Talk:Bull of Heaven (band)

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

Genres[edit]

There has been a massive amount of edit warring regarding the genres and the recent version had too many genres for the infobox. These are genres that included in the article's sources:

I've installed all of these into the infobox until a consensus is reached. I think if we find more sources regarding the genres, we can reach a proper consensus (I've modeled the discussion after the one for the Iggy Pop article.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment. I don't know the band (though it sounds like I'd like them!), and my issues are twofold:
  1. The big genre list was simply way too long to be useful or readable in the infobox. I've no problem at all with the genres being included in the body of the article, provided issues two is addressed. The infobox genre guidance says 2-4, so the 20+ on this article is way too many; it becomes unreadable.
  2. All the genres need to be sourced, as the discussion here states. We can't just say a genre is self-evident; reliable sources are essential.
Hopefully this is helpful. GedUK  14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ged UK is correct in relaying the infobox instructions which recommend no more than four genres listed. As well, the instructions advise to aim for generality, so the many sub-genres should be represented by a few larger and more inclusive genres. Certainly Experimental music must be listed. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS and the countless genre discussions, the previous massive list of genres was completely inappropriate. I have no beef with sourcing them in the body if they are true, but the infobox should include only the primary ones. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a lot of this, and find the consistent edit warring to be very annoying. Having to cite genres for a band is almost unheard of - and I find it annoying to have to do so just because a band is prolific and diverse to such a huge degree. Your arguments that the guideline says "2-4 genres" neglects to mention the word "preferably". This is the band that is not preferable, sorry, but this is the cut and dry of it. You CANNOT pin the band down to 2-4 genres, and in doing so, you cut literally YEARS of their work away and make it seem redundant. But for the sake of discussions sake, and since I just do NOT have the time to handle this nonsense, my notes are as follows:

In addition to the above linked sources of genres, the following should be listed for blatantly obvious reasons (i.e. the text on the Wiki page itself, and the general knowledge of the band by almost any listener - myself being a long-term one):

ambient - Ranked as the band's #1 genre on RateYourMusic (for those who are unfamiliar with how RYM ranks band genres - every time a band's album/release gets a genre vote, they add up. Once they get around 5-10 votes from non-new members, they appear on the band's main page as a genre they are "known" for. In the case of Bull of Heaven, of all the 448 items on RateYourMusic, the MOST voted for is Ambient. I don't care what the site says about using it as a source. You cannot tell me that hundreds of members voting for hundreds of releases do not count as a valid source.) dark ambient - Ranked as the band's #3 genre on RateYourMusic (see above) minimal - Ranked as the band's #9 genre on RateYourMusic (see above) sound art - Read the article. Now tell me that the use of RAR-locked passwords to release music, encrypting music inside images, hiding copies of the bible in a music file, and various other puzzles do not count as Sound Art. algorithmic composition - Releases 238 - 260 are all algorithmic compositions. Count it: 23 releases. Not to mention they are incredibly long releases at that (again: read the article). abstract music - I honestly don't feel the need to explain this, it's abstract. Simple. underground music - For a band who for several years were only found by Googling "the longest song in the world", that's pretty underground. They also seldom play live and apart from Counts' posting on the page, they are very limited in their interviews and general public presence. outsider music - See above. surrealist music - See above again. contemporary classical - Whilst "classical" is now on the page, I don't think it's specific enough. spoken word - Ranked as the band's #4 genre on RateYourMusic (see above) stoner rock, post-rock, noise rock, space rock, & psychedelic rock - Again, just having "prog rock" is not enough. The band has actually done FAR more Stoner Rock than they have Prog Rock, anyway. As above with the RYM rankings, Stoner Rock is #7, Post-Rock is #16, Noise Rock is #12, Space Rock is #25, & Psych Rock is #13. Throughout 2013 and 2014 the band released primarily these genres alone, as well.

At this point in my reply I'm frankly tired of having to reply to it to begin with. I kind of hate that I have to defend the band because - from what I gather from the above - users are just wiping and truncating the genres because A) they don't know the band and B) are just sticking to guidelines on the one band the guidelines just cannot logically apply to. I'm not going to spend hours digging up sources of where these genres are discussed outside of their RYM and last.fm pages, because I work a lot and do not have the time nor energy to do so. I've spent enough time on this reply alone. And regardless of what merit it has - I've listened to nearly all of the band's music, and have been listening to them for 7 years. I made the article, and frankly, I know what I'm talking about here. You can argue that "4 genres is more than enough", but I rebuke that - because you can simply not compartmentalise this band's near 500 releases, and literal YEARS of musical output in such a minimal amount of genres. I do agree to wiping a few, as they only apply to a few releases, but a lot are very relevant.

The following is what I believe to be an acceptable list of the band's genres. I have trimmed out those that do not have more than, say, 5 notable examples in their discography. For the sake of a compromise. I'm sick of editing and re-editing this page based on idle and seemingly biased opinions of users who don't seem to have listened to any of the band's music (or have, and are showing nothing but animosity towards them, going against the NPOV of Wikipedia). One could argue that -I- am bias towards the band having all listed, being a fan. But frankly - I'd go to bat against any band, like them or not, for the sake of keeping things accurate in the world of music - especially when it comes to music genre classification. But that's just me. Anyway, my proposed list is as followed - again, got a problem? Ask me. I will source with their music. They're outsider, they don't have 5000 pages linking every microbe of their musical existence - and being the most prolific and diverse band in the world, they never will:

Experimental, avant-garde, ambient, dark ambient, noise, minimal, aleatoric music, absolute music, drone, sound art, noise rock, electronic, abstract music, space rock, stoner rock, psychedelic rock, progressive rock, jazz, free jazz, surrealist music, avant-garde jazz, sound collage, spoken word, contemporary classical, algorithmic composition, prepared music, free improvisation, musique concrète, dub, indeterminacy, underground music, outsider music, microtonality, instrumental rock, post-rock, microsound, plunderphonics, found sound, field recording, meditation music, glitch, computer music, anti-music, drone metal, serialism

The above genres, numerous as they are - are more than neccesary to describe the band. For the sake of compromise, I have deleted the following:

(these could still potentially be counted, to some people) isolationist ambient - I'd never seen that used till it was put on the page. doom metal - Drone Metal? Sure. Doom Metal is a little bit of a reach in most cases (they have a few releases in the style, though). atonality - There's some degree of atonality in their music, but regardless, I don't see this as a genre to begin with and it probably should not be in the same space. One could argue things like Serialism and Aleatoric Music are in the same way - but they are at least more applicable in this instance, and to this band. electroacoustic - They have some, but I cannot think of enough examples off the top of my head - however it could easily be counted. impressionist music - As above.

(these only apply to a few or singular releases, so probably don't have enough reason to be on a master list that applies to the band on the whole) jazz fusion hip hop turntablism EDM IDM gabber breakcore circuit bending danger music rock and roll post-metal punk rock post-punk post-industrial power electronics

I am going to edit the page one more time now with my genres above. Before ANY of you think to edit it further, and without jumping on the "guideline says this" bandwagon - consider the above. Go and find me a list of bands that had to cite genres just to have them validated on a Wiki page, and do not quote the "2-4 genre" rule since it is literally only "preferable" that this is the case. Once more, this is not going to happen for this band. Feel free to discuss any of the newly updated genres, and I will link what I can. That's it, I'm done. I've spent all my free time on this. No more. Forfeh (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert your last edits; however, there are some things that I want to point out:
  • It doesn't matter whether this band is an "extraordinary case" or not. These need still a source and Rate My Music (and similar user-operated websites) have zero validity as a source. What you are doing now is adding genres according to your original research and your point is mostly based on this. Also whether another band page has sourced genres or not is not relevant; this must be necessary, especially for this sort of controversial articles.
  • If you have any objections against the guideline, then you may open a discussion on the talk pages. However, you are currently doing whatever you desire and disregard every set of rule. I understand that you're doing this for the article's good and indeed the rules can be breakable if necessary. However, I am really baffled at your persistence on keeping the genres without any discussion or consensus, even after this amount of controversy it has generated. Also the fact that you listen to this band's music neithers makes you an expert on this nor grants you priority over others' edits on Wikipedia.
  • I don't really think having around 65 genres on the infobox (without any sort of necessary prose or explanation in the article body) would be useful at all, especially for the readers.
  • And yes, you are right. You are definitely editing the page with a fan's perspective. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox instructions represent Wikipedia consensus. It is sometimes possible to override a guideline with strong local consensus, but such consensus here is clearly in favor of following the guideline rather than ditching it. Fewer and more general genres, please. Detailed discussion of genres can be hosted in the article body text, with references for support. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No band is so unique and diverse that it cannot have its genres generically listed at an infobox and then properly explained in prose at a specific section. As said above, the best option is to list few and generic genres, and then describe them with sources at a section, a section that can be linked at the infobox with the generic genres. I personally find it quite annoying having to cite sources for genres when they are so WP:BLUE (see Abandon All Ships, for example; no one would deny they're an eletronicore band, but still one user was reverting everyone who wrote that without sources, until I did the job.) But if a band is so diverse and has worked with so many different kinds of music that it would require an entire section for the readers to understand what this band is about, then sources are absolutely necessary, and summarizing its music at the infobox is "necessary evil" for the sake of readability and Infobox musical artist#genre. Victão Lopes Fala! 16:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No other band requires citations to support the genres in their list. This is childish and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines. Reverting it back to "experimental" in light of the fact that many of the references in the article mention that they make jazz, rock, classical, etc., is misleading at best... deliberate vandalism at worst. Lagopodous (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like every information on Wikipedia, genres do need sources. It is stated everywhere; at least 3 users on this page re-stated its necessity. Only one reference mentions the genre that you've reported (which is Dutch Vice magazine blog interview). The article has only a few sources that refer to the genre actually. Also note that no consensus on the genres are reached yet. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Two of the articles mention that they are a jazz band, and several others mention classical music, as that is what they are at their basis... a contemporary classical project. I have searched other bands' pages high and low for such requirements. None of them have had discussions pertaining to which genres should be included. Give me an example, and I'll be more than happy to concede. Until then, you're simply revising the article based on your own personal preferences. Lagopodous (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vice mentions free jazz (according to Google translate, the exact quote is: "Although they particularly fluctuate between noise, drone and progressive, they also make excursions into free jazz, dub, classic, or even reggae.") ; All About Jazz calls the band an experimental duo, with no mentions of jazz or classical. Stl Jazz Notes mentions "spoken word and free jazz to prog rock, classical" as influences; however the source's verifiability can be debated as it is a blog. (The author Dean Minderman wrote blog articles for River Front Times but I think a consensus needed for the source.) I'm digging up this much and I couldn't find anything else. Two of the sources were Facebook entries, other two didn't have any mention of Bulls of Heaven (they were about the Beatles-noise mashup) and one of them was Rate My Music. I'd be glad if you've given away some of specific sources that you've mentioned.
If the genres were already sourced beforehand, this discussion wouldn't have occured. That's why some of the articles don't have these discussions but they may still have if any objections occur. I may give you some of the examples of genre discussions: Garbage, U2, Deftones (literally half of the archived pages are genre disccussions), Korn, and Mudvayne (this) are some of the examples that come to my mind. Discussions occur to resolve disputes; I don't get why this article should be exempt from it. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, per WP:V which is not optional. Genres are included. There are a couple of WP:BLUE genres but they are obvious yes/no cases, such as soundtrack or instrumental. The genres we have been discussing for this band must be verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from the sources provided, experimental music is the only genre explicitly supported. --Lapadite (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link posted to Bull of Heaven's Facebook page. It's an English translation of the Dutch interview translated by the author of the article, not Google Translate. http://www.mediafire.com/view/ts9qt4m005d4tvz/Vice_Nl_Bull_Of_Heaven_Interview_English.pdf
It says: "And for the grande finale, the band also features all sorts of genres in their music. They mostly seem to make use of Noise, Drone and Prog, but they’re not shy of using anything different like Free-jazz, Dub, Classical, or even Reggae. They’re pretty much open to anything." This seems to be a direct reference to the band's musical diversity.
Similarly, the St. Louis Jazz Notes article doesn't say that they are simply influenced by "spoken word and free jazz to prog rock, classical and more ," but that they INCORPORATE these influences into their work. There's a lot of shoddy, self-assured, and insincere editorialism going on here. These genres are clearly supported. Lagopodous (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They mostly make use of Noise, Drone and Prog" would be the only usable phrase here. Because a band may feature elements of various genres in their music does not mean all those genres are representative of the band's overall sound. You can't have a dozen genres there because one source says a series of random, unrelated of genres influence their music. If you want to include jazz, for instance, you need to find support that that genre is prominent in their music (i.e., from multiple sources). Experimental music is currently the only explicitly supported genre, and it's representative. Noise and drone appear to be mentioned by more than one source so both or either could be included beside experimental, but no more than 4 genres should be present unless there's substantial support from sources for another beyond the 4. --Lapadite (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're wrong. You're inferring things in the articles that aren't stated explicitly. They have "incorporated" these genres, ergo they have created pieces that are representative of the genres. That is unambiguous. Likewise, here is a link to the cover of the Denver Post's Arts Section, which directly refers to Clayton Counts as a "contemporary classical composer." http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/clayton-counts-of-denver-a-contemporary-classical-composer-news-photo/161068142 Also, the reference included in the Flaming Lips' record insert states: "Not sure how that beats 'The Chosen Priest and Apostle of Infinite Space' by U.S. drone merchants Bull in Heaven [sic], which clocks in at two months long [...] Let us not forget that history shows again and again how prog-rock points out the folly of men." http://www.phawker.com/2014/04/18/upcoming-record-store-day-shop-til-you-drop/ Furthermore, the Westword says, "Bull of Heaven is noise, or drone, or really, whatever the hell it feels like." The introduction to their interview at Musique Machine says: "Throughout this formidable heap of work, one might hear tribal war drums, theremin, prepared piano, modified fan propellers, psychedelic rock, political speeches, or an entire answering machine tape whose previous owner is probably a deceased mother." http://musiquemachine.com/articles/articles_template.php?id=155 By any reasonable interpretation, drone, noise, minimalism, spoken word, jazz, prog rock, contemporary classical, and psychedelic rock should all be included, per the citations I have enumerated. There are ample, sufficient, independent references, regardless of your desire to ignore, or your inability to grasp, the obvious. You are being wilfully petulant and obstinate for the sake of it. With millions of releases in every genre imaginable, there is no question that the band is responsible for more than just experimental music. Your blatant and transparent editorial bias doesn't change that fact. Lagopodous (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you are offering here show me that there is no general agreement on what is the band's genre. Each genre expressed in the infobox should be found in multiple sources, to guarantee that the genre is not an outlier—some quirky opinion not shared by others. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your enforcement of this rule is arbitrary at best. These sources clearly indicate that the band is responsible for more than just "experimental" music. You are a pedant. Lagopodous (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're also mentioned in two separate jazz-related links, St. Louis Jazz Notes and Jazz This Week. Your resistance to accept that they are a jazz band is puzzling and apparently personal. There is still no consensus here and no other band I have seen, even in the links you provided, is held to such scrutiny. Your argument is weak. It's obvious to anyone who can read that they are responsible for far more than experimental music. Lagopodous (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This does not qualify them as a jazz band; none of them describe the band as jazz band. One of the sources label them as experimental music and other one (the questionable blog one) lists free jazz as one of the influences. In contrast, your argument is weak. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know what's weak? The inability of someone to understand that, when a band appears in a publication, blog, etc., specifically devoted to promoting jazz music, they are typically a jazz band. Moreover, it's not difficult to see that they are, indeed, a jazz band, as well as a rock and roll band, and a noteworthy contemporary classical music project. One only need search YouTube and have a pair of ears. A track whose link I am providing below is clearly not simply "influenced" by free-jazz. It's not free jazz at all, but structured, avant-garde jazz. They also have many other jazz and jazz-rock releases, as well as countless others not covered by "experimental." It's not a matter of personal preference. The recordings in question exclusively feature jazz progressions, saxophone, clarinet, jazz guitar, keys, etc., instruments and musical themes exclusive to jazz recordings. Similarly, there is no debate as to whether these recordings are jazz on sites like Discogs and Rate Your Music, but since you mentioned that such websites are not reliable sources, I'm only making mention of this fact to debunk your assertion that people's tastes differ so greatly with regard to the band's jazz (and other) releases. They've made plenty of music in other genres, as is well-known by anyone familiar with the band's work, and that simple fact is not under dispute by anyone except for you. To top it all off, as mentioned by another user, they aren't going to have a million references to particular genres of music they're responsible for, because, given the sheer magnitude and diversity of the band's output, it would be literally impossible. Fortunately for the sake of accuracy, the band doesn't seem to be halting their output anytime soon, so I expect that other publications will mention their jazz, rock, post-rock, noise, minimalism, and contemporary classical releases at some point, which will render your entire objection moot, obtuse, and, most importantly, flagrantly incorrect. Which it already is. Cheers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x76H_41Bf-k Lagopodous (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I expect that other publications will mention their jazz, rock, post-rock, noise, minimalism, and contemporary classical releases at some point" - good, when that happens, other genres explicitly supported by multiple reliable sources (for the general styles of the band) may be added. --Lapadite (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. When that happens, you will be proven incorrect in your depiction of the band as "experimental," in light of the fact that numerous, independent sources already refer to many other genres for which they are responsible. Lagopodous (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bull of Heaven (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bull of Heaven (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bull_of_Heaven_(band)&oldid=1200442755"