review, also uses the term. Just throwing that out there.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, since there is another, more straightforward source already being used in the list, we should just remove this one.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but seeing as how there seems to be some controversy over them being a "Christian band", an HM review might help reassure an IP.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, how about replacing it with a review or article that explicitly calls them Christian?--¿3family6 _contribs 13:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You may have to look hard for it but go for it. DCcomicslover (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

They've charted on the Top Christian Billboard lists, and got a small write up, and there is this review that says while the band isn't exclusively Christian, they're is still a lot of faith-based content. Personally, I think they shouldn't be considered Christian, but the sources indicate that they are labeled as that.

I do think simply being sold to the Christian market (how else would they end up on Billboard's Christian chart?) would be enough, and there's also this interview with JFH in which the lead singer talks quite a bit about the band's relation to Christian music. However, I still kind of prefer the HM ref because it (at least partially) ties the band to hardcore in addition to marking them as Christian, while the AP ref can solidify the hardcore aspect. If everyone else would rather not use it at all though, I'm okay with using on of the other refs.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, something just occurred to me: the same effect could be achieved by replacing the HM ref with the CT review of Silver Cord, since that review mentions that the band's sound is "laced with emo and hardcore". It would be even better since it is more explicit about the band's Christianity. Would that be OK?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

General comment about removing bands

I don't think it's necessary for Invisiboy42293 to ask about every band that you want to remove. You created the article and for the most part the other editors object to a few of the entries. I haven't seen any objections to any of your removal proposals. If you want to explain why, just post here and then remove. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Right now I'm only doing this for emo bands since, as you pointed out, they are fairly easy to get consensus on, and also there's not many of them to go through. In a more general sense, I think it's a good idea to get consensus on the talk page before editing so as to deal with any potential objections without starting an edit war, as happened with the 77s. Even in seemingly obvious remove cases this might be a good idea; I didn't think my issues with Crashdog or Capital Lights would be any big deal, and look how those discussions turned out.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not edit war if you remove any artist from the page. I'll speak for the others in this matter as well. However, we'll be sure to get consensus before we remove anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edison Glass

3family6 has marked one of their sources with a "dubious/discuss" tag. What's the story?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember specifically why I did it. I think because the emo mention is talking about a blend among other, non-hardcore styles.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it specifies '90s emo (that's when it was more hardcore, I think) and is anyway complimented by the post-hardcore ref. I don't think it's really anything worth tagging.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. I honestly don't know why I tagged it originally.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Juliana Theory

I apologize for taking my time with this, as I was busy creating articles for I Am Empire and other subjects. Anyway, this seems to be the last tagging on the list, so let's discuss it. While I admit the HM ref is a tad vague (again), the CT ref specifically identifies their Understand This Is a Dream album as having a "post-hardcore indie sound". That seems pretty hardcore to me.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1) The "Christian" nature of the band is vague, but there may be enough indirect references to let this slide. HM Magazine basically says that they are creating pop music, so that one doesn't support at all. With the CT ref, is that one mention enough to keep the band on here?--¿3family6 _contribs 12:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They also refer to the sound as Post-Emo. And I thought if it was Copyright we couldn't use Christianity Today. DCcomicslover (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Since when does "post-emo" negate "post-hardcore"? Also, upon re-examination, both refs seem to indicate that they were hardcore in the past. The HM ref likens them to "many of the bands today that go from hardcore to either emo or college rock" and even if the CT ref was the only mention, I don't see how that wouldn't be enough to keep them, since it specifically tags one of their albums as "post-hardcore".--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. As far as their Christian nature, there's a JFH review of Emotion Is Dead that says, "Even though the band has said that they are not a "Christian band," they still carry some strong Christian themes in the album." --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, we should never rely on a single source as a strong support for a claim. It can be mentioned, but to really back it up, it should be supported by another source. My point with HM Magazine article is we shouldn't take an adjective by itself, we need to go by the context that it is used in. This is another reason it is good to have back-up sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But we're not relying on only one source (hence why I said "if we were") and even in context the HM reviewer is clearly saying that they were hardcore before they went to pop okay, never mind, he was referring to the lead singer being in Zao before this band. Still, if we want a backup source, this review of the lead singer's solo album refers to them as a "post-hardcore indie rock" band. The reviewer has written for Examiner.com, though not about music, if that makes any difference.

Okay, the Yahoo source should solidify things. An important note, the Fish article was originally written by Crosswalk.com, not Christianity Today.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsupportable with references, but when I was a DJ, the main Christian music distribution company in Canada, CMC, distributed their music. That may have been because they were on Tooth & Nail and they distributed the label. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A Measure of Clarification

While I still believe it is self-evident that certain bands on this list do not belong here, I understand that for some an argument may be made that they belong because they played some form of Hardcore Punk early in their careers. To help clarify this point, I believe it would be useful to put "(early)" next to a band's name when they fall into this category. This is practiced on the "List of hardcore punk" article, as well on other websites such as Encyclopaedia Metallum (The Metal Archives).

Ex. Thousand Foot Krutch (early) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garishi (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd noticed that on the hardcore punk list, and I think it would be a good idea here.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

and possibly the form of hardcore. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Scatered Few

That ref seems kind of.... Sketchy. Shouldn't we put them on the punk list? DCcomicslover (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Perhaps we should add them to the sheer wax-cleared-from-ears bedlam list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Scatered-Few are four apocalyptic prophets from California in weird haircuts who use hardcore, grunge, thrash and sheer wax-cleared-from-ears bedlam to do battle against the forces of unrighteousness." Direct quote. What's sketchy about that?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The assumption that hardcore is the genre when it's used in conjunction with sheer wax-cleared-from-ears bedlam, which is why I suggested that as my list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why would that juxtaposition invalidate the hardcore descriptor? And what does "the assumption that hardcore is the genre" refer to? Could you clarify please?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming juxtaposition when the rest of us see it as adjectives. In short, you're the only one who assumes the descriptor is valid. And that's the point with the majority of this article. You look for one word and when you find it hold to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, what's with assuming everyone else agrees with you?

Second, it's listed along with grunge and thrash as things the band "use" to promote their message, so unless you want to argue that those are also "adjectives" rather than genres, it's a perfectly logical assumption. The ref for Lust Control uses the same basic formulation.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not stating that everyone agrees with me. You asked a question, I responded. I did however single your opinion on the matter out. You're imposing your opinion on this list and a few others. I trust that this isn't news to you. You do assume though that anyone agrees with you, when you don't have that proof. We have proof on the Punk list that this isn't the case though.

It's listed with a lot of buzz words. The fat that they happen to be names of genres as well may or may not be coincidental. That was the statement from the author of the one 77s article in regards to how they're written. In short, you put too much weight on words that are merely similar to ones that are genres rather than finding sources that state that their music is of a particular genre. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We've been down this road before, so let me head this off at the pass:

1. Assume good faith. I'm putting this on myself as well. I was a little thrown by your use of "the rest of us" and "we", but psychoanalyzing each other won't be the least bit productive.
2. I'll admit that I occasionally focus on the word rather than the full sentence, as can be seen above with the Juliana Theory, and I'm working to get out of that habit.
3. That said, what I'm getting from your posts is that we should always take into account whether or not a particular writer was using the genre as a "buzz word" without actually knowing what it meant. To me, that seems a bit like trying to read their minds, which would be really difficult unless you plan to email everyone cited on this list. The whole point of a reliable source is that we assume the source would have done their homework due to being a professional.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, how about finding a second source? So far I haven't found anything for Scatered Few, but it doesn't mean something isn't out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we must...I don't know how solid this is, but apparently former 7ball editor Brad Caviness feels that the band "[mixes] up a wide range of influences, from Bowie-esque glam to Bad Brains-style reggae, hardcore, and punk..." Is that worth anything? I still think the CR ref is fine on its own, but whatever.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the site is reliable, but the author is. I will note that he says influences, but he still seems to be describing the band's style.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Famine

I couldn't help but notice that "The Famine" is on this list. They were not a Christian band at all and even stated so themselves. Just take a look at this article on the band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famine

Good point. The citation for the listing on the article only says that the band had three members from the Christian band Embodyment, it doesn't say that The Famine itself is Christian. The source also is a Christian review site, but using that to infer that the band should be listed here is original research. I'm fine with taking the band down, but I'll let some of the other regular editors here say what they think.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1. How is that assumption original research? If a site purports to review only Christian artists, it follows logically that for said site to cover an artist is an unspoken claim that the artist is Christian.
2. We're not supposed to base article material on what the subject says (per WP:PRIMARY). There are some exceptions, but this is not one of them.
3. The band's wikipedia article (cited by the non) omits a crucial part of the quote. In the original interview, the band's lead singer said, "We are a metal band and wouldn’t label ourselves anything but and honestly don’t care what people label us. Our faith isn’t forced into our music, nor is it an obligation. It is embedded in the fabric and is who we are." (bold added). So even as a primary source, that's pretty shaky--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some Christian labels have reviewed mainstream artists: Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen and others. Don't know which magazine reviewed The Famine though so can't comment on that aspect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The source is from Cross Rhythms. Also, JFH ran a review of their last album.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Cross Rhythms has been known to interview mainstream UK bands, so this wouldn't apply. JFH does not review mainstream bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Speaking of the JFH review (it's here, just for reference), the main writer mentions that the album is not a Christian market release and that "JFH is covering the album because [The Famine] are a Solid State band that expresses their faith in their music." (italics added) That's another point for keeping them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the reviewer puts a disclaimer, it means it is not definite. Is there anything definite?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The "disclaimer" is for how the album was marketed, not the band itself, which, again, "expresses their faith in their music". Moreover, the reviewer specifically says that that expression is why the site chose to review the album (JFH generally restricts their coverage to Christian market releases.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Using reviews isn't ideal. Featured articles are. As we've seen, reviewers can be swayed to add phrases to them to please the label or band. Not sure that a feature wouldn't do the same, but they tend to deal in larger topics. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, we really should have source actually saying that the band or members are Christian. "Faith" can mean a lot of things, and we shouldn't assume, especially when it involves living people.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a new development, but first...3family6, you're right, but the bold quote (from an IVM interview) was in response to a question specifically about whether they were a Christian band. The JFH review is using the band's "faith" as a rationale for covering them on a Christian-only music review site. In both cases, one naturally infers from the context that the faith being referenced is Christian in nature.

That said, I found this. The site is reliable, so is the writer (was interviewed by About.com as an example of a heavy metal writer, and has written for Metal Maniacs among other publications). The comments on it take issue with the writer's classification of the band, and even the band themselves (or at least their lead singer at the time) disagreed with the mention, but the writer has (to my knowledge) not (yet) recanted his statement, so the source should be reliable and its claim should end this debate. Does it?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Great background research. Blabbermouth.net is itself perfectly acceptable, but good job on going the extra mile! Looks like the band can go on this list. Kind of interesting how they actually wrote a specific reply, when many other bands (Kekal comes to mind) have not. It is a little weird that a band whose vocalist is an atheist gets listed here, but that's how it goes. The Facebook thing would be a very good thing to mention on the band's article.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It actually already is; that's how I found out about it. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

An idea

A thought recently occured to me: maybe, to avoid confusing casual readers, we could separate the list into sections for each of the different subgenres? Like so:

Hardcore punk bands

(list pure hardcore bands)

Post-hardcore/screamo/emocore bands

(list Emery, Underoath, Dead Poetic, etc.)

Hardcore/metal bands

(list bands that play grunge, metalcore, crossover thrash, etc.)

I'm oversimplifying, of course (maybe grunge and metalcore should be separate categories?), but you get the basic gist of it. Would this be a good idea?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it that clear-cut. Are bands exclusive to one genre or another or is the cross-over? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This was debated a year or two back on the List of Christian metal bands. I like the idea, but as Walter asked above, are there bands that cross-over? I think the list guidelines for Wikipedia stress that an entry should not have to be repeated on the same list. The idea really does sound nice, but I can guarantee you that there will be duplicate entries.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that policy page (though I'll be happy to take your word for it), but technically cross-overs wouldn't be on the same list, but different lists on the same article. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it would be three (or more?) separate lists incorporated into one article, so it wouldn't actually be "[repeating an entry] on the same list" any more than having Underoath or Emery on multiple lists is.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

From Manual of Style/Lists: "If a list entry logically belongs in two or more categories (e.g., an Australian in an Argentine prison for drug trafficking), this suggests that the list categorization might be flawed, and should be re-examined." Even if we split the list into separate sections, it still is the same list. List = article.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting that statement. First of all, it says that such an occurrence suggests that the list categorization might be flawed. Not definite. Second, based on the example they give, I think they're talking about not using two categories if one can suffice. A "list of dogs" and a "list of things that bark" would be exactly the same, so might as well make a "list of dogs that bark". In our case, while there would be some duplicate entries between the second two categories I mentioned, they certainly wouldn't be quite as similar as, say, a "list of Christian post-hardcore bands" and a "list of Christian screamo bands". I don't know, I don't think it'd be that much of a problem, at least here.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Another idea

I did a little thinking over the weekend and came up with what I hope is a better thought out variation on the sections idea: maybe we could have one section for plain old hardcore bands, listed the same as they are now, and another section for hardcore fusions and sub-genres listed in a table. Like so:

Hardcore punk bands

• Alove for Enemies
• Born Blind
• Crashdog
• Dogwood (and so on)

Hardcore fusion/derivative bands

Band	Hardcore subgenre(s)
12 Stones	Grunge
Advent	Metalcore
Anberlin	Post-hardcore

(and so on)

I don't know, maybe I'm still not thinking it through. What does everyone else think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a little confusing. It would be better to do them all one way.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Something I noticed...

I was looking over the Verifiability policy page when I noticed this: "It must be possible [italics in original] to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Applying that to this list, it seems like obvious entries that have multiple sources supporting their inclusion (i.e. Underoath, August Burns Red, TDWP, etc.) are allowed to go without inline citations, and only contested entries with minimal sources (The Classic Crime, This Beautiful Republic, etc.) need them. Should we edit the list accordingly?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have one source for all, just because newer editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia verifiability policy (hey, I'm not even familiar with all of it) might not understand what is going on and put in a band that does need a citation.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could add in a hidden text message for editors, like what they have on the metal list.

And I think if people see bands like Underoath or Oh Sleeper unsourced and bands like Anberlin or The Classic Crime sourced, they'll eventually get the idea.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)