User talk:Superfopp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note: I usually continue a discussion from where it started, so if you leave a message, remember to return here for the reply.
Thanks ... Superfopp 15:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Superfopp! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

[edit] Louder Than Love

I noticed you added something about the song Gun being in 5/4. What part is that because the whole thing sounds like 4/4 to me. Nialsh 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit about "Gun" being in a 5/4 time signature was taken from the song's article (Gun) ...The speed increases for the first two verses, reaches a steady pace for the guitar solo (where the time signature changes to 4/4), then slows to the original tempo for the final verse, again in 5/4... I just added it to the Louder Than Love article along with any other interesting info I could find on the songs. I agree it may need to be checked or verified, although I didn't write the original. Superfopp 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Touch Me I'm Sick

do u have a source for that "grungiest" comment? i have sources for most of the other stuff, just have to put it in.. Tommy Stardust 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I took it from an interview with the band in December 1988, which can be found here: [1]
About half-way down the page you'll see: The grunge rock label is kind of the band's fault anyway, Steve admits. "We picked, I think, our two grungiest songs for the single," he said. That website has a lot of good Mudhoney interviews if you ever need any info. Superfopp 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoner rock / metal

Hi Superfopp, just to give you a bit of background on the rock / metal thing.. This debate rumbled on a while ago, with the consensus being that while the bands covered by the description in the article could be labelled "stoner rock", few could be labelled "stoner metal". As there was no appetite for a separate stoner metal article, the terms are listed as interchangeable, hence there is no need to continually repeat both terms. If you have a different opinion about this, please present it on the article talk page, where editors with an interest in this topic will be only too happy to discuss it. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the presentation of stoner rock / metal on Wikipedia - You are treading very well trodden ground here. Practically all of the moves and redefinitions you are making have been made before and reverted, argued over etc etc. You have to get consensus for these kind of edits, or you will find yourself in a revert war and disagreements with a number of editors. Talk:Stoner rock is the place to start. Deiz talk 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I should say that I'm grateful for your willingness to discuss with me these matters.
The terms "stoner rock" and "stoner metal" have indeed been used interchangeably, but in my view they are not. The "stoner genre" has two closely-related but distinct sides - a rock side and a metal side - with some bands applying these traits to rock music and some bands applying these traits to doom metal. Some bands could classed as definitely rock but definitely not metal, and vice-versa. For example compare the likes of Fatso Jetson (rock) with the likes of Acid King (metal).
In regards to my edits, my intention was simply to have the articles acknowledge fully that this music is a subgenre of both rock and metal. In the stoner rock article, although the first line mentions this, the remainder of the article does not continue the, shall we say, "neutrality". In the list of heavy metal genres article, I felt the very brief section didn't do the genre justice, and thus I attempted to represent it fully.
However, I agree that the talk page should have been used before making these edits. As there still appears to be confusion regarding terminology, I intend to discuss this in-depth at Talk:Stoner rock. Superfopp 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Superfopp, like you I am absolutely committed to the most comprehensive and accurate coverage of stoner rock and metal on WP as possible, my intervention here stems from making similar edits and getting grief, just trying to save you some trouble and making sure we can present a united front. Creating a separate article for stoner metal shouldn't be too tricky, however the problem I found was finding reliable sources to establish that the genres are separate, and which bands are which. As Wikipedia reflects published sources rather than the opinion of its editors, this is something that needs to be addressed. As far as the more general metal genre lists go, there would be no problem creating a separate entry for stoner metal if there were separate articles. However, redefining the long-established definitions of primary and cross genre labels will take a bit more work, and proved very frustrating when I tried it last year. I instigated a full overhaul of what counted as a "core" metal genre which was a long, fortunately reasonably successful process. Stoner metal did not make the cut, along with various other genres (viking, pirate and other "metals" for example) but we ended up with a much cleaner template and some positive cooperation between editors who were usually at each others throats for one reason or another. User:Johnnyw is another dedicated stoner rock editor who will no doubt have a lot of useful ideas. I'd suggest putting together proposals for any redefinitions or creations you feel could be made and listing them at Talk:Stoner rock and we'll take it from there. I will note that I do take policy and guidelines seriously (can't completely take off the admin hat, even for stoner metal), the upside to that being that I can point out any problems we might face before taking ideas into the mainspace. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on PureVolume

Why did you make the claim that Purevolume is not sufficient for adding bands to Grunge Music? Bands declare what genres they fit into, and then fans cause their rank on PV to rise or fall - it's about as objective as you can get, no?

You also made your authoritative claim and then reverted my edit without even addressing me in the talk page. Please do have the discussion before you revert others' edits. Dscotese (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doom under attack!

Well, maybe not that dramatic, but there are a lot of doom bands put up for AFD today. As another quality editor that I see on many of the same articles I was hoping you could take a look at some of the bands (many are Hellhound records) bands and chime in if you have an opinion. Please check Unorthodox (band)‎, Wretched (doom band), Asbestosdeath, Greenmachine, Earthride, Paul Chain, Iron Man (band). These were all but up by the same person. Thanks! BeastmasterGeneral 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the heads-up. I'm not familiar with all of these bands but I'll see what I can do. ___Superfopp (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There is no need for extra subheadings?

Based on that you are making this statement? The details that I wrote are important and also have been removed from the original CD! Cannibaloki (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the extra headings you added made the article cluttered. So, I simply moved the information into the main section, rather than having it as a heading. ___Superfopp (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think what you did it for the sake of the article, although I have not liked the layout. Cannibaloki (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EW releases/reissues

I see you marked many of the versions as "reissues." I started editing some of the pages but stopped as I feel it is better to discuss this before going back and forth. Perhaps it is just symantics, but I do not consider the US and Japan versions to reissues. These come out at roughly the same time (sometimes a month or so after and sometimes before the Rise Above version). I consider the original press to be all 3 versions (usually Rise Above, Music Cartel, and JVC Victor). Check out the We Live page to see the changes I made. Let me know what you think. BeastmasterGeneral 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I agree. It seems that from Dopethrone onwards, the albums were released in the UK/US/Japan at around the same time – thus all three can be considered the "original". Thanks for pointing this out. And just to save you the bother, I've done the same for Witchcult Today :D ___Superfopp (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melvins

I noticed your discussion with Johan Rachmaninov about unreliable sources and such. Read Talk:Crass for more info. You're not the first to have this 'luck'  Channel ®   01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)