Talk:Corporate rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] artical contains misinformation

I disagree with the information given in this artical. "Corporate Rock" as being defined as rock lacking creativity is an unfair misjudgement made by those who don't like the sound of this certain type of music. In factuallity most of the bands listed here as "corporate rock" were actually very creative in they're work, and the fans of those bands would dislike this label of their music. I propose that this artical be changed to express the idea that the label "corporate rock" is nothing more than a biased criticism of a certain genre of music, and shouldn't be given any credit for accuracy beyond that.

The article already makes clear that "corporate rock" is just the opinion of a certain group of rock critics, nothing more. Fortunately, rock critics have little influence in the rock world. Wasted Time R 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "all rock groups are corporations designed to make money"

That is simply not true. There are bands which do not sell their songs nor charge for admission to their shows. Furthermore, just because a band does make money, it does not follow that it is designed to make money. There are countless bands which could drastically alter their music and make much more money, but choose not to.

[edit] Neutrality

There is no way that this arcticle is encyclopedic in tone. This is a very slanted opinion and should be rewritten. --PhilKenSebben 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)