Talk:Melvins

Genre (again)

The infobox template recommends four genres but doesn't state that there has to be four genres; sludge metal is so heavily sourced that it should be mentioned, they're even considered one of the pioneers. Sludge also isn't even a sub-genre of doom as the infobox states, it's just a derivative. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The band doesn't even consider themselves a "sludge" group. Their early material was an influence on that genre but their discography is so much more diverse than that (which a lot of people don't seem to realize or accept). The best we could honestly say is "experimental" or "alternative" regardless of how often they're labeled "sludge" or "doom" or "grunge" which are all kind of reductive. --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A band's view on what genre they are has never made any difference to their actual genre. What if I started a rap group and we called ourselves a death metal band, it wouldn't make us death metal. Sludge is by far the most sourced genre and they are considered a sludge metal band by a majority of the metal community. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Issan here. Regardless of what they consider themselves to be, one should look to what the reliable sources say. In this case, I'd consider them to be leaning mostly towards Sludge. Robvanvee 09:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My logic here is that since sludge is the fusion of doom and hardcore and they have also been called a doom metal band (and associated with stoner rock, which is also based in doom), only the general root genres should be included in the infobox (as per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre). Same goes for including alternative rock over grunge. Because sludge and grunge are the two genres they have been most often associated with (and which they pioneered), both are mentioned separately in the lead, but IMO they are too narrow and specific to be listed in the infobox for a band which has forayed into so many different genres.--MASHAUNIX 11:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Issan Sumisu In your revert you restored unsourced or poorly sourced content and removed high-quality sources The Chicago Tribune and Greenwood Press. "Rock fits the guidelines best as it encompasses all styles they're sourced as" is something you made up and does not justify your revert. "grunge and hardcore, which aren't metal styles" is an unsupported opinion. Based on how they are discussed in reliable sources, these genres have little to nothing to do with general "rock music" or its roots. You must be confusing it with "alternative rock" or "punk rock". Metal is an equally broad genre and is more relevant to this subculture and genre, the other alternative here is punk rock.Dartslilly (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The genre in the introduction is generally kept general to encompass all genre that are sourced. If you look into the musical style section, there are five well sourced genre: sludge metal, grunge, experimental rock, hardcore punk, alternative metal and doom metal. Three of these may be sub-genres of metal, however grunge, hardcore and experimental rock are not. As metal is a sub-genre of rock, we don't show a bias towards any sources by saying rock, as all styles sourced are sub-genres of rock, however if we simply call them a metal band, we are disregarding half of the sources styles. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Metal is strongly supported for this band by the majority of sources that I've seen. It encompasses most, if not all of the sourced subgenres. They are considered one of the biggest influences for that genre. You haven't given a policy based reason to replace the link to heavy metal music (an FA article) with one that is overly broad and less relevant for the subject of this article or to remove a high-quality encyclopedia source and revert back to an unsourced version. Dartslilly (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

According to wp:undue, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". While yes, the heavy metal sub-genres are well sourced, there's also a lot of coverage cited on this page to say that they aren't, as they are sourced as other sub-genres of music. Grunge still has four very reliable sources, and experimental rock has three. Calling them specifically a heavy metal band is disregarding almost as many sources as it is regarding, while calling them a rock band doesn't disregard any of them, and even includes metal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever listened to this band? It's not rock music. What is the policy for removing well-sourced genres base don the above reasoning? Dartslilly (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

When I reverted your most recent edit, removing sources for experimental rock, I submitted too early, what I meant to say was "Quietus and Popmatters are both included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and the writer for the Treble Zine article is Jordan J. Michael, who has written for Under the Radar which is also reliable to the same page, under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources." And in response to your last argument, I haven't removed an unsourced genre, I made sure it was still included in the section you were trying to add it to because metal is a sub-genre of rock. Also asking me to listen to the band is wp:original research. I have listened to the band, and yes, they're a rock band, they span multiple rock styles, like those we've discussed, but that doesn't change that all of those are covered by rock, while some are not by metal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

We're obviously not going to give equal weight to minor non-expert publications as to an enyclopedia published by a major publisher. Unless you have sources of equal weight to bring into the discussion this is going nowhere. The encylopedic source is given more weight than music magazines. Removing encyclopedic sources for genres is not justified by NPOV/UNDUE and not supported by any guideline. Dartslilly (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

These are expert publications though, that is why they're reliable on Wikipedia. The sources you provided are free to be included in the musical style section as another genre they're sourced as, but the context you put them in is why the were removed. If you'd like additional sources calling them a rock band, Kurt Cobain: Alternative Rock Innovator: Alternative Rock Innovator by Christopher McDougall says "Matt [Lukin] played bass in a local rock band called the Melvins" on page 29 and The Virgin Encyclopedia of Nineties Music by Colin Larkin says "The late Kurt Cobain of Nirvana described the US rock band the Melvins as his favourite group" on page 261. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Does the guideline prevent us from listing major genres? I think Eric Clapton has two genres in the lead ... My understanding is that the guideline is to prevent overburdening the lead with minor genres, and I thought the encyclopedia source would be better than music magazines. My main concern is whether readers of this article are being linked to the most relevant background content they are likely to be interested in ... The rock music article is very broad reaching back at least as far as the 1950s. Dartslilly (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much of a use in two genres in this case, because if it were "rock and heavy metal band", then that can be said simply by stating rock, while Eric Clapton's "rock and blues", is describing two genre that are connected however neither one is a sub-genre of the other. If a reader were to want specific background information on a genre, then the infobox includes links to five and the musical style section has even more. I've always thought of the one listed in the introduction as being for somebody who has no ideas of nuance between niche styles and want a very general overview, while the infobox is for when you understand those nuances. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point - maybe we can replace some of the more obscure genres with a link to heavy metal in the infobox. By the time of the Melvins the link to rock n' roll (or the hard rock/blues rock of the 1970s) is more attenuated than for Eric Clapton. It's pretty remote and the gear is different and there are very marked style differences with the Melvins it's a different epoch and the vast majority of sources support this. The lead could be expanded in general so we'll see. There's no need to edit war over it. Dartslilly (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hardcore does only have one source, and it's only in reference to their 1983 demo, so that would be the most likely one to be removed if that were to happen, however there is already two metal styles listened in the infobox. If you can find another source in addition to the two you've already provided, then heavy metal would have more sources than doom metal, and I think would be appropriate to include in the infobox. That's one option, but if there's a source saying they helped to influence multiple metal styles, then the second sentence in the introduction could be reworded to "Their music was key to the development of grunge, and heavy metal styles like sludge metal...". Which doesn't seem like it would be hard to do as I'm pretty sure I've already seen sources calling them influential to alt metal and stoner metal, I just can't remember who they were by. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Associated acts/Side Projects/Collaborations ??

I don't want to open up a whole can of worms, but the Melvins Cinematic Universe(tm) seems to have a lot of interesting acts. Should we have a section that includes side projects and other collaborations? Meaning: Fantomas, Shrinebuilder, Altamont, etc.? Or should those be relegated to Buzz and Dale's individual pages? Top pocket man (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(not The) Melvins

Unless I'm missing a WP guideline regarding use of band names, the name of the band is simply "Melvins". Yet the very first sentence says "The Melvins are". Now only "Melvins" is in bold, so while the author who bolded it knew their name, the person who put "The" at the front did not. Unless they incorrectly assumed "The" as a definite article is valid in front of a proper noun/collective noun, which I understand it is not. Think "The Nirvana ..." or "The Deep Purple ..."

So the first sentence should be "Melvins are ..." (or preferably "Melvins is ..." but either is valid). There are a number of other instances of this in this article, but I'm hesitant to change any of them considering there seems to be some ardent fans of Melvins monitoring this page. Richard BF (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A year with no comments or complaints, so I have changed the first sentence so that it is grammatically correct, considering the name of the band is simply Melvins. Richard BF (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

99% of the time, the band are referred to with the definitive article, this is the first page of results from Google in relation to "Melvins band": [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Every single one of these refers to them using the definitive article in their body. Nirvana and Deep Purple don't make sense as a comparison for this rule, a better comparison would be the Beatles or the Beastie Boys or the Bad Brains. The definitive article, however, is not apart of their official name, so according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) it shouldn't be included as the title, but that doesn't change it has to be used in the body, otherwise it's referring to the band incorrectly. Very few sources call them simply "Melvins" unless in the context of an article title where fewer words means more info can be conveyed quicker. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Sumisu! Great to get some feedback on this finally. Not sure if you did a proper read of your search results though. 1 and 2 do not use the definite article in the body, 3 uses it once mid-sentence but all other uses do not, and 4 does not use the definite article in the body. Some do have "the" in front of the name (not sure of the grammatical terminology), but that usually refers to possession. I didn't look at the rest I'm sorry as the first 4 all failed the test. I just did a Google search and the majority of first and second page results do not use the definite article at all, and none had it at the start of a sentence. Regarding other bands, The Beatles have the definitive article as part of their name, so this is an invalid comparison. Beasty Boys and Bad Brains do not include the definite article in their name and in fact do not include it in their wiki pages, which simply backs my proposal. Most authoritative sources do refer to them as simply Melvins. And not that it accounts for much, but in the music scene they've always been referred to as just "Melvins" in the 35 odd years I've known them. But if there's a WP rule that contravenes that, then the Beasty Boys and Bad Brains pages aren't a great example because they don't use the definite article in the body. RichKBF (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just based on those first four what you said isn't true other than the first? Every sentence on 1 uses the definitive article other than the first (for example "the Melvin's Lord of the Flies EP" in the second paragraph). 2 uses the definitive article whenever it isn't the beginning of the sentence and 3 uses it every time other than once. You are right about four though, I was meant the other article that continues at the end of Loudwire's article, which is different to the one at the start of the page. Also, I'm not sure what you said about them always being referred to without the definite article in the scenes is true. Personally, I've only ever head "the Melvins", never anything else but our opinion don't count on this; musicians from their own scene use the definite article, for example: Dave Grohl, Kurt Cobain Issan Sumisu (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)