Talk:Arena rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arena rock is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Kiss?

I certainly don't feel qualified, but surely KISS are the canonical arena rock band? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but as a layperson, I think I'd have to agree. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] really?

"In the 1980s, the best-known arena for concerts was Wembley Stadium, although many arena rock bands had relatively limited success in the United Kingdom."

somehow i doubt this was true in the u.s.

Benwing 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arena Rock Recordings

Arena Rock is also a recording company. http://www.arenarockrecordingco.com/

Kflorence 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giants Stadium Sounds Like Shit!

Need I say more? Tommy Lee

[edit] When / By whom was the term coined?

AKA "This article doesn't cite its sources" :P No, I'm really curious, because... I grew up in that time (70s/80s), and I don't really recall it being called that back then --jae 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first sentence

"Arena rock is not a style of rock music,[citation needed] often also called stadium rock." What is this supposed to mean? Is the "not" just there in error, or is the claim that arena rock isn't a style per se, rather a group of bands from other styles and that grouping is also sometimes called "stadium rock"? Avraham 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was vandalism. I reverted it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism. But it certainly is a poorly worded sentence. It starts out correct... arena rock isn't a genre... but then it just goes downhill from there. Wikipedia makes an extremely poor distinction between genre and style. There are a hundred articles listed under the rock sub-genres article. And technically they are all wrong. Rock is the genre. And the rest are styles of Rock. It's a mistake that slipped through the cracks in Wiki's earliest days and now, unless the genre project sets up a task-force to correct it, we are stuck with the blunder. Arena rock is not a genre... and it isn't a style either. Most of the bands that were labelled as arena rock bands were really just hard rock bands.... but they were filling football stadiums during their peak... getting sponsored by "non-music" companies and the tag just evolved. The article has been tagged correctly... it is very POV and in need of a re-do. The first thing to go would be the genre-box... since it isn't one. This point has already been brought up at the Wiki-genre project. 156.34.217.117 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"it is...in need of a re-do." Yeah, Im gonna work on a rewrite.

"It starts out correct... arena rock isn't a genre..." But thats an opinion that was stated at the beginning. Opinions arent allowed to be inserted into an article unless its appropriate (like a quote or something). In this case, it isnt appropriate.

"Wikipedia makes an extremely poor distinction between genre and style." What you call a "style", we call a "subgenre".

But please, keep WP:OR in mind when inserting the part about it being a genre. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. Its OK now, as I finished my rewrite of it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK??? You paraphrased a single source.. that doesn't meet WP:RS criteria and took a long article of original research and made it into a short article of dubious original research and blatantly incorrect information. A subgenre of classic rock???? Classic rock isn't a genre, its a radio format. Its Wiki article even makes that point by a strong consensus. Not only is there an unreliable source that fails WP:RS... it's used 19 times. It went from bad... to shorter and still bad. A call for help from some experienced and skilled editors on the Wiki genre and music projects is rq'd to try and rescue what is becoming a fast sinking ship. 156.34.233.42 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Classic rock isn't a genre" If classic rock is not a genre, then why does it even have an article?

"You paraphrased a single source.." I didnt paraphrase, I quoted a few sources. The quotes are cited; they arent paraphrased. And please, read the reflist before you make stupid claims about me using one source when I used three or four different sources.

"It went from bad... to shorter and still bad." Well, actually, It went from bad to decent.

"(you) took a long article of original research and made it into a short article of dubious original research and blatantly incorrect information." Actually, I took a POV, bad-toned, unsourced article and turned into a semi-acceptable article that is NPOV and sourced. Thats what I did.

If you like the old article better, I really cant understand your POV. So explain.And anyway, I believe youre the guy who put a blatant opinion into the article. So I wouldnt be talking if I were you. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

??? Wikipedia is not a playground. Your opinions and comments are uncivil and are ignored simply because they do not deserve an answer. You've read my comments wrong. You used a reference that doesn't pass WP:RS 19 times. It isn't an insult to you. It's an observation from an editor with close to 50000 Wikipedia edits. I have help push dozens of articles to featured status. And that doesn't happen to any article that uses a really really poor reference 19 times. The article was in bad shape. And it's still in bad shape.. plain and simple. The "arena rock isn't a genre statement was there long before you or I came along. But it is a statement supported by other users. When a cite can't be found, consensus is the next best thing. The proper discussion forum is not here it is woth the Wiki-genre project and its regular members. The internet is the absolute worst reference source to be tapping into. I have requested assistance from several users who are skilled at de-boning bad articles and helping to build them back into good ones. This article is a bad article. In time it can be a good one. Re-building step 1 is already being tackled. Establish clearly that arena rock isn't a genre... it's just a term. And go from there. "Why does classic rock have an article?" Was that some sort of joke question? Classic rock has an article because it is a very popular radio format. Radio formats are allowed to have articles. But the first point that is put across in that article is just that... that it's a radio format. It's not a genre. There is a lot of misuse of terms like arena rock and classic rock all over Wikipedia. It takes a long time to go through all the articles that have classic rock linked in the infobox genre field and delete them. It doesn't happen overnight. But slowly they are all being rm'd. Deleting arena rock from genre fields will be a long task too. Another one that's used incorrectly is AOR. Again, it's a radio format being added to e genre field when it has no purpose there. Books are the only really good place to go looking for references. Rather than issue challenges, you should get you mother or father to drive you down to your local library... or go into your school library and look for books about arena rock. And use those to try and reference the article. That would be a great help. 156.34.227.140 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about the incivility. I just get riled up easily on Wikipedia. Anyway, I deleted the uncivil comment I wrote.

"When a cite can't be found, consensus is the next best thing." OK, made a post on the talk page talking about how the consensus rules conflicts with WP:OR - read more on that talk page.

"The article was in bad shape. And it's still in bad shape.. plain and simple." You know, you should probably rewrite it. Im sure youll make it better than this piece of crap. Who knows? Maybe you can make this article a FA, too, like you did those other dozens of articles. Thats not a challenge, BTW. Thats saying "Please make it better if its so bad." Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Does AllMusic Guide count as "reliable"? Ive seen it used in a featured article, but most editors are telling me otherwise.

Actually, I remember there was an older version of this article, and it was really good. Then someone rewrote it (badly), and then I rewrote it again (badly, again). So maybe a revert to that older version is the best option? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Arena rock article needs to be reverted anywhere. It needs what content that is currently there scraped down and built back up with reliable sources. The most important thing to clarify is the "not a genre" element. All Wiki articles just take time, research, patience and several non-illegal sedatives and a stiff snort of CC. 156.34.219.206 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to imply that Arena (or Power) Rock is dead. What about all the bands writing and performing Power rock in the 21st century? User:DavidSumter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.152.162 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

OK. WTF?????

"After the tragic disasters during Woodstock (not enough sanitation, medical care, security etc.), these large, open air concerts were frowned upon. Few rock artists had a chance to secure a place to play to the thousands of fans that were ready to spend every last dime they had just get a glimpse of their favorite Bands. In the early 70's English bands, such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Black Sabbath,Cream,Deep Purple, had a difficult time securing enough seating for the thousands of fans that wanted to see the concert. Most convention centres had limited bench type seating, not to mention poor security. But a enclosed area that was large enough for a sporting event was ideal; plus noise levels were incredibly high at those events who would be bothered. Thus was born the Arena Rock Era. The Artists themselves loved the idea: no more long stays in nowhere towns or multiple dates in the same city, but thousands of rock hungry fans crammed into a safe baseball or football stadium. Plus, lets not forget the monies, 50,000 seats plus standing room only at $12.00-$25.00 a head. This was a promoters dream."

I bolded the really bad parts. I think this needs a prety big rewrite. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. Its OK now, as I finished my rewrite of it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

See above. Anyway, if you read the whole article, it is extremely biased against arena rock, with unsourced shots and negative statements with little positives about it. Thats called POV. Ill fix it up later. But if somebody could help, it'd be well appreciated. And I might rewrite it, anyway. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. Its OK now, as I finished my rewrite of it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the ref's are personal opinions of a blog writer's magazine which automatically makes it WP:POV. I recommend chopping it down to the bare minimum facts that we know are true... either that or finding better sourcing. Blog's are incredibly infamous for being opinionated [Even if the ref is a magazine - it's still opinion]. Scarian^Talk 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. I actually asked one of the anonymos users to rewrite it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Are the sources formatted correctly? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article overdid it with the footnotes after every sentence. Half could probably go since they are all from the same source. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)