Wikipedia talk:No one cares about your garage band

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

??funny[edit]

This one is alot better then the no one cares one, lol! I bet some idiot really has tried to make a article on his garage band. But then again, we dont want people getting this confused with Garage rock.MajorHawke (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Lesser known bands in Wikipedia[edit]

While acknowledging the usefulness and truth as far as the main message of this essay is concerned, I note sometimes with disappointment that a good number of lesser known (otherwise excellent) bands have no article. It is a pity, it reduces the usefulness of Wikipedia, at least for me. Who is looking for such bands, does not necessarily expects articles that meet highbrow standards. Fortunately enough, we have MySpace. Ferencke (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank goodness for MySpace. They have lots of oversight, which is very helpful. Almost as useful as Facebook and Pinterest. KDS4444Talk

The Culture of Music is Changing — Wikipedia Needs to Get With the Program[edit]

I agree with the general tenor of the comments here. Sure, this article's funny — the way insecure young adults have a way of mirthlessly laughing at their more indiscreet peers. Every band has to start somewhere, and being signed by a major label is hardly anything like a guarantee of worth or general interest six months or a year after the fact. Bottom line is there's simply no way to abide by Wikipedia guidelines when you're dealing with stuff as subjective as art. Pages for musical artists like (e.g.) Allan Holdsworth and Kate Bush are absolutely enormous, their Talk pages stuffed with controversy out of all proportion to their influence in the wider world, because their fans happen to be extremely passionate, which, you know, is less "encyclopaedic" than not giving a hairy squirt which Wikpedia evidently confuses for some sort of Zen-like state of calm equanimity. Yet who else is going to spend the time and effort (sans compensation, of course) save those that do give a hairy squirt in some way or another. Not to sound too needlessly po-mo or anything, but "knowledge" is everywhere embodied and "unbiased" knowledge outside of a discursive framework doesn't, per se, exist.

What pushed my buttons here isn't at all Wikipedia's policy intent with this allegedly "humorous" page. I completely get it that Wikipedia isn't a free promotional service and I understand the difference between truth and verifiability (even as I have major screaming philosophical questions about it). I just really resent (as apparently a few others who've spoken up here do as well) the snickering caracature that everybody who self-promotes their own music is some pimply teenage Mommy's-basement rockstar wannabe. Yes, of course I have some original music up on YouTube which happens to be the antithesis of "hardcore." (No, of course I'd never dream of sharing the slightest word about it on Wikipedia.) But we happen to live in a world where the jazz-rock guitarist Allan Holdsworth, one of the most widely-praised musicians by his peers in any genre of music, was seriously thinking a few years ago of packing it in and getting a job in a factory because the labels and radio stations haven't a clue how to promote his music (too jazz for rock; too rock for jazz). This entire model of "verifiable" sources to "legitimate" emerging music is ever-more-quickly dying and the next generation of musicians aren't going to "first achieve notice" in commercial venues. Their first deep writeups will be on Facebook and MySpace and their first national and international exposure will be on YouTube — while the commercial media outlets chase an ever-shrinking lowest common denominator. You surely have noted this trend, however nascent it may be at the moment.

Wikipedia needs to be a little more proactive about it, is all.

Snardbafulator (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

TLDR KDS4444Talk 14:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is quite frankly just rude..[edit]

If this patronising article is considered funny within the Wikipedia circles then it's plain for all to see why you struggle in finding your funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.84.138 (talk)

  • I play in a band. We do about 60-70 shows a year and make some good money out of it. But not a single reliable source mentions us, so if I wrote an article about the band tomorrow, it would get speedy deleted. I have seen enough non-notable bands be speedy deleted via either WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11, or to be declined at WP:AfC to tell you that this essay is frankly for their own good. Now, the essay doesn't explain how you should deliver the bad news to the article's creator, which should be as polite and diplomatic as possible. But sometimes you've got to be cruel to be kind. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It is very rude and un-deserving of Wikipedia's neutral efforts. Lots42 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Misbegotten point in Complaints section[edit]

Regarding "You should also be aware that an article about your band is nothing to be proud of and if Billboard someday writes "Bringers of Darkness are unquestionably the worst noise I have ever had misfortune to inflict on my ears", then it can go in the article, citing a reliable source. Is that really what you want?": If your band is being reviewed in Billboard then it probably does have, and merits, an article on Wikipedia, regardless of who created it! Whether the band wants it to be there or not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

...um, which is the point, I think, in a way... KDS4444Talk

Capitals[edit]

I've Added A Bit About This Style Of Writing. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

25% of new articles are about garage bands[edit]

This essay had in its lead paragraph a sentence stating that about 25% of new articles on Wikipedia are about garage bands. Connected to that figure via wikilink was the concept "How to lie with statistics". No other reference was given. I have removed the figure. Yes, there are some new articles about garage bands. The figure is no where near 25%. It might be 3% or 4% tops. That's still a lot. But telling people that a quarter of new articles are about garage bands is ludicrous and blatantly misleading. Frankly, I am speechless that it was inserted there in the first place, and the wikilink just makes the whole thing a joke. I'd call "vandalism!" if I had the patience to find out who bothered to write that bit, but meh.... I'm busy. KDS4444Talk 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that it was intended to be a joke. The essay has irreverence sprinkled throughout, so in context I don't find it egregious. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, as someone who was looking through the essay cursorily and in the middle of deciding whether or not to nominate a newly created article about just such a band, I guess the humor didn't stick. Garage bands do represent a segment of newly created articles that are not notable and which legitimately require nomination for deletion. There is a point where an essay like this can maybe end up being a little too clever for itself... I wasn't looking for a joke, I was looking for help. KDS4444Talk