Talk:Visual kei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Visual kei article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (2004–2006)


Contents

[edit] Rewrite

The article has been rewritten to better conform with WP:V. The notion of visual kei being a music genre, along with the corresponding infobox and category inclusions has been removed, the reasoning being that bands with visual kei aesthetics do not necessarily share any stylistic traits in regards of their music and that occurrences of such looks also appear in other media. - Cyrus XIII 11:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a blurb about X Japan sort of bringing the VK movement to the attention of the Japanese mainstream? I guess I don't have any evidence at the moment, but my impression was that they had brought attention to the VK movement when they released Blue Blood and became famous. Incidentilly, they (or at least Yoshiki) also produced many of the other notable VK bands that followed (Glay, Luna Sea, Dir en Grey), with I think the exception of Malice Mizer. I'm pretty sure I can find a source on that, but I don't have one yet. Should it go up, or would my effort be wasted? Vespertilio 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • While I agree the article needs a re-write, I'm not sure if wiping the whole thing clean was the way to go. I would argue that Visual is a musical genre, but its such a long established genre that it has a lot of diversity. Look at an article on punk or metal. If you knew nothing about those styles of music, and listened to random sampling of bands that are considered "punk"... you would be unable to determine what punk is (don't even get into all the "core" subcategories there!). Visual is much the same. There have been different "movements" within visual that have different styles of playing. Also many bands begin as a "visual" band, but change styles along the way. Denaar 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You might be right about everything you wrote but while the punk rock article offers reliable sources for its content, the old one about visual kei did not have any of that sort. Verifiability is one of the key principles of an encyclopedia, which should not be a place to collect personal views, preconceptions, or widespread rumors and hearsay. Hence this request goes out to you, Vespertilio and anyone else interested: Go out and look for references, with WP:V and WP:RS in mind, because this subject isn't any less deserving of a decent article than all the others on Wikipedia. - Cyrus XIII 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've located an article from Billboard(magazine?), dated september 5th, 1992, that discusses Warner Bros., MMG, and Atlantic Records' plans to launch X Japan (called "X from Japan" in the article) worldwide. This seems like a pretty good indication of their popularity, I'd say they're easily the first visual kei band to receive this kind of recognition. I could not however, locate an internet copy of this article, just a scanned image of it. Would that be sufficient enough evidence? I'm not sure how much else we'd be able to find >_>... Vespertilio 17:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I rephrased and expanded the new paragraph, as the Billboard article does not quite address the seminal influence X Japan might have had on visual kei. But it's still a the best place to start when it comes to international efforts by these bands. - Cyrus XIII 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, I like it better this way. Vespertilio 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How much does Visual Kei owe to Kumadori paint styles? That might be a useful comparison. Another way of saying that is, did Kumadori infludence Visual Kei? Bearian 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired by Kiss

I've heard that fashion and music in Japan seems to follow trends in the U.S., delayed about 10 to 20 years. Looking the the picture in the article, I can't help but think that Kiss and 80's hair bands inspired this "visual kei" movement. Surely there was some influence? ~MDD4696 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Kiss was ”the first Visual Kei band”, and as a visual kei fan, I will always admire them for that. But visual kei arose at a time when Kiss was a jeans-and-leather-jacket band with basically no image at all, and I honestly don’t think any visual kei bands care about Kiss. Putting something like that in the article is sure to attract a flurry of "[citation needed]" ... (Of course I agree about the hair bands as well, that’s even more obvious; visual kei invented itself exactly when hair bands were all the rage.) Bossk-Office (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X Japan related text removed

As Toshimitsu Deyama says in an interview on his webiste, X Japan never was visual kei so it's pointless to talk about X Japan here since they were just "visual", not visual kei. [1]

That's bullshit, look around for news footage for hide's funeral and death. You can hear the news reporters saying "Visual kei band X-Japan". Although I played rock music and was a visual rock singer...

and we were at the summit of so-called "visuals"

Darkcat21 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This distinction between "visual rock"/"visuals" and visual kei is semantic nonsense. - Cyrus XIII 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
More than that, it's the same thing. What's the statement in Japanese? It's probably "something-something vijuaru", which is the same thing as visual kei. MSJapan 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen japanese press and publications also refer to Marilyn Manson as VK, as well as AFI. Although they aren't considered part of the japanese VK canon as X still is. I think that Toshi may have a different perception of what visual kei was/is supposed to be, rather than that of many of the bands or fans that proceeded them. Sparxster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.152.63 (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REWRITE the page of VISUAL KEI!!!!

I think this page about visual kei needs to rewrite!!!!I have no malice about visual kei(I love X JAPAN and Dir En Grey)But I think Visual Kei is only a japanese name of glam rock,as their characteristics Are same!!!Some of the "faithful" fans may argue that glam rock clothing sucks while visual kei clothing is cool,so visual kei is totally different from glam rock!!!My opinion:But glam rock was a Genre arose in 70s,So THOSE CLOTHINGS suck are reasonable!!!yet in 1970,japanese were worse than England and America!!!If u've seen the video of the Blue Blood tour of X japan,you will find that X japan's dressing was similar to Kiss!!!!If someone still said that visual kei was arose by japan,it's actually a "cultural aggression"to glam rock!!!Also so,I know that there are lots of people think that visual kei and glam rock are actually the same thing,so I think that this page about Visual kei needs to rewrite!!!! Rpoon 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)RPOON

I think visual kei may have it's roots in glam rock, perhaps it started as even an extension of the genre, but I think it's evolved into something quite separate. The current visual scene doesn't seem similar to bands like KISS musically or visually, really. Berserk798 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It does not similar to band like KISS because those bands like kiss are the band from 1970s!!!Rpoon 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)RPOON
That's a tautology. You might as well call Thomas Edison the American version of Archimedes, and claim that they're not the same because Archimedes is from the 3rd century BC.Mischal 07:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
(Kiss is not really a good example of glam rock either ... for most of their history, their image was too dark, black & white instead of colourful, masculine (well ... :P) rather than feminine. The people who took Kiss's image to the next level were instead black-metal bands like Immortal with their elaborate corpse paint and spikes. Bossk-Office (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC) )

[edit] Oshare kei

Given that the Oshare kei article has for some time been lacking reliable sources to establish any unique characteristics of this supposed visual kei subset, I suggest to merge (or delete/redirect) it into this page, per WP:OR and WP:CRUFT. - Cyrus XIII 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I will second that merge, as Oshare Kei, as well as most other "____ Kei" genres and styles, lack enough concrete information to have their own page at this time. It will also contribute to the Visual Kei article in giving it more credibility. --Jacob 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
When the article was created, there was a Visual Kei article, not the stub there is now. Calling deletion of an article a "merger" and then not actually merging the article is not following Wiki's deletion procedures. Denaar 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you keep saying that, though without providing links to the relevant guidelines, or providing insight why the sources you keep re-inserting to the Oshare kei article are to be considered reliable per WP:RS. Take a look at WP:V and WP:OR; any information that is not backed by reliable sources may be removed by any editor at any time, which of course will come into consideration with this merge. - Cyrus XIII 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"The policy of Verifiability advises that editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged." Please read carefully - "likely to be challenged". In order to challenge material that is on a page, it should be something that you have knowledge of or spend time researching yourself. You will note that the page on biology does not site any references. However, people have not removed the information there because it is "not likely to be challenged." If I went in there, I would challenge MANY things on it - if I didn't take time to do some research and realize that most of it is accurate. If you are not knowledgable about a subject, it is not a good idea to go tearing through it with a hack saw. Now, you are not removing MATERIAL from pages. You are DELETING pages - that is completely different! Fancruft, which you have used before, is not a policy or guildeline for wikipedia. Do a search on Oshare Kei, you will recieve 73,300 hits on google. Original Research - you remove any resources anyone provides so of course there are no resources - you remove them all. Visunavi is one of the BEST resources for Visual Kei on the web. Per WP:RS "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." It is a commercial (not a fan) site that posts interviews and news releases. It is an authoritative site in relation to the subject at hand and is not a fan creation. It has been around consistantly since at least 2004. Hopefully with English language magazines like Purple Sky we will have more reliable sources in English. Please note that all your concerns have been adressed. Denaar 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Precedents of other flawed articles rarely make for good arguments when dealing with a user-edited encyclopedia. Also note:
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long [...] Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."
    The Oshare kei article has been tagged for its lack of citations sources since December 2006. That's been quite enough time for knowledgeable editors to find and add references on the subject. And even the sources you provided only name the supposed founding fathers of this supposed sub-genre; all general characteristics of the subject have not a shred of verifiability on them. A lot of Google hits do not replace proper citations.
  • Kindly spare us the "you are no expert" = "you are unfit to edit" rhetoric. It is based on circular logic, that would (ideally) keep skeptics out of the loop forever, conveniently freeing fans of little publicized subjects of the burden of evidence, WP:V puts such a strong emphasize on. See also: WP:OWN
  • As mentioned before, the Visunavi source does not deal with general aspects of the article's subject. Additionally, online shops that also happen to host band profiles can hardly be considered authoritative sources for genre developments. There is a distinct conflict of interest, as referring to a band under a more novel or specific genre moniker is an apt means to increase sales.
- Cyrus XIII 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You insist that Visual Kei is not a musical genre - even though the article you reference states "Since it formed in the mid-1980's, X Japan went from playing loud, fast thrash-metal to stadium-shaking pop ballads, in the process pioneering its own genre, a Japanese equivalent of glam rock known as visual kei." There is the resource to show that "Visual Kei" and X are intertwined. The second resource I linked did give a description of Oshare Kei, and it was used because the site is well ordered and informative - therefore the article DOES have references. You seem more interested in promoting your agenda against Visual Kei then contibuting to the article. Denaar 18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why, thanks for assuming good faith. - Cyrus XIII 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please provide your reference for arguing that visual kei is not regarded as a musical genre? The references for this article do state it is a musical genre, therefore, unless you can find better sources that indicate it is not, there is no reason to remove the statement. Denaar 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't have to. In the absence of any defining musical characteristics, there is no point in denoting the subject as a music genre. And one has to consider the circumstances of the New York Times article, as it mentions visual kei to illustrate a notable current event in a foreign country, at a time where Japanese rock music had only a fraction of the international fanbase it achieved after the advent of mainstream Internet. As such, the comparison with glam rock was an apt point of reference and the article still only offers visual/fashion related traits of visual kei, along with the several music genres X Japan happened to pertain to. Genres like glam, new wave and punk on the other hand, while arguably putting a strong emphasize on visuals, do also have certain musical properties and subsequently limitations, something that visual kei lacks, given the diversity of music genres picked up by the artists that are associated with it. - Cyrus XIII 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"given the diversity of music genres picked up by the artists that are associated with it." <-- My point is that phrases like that fail WP:OR. I'm currently researching to find more information on the person who wrote this article http://home.gwu.edu/~kizyr/thesis-ia/Kaiser%20Farooque%20-%20In%20the%20Local%20Image.pdf which seems pretty good. While I have seen many articles that call Visual Kei a music genre, I have never seen an article or review that claimed visual kei was not a music genre. We already have one verifiable resource, and I am sure it will not take long to find more. Denaar 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, that thesis makes for an interesting read, thanks. Note though, that it refers to visual kei as an "image". Also, please do not confuse on which sides of WP:V's "burden of evidence" we are both on; I don't have to prove the absence of unifying musical traits in visual kei, as reliable sources need to be presented that they exist and what they are in the first place.

Your efforts in this discussion appear to be motivated by the idea that referring to visual kei as a fashion genre, or more general, an art movement is in some way disrespectful or derogatory, at least that's what I gather from your agenda-comment earlier. Just to clarify: I am merely trying to keep Wikipedia as informative for its readers as possible, which precludes presenting them a "music genre" that transports no information on the music at all, as it can be anything from light-hearted pop rock, over fast-paced heavy metal to electro and industrial. - Cyrus XIII 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment that Visual Kei is an art movement, and not a musical genre, is WP:OR. It is not sourced anywhere - not in articles, not in general fan pages, it is something you made up completely. That is what I do not understand - you have been "controlling" this page, and ignoring WP:CON for many months. Even though there are more editors that consider this a musical genre then those who consider it an art movement, AND they have verifiable sources (The article you say is acceptable, and then backtrack say is not acceptable), it is your agenda that continues to be pushed in this article. Not verifiablity. Where in the articles quoted does it state Visual kei is "light-hearted pop rock, over fast-paced heavy metal to electro and industrial." More WP:OR? Denaar 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tedious not to mention going in circles. I already explained that the New York Times article, while offering some insight, only mentions visual kei in connection with a single band and then still relies on commonly accepted genre handles to actually describe the group's music. So instead of weakening your argument by resorting to further bad faith insinuations and personal attacks, I'd very much welcome it if you eventually addressed the glaring absence of unifying musical traits, or produce reliable sources that actually name them. While you are at it, be a sport and treat yourself to some D'espairsRay, Malice Mizer and Schwarz Stein (or any of its follow-up projects), as the discographies of these groups alone should about cover all music genres I mentioned earlier. - Cyrus XIII 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't listen to those bands and draw a conclusion - you just told me I could not draw any conculsion by listening to bands as that is WP:OR. Any statement has to be given by a secondary source per WP:V as you stated above. Therefore, since your information is not sourced it is not valid for consideration. (I could write a very long article that does explain the evolution of sound for Visual Kei over the past 20 years, based on a review on the music, however, that would be original research which is why I have not.). If you note, the changes I have made to this article over the past year have been very minor, to allow WP:CON (How many different editors worked on this article before you decided to wipe it and re-write it?). How is it that you can make statements to me (This is WP:OR and WP:OWN), which are ok, but I make the same statements to you, and that is not ok? I am simply repeating the same statements you have made before. I am showing - using your own terms - that what you are doing to this article is the same thing you have been "acusing" me of. Please allow WP:CON to continue for this article, and I encourage any editors who come across it to be bold. The article as it stands now isn't even well sourced. Denaar 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Listening to a couple of records (as sources of their own) that are supposed to belong into the same genre and then noticing that they sound nothing alike is hardly original research. The application of a little common sense and maybe the duck test would have resolved this "discussion" a long time ago and I'm putting the word into quotes, because we have long ceased to discuss anything. I keep asking for the musical traits of (God forbid) a music genre and you keep declaring that I am on a personal mission to dance on the grave of visual kei. Sad. - Cyrus XIII 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who said that it was reasonable to call Oshare Kei "Pop Punk" because listening to ANY Oshare Kei band would prove that, so no source was needed as this is a "reasonable statement". You, however said that was not a reasonable statement and must be sourced. If you study humanities you will find the "why" of something is just as important as the sound. If you go back and listen to the original Visual Kei bands, you will find they all sound alike. It wasn't until later that the sound started diverging. There was definately critisism that bands like Shazna "watered down" visual kei. The bands you mentioned are very modern and in different "sub" categories of Visual Kei. If you listen to an early emo (music) band like Rites of Spring and any "current" emo band, you'll find they don't sound like the same genre. See that this has been addressed by the Emo (music) entry. Denaar 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A music genre without musical characteristics

User Denaar has recently cited a International Music Feed feature about Japanese rock music as a source to deem visual kei a music genre. The feature consists entirely of statements by musicians and fans involved in the scene, during which visual kei is referred to as a genre at one point and a movement at another. The short video also spends about a third of its length to elaborate on the stylistic ambiguity of Japanese rock music in general.

While this source may signify the ties of visual kei to the Japanese music scene (which this article has pointed out at all times), it does not answer the question of defining musical traits of visual kei. A music genre without — to quote Peter van der Merwe's book Origins of the Popular Style: The Antecedents of Twentieth-Century Popular Music — a "basic musical language" of its own is nothing short of being a paradox and hardly encyclopedic.

Hence the previous wording of the subject's nature has been restored, along with some of the content Denaar recently removed. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this was a genuine effort to improve Wikipedia or an imitation of the policy-oriented content removal that has previously happened on the article, to illustrate detrimental effects of that MO (in other words point-making). - Cyrus XIII 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we got a problem, and that is that independent sources are nonexistent. It definitely has musical characteristics, but the problem is that visual has changed in stages throughout its history. It's not consistently the same, but it is consistent on a phase-by-phase basis. MSJapan 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
We have two sources - both the NY times article as well as the feed that descibe it as a "genre". I will keep looking, because there are many more sources that say the same thing. As I said before: If you take into account the the changes over time, the conflict over "style" goes away. (PS: I have never been to a concert, or seen a concert recorded in a live video, where a Visual Kei drummer did not use Taiko drumming styles incorporated into the music. That kind of drumming is one of the reasons I like Visual Kei. Go to a Taiko drumming event and then start watching the VK drummers. I would have to hunt to find a bass player that did not use running bass lines. Ideal song lenghth for the radio is 3 - 3:30 mins, most visual bands are 4 mins and up. Most bands have a "theme" or "mission" statement - which goes in the "why" behind the music which is just as important as the sound. Check out Antic Cafe's interviews, they were constantly being asked "what is your theme" and they didn't have one (I believe recently they have finally given in and made something up to answer this question). Most other interviews with bands will be asked what the "theme" is, and many list it on their site (check out Undercode's site - every band has a theme listed). In a way, all visual bands are "theme bands". These bands are removed from American and Western rock music. I was at Oni-con when Kisaki spoke about how he tends to make a choice on which cd to buy based on the album covers. The kind of detailed information we have about rock and roll styles is not easy to access in Japan. Therefore bands may use styles we consider 'separate' that they do not realize are separate because they are located all in one place in the record store under 'foreign rock' like the Third Stage does (they just have a "overseas" section) [2]. The bands tend to have 5 members instead of 4 as most American bands do. Bands tend to do a combination of "rush" songs and "ballads" - even bands like Dir en Grey, X, Luna Sea (visual period), Gazette, Antic Cafe - they all do/did it. There are a lot of other conventions that are more style specific. Music is usually done in a style that encourages dancing - during old X Japan concerts the fans would make an "X" over their head and jump in the air. Then they switch it up with ballads to let the fans rest. The best description I have heard of Visual was from Ryohei from Ayabie, he called his band's sound "dance metal" in a GAB magazine interview). <-- A lot of the information in the () counts as original research which is why I haven't added it. Denaar 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability and win-win solutions

It seems to me like the two sides of the argument are:

  • Pro-genre: There are articles that say it's a genre
  • Anti-genre: There are no defining musical characteristics cited

Fortunately, someone has already resolved this, but no-one has been carefully reading this talk page. The section "Confusion in Definition", above, notes that Visual Kei has two meanings:

  1. A Japanese band who focuses on an elaborate image.
  2. A style of music originating in the early-mid 90's which was unique among Visual-type bands.

This will appear self-evident once you've read about Visual Kei, including (but not limited to) the link I am about to provide.

Ark~Magic provided a link. Unfortunately, it's dead, but fortunately, the Wayback Machine has kept a copy for us. It's available at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060721195946/http://proxemics.net/honyaku/history.html

If you read that, you will be able to see what the musical characteristics of the genre are.

I suggest the following moves to come to consensus on the article:

  1. Divide it into two sections, one for each of the meanings provided by Ark~Magic in the "Confusion in Definition" section
  2. Using the link I provided, discuss the defining characteristics of the genre (without just copy/pasting, of course)

Just in case this hasn't solved everything, allow me to also point out that the articles which say it's a genre don't prove that it's a genre, just that some people say it's a genre. That would certainly be an acceptable statement to put in the article.

Anyway, if this doesn't enable you to come to a conclusion, feel free to contact me for more help, because I'm not going to be watching the article.

-- TimNelson 10:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to negotiate in this dispute, but the document you provided just does not conform to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. It was self-published on a personal website, not by a distinguished journalist or academic, but a Japanese major with a self-professed lack of ambition towards a Japanese-based career. The document itself, while aiming to be comprehensive is heavily opinionated throughout, offers no sources of its own and closes with a file-sharing offer of questionable legality. I'm really sorry, but this site does get us anywhere. - Cyrus XIII 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Judging by a quick look through it is not a genre. To me it names a fashion. Showmanship is the key 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

More articles that state Visual Kei is a Genre - we still don't have any well researched articles that say it is not one - I think the quote by Kaoru sums it up nicely:

  • 1. New York Times [3]
  • 2. Sociology Thesis paper [4]
  • 3. The Carillon (student newspaper): [5]
  • 4. Big Take Over.com (music site): http://www.bigtakeover.com/news/japanese-rock-on-npr
  • 5. The Grammy's website: [6]
  • 6. J-Music Ignited Japanese Music Site, possible fan site [7]
  • 7. Asian Pacific Arts Magazine [8]
  • 8. Punk News.org (Online Magazine) [9]
  • 9. Fashionline.com (Online Magazine) [10]
  • 10. Tokyo a la Mode (appears professional, potential fan site) [11]
  • 11. Blistering (Online Magazine w/ Interview) http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/link/1/templateid/12842/tempidx/5/menuid/3 "Blistering: Originally you guys were part of the visual kei movement in Japan. Would that be comparable to U.S. glam rock? What did the movement bring to the music scene? Kaoru: When we were growing up around [the] late '80s and early '90s, visual kei was influenced by glam music. When visual kei became a huge hit, people started seeing it as a form of entertainment and not as being rock. The darker, more extreme image from before is lost, and now people see it as being a genre that appeals to teenage girls."
  • 12. International Music Feed - interveiw with bands that call it a Genre: http://www.imf.com/link_player.html?video_id=2283

Other good ref's for the article - don't mention genre:

I can start pulling out the Japanese references next - they are probably the best. Denaar 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If they also fail describe inherent musical traits of the "genre", don't bother, as the argument of aforementioned paradox still stands and won't be swayed by mere semantics. - Cyrus XIII 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The word "genre" is defined by American Heritage Dictionary as 1. A type or class: Emaciated famine victims ... on television focused a new genre of attention on the continent" (Helen Kitchen). 2. A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content: "his six String Quartets ... the most important works in the genre since Beethoven's" (Time). AKA - not just "inherent musical traits" - the lyrics, the instruments, etc all come together. Per Kaoru: "When we were growing up around [the] late '80s and early '90s, visual kei was influenced by glam music." It had a style in the late 80's and early 90's that would fit your request for "inherent musical traits ." Denaar 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's an honest word or two: While trying to push your self-professed point of view on the subject onto this article, you've been grasping for straws ever since, toying with semantics and repeatedly dodging the main argument against your proposed edits, along with the authoritative academic view (van der Merwe's definition of music genres) and the simple logic (no musical characteristics, no music genre) attached to it. You have introduced and re-introduced inconsistencies within this short article, to the point of downright contradiction. Knee-jerk reverts involving the removal of simple navigational elements and assumptions of a sinister agenda against the subject on part of the party that happened to oppose your efforts did not help matters either.
Considering similar contributions on your part to the The Pillows article, that included miniscule sections, redundant images, content that was not covered by the citations you presented it with and a "source" that was actually a copy of an older revision of the same Wikipedia article (and it said so, plainly at the bottom), there is the hardening impression of you being eager to jump the gun to make a certain point, with little consideration of the quality of the resulting article. I do not enjoy cleaning up after you and I certainly don't appreciate your little game of reverting edits on the sole grounds of not having courtly replied to your talk page musings, completely ignoring whatever rationale has been provided in previous edit summaries.
This discussion is over, until reliable sources that elaborate on the specific musical traits of visual kei turn up. And once they do, you will find that little to no actual discussion will be necessary. - Cyrus XIII 17:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your concerns about the Pillows on the appropriate page. As for this article, I am using the word “Genre” for two reasons: 1. Musical Style redirects to Music Genre. 2. All the sources we have state “Genre” so it appears to be the most appropriate tag, my opinions aside. Now, the source you are referencing is a pre-post modernism source (which is something that would take a very long time to explain – post modernism really changed the way we perceive genre and art movements). Also try Genre (In all art forms, genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries.) and Cultural movement. All we need is an art/music student with textbooks to resource those. Genre is a tricky and controversial thing – and definitely the articles I have mentioned here need more sources. My disagreement is the choice in calling it a “popular culture movement.” As I have said before, there is nothing, out side of music/bands/musicians that you can call “visual kei”. The Harajuku scene is closely associated with VK – but it not restricted to VK. Just as VK is associated to the Harajuku scene, but not limited to the Harajuku scene. Do you have good, reliable sources that describe Visual Kei to being anything other than “music related?” The reason I use the word genre as opposed to Music Scene (bands) is simply because all our references describe it as a genre. If we find better references later, it should be changed. For right now we need to follow what is verifiable WP:V and avoid our own opinions as to what is “true”. (The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth). I am sorry if I have not made this clear - but this is the point I am trying to express. Denaar 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what if we were to insert the following text into the body of the article.
There are many sources which claim that, as well as a style of dress, the term "Visual Kei" can refer to a genre[1]. Unfortunately, these sources either fail to mention any musical characteristics such a genre might have[2], are unreliable[3], or are not in English[4].
That would seem to cover things. I'd suggest that [1] and [2] should refer to some of the links selected above, whereas [3] should refer to the unreliable source quoted above. [4] could refer to a Japanese article sourced by Denaar (This would appear to comply with NPOV, NOR, and all those sorts of things, while covering material for which the sources are unavailable due to Wikipedia's systemic bias.
Does that cover it?
Incidentally, just on the point of "What is a genre", I think even Cyrus would agree that Visual Kei is a genre in the broadest sense of point #2 as quoted from the American Heritage dictionary; as defined by the current Wikipedia page, it is a genre of the artform "fashion". The argument is whether it is a musical genre. I hope we can all agree that genre traits don't just refer to music in the narrow sense (tone/rhythm), but includes lyrics and selection of instruments.
Part of the problem here, of course is that Denaar seems to be an Inclusionist, whereas Cyrus seems to be an Exclusionist or Deletionist (more details at M:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies). There may also be a certain amount of conflict along M:Immediatism vs. M:Eventualism lines.
-- TimNelson 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Your proposed change would imply controversy and I was never a fan of making articles reflect talk page disputes. A few bickering editors (that would include me) are just not the same as a notable dispute among press or scholars. The sources we have either use "movement" or "genre" and as nobody writing or being interviewed in those sources takes offense at either wording, it makes sense for us to simply chose the more general term, as the narrower one immediately raises the question "genre of what?". The answer can't be "genre of music", for reasons previously stated, plus the article already covers that; artists associated with visual kei may pertain to about any music genre and we have several sources that explicitly point out this ambiguity.

As far as compromises go, the fairly general "pop culture" phrasing has been removed, so the subject's predominant association with musicians is as clear as it gets now and I have at all times refrained from calling visual kei a fashion genre, as this wording would probably be the total opposite of what Denaar would like the article to convey. - Cyrus XIII 10:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A movement and a genre are the same thing, when we are talking about music - I think you are confusing style with genre. Denaar 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Kei

My reverts to your edits on Visual Kei should be explained, as to avoid another fiasco involving multiple editors and any controversy.

1. A quotation isn't exactly a suitable definition, as that is taken from only one source, and is the viewpoint of the person who wrote the article.

2. You replaced multiple sources, in favor of a singular source, which could be discussed to add, but not to override everything.

3. The wording you used from the article is rough and not very encyclopedic, it's better suited for journalism.

I hope everything is clear, and I would like to eventually work that source into more parts of the article, but it doesn't really change anything for now concerning the main points. --Jacob 21:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was accidently left on my talk page, instead of here. As stated in our sources, we have clear musical characteristics that define this genre:
Since it formed in the mid-1980's, X Japan went from playing loud, fast thrash-metal to stadium-shaking pop ballads, in the process pioneering its own genre, a Japanese equivalent of glam rock known as visual kei. "The Pop Life: End of a Life, End of an Era"
Visual kei is a "genre that pulls in elements of goth, glam and cyberpunk" "Kabuki Rock "
"Kaoru: When we were growing up around [the] late '80s and early '90s, visual kei was influenced by glam music. When visual kei became a huge hit, people started seeing it as a form of entertainment and not as being rock. The darker, more extreme image from before is lost, and now people see it as being a genre that appeals to teenage girls." Dir en grey feature interview
Since the actual references being used in the article confirm it is a genre, and describe the sound of the genre, it should be included. Anything else is Original Research. Denaar 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of a passage in WP:OR that concerns syntheses of individual sources to advance a position? Your recent edits did just that. The article still did not offer any insight into the supposed musical characteristics of visual kei, it merely took the likening of it to a selection of other genres and concluded that it has to be a music genre of its own.

So visual kei "pulls in elements of goth, glam and cyberpunk"? Those terms are only in part or indirectly connected to music (one being a whole cultural movement, the other indeed a music genre, the last a genre of science-fiction) and the first and foremost characteristic they all have in common is the use of extreme visuals. It stands to reason, that western press has to use at least some points of reference when describing a foreign and relatively obscure cultural movement to its readers at home. And still, none of the sources brought forward so far mentions which (if any) musical traits visual kei adopted from those western phenomena.

Another example of synthetic information ending up in the article would be the use of the term "glam metal", cited through a source that just individually mentions the genres glam rock and thrash metal. Strangely enough, the information that visual kei may actually be connected to music from just about any genre remained in the article at all times, rendering your revision patently contradictory. And also at times somewhat careless, at least I for one would welcome it, if you refrained from leaving your revisions with broken references. - Cyrus XIII 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above comments - we have ample references that show visual kei the music genre was influnced by glam rock (another genre). Usually journalists do refer to one genre by describing another - that is normal. Also arging "you cannot use one source" and "you cannot show multiple sources that say the same thing" is contradiction. It isn't synthesis unless you come up with a new idea, combining two different sources. If two sources say the same thing, that isn't synthesis. Frankly, word games do not change what the sources say. Also please refrain from blanketing phrases with resources that do not cover what is said in that statement of phrase - I haven't reviewed the current article in detail but you have done this previously, so please do a double check. Denaar 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"please refrain from blanketing phrases with resources that do not cover what is said in that statement of phrase [..] you have done this previously"

Care to provide a few diffs for that accusation? Your constant bad faith assumptions are becoming just a tiny bit unnerving. - Cyrus XIII 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[12] Bishonen aethetics? The way this was quoted, it appeared the article mentioned the word Bishonen (not a common english word, and not a encyclopedic word either, which was why it was removed). This is the kind of edit I mean. By having resources that "appear" to valid the language, without actually supporting what is being said, it makes what is written appear more reliable than it is. Most the article was OR at that time - yet you stanchly defended any changes to it. Making changes to an article shouldn't end up being a "war" or a "fight" - but that is what this page has been for a long time now.

One other thing on a personal note, "when linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand" - it will really help clarify why you are reverting things. When you first began discussing with me, I could not see how any of your changes related to the guidelines you linked to (I'm still not sure on many of your changes) - and I mean this in good faith. Denaar 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Disagreement over the question whether the Japanese phenomenon visual kei should be defined as a genre of music, a genre of fashion, or, in a wider sense, an artistic/cultural movement. 00:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
  • Of all the reliable sources on the subject that have surfaced so far, not a single one describes any defining musical characteristics of visual kei. They merely discuss matters of appearance, some likening it to certain Western phenomena, all of which sport very distinct, visual themes of their own. Hence it would be ill advised to present readers with a so-called "music genre" that apparently has no inherent musical traits at all and this would also contradict several sources which explicitly state, that artists associated with visual kei may pertain to just about any music genre.
    Conversely, while the "visual kei" moniker (lit. "visual style") and all verifiable characteristics suggest a phenomenon that is limited to looks alone and therefore a genre of fashion, this might be too narrow a denomination as well, given that there are arguably close ties between the subject and Japanese music scene after all. Hence phrasing the article in a more general way, referring to a cultural phenomenon or art movement, appears to be an apt compromise, sufficient in accuracy and encyclopedic style. - Cyrus XIII 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The ambiguity of the defining musical terms does not justify adding genre related tags to th article. Each article only seems to mention it as a musical genre to avoid a lengthy explanation as to what Visual Kei is, and how it varies. Adding all the different descriptors would make the article read like journalism, as it would be a POV of the article's most recent editor. The sources given in the article do mention some stylistic similarities already within the article, and go further to accentuate the visual aspect, rather than the auditory. The stress added here should be enough to consider the topic a "style" or, as Cyrus said, an "art movement", to encompass the musical ties of the visual genre. The word genre does not have to be avoided, but it should be used with caution, as the word is most commonly associated with music, rather than fashion or art. Some sources on the non-musical culture surrounding Visual Kei would assist, as the style spreads into the underground fashion industry, and does not strictly pertain to music. --Jacob Talk 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to comment at the bottom, since I'm running a little late in joining the commentary. Please note - this is not meant to be a definitive answer to what Visual Kei is, but to help provoke thought and discussion.
As I read about Visual kei I keep coming across Japanese sources that state things like "Cali Gari is a band that does not sound like typical visual kei." [13] It leads me to ask... what does typical visual kei sound like?
The argument we have here is over the definition of two terms, so this is where we should begin:
1. What is a music genre?
2. Is glam rock a music genre or a fashion style?
3. Is Visual Kei a music genre? If so, what does "typical visual kei" sound like?
1. If look to our own music genre page: "A music genre is a category (or genre) of pieces of music that share a certain style or "basic musical language" (Peter van der Merwe 1989, p.3). Music may also be categorized by non-musical criteria such as geographical origin, though a single geographical category will normally include a wide variety of sub-genres. A music genre (or sub-genre) could be defined by the techniques, the styles, the context and the themes (content, spirit)."
Some have suggested that we go only by Peter van Der's description - but that conflicts directly with the descriptions of "genre" that the All Music Guide - which is well respected - uses. One example: "Rock & Roll is often used as a generic term, but its sound is rarely predictable. From the outset, when the early rockers merged country and blues, rock has been defined by its energy, rebellion and catchy hooks, but as the genre aged, it began to shed those very characteristics, placing equal emphasis on craftmanship(sic) and pushing the boundaries of the music. As a result, everything from Chuck Berry's pounding, three-chord rockers and the sweet harmonies of the Beatles to the jarring, atonal white noise of Sonic Youth has been categorized as "rock." That's accurate -- rock & roll had a specific sound and image for only a handful of years. For most of its life, rock has been fragmented, spinning off new styles and variations every few years, from Brill Building Pop and heavy metal to dance-pop and grunge. And that's only natural for a genre that began its life as a fusion of styles." All Music Guide's definition of the Genre Rock
2. Is Glam rock a music genre?
Again, a link to the all music guide - showing it is most definitely a genre: Glam Rock
3. Visual kei is described as a "genre" by many sources, and I do not think this is lazyness. The descriptions that decribe it as "influnced by glam" are describing the sound of early visual kei bands. From music genre:
"In the West, nearly all music except Traditional music has a fusional(sic) origin. A fusion genre is a music genre that combines two or more genres. For example, rock and roll originally developed as a fusion of blues, gospel and country music."
Therefore, if a source describes the sound as a fusion of several different styles or genres, that doesn't mean "it cannot be a genre".
Since my definition of genre is of a broad scope of music, as opposed to a sub-genre or specific style, I certainly allow for the long term development of sound - how many rock genres elsewhere stay exactly the same for 20 years?* (Assuming we consider the late 80's and X Japan the start of Visual Kei).
It is also interesting to note that Glam Rock was very successful in Japan in the 80's, Loudness (band) and Ezo being examples. (Yang Jeff, Dina Can, Terry Hong, (1997) Eastern Standard Time pg 264 New York: Mariner Books ISBN 0-395-76341-X). Why not continue to call these bands "Glam" (as this book in 1997 called X Japan along with all other Japanese rock of the 90s). Why should a different term emerge? (Among fans of Japanese music in the late 90's, I commonly heard "Japanese rock is stuck in the 80's, it is all Glam rock".)
Good examples of early 90's Visual kei would be the song "Celebration" by X Japan or "Rosier" by Luna Sea (both readidly available on youtube).
Visual Kei does have many "sub-genres" which can be sourced as well. A sub-genre that cropped up in the late 90's is known as Kotekei (Kote means thick and syrupy - used to describe bands like early Dir en Grey). Some current bands that are described as Kotekei are here: ARHAZARD, アルラウネ. Also - this is just for fun - an advertisement of a band looking for members for a "kotekei" band: Membo.net If you read much English fan writing circa early 2001 about Visual kei you'll hear about "Matina Clones" and "Dir en Grey copies" and how "all these bands sound the same". (Side Note: There are 10 subgenres listed on the Japanese wikipedia page, and it lists visual kei as a genre.)
From sources I've read, the "extreme diversity" of Visual Kei didn't start being written about in English sources until after Duel Jewel made their first trip to the United States. I admit this blows me away after spending years arguing that "not all visual kei sounds exactly the same."
As for assertions of a fashion style surrounding Visual kei, it is generally refered to as "Gothic and Lolita" in Japan - terms which have little reference to the english equivalents. (NHK Tv show on Gothic and Lolita - not sure how to source that one - Japanese news report). Gothloli when used by fans tends to mean something specific, but when used by the Japanese media or general Japanese public, it tends to describe a wide range of clothing styles.
Visual kei is a term only used to describe bands, which are described as wearing costumes, not fashion styles.
I would suggest that the first move toward expanding this stub is to block out a few different topic areas (maybe one being history, as suggested by the "good articles" page).
My main point is that we start shaking things up and let the stub become an article; start finding sources and fleshing it out. If we encourage people to dig for sources and bring them all together, then the page will be fleshed out and sourced.
As suggested reading:
First book is from a analytical perspective. Last two books are by Ichikawa Tetsushi - the "Godmother" of Visual kei - a respected journalist who worked for the magazine "Rockin On" and Oricon, and has a slew of other books under her belt as well. Denaar 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to make this brief, as I am departing soon. With the thorough research and sourcing you've done, maybe a musical genre label could be applied to the page, but in a broader sense. Maybe not to say that visual kei is strictly a genre of music, but (as was mentioned earlier) a genre of art in general. The musical aspect could be brought into a section, "Visual Kei as a musical genre". As I think few equivalents can be found (explaining the difficulty in classification in the aforementioned English articles), maybe a mention of some of the characteristics of music applied to visual kei culture should be added. I'm going to stick with the idea that it should not be introduced as a "musical genre", but as an all around art, as the bounds of visual kei are so endless. More to be added later. --Jacob Talk 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As this is a discussion page, I am interested in your thoughts about the "non-musical" aspect(s) of visual kei. Denaar 04:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be great to see the article being expanded in scope and detail, yet I do hold a few concerns regarding aforementioned "research". First of all, our own article on the subject of music genres is probably not the best place to look for suggestions right now, has it has severe verifiability issues and incidentally, the only part of the lead that is referenced through an authoritative source is the bit about the "basic musical language". Thus the notion that a music genre may be defined through non-musical properties remains in limbo and in that regard, it is noteworthy, that while the All Music Guide's brief summary of rock and roll history illustrates the development and broadening of a genre, it does not fail to mention musical traits that were characteristic for certain periods.
    On the other hand, most sources on visual kei stop short of doing just that, while others not just don't describe any original/pure form of "visual kei music", but explicitly state that music associated with visual kei may be (not just draw influences from) any genre. Josephine Yun, author of one of the few English books on Japanese rock music is quoted, for an article published on Grammy.com no less. A good indication, that we are dealing with at least somewhat informed writing, or in other words, a reliable source, which should certainly be preferred over anecdotal evidence, based on certain bands or songs. Again, nothing wrong with expanding the article, as long as verifiability is not relinquished. But as editors, it is still not in our place to correlate individual sources and draw circumstantial conclusions from them, since this would constitute original research. - Cyrus XIII 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with your reading of the All Music Guide's description of the Genre of Rock, I agree that further information on Genre is needed. I have made some initial research into this issue, and will report back when I have more sources (so far I have one really good source, many sources talk about genre but do not define what they mean by the term). Now, Josephine Yun is a journalist and I am sure that the facts that are listed in her book are very accurate, and I am interested in reading what she has to say. I do admit i have reservations on her opinions, as she claims in her book that Dué le Quartz is one of the 40 biggest rock acts in Japan. Denaar 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • The article itself says, "The music performed encompasses a large variety of genres." The sources (the ones I could read) tend to treat is as a visual and not musical style. It appears that it would be a conclusion of Wikipedia editors to treat it as a musical genre rather than a presentation style. Pairadox 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems a very vague term that seems to just mean costumed musicians, therefore not really tied to any particular style. --Neon white 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears the term began as a form of music and does have sources using it in that way. From there, it appears the term became used more generally to refer to a sub-culture or fashion movement. Since there is more than one dimension to the meaning, all the aspects should be addressed in the article. For example, this article should be part of both the music genre and fashion Wikiprojects. That's not a conflict, it's a valid combination of cultural influences, just as it is also part of Wikiproject Japan. I've made a few edits to the article, with references, and written more about this in this section below. --Parsifal Hello 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Visual Kei

Many of you don't seem to know what Visual Kei is, please learn Japanese and read about Visual Kei history (The Japanese article is a good place to start) It is much more creditable than this English version. (It has been updated to be more precise, but is likely to be undone by someone) As for the meaning of Kei, a reference to a Japanese dictionary has been provided to show it means System, and not Style. It is a type of rock music, the same way that Shibuya-Kei is a type of Pop music. Go to Japan, learn Japanese, and learn about Visual Kei from there. Stop posting rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.146.98 (talk)

I believe, I already provided you with most of these pages on Talk:Skin (Japanese band), but just in case you missed that:
These should help putting your recent editing here and on the Skin article into perspective and show you in what ways they were inappropriate. - Cyrus XIII 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources were provided and recently updated to include fools mate articles, you just ignore them. As for this article, sources have been provided about what Visual Kei means, and from Oricon. You have no basis for your statements, if you edit this article in major way, it is vandalism. I will notify admins and request a protection be placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.146.98 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Before someone wipes the history section - most of it seems to be confirmed in the articles 219.90.146.98 just linked, so I'm requesting that section be left for a day or two, if people are ok with me going back and making sure we have a source for everything, line by line. It does agree with information I have read in magazines about the history of Visual kei before. Denaar 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Nevermind - It looks like everything in this article is listed in the references provided, I'm working on explaining. Denaar 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will provide an explanation on what Visual Kei means in Japanese. Visual System is correct, but more correct meaning is "Visual Group". History of Visual Kei from bounce.com is good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs)

[edit] Semi Protected

I vaguely recall another ip revert warring on this article. Lets see how a 3 week semi-protection goes. Spartaz Humbug! 14:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This page was recently vandalised by user Cyrus X111.

He removed sources for the history on the subject, replaced it with none. Moreover the correct meaning of the word was removed (there was a source to a Japanese dictionary confirming it) This user, along with a few others, continue to vandalise this article, along with others to suit their opinon on subjects. Providing no reliable sources for their information, and simply stating their personal opinon. They do not understand the Japanese language, and have provided the wrong meaning to the word. Here is a Japanese dictionary confirming my allegations for this word. http://eow.alc.co.jp/系/UTF-8/

Is this not against wikipedia rules? it is vandalism, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Genre, Part II

"A genre is a set of rules for generating musical works." ... "Genres are, however, more intersubjective than subjective phenomena. In each temporal and spacial context, there are certain genre definitions that are relevant and used by the most important groups of actors in the musical field: musicians, producers, marketers and audiences." Fornas, Johan The future of rock: discourses that struggle to define a genre

The following article is probably the best source I've read about style and genre. The use of "genre" comes from journalists with "film, cultural, and literary studies" backgrounds. (This is why "classical" or "art" music is described in "movements," while "popular" music is described in genres). Style is the type of sound, genre takes other factors into account such as lyrics and subject matter. Categorical Conventions in Music Discourse: Style and Genre

Now, this source linked by Jun Kaneko Bounce.com Is number 13 series of articles to "teach" about different music types. It does say that Visual Kei can be defined bands that use makeup, costumes, and a sense of presentation, as well as presenting a unique/pecuiliar view of the world. It does not have "one single music style" you can point to, however, it is considered a genre like in the same mannar as "Shibuya Kei" which there is no "cohesive" sound to. (Check out: All Music Guide). It says "Basically the foundation is New Roma and LA Metal sense of gender neutrality, along with the image of goth etc, emulating all of the following - Lolita, Psycopath, and Occult interests, grotesque and taboo topics, with a radical sent of taste and individual sensibility. It started with a hard rock and heavy metal sound, as well as being influnced by Boowy's beat rock and punk. Classical music and Industrial have also been big influences.

Then, it goes on to talk about the history, labels, important bands, and a suggestion of albums to listen to. My translation was done way to quickly just as a way to get it down on this page, but this is definately a source that explains the genre in terms of substance (Lyrics and motivations) as well as describing the influences on the sound. Denaar 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They simply refuse to understand, and I believe those users can't speak Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I do actually speak a fair amount of Japanese, and I can assure you that although you view the Japanese article as being "correct", not all of its content is up to standard, the non-English wikis will never be a source for one another, and I don't see a single source within the Japanese article, implying that it could all be original research. The exernal links on the page (if those are to be sources) do not include the vast amount of information on the Japanese article. --Jacob Talk 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: By article you mean the Japanese wikipedia article? I was stating that the reference that I linked to in my comments covers most/all of the the information on the page that he modified here, I wasn't speaking about the Japanese wikipedia article. Denaar 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, none of that was directed at you, but rather "Jun Kaneko". Some of the material I was replying to has been removed or relocated though. Sorry for the confusion. --Jacob Talk 05:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You see, he is blindly looking over it. The new external links and references have nothing to do with the Japanese article. It has to do with the history of Visuak Kei, provided by a reliable source within the Japanese music community!! Furthermore, there was a dictionary reference provided to explain the correct meaning of kei, and another link from Oricon explaining the rise of neo-visual kei. The Japanese article simply reflects these sources! Denaar's translation is not too bad at all. It is a sub-genre of music. you can argue all you like, but we provided reliable sources within the Japanese music community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs)

From music superstore HMV Japan. http://www.hmv.co.jp/bestsellers/index.asp?category=1&genre=100&style=102&theme=102006

They list Visual Kei as a sub-genre, along with other rock sub-genres, such as rockabilly, and metal. The following is said about Visual Kei "Rock bands, whose appearances are as important as their musical expressions" and refer to X Japan, and Luna Sea as key bands in that genre. Jun kaneko 01:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

References that need to be incorporated into this article (as well as some information from the 12 references I listed above): Oricon Article and Bounce Article. If no one objects, I am going to add a History section back to this article, as it is not a part of the current RfC Denaar 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection to the addtion of a History section, but please maintain consistency with the current article in style and content. - Cyrus XIII 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The previous version did, prehabs you should of read it. Jun kaneko 03:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, in the current version, there is a link to a Dir en grey interview (which really has little to do with this article) apart from this sentence "When we were growing up around [the] late '80s and early '90s, visual kei was influenced by glam music. When visual kei became a huge hit, people started seeing it as a form of entertainment and not as being rock. The darker, more extreme image from before is lost, and now people see it as being a genre that appeals to teenage girls."

It states the history of Visual Kei, which was influenced by glam music (Japanese bands such as, X Japan, Colour, and Dead end) and it says people started to view it as entertainment, and a genre aimed at teenage girls, and not as rock music. Since rock music in Japan is associated with bands like Blankey Jet City. Jun kaneko 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a term with more than one dimension

I'm new to this page and made a few edits on the article today. While I have not been participating in the talk page discussions so far, I have read the whole page and many of the references.

I am aware that a Request for Comments is pending and am interested in seeing what new viewpoints are brought from that. In the meantime, I based my edit on the suggestion put forth by TimNelson; I've seen his excellent work on other music genre articles, and it seemed to me he had the right idea so I implemented it.

Many music-related articles have long disputes over details of definitions. I've found that often the best way to proceed is to just find whatever sources can be found, and relate what they have stated, according to WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. If that means relating that there are multiple definitions for something, that's OK. Someone mentioned above that they would prefer that the talk page conflict not enter the article text. Unfortunately, sometimes that can't be avoided. It's always more pleasant to have an article that's clear and direct with no confusion, but when there are differences in the actual sources we are reporting, we can't make our own decision about which is correct - we need to report the various views as they are stated in the sources.

Most important is to avoid WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV#POV forks where separate sections of the article go with each direction. Instead it's better to let the conflicting viewpoints intertwine within the text of the article and wherever there is a conflict expressed in the text, make sure to include references. When peer-reviewed journals or scholarly works are not available, or even books or mainstream magazines or newspapers, we have to use whatever sources we can find. With a topic like this one, there is no question it's WP:Notable, so the issue becomes one of confirming each conflicted statement is WP:Verifiable.

In researching the references for the sentence I added, I was able to find sources that use the term as a music genre, and sources that use the term for both a music genre and a style of fashion - or a subculture identity in a way. But I was not able to find any sources that stated it is specifically a fashion style unrelated to music. There may be some sources like that, but I couldn't find them. However, since I had read the talk page and saw that was one of the big concerns, to keep the article NPOV, I included that aspect in my edit as well, and placed a citation needed tag there in hopes that someone can find the needed reference to support that part of the content. --Parsifal Hello 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I used to be opposed to having the article reflect our little dilemma here, but after reading your revision and above rationale, the idea of "forwarding" any sort of decision making on the disputed matter to our readers is rapidly gaining in appeal. And given the recent state of this discussion, this approach may even be quite straightforward in its own way. I have given the article another quick rewrite, in order to more fully integrate the definition issue into the whole text.
As you may have noticed, the genre infobox, as well as the respecitve categories and WikiProject entries are no longer present, since their employ would constitute a decision on our part after all, kind of defeating the purpose of providing readers with aforementioned open phrasing in the first place. The extensive quotes/paraphrasings in the references are gone as well (as least for now); the sheer length of them seemed somewhat impractical for an article this short (though that might be a matter of taste) and also complicate matters when certain sources are cited multiple times. - Cyrus XIII 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for concurring that the best way to address the controversy is to let the readers see for themselves how the term is used. But your "quick rewrite, in order to more fully integrate the definition issue into the whole text." seems to have inadvertantly removed most of the references I added. Since I'm sure that was not intentional, I've reverted your change.
You changed so much of the article in one edit, it was difficult to see what you did, that's why a revert was needed. It seemed like your rewrite of the text may have been good, but I couldn't tell because so many references were removed at the same time.
If you would edit the text to make the improvements you're suggesting, and do so without removing the valid references, then it's quite possible I and others would concense your edit. But please do not remove valid references that are valuable to the article.
Regarding the Wikiprojects, including those on the talk page does not do anything at all to change the content of the article. It does not make the article say anything other than what the text of the article says. Wikiproject templates simply allow the members to notice the article and join in the discussion. Since this topic is related to both rock music and music genres, those projects are interested in this page. While there might be some sources that consider Visual kei to be fashion rather than music, there is no doubt at all that it started within the realm of music and that the related Wikiprojects are appropriate to be listed.
What you called "extensive quotes/paraphrasings" are exact quotes, not paraphrases. They are valid sources and there is no reason to remove them. The purpose of including the quotes in the footnotes is to make it easier for readers to see how the footnotes apply, without having to load the references pages and search for the information. I did not modify any of the text in the quotes, other than in one or two, use ellipses ... to omit intervening information that was not relevant. There is nothing impractical about the length of the quotes. If someone wants to read them, they can, and if they prefer not to, they can skip them.
I invite you to improve the article by better integrating the statements as you mentioned in your edit summary. If you don't like the way the references are listed, you may be able to improve their formatting as well. But please do not remove them. If nothing else, this article needs more sources, not less, per core policy WP:Verifiable. --Parsifal Hello 05:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the only sources you added, that did not make into my recent revision are the student newspaper (due to WP:RS concerns) and the Josephine Yun interview excerpt (as Yun is already quoted extensively in the Grammy article). Arguably, that is less clear without the quotes (not paraphrasings, my mistake there), I will look around a few featured articles later today and see, if I can find any footnote/citation model that would satisfy the previous and the new model. In the meantime, the sources from Grammy.com, UCLA Asia Institute, the New York Times and Fashions Online are in the article and will remain there, I also added back the interview excerpt, one of the Japanese sources that Denaar discussed earlier, as well as the apparently most prevalent translation for "kei". - Cyrus XIII 10:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I would appreciate it if further editing was not hindered by vaguely descriptive edit summaries (without talk page posts to further elaborate on them) or reverts that occur without attempts to address rationales provided by previous editors. A consensus that supports either end of the spectrum exists neither on talk page nor reference level and the article currently reflects that diversity among sources and subsequently includes information either side in this discussion considers vital. Lastly, quotes for the second paragraph references have again been added, albeit in a shorter form, addressing previous length concerns and also following the formatting consensus that our recent featured articles appear to reflect. Thanks to the most recent source provided by Denaar, that paragraph now also fully complies with WP:RSUE. - Cyrus XIII 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call other editor's work as "disruptive" when it is trying to reach a neutral ground. Your edits, specifically "while others primarily define it through its looks[7][8][3]" and the associated quotes below, remove further context from those sources. You make it appear, by taking the quotes out of context, that they confirm your statement. However, if you take the articles as a whole, they do not confirm your statement. This is what I mean by your changes "not having a Neutral POV." Denaar 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall referring to your recent, or for that matter any of Parcifal's edits as "disruptive". Regarding the phrase you mentioned and the citations provided with it: The defining characteristics of visual kei, that these sources care to actually describe are indeed limited to visuals. We already discussed some of them in that regard and it's that "stopping short of actually describing a musical style" issue again, that has previously led several editors (not just me, mind you) to consider visual kei either solely a form of presentation or a wider artistic concept. Hence the phrase "primarily defined through its looks" is an entirely valid way to represent what these sources have to say and it adequately forms the middle ground between "visual kei has these specific musical characteristics" and "musically, it can be anything". Cyrus XIII 17:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "while others primarily define it through its looks[7][8][3]"
Resource 7:"Most GothLolis cite that they are merely imitating their favorite bands from the visual rock genre, known as "Visual Kei"... "Music is a major force in its creation. Visual Kei is exactly as it sounds: Rock music that incorporates visual effects and elaborate costumes to heighten the experience of the music and the show."
This reference is stating that it is a genre of Music, and how that music genre influences Gothic Lolita fashion. It does not describe Visual Kei's music, however, it is an article on fashion and the Gothic Lolita subculture, not visual kei. Therefore it does not agree with the statement above - it point blank says it is a music genre. You can find similar influences between "Punk" and "Goth" the music genres, and "Punk" and "Goth" from a fashion or subculture point of view. I would say based on this reference, we need a "Gothic and Lolita" subsection, that would link to the main subculture article, Gothic Lolita.
Resource 8: "It’s a very diverse genre and, of course, Japan also now has its own sub-genre called “Visual Kei” and I tried to include some bands from that genre as well."
Again, this source confirms it is a sub-genre of Japanese rock (a genre confirmed by the All Music Guide).
Resource 3: "Since it formed in the mid-1980's, X Japan went from playing loud, fast thrash-metal to stadium-shaking pop ballads, in the process pioneering its own genre, a Japanese equivalent of glam rock known as visual kei.'"
Once again, this source calls Visual kei a genre, and this one specifically defines a sound "Loud, fast thrash-metail combined with stadium-shaking pop ballads" - a combinataion used by bands like Dir en Grey.
By writing "some consider it a genre, why others only define it through its looks" (implying that these sources do NOT consider it a genre) you are presenting information that does not agree with the sources. I think we should avoid vauge language that implies things the sources do not confirm. Denaar 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Denaar's comments above.
Also, I concur with this idea Denaar mentioned: we need a "Gothic and Lolita" subsection, that would link to the main subculture article, Gothic Lolita. I welcome editors to add that new section when convenient. --Parsifal Hello 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

This article contains so much nonsense, many of you have been proven wrong so many times, yet you still argue without a case. Where are the reliable sources that state that Visual Kei is NOT a genre. Japanese sources were provided, and now others have provided reliable English sources. Where are the sources that state Visual Kei has mainstream popularity in Japan? A dictionary source was also given to show that Kei does NOT mean style, or refer to it in anyway. Jun kaneko 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - please add new comments at the end of the page so they appear in chronological sequence.
I've taken your advice and removed the designation of "high" popularity in Japan since we don't have a reference for how popular it is. --Parsifal Hello 05:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
About the meaning of the word kei
http://eow.alc.co.jp/系/UTF-8/
http://jisho.org/kanji/details/系
http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/jis/dosearch?sDict=on&H=PS&L=J&T=%1B%24B7O%1B%28B&WC=none
Input 系 to search http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C
Input 系 to translate http://nifty.amikai.com/amitext/indexUTF8.jsp
Input 系 to translate http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en
Are anymore sources required? Jun kaneko 06:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your help, and it appears that we are in agreement that there are no sources (so far) that state "Visual kei" is not a genre. Unfortunately I don't understand what those pages are showing. I have no experience with the Japanese language. The work I've done here has been based on sources I could find in English. According to WP:RSUE, we need sources in English, or we need translations of other language sources along with their original text so the content can be verified by people who speak both languages.
Also, is this question really about the meaning of the word "Kei"? It seems that the term "Visual kei" applies to a genre or style of music, and/or the way the musicians dress and perform. That has been verified in sources in English that we can use without translation.
Yes that is correct, but it does not mean Visual Style, it means Visual System Jun kaneko 07:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The unverified question is the part that refers to "visual kei" being anything "other" than a genre. I have not found any sources to indicate that; I only left that in the text out of respect to other editors who have argued it is not a music genre. My personal impression after reading the references is that it is indeed a music genre and the other uses of the term should be removed. Currently, those other uses do not have sources, so unless someone can find and add those sources, that text should be removed and the article should clearly state that "Visual kei is a music genre, with an associated style of fashion" or something similar to that. --Parsifal Hello 07:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Visual Kei is often described as J-Rock bands that concentrate on fashion. The problem is the misunderstanding of the term genre. Many people wrongly believe that a music genre simply defines differences in style of music. It doesnt it can be any definition, in this case the defintion is the fashion and not necessarily the style of music. Also there are bands considered Visual Kei that dont fit the J-Rock genre or dont fit in with the style of other bands but simply use the fashion. This creates some confusion as seen here. --Neon white 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was updated many times to include that information, but certain users continued to revert it back to the previous version. Removing reliable sources, and replacing it with nothing but their own personal opinion. Jun kaneko 07:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I have edited the first line of the article to remove the word "style" from the translation as you described. The dictionary defintions I found were "system; lineage; group", so that's what I used, and I added two supporting references. If you advise that the words "lineage and group" should be removed, we would need a dictionary entry or other reference that shows they do not apply, because they were included in the two references I found. Thanks for your help with this. --Parsifal Hello 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe "lineage; group" should be in there simply because it makes no sense in this context and "system" is what is obviously meant here. 系 as "lineage" refers to family lineage, something incompatible with the topic. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I don't speak Japanese, and the references I was able to find included all of those words. I think it's clear from the way the article reads that "system" is the correct word, so it doesn't seem like a problem. If we could find a reference that specifically defines "Visual kei" as "Visual system" that would be cool. But if you want to change it to leave out the other two words, I would not revert... though if someone argues about it, we might have to let those other words back in because that's what the references provide. So, at this point, I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to make the edit or not. The word that was there previously was "style"; that word is not supported by references at all, so whether or not you make the edit, we should not use "style" as the translation. --Parsifal Hello 06:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do, and there's a lot of ambiguity in these sort of cases (although you could make a case for any sort of language being this way, I suppose). I'll make the edit, if someone argues go ahead and revert and we'll go from there. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wooty is correct, I did post about it before, but I did not know if my English explanation was good, so I deleted my post. Jun kaneko 07:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Version

This version, 14:14, 8 September 2007 219.90.146.98

It included everything, in a more detailed and professional manner, and should of been updated with the newer sources provided by Parsifal. As the current version still lacks vital information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 September 2007 UTC
Good idea, I've restored that section. --Parsifal Hello 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some little errors with the history section I wrote. Nothing important, but this line "The band Colour is often regarded as influencing much of the femininity associated with modern Visual Kei, along with the bands D'erlanger, and Dead End." could be edited to be more precise, such as "The bands D'erlanger, X Japan, Colour, and Dead End are regarded as influencing the fashion and music associated with Visual Kei bands."
This line "the band X Japan is credited with inventing the term "Visual Kei", which drummer Yoshiki Hayashi described as "Visual Shock" can be edited to more precise, such as "The band X Japan invented the term "Visual Kei" when drummer Yoshiki Hayashi, used the term to describe the bands slogan "Psychedelic Violence Crime of Visual Shock"
This line "the death of lead guitarist Hideto Matsumoto in 1998 had signaled what many called the end of Visual Kei" needs to be changed, as my English describtion was not good. This is more precise "the death of lead guitarist Hideto Matsumoto in 1998, denied fans a possible reunion"
This line "It was not until 2007, when annoucements that X Japan, and Luna Sea would reunite, that Visual Kei bands would see a boost in popularity again, which has been labeled as "Neo-Visual Kei" needs to be more precise, such as "It was not until 2007, when the accouncements that X Japan would perform a tribute concert to Hideo Matsumoto, and Luna Sea would reunite, that Visual Kei bands would again see a boost in public awareness. Which has been described by the media as "Neo-Visual Kei"
If my English does not make sense, please correct it.
Moreover, in the section "See Also" Zoku has nothing to do with Visual Kei, and should be removed. Jun kaneko 07:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this good information. I am willing to make these changes, but I feel it would be better if you do the edits yourself. That way, when someone looks at the history of the article, it will be clear that several people are collaborating, and it is not just me writing the article myself.
Your English is good enough, you don't need to worry that it might be confusing. After you make the changes, I would be happy to review them and smooth over any small problems that might turn up.
If you would rather not do the edits yourself, let me know and I will do them. But please feel comfortable making changes when you see they are needed. You have valuable knowledge and I welcome you to improve the article.
Also, I would like you to know that your suggestions have made the article much better. And the history section added a lot of value. Thank you for your contributions. --Parsifal Hello 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I am unable to make the edits myself, as I have recently joined. I also thank you, and Denaar for the help in making this article more correct, and providing reliable English sources. Jun kaneko 08:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I've made the edits according to your notes. Please review what I wrote to confirm it is correct. --Parsifal Hello 08:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have used the English version for the word "Colour" but the band did use the USA version "Color" that should be updated. Anyway, thank you. Jun kaneko 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of "-kei"

"Visual kei (ヴィジュアル系 vijuaru kei?, lit. "visual system")"

System? This is nonsense. You could possibly come up with this word browsing through the literal meaning of the kanji itself, but that's a misguided approach to any language's hip speak. Saying visual kei means "visual system" is a bit like saying rock concert means "a plan, devised by two or more big lumps of mineral". "-kei" in this use (and several similar others) simply means "connected to", "in connection with", "with an emphasis on" etc. TomorrowTime 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is what the word "system" means! Jun kaneko 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Also "style", which might be appropriate here. System is too technical a term to apply here, because it implies a level of formal organization that doesn't really exist; otherwise the genre could never change, which it did. MSJapan 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)\ system

Not in the Japanese language. Furthermore, your comment about systems being unable to change is silly.Jun kaneko 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These sayings ゲーム系、アイドル系、アニメ系、 クラブ系、 ストリート系 do not refer to style. (game style? idol style?) For someone who has a "masters degree" in the Japanese language, you should know this, and these terms. Jun kaneko 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, attacks aside, I did some searching, because I've never come across kei in any other usages besides music terms. In context, ゲーム系フラッシュ is not "game system flash" or "game-style flash", but rather "game-related flash", which might be a better translation. Being a long-time Japanese speaker, I'm sure you would agree that the language is contextually dependent. "Visually-related" would certainly fit the bill here. MSJapan 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Those terms are colloquial. In Japanese, it is referring to a "group" and the combination of everything that creates that group (a system)
When you travel to Japan, you will notice many "kei" as it is a very common affix in Japan. Jun kaneko 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese pops

The term J-pop (Japanese pops) is used to denote any Japanese musician, it does not solely refer to the genre of pop music. There is not such term as "J-rock" and it is a foreign fan-made term. To understand, please travel to Japan, and browse Japanese music shops. Jun kaneko 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've really got a lousy attitude here, being a foreigner yourself, so cut it out. You're not the absolute authority on this by any means just because you live in Japan.
The fact of the matter is that this is an English-language encyclopedia, and if the term is used and verifiable in English (which is very clearly is), it is perfectly valid to use and be referenced. There are CD shops based in Japan that use it because they cater to international customers, for example.
I'd also point out that I've done exactly what you require, and the classification system varies in Japanese depending on where you go. I've seen stores use the following terms in Japan: J-pop, Rock, domestic and international (both in English and Japanese), and visual, all for the same types of things in varying degrees. Don't assume that no one else has your experience. MSJapan 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said no one else has any experience, Denaar has clearly shown experience regarding this article. There is only a lousy attitude towards those that deserve it. You have been to Japan, but you argue there is J-rock, is rock music from Germany, France, England, known as G-rock, F-rock, E-rock? J-pop is used to describe musicians from Japan, not the genre "pop music" - Jun Kaneko

No one is ever going to like this page 100% - what is important is we try to comprise to the best of our ability. Usually the best thing is just to stick to what the sources say; we might not like it but it is usually better than someone else's opinion we don't agree with. Denaar 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Since it is an article relating to Japanese culture, it should reflect what is actually true in Japan. I don't care anymore, most of you need to visit Japan, where you will receive a rude-awakening. - Jun Kaneko.

Since personal credentials such as Japanese skills and first-hand Japan experience keep coming up on this page, I'd like to remind everyone of the Essjay controversy. Personally, I would not bank on Jun Kaneko actually making a living as a musician in Japan. His editorial and talk page conduct have repeatedly revealed an aggressive the-ends-justify-the-means attitude and strangely enough, all his IP based edits made before and after registering his Wikipedia account were consistently made from Adelaide, South-Australia. WHOIS is a wonder of technology. - Cyrus XIII 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Family life is a wondrous thing, sometimes, people like to visit their family, for many months! An aggressive attitude is necessary towards morons like you, that bastardize the Japanese language, and culture. - Jun Kaneko
Credentials aren't provable unless I start scanning my credentials (which I'm not going to do), but I'm not going to try to win an argument based on personal experience. However, as far as the dictionary goes, most "kei" usage is in music, fashion, or nations, it seems, and I simply don't think "system" is an appropriate translation. Very few, if any, Japanese words boil down to the same thing in all contexts, which is why it is a very hard language to learn. MSJapan 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you not visit Tokyo? every major district has a "Kei" affix, and in those districts are lots of other "kei" it is not related to the context, and it was explained before. Furthermore, I would like you to write in Japanese, why you think "Kei" should be known as style, and why system does not apply - Jun Kaneko

Reminder to you both - we are looking at the LITERAL translation (as it says lit.) and not a measure of context. I believe it's 'system', but you are welcome to your opinion. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 10:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say in this context it is likely "group" as in group of people - but definately system, group, and linage are all real definitions of the kanji. Denaar 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new edit

I've just came across this page and I've changed the "literal" translation at the very top from the cryptic "visual system, lineage, group" to simply "visual style". I see that there has been a somewhat baffling debate here, not much of which seemed to revolve around the meaning of -kei. For the purists who may push this point, the absolute literal meaning of 系 is "string"; and system, linage, group and any other meanings you can come up with were all extended meanings from the abstraction of "string". The problem with East Asian language is that you can hardly ever translate anything literally, because it would just turn into pure nonsense. I've chosen the word "style" here because, much like the term -kei, it is quite vague and overused, and could fit in most context i could think of. o (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of non-english sources

use of non-english sources for an english article is discouraged unless there is a translation or as a very last resort. --Neon white 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what the policy says: WP:RSUE - If English sources aren't of the same quality, non-English sources can be used. It doesn't state to provide a translation, however if one is provided, the original Japanese text should be available as well. Most the English sources we have are not extensively researched and tend to have a narrow focus (such as only current bands or only one band). The consensus on this page early on was that we needed Japanese sources. Only two are used for the article. Denaar 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)