Talk:List of anarchist musicians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


from Talk:List of anarchists

Does anyone know of any good anarchist metal bands? I really like punk, but (some) metal sounds really cool, but most of the lyrics suck. Anyone have ideas. I just got Napalm death's new cd and that's pretty good. Any ideas?

Try Panopticon, Sorgsvart, Iskra, Wolves in the Throne Room, Skagos, Mania, Totenmond, or Peregrine. Black Kronstadt (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed Avail, Hot Water Music, and No Use for a Name for now. I've been listening to these bands for a while, never heard them called anarchists. So, if someone can please offer proof of some sort we can put them back in (I've been looking to no...avail ;) yes I'm lame). 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the no use for a name are anarchists (though I doubt it) but that they have now gone really pop punk and don't have any politics in their songs. I got one of their cds from my local library thinking they would be political and was greatly disappointed (glad I didn't waste money on it)
I'm not sure about Discount either, but I'm not as familiar with them. 21:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering about Pitchshifter. Does anyone have anything explicictly saying they're anarchists or had anarchist tendencies? - DNewhall
I propose scrapping rise against. They seem too much along the lines of anti-flag for me (pop punkers with middle of the road socialist tendencies being labeled as anarchists). Also, I am not really familiar with Reagan Youth, but their page says nothing about their being anarchists--radical leftists yes, but anarchists, not really sure. Same with MDC.
MDC are very much anarchists... the advocate killing cops.
I am the one who wasn't sure about MDC (I have an account now). I also have one of their cd's now too, and I agree with you, they are anarchists. The Ungovernable Force 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I answered part of my own question, Reagan Youth are anarchists or at least their lyrics seem like it.

I am curious to know why Asian Dub Foundation are listed. I can't find anything on the net that says they are an anarchist group & they recently did a benefit gig for the Scottish Socialist Party -- it is unusual for anarchists to support the "parliamentary road" to social change. james

As of 17th June somebody has removed a whole load of bands -- RATM, Negativland, Propagandhi, T(I)NC and others. Why? I think that if people are going to take stuff out they should give a reason. The first three bands i mention are definitely anarchist, so why take them out? If anyone knows something I don't could they please explain here? thanks -- james

I personally don't know about the removal but RATM are often viewed as manufactured rebellion so a lot in the anarchist movement resent them and don't want them there. I would agree personally. Never listened to Negativeland but I thought they were anarchists. I have one cd by propagandhi and I think they are probably anarchists, but they don't label themselves as such. They say on their website that they don't want to be labeled and that they encourage people to find their own ideology as to how to destroy capitalism. I would personally consider them anarchists though (or pretty damn close). Only heard two songs by T(I)NC. I think they are debated a lot too, people on gave them a thrashing one time with regard to their touring with the offspring. They are political though.
It's a shame that people bitch so much about musicians -- RATM, T(I)NC, etc. I want Propagandhi to stay on the list, along with RATM & others. I hope that people don't just take artists off the list because they don't tour with the right people! -- james, 8.7.05

I removed The Angelic Upstarts from the list because their politics were definately socialist and not anarchist. They also had a patriotic slant about them as well.

Marilyn Manson? Hes very far from an anarchist

Are Jello Biafra and Dead Kennedys anarchists? I'd say Jello is more of a progressive and he ran with the Green party.

Jello Biafra is a self identified personal anarchist, but does not believe in Anarchy for the masses yet. Since he wrote  :most if not all of the lyrics for the Dead Kennys, they would be in the same boat I assume.

--Dannyvocal (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)I agree with the general theme that to be anarchist they must identify with anarchism, or write songs that promote anarchist ideas, and the like. The beginning of this page also defines anarchism . As stated above by someone else, Biafra is a member of the Green Party and also ran for President of that party. By any reasonable definition of anarchism, running for President of a political party is automatically disqualifying you as an anarchist, who does not seek parliamentary means of reforming society via political parties. Thus while I agree that in general many of the entries on this page do reflect a degree of anarchist thought (if only anti-authoritarianism), in Biafra's case, his running for President surely disqualifies him automatically? --Dannyvocal (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--Dannyvocal (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Someone asked if Lydon should be considered an anarchist given he has allegedly never promoted anarchism. Let us not forget his single "Anarchy in the UK" which consciously (under McClaren's influence) intended to become a Situationist act. Not to mention the fact that while lyrically it is only the most primitive "anarchism" ("I wanna destroy passers by," etc) it probably did more to get people looking into what anarchism really was than any other song I can think of!

just a hint, if you've maybe never heard the song "Baby, I'm An Anarchist" by Against Me, so I'm going to go ahead and put them right up there in the A section. Thats all.

The song "Baby, I'm An Anarchist" is mainly satirical though rather than an actual call for anarchy. Also they supported Kerry on the Rock The Vote tour.

Organization of the List[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to better organize this list. For instance, put all the anarcho-punk bands in one section, classical composers in another, etc.

Sex Pistols?[edit]

Do they really belong here? Although they do seem to self-identify this way, they come across more as nihilists than anarchists. Sarge Baldy 21:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

oh yeah, they're total anarchists--didn't you see sid in that swastika shirt? I don't think they belong here. I also wonder why Johnny Rotten's page calls him an individualist anarchist. I really doubt he is truly an anarchist. I could be wrong though.

Big Problem![edit]

This list is just a collection of bands people have written down without any basis for it. Any left wing band that someone has heard of has been put down, RATM, for example, were socialists/communists, not anarchists. This needs a major shake up. --Horses In The Sky 13:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What definition of Anarchism are we using again? And why should we use only that definition for this list? I do not believe you can seriously call one of the most significant left wing bands of the past decade non-anarchist without proof. If you will recall, the RATM book list on their own website has works such as "ABC's of Anarchism" and works by Chomsky in its collection, and in my opinion that would imply that the band at least takes elements from some form of anarchism. I do not see why some people who term themselves anarchist feel their view is 'genuine' while others are 'superficial' should get the right to declare who is and who is not an anarchist band, politician, person, etc. It is simply elitism, the very antithesis of anarchism. It is normal for humans, even of similar ideologies, to have serious disagreements over certain particulars of their ideology, so why are we acting as though it is a mortal sin to do so in the realm of music?

Additionally, should we simply remove any and every musican that has not outright called himself an anarchist in public? Or do you have to sing with the 'right' line of thought in your lyrics to qualify? How can we judge this with anything resembling objectivity? Is there a party line we must follow now to ensure adhesion to the manual, never to deviate or call it by any other name than The Line?

In my opinion, the only use this list could possibly have is to get people to listen to bands that have anarchist content in parts of their music. Otherwise, this list will be short and elitist, since very few bands (and essentially no well known bands) adhere to a strict ideological line proclaimed by a central authority or set of authorities. Since the meaning of poetry used in music is almost nothing but subjective interpretation, I do not think we should remove musicians unless they have absolutely no political content or are obviously authoritarian, such as Britney Spears (guess which she is). If a band is disputed, we should make a new discussion section for it and let the people who know something about the band hash it out until a general concensus is made by the parties involved.

Does anyone else agree with my analysis and suggestions? I would really like to have a sincere and cooperative discussion about this. -- BBUCommander

The reason for this list is most definitely not to "get people to listen to bands", that's what myspace is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool for bands, political or otherwise. There are tons of bands on this list who should be removed, despite the fact that some people want them to be anarchists. Murderbike 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Riotfolk Musicians[edit]

I added the names of 8 folk singers that are part of a revolutionary collective known as Riotfolk. You can check them out on if you want to make sure they qualify.

How are we defining "anarchist musicians"?[edit]

Is it as musicians who also happen to identify as anarchists? Or musicians who use their music as anarchist agitprop? Or do you have to do both? I'm a little confused. Rage Against the Machine, for example, never explicitly identified as anarchists, had anarchist books in their reading list, had a Marxist guitarist and an anarchist vocalist who incoroporated that into his lyrics. John Lydon identifies as an anarchist, but his music has never promoted anarchism. The (International) Noise Conspiracy, according to their article, identify as communists (I thought they refused (bad pun!) labels), but they are normally regarded as anarchists (as anarchist communists, autonomous Marxists, etc.). Anti-Flag were anarchists earlier on, but now deny it and are more mainstream socialists. What gives? -Switch t 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, to remove musicians that have no mention of their anarchist identity in their article, unless it can be cited otherwise. Murderbike 06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I remove several, after finding nothing about anarchism in the linked articles, or in google searches. I'd like to avoid problems that got List of Anarchists deleted. Murderbike 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove Anti-Flag. They aren't anarchists, they're idiots.

I removed Anti-Flag. I have seen them on the Rock Against Bush tour where they encouraged voting. Inherantly non-anarchist, they may have been anarchists but they are not now so they are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should remove Zack de la Rocha and Rage Against the Machine[edit]

Zack and the boys from the band have never described themselves as anarchists or lent support to an Anarchist cause to my knowlegde. they have however described themselves as Marxists and supported Marxist causes. Alot of Communists, epecially nowadays with the collapse of most communist-run governments have allied themselves or lent sympathy towards Anarchists; and RATM did have obvious links and was very support towards the EZLN. But even the EZLN is not an Anarchist organization, they have only borrowed some Anarchist ideals such as "voluntary socialism" and association through their rebel autonomous municipalities.

Anyway, i dont think they have ever seen themselves as Anarchists! So I think you should remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

When have they ever identified as Marxists? Ever. Honestly. They've never said that.
Their reading list includes books critical of Marxism, including What Is Anarchist Communism by Alexander Berkman and Animal Farm by George Orwell. Their reading list includes works by both anarchists (Noam Chomsky, Henry David Thoreau, Howard Zinn) and Marxists (Che Guevara, Vladimir Lenin, and Karl Marx himself), as well as by people who do not identify as either, and a few philosophical works (Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre) and other books even more confusing (M. C. Escher's The Graphic Work). Obviously, that doesn't help much, but it does show that they aren't out-and-out Marxists.
Tom Morello identifies as an anarchist here. I think that's enough said in his case.
Zack de la Rocha's lyrics are confusing. He makes references to Frantz Fanon, Mao Zedong and others in the first two albums; in The Battle of Los Angeles, however, he makes reference to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, Crass, Peter Kropotkin and similar.
What they have done to make you think they're Marxists is used images of Che Guevara in their art, and had The Internationale played before live performances. Not quite enough to disqualify them in my opinion. ~Switch t c g 10:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bands without articles should be removed[edit]

Bands without Wikipedia articles should be deleted from the list because there is no way of verifying whether they belong on the list. Spylab 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Murderbike 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--Dannyvocal (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Do Not Agree. But do agree there must a reference to support entry, which is closer to Wikipedia conventions than whether or not there is another Wikipedia entry. For example, if a band has no Wikipedia entry, then minimally there should be a website address referenced that will, in this case, prove anarchist affiliation or sympathy of some sort.

Actually, all entries in a list must still meet the basic notability requirements. Most of the individuals on here pass WP:MUSIC simply because they're part of a notable band, but there were a few that didn't. I removed them. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This is not the case Wyatt; notability is a requirement for the inclusion of topics as articles, not for article content. Read the guideline you linked to. What matters here is WP:RS. Regards, Skomorokh 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I guess I've always read the list policy ("Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others") as going hand-in-hand with the inclusion policy.
Now if this is the case--what you're saying, I mean--how do we keep this article from becoming a flood of otherwise non-notable individuals who have labelled themselves as anarchists? Half the bands I grew up on had anarchist members and nearly all of them published diatribes at one time or another (probably allowed as self-published sources, no?), but I don't know if they necessarily warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS primarily. If The New York Times mentions some otherwise non-notable musician as being an anarchist, including a line on her here isn't going to drag down the quality of the list. WP:SPS applies here, which might be a problem as it seems to allow every myspace band page that says the members are anarchists to be used to justify inclusion. The list is short enough, and won't suffer too much from credible claims of being anarchists by unnotable musicians being used as sources, but we have a problem if hundreds get added, or if someone decides to add 30 of his friends (all verifiable anarchists). What gets us off the hook, however, is the undue weight policy; if the list gets too long, we cull the least notable; if the list shows an excessive focus on one collection of anarchist musicians, we reduce the space devoted to them. Does this work? Skomorokh 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
All good suggestions. Thanks, and cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Odd List of anarcho-punk bands is a subset of this article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. anarcho-punk is a genre unto itself. and there are plenty of anarchist musicians who have nothing to do with "punk". Murderbike 06:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion This doesn't seem so unreasonable. The List of anarchist musicians isn't a list by musical genre. It's a list of musicians who identify as anarchists, either as individuals or as a band. Punk bands would qualify if they consider themselves anarchist. The argument can be made that the list of anarcho-punk bands is so long that the two combined would be unmanageable, but that's not such a great position either. How about rearranging the list of musicians so that the entries are divided by genre. Folk musicians get a section; symphonic musicians (or is that just John Cage?) gets a section; and of course, punk bands and their various sub-groups get a section. And if that sub-section is too large, replace it with a link to the list of anarcho-punks.--Cast 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I retract my own suggestion. Now that I've begun editing this list, I realize how many musicians have crossed genres, and it would make little sense to repeat entries under different subsections. I now feel that bands should be excluded from this list, and moved to a list of bands by genre. Further, since there seems to be no argument for a merge, I'm going to assume this is a closed discussion and remove the templates.--Cast 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious entries[edit]

There are some entries in this list I feel are highly suspect, and I have marked some of them with <tt>{{fact}}</nn> tags appropriately. The bands tagged are:

In particular, the article on Snog has no references to being anarchist at all, and according to The Durutti Column's article their name " derived from a misspelling ... A 1967 Situationist International poster included the phrase "The Return of the Durutti Column", which eventually became the title of the group's first album." What I gather from this is that they saw the phrase and thought it was cool, not knowing much about it at the time.

RATM have been ambiguous about affiliation, and although definitely sympathetic to anarchism (Morello is a former anarchist and has recently had a revival of interest in anarchism; I suspect de la Rocha is an anarchist but he's silent on the matter), it would be difficult to peghole them as anarchists per se. See above for a slightly more detailed discussion. Perhaps most interestingly, I can find plenty of sources to label RATM as anarchists, but trust none of them.

Looptroop are a hip hop group with one anarchist member. Okay, maybe more. But there is nothing to suggest they are collectively anarchist. The Kottonmouth Kings have a song about "anarchy" which suggests maybe they do subscribe to some kind of ill-defined anarchist belief, but it's tenuous. I'd like something more solid than an ambiguous lyric in one song. And lastly, The (International) Noise Conspiracy identify only as communists, even if apparently libertarian communists.

There are others I consider tenuous too, but mostly less so. Morello, for example, has at the very least said he was an anarchist, so depending on the criteria he could be included. What I'd really like is to establish inclusion criteria and cite every single entry. One thing at a time though. ~ Switch () 09:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious entries[edit]

Scott "Stza" Sturgeon isn't an anarchist so I think that he should be deleted from this list — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

I'm not sure of the history of this but the article is now on Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of anarchist musicians. --Salix alba (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The nomination has been defeated, but not by any "substantial" efforts on the part of its advocates. It was only preserved by virtue of a lack of consensus. I think drastic measures are needed to preserve this list and prevent any further nominations. I suggest 1) removing "bands," and replacing them with specific names of members of said bands (associated links may still link to band articles); 2) organizing the list by means other than alphabetical (e.g. by musical genre); and 3) finding a substantial number of citations for a majority or significant minority of entries (the former being preferable, but the latter acceptable if only as evidence that further improvement is ongoing). To be positive that a similar fate does not befall the List of anarchist poets, I suggest that article be decisively edited as well. A list of poets is somewhat more difficult to divide for informational purposes, so I suggest rewriting it as a List of anarchist writers, and dividing it by types of writers (e.g. journalists, non-fiction authors, fiction authors, poets, etc).
I would also like to point out that the task of improving these dual articles is important for another purpose. Several months ago the List of anarchists was deleted under similar criticism, and work on a replacement article is currently underway. It is hoped that said article will eventually be accepted as a substantial and superior list; however, if the lists of musicians and poets are deleted it may serve as further argument that lists of this type (those related to anarchists,) are undervalued and perhaps unnecessary, and the new List of anarchists may be more easily rejected. I do not subscribe to the belief that anarchist related articles are being systematically deleted, but I do consider it unfortunate that they are being nominated for deletion at all. I hope fellow editors will assist in rolling back this process here and now.--Cast 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Two months down the road...[edit]

It's been two months and the referencing of this article is pretty non-existent still. I believe that this should be sent to AfD again but await any comments to the contrary before deciding. violet/riga (t) 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you find it so much more satisfying to threaten deletion than to just work to improve things. I just found somewhere around 15 references in about half an hour. More should be on their way. Murderbike (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, most of these citations are for the bands, but properly segregating and listing the individual members is a simple matter. If one of the arguments for the AfD nomination was that citations weren't available, you can strike that down. Plenty of citations are being found.--Cast (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I have no interest in the article and am busy with other things, hence me not doing anything to improve it. I think that a category would best serve our needs but am willing to ignore that because I know you like the article. The two concerns I have are sources and people/bands - everyone here should be sourced to properly meet our WP:BLP and WP:V policies and to me a "musician" is a person and it seems strange to have bands listed when it should be individuals per the title. Personally I think changing the name of the article would be the more sensible thing to do. Thanks again for the effort you've been putting in recently. violet/riga (t) 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bands, Part Deux[edit]

OK, so the way the lead is worded, it seems like bands should not be included at all (which I personally think is silly, but whatever). An IP just removed a bunch of bands, but we've got TONS of bands listed here. Should they all be removed, or should the lead be reworded? Murderbike (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I intended, in the long run, to utterly remove every band entry, replacing them with listings of musicians. In the long term, that's just the ultimate conclusion of dissecting bands. But I wasn't doing it the way this anonymous editor has. I wanted to keep band names up, just so they'd be there as a reference when I needed to look for new citations. Now we'll have to hit the history tab to search for the list of bands we could have used. All this editor did was give us a few extra steps to go through for future updates.
As for the inclusion of bands. It might be possible have another list for bands. As I have pointed out in a past communication with you, there are advantages to listing musicians. And to keep annoying administrators, with too much time on their hands, from nominating this list for deletion, we've got to break down this list anyway -- and not because of the lead, but because of the list title: List of anarchist musicians. Their originally was no intro to speak of. It was created to reflect the title. Rewording it to include bands will bring undesirable attention back to this list.--Cast (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it would just take one undo to reinsert all the band names. but aside from that, could we just move it to List of anarchist bands and musicians or something? Murderbike (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just removed all the bands, hoping to encourage people to follow the definition of the article as given. Here are the bands removed, for reference:

Bread and Roses...But AliveDefiance, OhioDIRT (cite to Glasper)DischargeThe Durutti ColumnHagar the WombLeader Clears the LunarLeftöver CrackLooptroop (Looptroop MC is listed in article)MDCMisery IndexNitzer EbbPicture Frame SeductionRandyRhythm ActivismRiot/CloneRubella BalletRudimentary PeniSin Dios (cite to Steine Scherben (cites to Sichtermann, Kai; Jens Johler, Christian Stahl (2003). Keine Macht für Niemand - Die Geschichte der Ton Steine Scherben. Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf. ISBN 978-3896024688 / Seidel, Wolfgang (2005). Scherben: Musik, Politik und Wirkung der Ton Steine Scherben. Ventil. ISBN 978-3931555948 / Skai, Hollow (2006). Das alles und noch viel mehr. Rio Reiser - Die inoffizielle Biografie des Königs von Deutschland. Heyne. ISBN 978-3453120389)Toxic WasteT.S.O.L. (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Angela Gossow?[edit]

Well, I know she's a vegetarian (borderline vegan), anti-racist and (obviously) anti-sexist, but I don't know if she ever defined herself as an anarchist. The video "Revolution Begins" includes some anarchist symbolism, though. Black Kronstadt (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Vents is an Australian MC and anarchist but I'm having trouble finding sources. He is active on the Australian anarchist blog slackbastard[1], and says he "check[s] a lot of references to anarchism" but those aren't really reliable sources. Producer Trials says here that "I learnt a lot from V’s Anarchist ideals that I definitely subscribe to." - this is the best source I've found so far! ~ Switch () 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable entries[edit]

There is an editor who is insisting, in violation of the WP:3RR rule, on including non-notable musicians in the list. As was discussed back in 2008, WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, and WP:LIST, should all work towards determining notability. Just because someone is in a band, notability is not conferred to the individual band members. If they are not notable by themselves, they should not be included, as per WP:LIST. Onel5969 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)