Synthwave.94 (talk | contribs) |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
===Requests for comments=== |
===Requests for comments=== |
||
{{rfc|soc|rfcid=188614B}} |
|||
It was decided [[Talk:Eagles_(band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox|last year to keep ony "rock" in the infobox]]. However "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" were recently restored by several IP adresses after being removed from the infobox and it seems appropriate to mention them in the infobox instead of simply "rock". |
It was decided [[Talk:Eagles_(band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox|last year to keep ony "rock" in the infobox]]. However "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" were recently restored by several IP adresses after being removed from the infobox and it seems appropriate to mention them in the infobox instead of simply "rock". |
Revision as of 15:00, 23 August 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rename article to "The Eagles (band)"
It is obvious to anybody with the slightest amount of common sense that the article should be titled "The Eagles". 86.179.1.82 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Tell that to Glenn Frey ;) We can't change it to "The Eagles" simply because they never used a "The" in the band's title. It's their prerogative, and we can't change history like that. Doc talk 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have just watched a two-hour documentary about the Eagles, mostly narrated by the band members. Every single reference to the band called it "the Eagles". Not one single time was the band called "Eagles" by any band member or anyone else. 81.159.106.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that not one official album lists them as "The Eagles", but always rather "Eagles". Steve Martin mentions his exchange with Glenn Frey over the band's name humorously in his book (p.136 of Born Standing Up). Our compromise is what every other source does: we assign a lowercase "the" in running prose. Capitalizing the "The" is as incorrect as omitting it entirely. Doc talk 02:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here is an official album (for a foreign market) that begs to differ:http://www.allmusic.com/album/new-zealand-concert-mw0001296510 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.169.249 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Overwhelming usage of "the Eagles" in every other situation trumps some typographical or design quirk on album covers for sure. The article title should be "The Eagles" with capital "T" by virtue of the fact that the first letter of article titles is always capitalised. 86.160.222.144 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- The article is correctly named per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). If you have a problem with that policy you should take your discussion there. Piriczki (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, the convention that you refer to appears not apply because "a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article". However, even without that clause, this article is incorrectly named because it does not reflect the overwhelmingly prevailing name by which the band is called. 86.160.222.144 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not that this even needs to go to an iVote, but I defer first to their official website, and then to Rolling Stone[1] and allmusic[2]. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame needs to get with it. It's "Eagles (band)", as it has been. Doc talk 10:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- The official website only uses the name "Eagles" typographically as part of a logo or design, as do the album covers. With the exception of certain special cases like this, NOBODY EVER calls the band "Eagles". End. Of. 86.128.0.250 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: This is a straightforward issue of grammar ~ not an issue of what the band's name is. The band's name is Eagles. In English grammar, however, it is usually, but not always, grammatically correct to put the before plural nouns. We would not normally write, for instance, that "Eagles toured Australia in 2009". We could do this but it doesn't usually sound right to not include "the" before a plural noun such as "Eagles" so we naturally don't do so. Therefore we would normally say "The Eagles toured ..." If the band were named "Eagle", however, then we wouldn't usually put "the" before it (but it could be correct in some sentence constructions). There are some natural exceptions to this principle. We would not say "The 1990 the Eagles' album reached Number 1." Instead we would say that "The 1990 Eagles' album ..." In summary: The band's name is "Eagles" (not "The Eagles") but it is usually correct to put "The" (at the beginning of a sentence) or "the" (mid sentence) before "Eagles" when referring to the band. (Phew!!!) Afterwriting (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well said! The IP is clearly on the same page with the true lameness (WP-only that I've found to date) of attempting to call them "Eagles" across the board, but hopefully will see the bigger picture as well. We include the lowercase "the", like everyone else does, and leave the mystery of why they never brand themselves as "The Eagles" to them. Doc talk 06:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- That theory is just plain wrong. It is obvious after even a moment's thought that article-less plurals are commonplace in English. 86.151.118.91 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- It would be really nice if we could have a definitive answer wikipedia wide for this sort of issue. There's a list of guidelines for article names, but because it comes down to votes from people with different opinions, we end up with Carpenters being called "The Carpenters", the latter of which was never their name, and the Eagles as "Eagles", despite the band themselves calling themselves "The Eagles" in documentaries. So which is? Do we go by the official name or what people call them or what they call themselves? And if we are going to go with "Eagles", why not "Carpenters"? Or vice versa? In most places you can't have it both ways, but wikipedia almost encourages it. 2001:5B0:26FF:2EF0:0:0:0:36 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
RollingStone (source)
"No other band did as much to translate the explosively creative, politicized rock of the 1960s into the massively popular, de-politicized rock of the 1970s as the Eagles."
Reading this article I'm missing this fundamental aspect very much. 84.152.25.58 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's just one RS writer's spin on this band. Probably got paid decently for it. I wouldn't rewrite the lead in this vein, but that's just me. The article needs improvement from all volunteers, yourself included. If you need help, it will be given. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Status of Bernie Leadon
I moved him into the current members area since Joe Walsh first mentioned, and then various radio stations confirmed, that he was back in the band. I see now he's been moved back to former members. If I or somebody else were to find an article that said he was back in the band, then could be moved into the current members area? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but not some blog or rehash of the Walsh statements. Something official, say from the official website or a quote from Henley, Frey and/or Leadon, would do nicely. Please keep in mind the Mick Taylor example, as I assuredly will. A recent article on this states: "Leadon will be joining them on stage during Eagles tour dates for the History of the Eagles tour. Current Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh is scheduled to perform with Leadon."[3] Note the "current Eagles guitarist" bit. Like Mick Taylor rejoining the Stones, Leadon is a "Special Guest", and not a full member of the current Eagles lineup. Doc talk 07:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess we will see this weekend when the tour starts exactly how to iron out his status. But I will cite the example of Pink Floyd during The Wall Tour. Richard Wright was not a full-fledged member of the band; he was kept on as a session musician. Even during the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason he wasn't a member of the band. But yet, every fan considers him to have been a member the entire time. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are legal (i.e. financial) considerations for a band to determine whether a former member becomes a full-fledged member again, despite fan opinion. There is no evidence out there to support that Leadon will be anything other than a "Special" or "Featured" guest. You are strongly encouraged to find sources that contradict this, confirming him as a full member of the band. We are going to go the correct route with this. Doc talk 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've just removed another attempt to include Leadon as a full member of the Eagles. First we're going to look here, the official Eagles website. "The Eagles – Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmit – will perform classics spanning their career, including some that have never been performed live...", etc.[4] Please note that Leadon is not listed as an Eagle on the band's official site. It's not an oversight on the band's part. He is a featured guest. That is all for now. Doc talk 09:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I found a YouTube video of Heartache Tonight from last night and Bernie Leadon wasn't part of that portion of the show, however I found an article in which it was implied Joe Walsh was more or less in the shadows for the first half of the show. So, what does that mean if a member and a "non-member" were more or less absent for half the show? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, there are contracts that have legal purposes for a band to include anyone as an official member. When Felder rejoined in 1994, he was unequivocally a member of the Eagles again, because the Eagles said so themselves. This has not happened with Leadon, and is very unlikely to happen. Walsh is a member because the band has him as a member. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to count Leadon as a current member when the band basically says he is not (based on their official website). If they ever do, I will try to be the first to add it. Doc talk 05:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note - I have now reverted attempts from two more IP editors to include Leadon as a current member. We are not going to contradict the band's official site on who is a current Eagle. It's not up to us to do that. Make no mistake about this. To add Leadon as a current member is original research, which is not tolerated. I will (get ready for it) take it to the limit to protect this factual distinction. Doc talk 09:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
He is on tour with the band; is there any way one could make the distinction that he is a special guest touring member in 2013 and still leave him in former members? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that I did take a good look at the official site for the band, and it looks like it serves no purpose other than push merchandise and ticket sales without giving a detailed biography. Plus some official sites take awhile before updating any detailed info. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- The official site could use improvement, particularly with a biography section, but we can't do anything about that. It also has photos of the band at various stages of their career, and Leadon isn't in the current lineup.[5][6] If they update it to include him as a current member, it would be great: it's certainly not like I don't want him to be a current member. We have to stick with the facts, and the fact is he's just not considered a current member by the band that is hiring him for their tour. As to making a note of him as a special touring guest: the only place I can see that working is down at the bottom under Past Members, maybe adding a note of it. Certainly not in the infobox, as it doesn't seem feasible or necessary. Doc talk 02:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Update - I was very happy to see that Leadon has been playing with them, and I'm hardly alone. In this article from November 7, 2013, it clarifies what I've been saying. "“Reunited rockers” may not be the most precise wording, as the Eagles’ founding guitarist Bernie Leadon has not rejoined the group. (He has made a few cameos onstage, though.)"[7]
An "Eagles" guideline?
After seeing various edits on this page and other Eagles related articles, I was wondering if we could have a page in Wikipedia that outlines the consensus for proper wording regarding the band name. It could be like a Wikipedia style guide; a "do's and don'ts" for the following:
- "The Eagles" vs. "Eagles"
- "the Eagles" vs. "The Eagles"
- "The Eagles are..." vs. "Eagles are..." vs. "Eagles is..." vs. "The Eagles is..." (Yeesh, and we recently had that last one here at this article for several days,[8] the first words in the lead in fact!)
- "Former Eagle Bernie Leadon..." vs. "Former Eagles' member Randy Meisner..." vs. "Former Eagles guitarist Don Felder..."
- How to start a paragraph or a sentence with the band name and how to refer to the band in the middle of a sentence in running text.
- Etc. etc...
I'm sure even seasoned editors with the best intentions have to stop and think about these things and get them wrong every now and then. Also when correcting edits we could then just refer to and link the guide page.
Anyone else think such a page would be a good idea?
Please, if there is a short and easy rule-of-thumb that covers all the above, then let me have it. Otherwise, please do not respond by listing the "answers" to the above issues. I am not after that. I'm asking if a page outlining the standing consensus for the above would be helpful. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 22:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- You might find American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement useful. We could put some of these things in a FAQ section.--SabreBD (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. I was going to say something about the fact that "The Eagles" is not plural because its referring to a singular group, despite the "s", (just like Jefferson Airplane, Styx, Rush, etc, etc is also not plural eventhough it's a multi-member group) but you seem to disagree with my "fact" so we obviously have work to do. Oh and I'm happy to be wrong - I'm an engineer not an English major so what do I know... Ckruschke (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- I should have more of a point to not indicate one example or another as being wrong. My one parenthetical comment was meant to highlight the need for such a page; and indeed your post here also highlights that same need, regardless of whether you happen to be right or wrong. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The page is not a bad idea at all; but I'm still hopeful that when allmusic says "were" instead of "was"[9], as well as Rolling Stone[10] and everyone else, that this not ignored for some bizarre MOS quirk that literally no one else follows. It's just plain common sense to me, but I have made this well-known, so I digress. Sorry :) Doc talk 02:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just want to add to the discussion: for my home music library I got to make this decision for myself without worrying about convention, and I chose to leave "The..." off of the front of all the band names because for searching, The Beatles needs to be among the B-bands while The Eagles should be among the E-bands. Not that you should care how I did it, but thought I'd mention that in so doing I was faced with the conundrum of the band The The, and because I didn't have to worry about anybody else's opinion, it gave me great pleasure to treat them with my standard rule, so I put them in as "The", disregarding my urge to refer to them as "the The's". Seriously, I am telling this story just to inform the above discussion in case anybody thinks their own method is clearly superior, this is your acid test. 198.179.82.133 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Eagles redirection and disambiguation is scrod
"Eagles" vs "The Eagles" (and is it singular/plural) is nowhere near as important as "Eagle" vs "Eagles". At the moment, if you put "Eagles" into wikipedia search, it takes you to "Eagle"-the-bird, and from there you can click to disambiguate "Eagle", at which point you discover that you are a long way from finding The-"Eagles (band)". How about have "Eagles (disambiguation) separated from Eagle (disambiguation), where they each prominently-at-the-top point to each other? It used to be that way looking at history, but I clicked on the Talk page over there to see if there was any discussion about it, and it said that there was a discussion over here, but there isn't, over here is just the The Eagles vs. Eagles discuss. Wouldn't life be better if Eagles (disambiguation) was its own page, pointing at least to Eagle, Eagle (disambiguation), Philadelphia Eagles and Eagles (band) as a bare minimum? BTW, there is even currently a The Eagle page that's all on its own... 198.179.82.133 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like someone already made two separate disambig pages (singular and plural). And The Eagle redirects to the DA page. I just added hatnotes to the disambig. pages so that you can flip from one to the other.
- I haven't addressed the question of whether [[eagles]] should go straight to eagle (bird). To link to the bird, one could write [[eagle]]s.
- Pelagic (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
How to end genre wars
It's just too easy, given the fine gradient of genre types that exist, to come up with dozens of genres that a band, with a long career, like the Eagles could be designated under. Boldly implementing the consensus decision which has worked well on other similar articles like Grateful Dead, I am cutting back the genres to just rock. It's a big enough umbrella to include the Eagles, and doesn't leave anything out. --Jayron32 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, the template states "aim for generality" so following that guideline is certainly appropriate and non-controversial. Besides, the editors that focus on genres are typically the least knowledgeable and have little of substance to contribute anyway. Piriczki (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Editors have started adding more genres, with reliable sources backing them up. I thought the genre was to just stay as rock, but clearly some disagree... Shikari 123 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to add something to an article. Merely being in a reliable source is not a club one uses to win arguments. It is part of the evidence one uses to decide if information is worth adding. The other aspects of adding something to an article include relevance and overall quality of writing, and other such considerations. People should achieve consensus before adding these again, even if they find a source. --Jayron32 00:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Shikari 123:: Thanks for the expanded "Musical Styles" section; the information removed from the infobox needed somewhere to go, and creating a section for it improves the article considerably. Well done! --Jayron32 22:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, glad to have improved it! Shikari 123 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Shikari 123: How about you now resolve the cite errors that are at the bottom of the page, since you keep removing the referenced material that is supported by the citations? Doc talk 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, because I wasn't the one who ignored the consensus and caused the errors. Shikari 123 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Szymczyk Quote
There is a citation needed mark after the following: "Eagles Live (released in November 1980) was mixed by Frey and Henley on opposite coasts; the two decided they could not bear to be in the same state, let alone the same studio. "The record's perfect three-part harmonies were fixed courtesy of Federal Express," said producer Bill Szymczyk." Having looked into this, I can't find any such quote attributable to him - everything out there appears to be a mirror of this article. Don Felder's account is interesting, and what I think this "quote" should be replaced with. Frey quit the band; on pg. 214 of Felder, he describes the situation:
- "Irving called us all up and and told us we each had to finish editing the live album without Glenn. I guess he of all people had seen it coming for years. Everyone except Glenn flew to Bill Szymczyk's studio in Miami and started fixing guitar parts, background vocals, drum parts and bass. Then we flew the tapes to L.A., where Glenn and Bill's assistant in another studio fixed his parts, then FedExed the tapes back to Miami."
Unless the quote can be tracked down, I think it's important to remove it and write something based on this referenced account. Doc talk 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
RFC: Genres in the infobox
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR
- Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock
--Jayron32 23:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Support listing every genre referenced in the article (rock, soft rock, hard rock, country rock, folk rock)
Support listing only rock
- --Jayron32 23:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- --Shikari 123 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- --Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- --Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- --Doc talk 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- --♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- --Herostratus (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Do not favor using the "genre" line articles, especially when contended. Too simplistic and debatable and leads to endless sterile debate, and would be fine with "leave it blank". If you are going to have a value in the info box, make it the broadest category reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- --Alsee (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I like how the current version has the broad Rock category with the see_below link. That seems to be the best way to handle the complex answer for genre.
- From my reading of the sources (and my modest knowledge of the topic) like many bands they had a lot of influences and went through different phases. Though some of their music (or even whole albums) might be classified as folk rock, or soft rock, etc., the band was always a rock band. Rock (see below) makes sense to me, as well. Lagrange613 03:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can't remember which guidelines page talks about this, but one of the music-related pages explains that the "genre" field is to be kept as simple as possible. "Rock" encompasses all the styles being considered, and doesn't really detract anything from the article.--¿3family6 contribs 13:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The fact that the Eagles have covered so many rock subgenres, such as hard rock, soft rock, folk rock, country rock, rock and roll, R&B, pop/rock, and disco (I have reliable sources for every single one of those, I'll list them here if questioned) means that, like with any other such stylistically wide-ranging rock groups such as Queen, the Beatles and the Kinks, the Eagles' infobox should just use the obvious umbrella term for all these, "Rock". This will prevent genre wars in most cases, and will ensure that none of the Eagles' genres have been left out. Shikari 123 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this position. I think having soft rock and hard rock follow each other in the genre field is especially silly, as they would appear to cancel out. "Rock" covers it. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. While as a huge Eagles fan I would argue that the Eagles did often include hard rock and soft rock songs back to back, a newcomer to the band's music may not know this, therefore the two genres following each other in the article would look silly. Shikari 123 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe to be extra safe we could link the paragraph describing the different musical styles in the infobox after having just "Rock". I dunno. Please note what they do on Allmusic for this band under "Artist Information". They list their "Genre" as "Pop/Rock", and then list the various "Styles" (including "Psychedelic/Garage", which I find just a little absurd).[12]. I'm not suggesting we do this on WP, but it seems to further support listing one genre in the infobox and expounding on the styles elsewhere. Doc talk 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The article already does that. There's a section in the main text devoted to musical styles. AFAIK, it's always been there. The issue is not that paragraph, it's just reducing the clutter from the infobox and to remove the temptation for the genre warriors. --Jayron32 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you put (see below) after "Rock" in the infobox is what I'm saying. A direct link to the paragraph in the infobox to clarify things for the reader, eliminate clutter, and discourage adding more to the infobox. Doc talk 02:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Point of order: I would like to ask Jayron32 to move the majority of text from the RfC top section down into this discussion section. The RfC should be a simple, straightforward question: Should A or B? It should not come after a strong argument for one side. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
#1 album of all time - unsubstantiated
There is a claim I removed about "Greatest Hits' being the #1 album of all time. There is ample evidence this is NOT true: qv. List_of_best-selling_albums and the extensive list of refs on that article.
If a single Rolling Stone article from the early 2000s says something different, then that is not enough to overturn to consensus of references elsewhere. Manning (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- The text you removed was "Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975)" was the "best selling album of the 20th century in the U.S." The reference you removed was "The Eagles: Twenty-Six Million Served" Rolling Stone (January 20, 2000) "The California kings' Greatest Hits is honored as the century's Number One best seller"... "With 26 million copies shipped (compared with Jackson's 25 million), the Eagles' anthology was recently awarded that honor by the Recording Industry Association of America." Piriczki (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point - that 15 year old claim is disputed by numerous other resources (including RIAA), all painstakingly cataloged in the above article. Unless you can demonstrate why this single RS article takes precedence over the numerous other references, it cannot stand. Manning (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- This appears to be a simple misunderstanding. This archived CNN article, retrieved by a simple Google search, seems to clear up this dispute entirely. It confirms that the RIAA did indeed officially honor the album as the "top-selling album of the century", but it only factored in US sales. The article specifies that Thriller sold 6 million more copies than Greatest Hits in terms of worldwide sales. I originally missed what Piriczki was saying too, but they do in fact specify "in the US", a claim that appears to be correct, despite the fact that it's not the greatest-selling album of all time (this claim is not being made at all). Are we good here? Swarm X 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point - that 15 year old claim is disputed by numerous other resources (including RIAA), all painstakingly cataloged in the above article. Unless you can demonstrate why this single RS article takes precedence over the numerous other references, it cannot stand. Manning (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please read this newspaper article. It states "The Eagles are soaring into the new millennium with the best-selling album of the century. The Eagles Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 was honored Tuesday as the top-selling album of the 20th century. Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, presented a plaque to band members Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Don Felder, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmidt." Please explain why this award from the RIAA for the best selling album of the 20th century in the U.S. should be removed. Piriczki (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
shouldnt we add the genre soft pop country rock in info box
shoundnt we — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.142.217 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you : genres such as "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" are already mentionned (and correctly sourced) under the section "Musical style". Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Genres in infobox
I restored "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" in the infobox and removed "rock" because several IP adresses have already tried to restore them and because the Eagles are mainly associated with these three specific rock subgenres, which are already sourced under the section "Musical style" and for which many sources exist (including sources I didn't include in this article but that I added in another related list). Other genres mentionned under this section (blues rock, rhythm and blues, funk, pop rock, disco and bluegrass) are not representative of what the Eagles play, as these are genres they experimented with one or two of their songs. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you would like to change the genre from just "rock" which was decided last year at Talk:Eagles_(band)#RFC:_Genres_in_the_infobox, then start a new RfC. Consensus was quite strong for just rock. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comments
It was decided last year to keep ony "rock" in the infobox. However "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" were recently restored by several IP adresses after being removed from the infobox and it seems appropriate to mention them in the infobox instead of simply "rock".
Based on the recent changes in genres and on sources I provided below, the question is :
- Would it be possible to mention "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" in the infobox instead of simply "rock" ?
Support
Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of aforementioned terms (we can have an educated vote after we make a list appropriately) due to the fact the band's "style" of rock clearly (as attested by numerous sources) underwent a transition. The infobox needs to reflect this. Stating just plain rock appears narrowsighted, especially when you compare the Eagles to bands such as ACDC. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose unnecessary clutter when it can simply be summarized as "rock". I also concur with Binksternet's comments below. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- Comment.
The RfC is not worded neutrally, as it makes the argument for one side. The list of sources supporting other genres should be moved to the discussion section. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Thank you, Synthwave.94, for moving the arguments down into the discussion section. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Eagles are typically associated with "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock", as proved by the following list of sources :
- Soft rock
- all sources I previously included in the list of soft rock artists and songs
- three sources already included in the article : American Songwriter, The Daily Telegraph and The Quietus
- Country rock
- fours sources already included in the article : AllMusic, Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World Volume 8: Genres: North America, Encyclopedia of Music in the 20th Century and Press-Telegram
- additional sources : Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s, Encyclopædia Britannica, The Encyclopedia of Country Music, Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound and Rolling Stone
- Folk rock
- three sources already included in the article : Quad-City Times, Rolling Stone South Africa and Spin
- additional source : Precious and Few: Pop Music of the Early '70s Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose because
these three proposed additions are not equally represented in the literature. 'Folk' and 'soft' rock are found far less frequently than 'country rock'. I'm also opposed because the Eagles have been described primarily as a rock band, even the most successful rock band depending on the measurement method. It's true they started out with a country rock sound, but they soon centered on rock. There might be songs with a folk rock genre, but the band themselves did not thus become a folk rock band. Similarly, there might have been songs described as soft rock but the band is rarely called a soft rock band. Much more often it is described as a rock band with early roots in country rock. It is trivially easy to find a few dozen sources in which the band is simply called a rock band, which is an indication that the rock genre is more strongly represented in the literature. If another genre might be added, it would be country rock (early), but I still prefer rock. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "The Eagles have been described primarily as a rock band", but many other rock bands such as AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. were also described as simply "rock" by numerous sources. Just because there are sources which described the Eagles as simply "rock" doesn't mean genres in the infobox should be reduced to simply "rock", because you can easily find sources for specific rock subgenres a rock artist is often associated with as well.
- "It's true they started out with a country rock sound, but they soon centered on rock.", "Much more often it is described as a rock band with early roots in country rock." : where does all of this come from ? Can you provide a source for these arguments ?
- "The band is rarely called a soft rock band" : really ? Are you sure of what you're talking about ? Several references, including books such as Chris Smith's The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Rock History: From Arenas to the Underground, 1974–1980 (p. 88) Christopher Knowles' The Secret History of Rock 'n' Roll (chapter "The Eagles"), Peter Buckley's The Rough Guide to Rock (p. 1151) and Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s (p. 78, along with "country rock"), as well as a guide to the soft rock genre, explicitly associate the Eagles with the '70s soft rock genre. Moreover several of their biggest hits, including "Hotel California", "Take It Easy", "Best of My Love", "The Long Run", "One of These Nights", "New Kid in Town", "Peaceful Easy Feeling", "Take It Easy" and "Tequila Sunrise", were all described as "soft rock" by various sources. Regarding the folk rock genre, the band was described as such by some sources and Country Music: A Biographical Dictionary, says that the band "was formed out of the Los Angeles folk-rock scene of the late 1960s and early 1970s", which means the band is not completly disconnected from the genre. Additional sources I mentionned above are enough to prove the Eagles were associated with the folk rock genre (NB: if you think reliable sources are limited to published books then you're wrong. Rolling Stone South Africa is, for example, more than acceptable to support the genre). Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let's limit the discussion to sources that describe the band's genre rather than the genre of an album or a song. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- The band and several of their albums/songs were called "soft rock" / "country rock" / "folk rock", so it doesn't change anything at all regarding what they usually play and are known for. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"Country rock band" gets quite a few hits in reliable sources. The others not so much. Maybe we could compromise on including "country rock"? With a source, of course. It doesn't seem particularly undue to mention this genre. I can't really say that I care a whole lot, though, so I'm not going to argue endlessly about this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest adding "country rock", but also "soft rock". Several books and other reliable sources explicitly associate the Eagles with this genre. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment An infobox is not an article, the article is the place for nuanced information about different influences, stages, albums etc. For that reason 'Rock' seems adequate, possibly 'country rock' if very widely used. I can think of musicians whose work has been described as being in umpteen genres. An infobox can never be a complete account. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know it. I only suggested to add the rock subgenres the Eagles are best known for and for which I managed to find many sources. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, I may have over reacted, I think there is a general tendency on WP to cram too much into 'info boxes'. I think a consensus is building here for 'C Rock' and 'Rock'. I looked at a few musician articles, Van Morrison's genre list is like an article, Paul Simon's includes 'Folk' and 'Pop' (fair enough), then 'Rock' (questionable), then 'World' (Graceland? 'World' is a dubious category at the best of times, but a couple of albums working with non-US musicians? 'El Condor Pasa?), without trying too hard I could probably think of umpteen other PS influences. Music journalism has a tendency to produce endless 'sub-genres', which are often only informative to the initiated. However everyone can ignore my opinion if they wish since I rarely read music articles anyway, as I already decided what I think about most of these people circa 1975! Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Note that unless there are unsourced, there's nothing wrong about adding subgenres in artist's infoboxes. Template:Infobox musical artist#genre doesn't even say they are forbidden ; it only says : "The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (...) and preferably use 2-4." Therefore changing "rock" into "country rock, soft rock, folk rock" perfectly respects this specific point and it's perfectly representative of the Eagles' overall work. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, I may have over reacted, I think there is a general tendency on WP to cram too much into 'info boxes'. I think a consensus is building here for 'C Rock' and 'Rock'. I looked at a few musician articles, Van Morrison's genre list is like an article, Paul Simon's includes 'Folk' and 'Pop' (fair enough), then 'Rock' (questionable), then 'World' (Graceland? 'World' is a dubious category at the best of times, but a couple of albums working with non-US musicians? 'El Condor Pasa?), without trying too hard I could probably think of umpteen other PS influences. Music journalism has a tendency to produce endless 'sub-genres', which are often only informative to the initiated. However everyone can ignore my opinion if they wish since I rarely read music articles anyway, as I already decided what I think about most of these people circa 1975! Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)