Template talk:Punkbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Queercore & Emo

I'm surprised that with this ongoing ridiculous edit war over where Queercore and Emo (music) belong, nobody has discussed the dispute on this page. The origin path of those two genres are first punk rock, then hardcore punk, then those two genres. Therefore, those two genres are "derived" from punk and belong in the "derivative" section. I makes no sense to put those genres in the "other topics" section because that section is for topics that aren't specific music styles. Spylab 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Punk rock is a specific form of music that is described in the infobox from the 1970s. Hardcore was derived from that. (hense why that one belongs in the infobox) Emo wasn't.

Read emo's article; "Emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk music." No where in the article does it say it is dervied from the specific form of punk rock that is described in this infobox... neither culturally, location wise, musical characteristics or physical band members. Emo is derived from the Sex Pistols, the Damned or the Clash?... absoultely no evidence exists to support that.

The insertion of emo as a so called derivative when it isn't, makes the template contradict the emocore article. Template:Hardcorepunkbox has its own box, where emo lies within and belongs[1]. Its a product of the hardcore scene, derived from early 80s hardcore music.

For now it was put in "other" as a compromise to try cool the dispute (although it really doesn't belong in the box, period). Even NWOBHM is more derivative of punk rock specifically, and that is a metal subgenre. - Deathrocker 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be confused about the definition of the word derivative. As you mentioned, the emo article says emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk. Hardcore punk is a subgenre of punk rock, therefore emo is derivative from punk. It's simple logic. Emo would not exist without the punk rock that came before it. Therefore, it has just as much a legitimate place in the "derivative" section of this template as the other genres, such as alternative rock. It makes no sense to put emo and queercore into the "Other" category because that section is for topics that aren't about specific genres. Spylab 15:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Derivative means something that is "derived from a source"... emo bands weren't deriving their music from 70s punk bands, their source was early 80s hardcore (which has its own box).[2] Alternative rock however such as Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Cure, Virgin Prunes, Bauhaus, The Smiths, The Bad Seeds, etc directly dervied their music from 70s punk rock (the form that is described in the infobox)... hense how they are "derivative", that was their source; it wasn't emos.

Using your logic above; Avril Lavigne by proxy, would not have dressed the way she does if punk rock never existed. If you are going to use weak excuses like that as a means to claim a genre is supposedly a "derivative", when it absolutely isn't, then right next to emo should be Avril Lavigne and Ashlee Simpson.- Deathrocker 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are still confused about the issue. This template is for punk rock, not just 1970s punk. Also, alternative rock is a much, much more expansive genre than the bands you mentioned above. Many bands labelled as alternative have no direct link to punk rock, so if that genre stays in the derivative section, then the other two genres (which are at least indirectly linked to punk) should stay. As for your comments about how certain singers dress, this template is about music, not clothing. The punk fashion article is the place to discuss that diversion. Spylab 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused, I see things very clearly thank you. Punk rock is a form of music from the 70s, that is the specific form described in the infobox; that is the form that has its cultural and music origins described.. you are confusing subgenres (which already have their own infoboxes) with the real thing.

Regarding your part about alernative rock, what is your point? 90% of the British Alternative rock bands were derived from punk rock even if the less notable US ones weren't; a large and most significant section of it still is derived. 0% of the emocore bands were directly derived from punk rock however, and there is no evidence to prove they were, hense why they don't belong in this box.

Hardcore is not mentioned in the infobox of rock and roll, even though without rock and roll hardcore would not exist. Same deal with emo.... they're not directly derived from the main thing, but are from specific niches of which have seperate infboxes for them to belong in; in hardcore's case; punk rock. In emo's case hardcore.

Without blues, brutal death metal would not exist, is some genius going to add brutal death metal to blue's infobox because of that, even though it is not directly derived either? - Deathrocker 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, the infobox says punk rock's origins are in "mid-1970s United States, United Kingdom, and Australia." It does not say punk rock is limited to that time period or group of countries. Emo and queercore are only separated from 1970s punk rock by one subgenre, hardcore. That shows it is a derivative. The other genres you mention as having distant links are separated by much more than that. Also, despite the core in the name, queercore includes bands that sound more like regular punk rock than hardcore. For example, from their music that I've heard, there is nothing hardcore about songs by of Pansy Division, and they are a very notable queercore band. You are wrong about the definition of alternative rock. Many bands labelled as alternative rock today have no link to punk rock. You seem to be saying that only the first wave of music genres are true representatives of that genre. That is not encyclopedic. As for the Rock and Roll infobox, there's only so many genres that can be listed there, due to space restrictions. That template puts punk rock, alternative rock and heavy metal in the "derivative" section. Hardcore is a subgenre of punk rock, so do you suggest adding a "derivative of derivatives" section to that template, or do you suggest putting punk, alternative and heavy metal into the subgenres section and putting hardcore into the "derivative" section? Spylab 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct on alternative rock. The first alternative rock bands were undoubtedly influenced by punk to varying degrees. Punk was also essential to setting up the infrastructre for bands to do things influenced by the punk aesthetic but not necessarily by its sound. After a while newer alternative bands didn't need to listen to punk; they could be influenced simply by the older alternative bands. Examples include the Pixies (Husker Du, Dinosaur Jr), Nirvana (R.E.M., Pixies, Scratch Acid, Sonic Youth), Smashing Pumpkins (goth and shoegaze), Oasis (The Smiths, the Stone Roses), Radiohead (R.E.M., Pixies, grunge, and post-rock) and so forth. Deathrocker claims only the "less notable" American alternative bands were influenced by hardcore. Certainly they weren't successful during the 80s, but they wen't on to influence bands that were more successful and notable than the British bands of the 80s. In turn, those 80s American alternative bands have become notable because of their influence. WesleyDodds 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"You seem to be confused about the definition of the word derivative. As you mentioned, the emo article says emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk. Hardcore punk is a subgenre of punk rock, therefore emo is derivative from punk. It's simple logic. Emo would not exist without the punk rock that came before it. Therefore, it has just as much a legitimate place in the "derivative" section of this template as the other genres, such as alternative rock. It makes no sense to put emo and queercore into the "Other" category because that section is for topics that aren't about specific genres."

This is a point I am consistently trying to make to you Deathrocker. This a point several people have tried to make to you, granted on the more contentious Punk rock talk page. The problem is you have a glaring bias against hardcore and largely dismiss its contribution to punk rock as a whole, including derivates like emo. YOu have demonstrated this consistently by claiming the hardcore bands had no connections to or influence from the first wave of punk (they did) and dismissing the genre's historical importance in the greater sphere of punk rock as well as the development of alternative rock. I would highly recommend watching Don Letts' Punk: Attitude documentary (not the best punk documentary, but the most easily available) and reading Michael Azerrad's Our Band Could Be Your Life. While I do agree with you at times on certain subjects (read: heavy metal music) you really need research and analyze some sources before continuing this debate. WesleyDodds 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Emo and queercore are only separated from 1970s punk rock by one subgenre, hardcore."

I'm not really bothered about this "Queercore" nonsense. It can live where Geist put it in the "others" section

The keyword you used is "separated"... it is separated from punk rock by other genres and thus it is not a direct derivative. Hardcore (the form it is influenced and derived from) has a serparate infobox for it to belong in. (and infact it is already there)

"You seem to be saying that only the first wave of music genres are true representatives of that genre."

Not only the first wave... but only standard punk rock is definative of punk rock. Later subgenres, for example hardcore, anarcho, oi, ect are represenatative and definative of their own specific genre and style.

"That is not encyclopedic."

Yes, it is. Pretending a subgenre of hardcore is definative of punk rock... isn't however.

"As for the Rock and Roll infobox, there's only so many genres that can be listed there, due to space restrictions. That template puts punk rock, alternative rock and heavy metal in the "derivative" section. Hardcore is a subgenre of punk rock, so do you suggest adding a "derivative of derivatives" section to that template, or do you suggest putting punk, alternative and heavy metal into the subgenres section and putting hardcore into the "derivative" section?"

My point in using rock and roll's box as an example of the standard, was to show how non direct and distant subgenres of subgenres are not littered in the infobox. Do I think hardcore should be listed in rock and roll? no. Should emo be listed here? no, again.

I'll use a couple of small examples, the Sex Pistols' music was influenced by the Small Faces. Hense why punk is included. Black Sabbath's music was influences by The Beatles. Hense why metal is included.

Rock and Roll is not directly derived from by hardcore bands, hense why it isn't included. The fact that it is a subgenre of a subgenre doesn't suddenly mean it should be included there. And hense why emo shouldn't be included here, going by the standard.

"The problem is you have a glaring bias against hardcore and largely dismiss its contribution to punk rock as a whole, including derivates like emo."

I have no bias against hardcore (that is purely your misinformed opinion) and its contribution to hardcore music in America... it is a "subgenre" of punk rock (trying reading its own article), but it is not punk rock itself or definative of it. As I have pointed out before to you; I have a problem with you trying to marginalise the hardcore punk article by flooding all the crap about hardcore and (especially) its subgenres into articles pertaining to actual punk rock, because you don't view the hardcore article as "important enough".

I went over this with you here where another user was complaining about you and the HXC crew basically trying to merge subgenres of hardcore into punk rock's article.

You don't know if I like hardcore music or not... its also not important, I'm just interested the articles pertaning to genres being on a factual basis, and not flooded with crap that doesn't belong there. Maybe if you and other people who are interested in hardcore actually put efforts into editing that article instead of flooding punk and its related articles with hxc's subgenres, then maybe hardcore would have a better (and possibly one day featured) article. Something to think about perhaps. - Deathrocker 10:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"it is not punk rock itself or definative of it".

Yes, it is. I've got a stack of books and articles here that say otherwise.

"I have a problem with you trying to marginalise the hardcore punk article by flooding all the crap about hardcore and (especially) its subgenres into articles pertaining to actual punk rock, because you don't view the hardcore article as "important enough".

Now this is an obvious bias. And for the record, I quite like hardcore. I even got my Damaged CD signed by Henry Rollins. In fact, I could tell you quite a bit about hardcore. I have been telling you about hardcore. The fact is you've been flat-out ignoring our points and failing to do some proper research on the subject. You also have a strange understanding of how subgenres work. The point all along is not that we're trying to "marginalize" hardcore; rather, that we're trying to improve the scope and coverage of punk rock. Since hardcore is an important subgenre of punk and has yielded the quite-popular emo movement (which, by the way, is now probably more influenced by pop-punk than by hardcore), they deserve to be covered. WesleyDodds 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, it is. I've got a stack of books and articles here that say otherwise. "

No, it isn't. I've got stacks of books and articles on punk rock, written by people who were actually there, involved with the movement. Such books written by prominent figureheads and those in the actual bands, don't even make mention of the hardcore movement at all, let alone one of its subgenres. Its a different genre, a different movement with a different sound, hense why it has its own name and its own article. If it was just the same, its article and own infobox wouldn't exist... there would be no need for it. You need to wake up and smell the blatantly obvious.

The second part is just more nonsensical babble which still amounts to the same "yeah man, everything is just punk rock".. and you still trying to marginalize hardcore's article by dragging everything that belongs there in regards to its subgenres into punk rock ones, because you view its own article as "not worthy". Emo still isn't derivative of punk rock specifically... and you still haven't found any sources to prove those bands derived what they were doing from the likes of the Clash, the Pistols, etc, etc... infact it points out very clearly to you in its own article, that emo was instead derived from a different style (hardcore), which has its own infobox. Is there any way I could spell this out to you more simply? - Deathrocker 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)