Talk:Math rock

Share the knowledge

I added an internal link to List of works in irregular time signatures in the "See also" section at the bottom. Many of the existing samples there are from classical composers and metal bands. This does not convey the wide variety of bands experimenting with odd meters. Come on math rockers! Share the knowledge!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.156.36 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

correction needed

Polvo and Breadwinner aren't from the midwest; Polvo was from Chapel Hill (and really isn't math-rock) and Breadwinner was from Richmond, VA (and definitely is math-rock).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.62.176 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Rock Influence

There is no credible sources backing up the claim that prog rock, let alone bands like Rush and King Crimson, influenced math rock.

It is unanimously agreed upon that Spiderland was the first math rock album, and Slint is not a progressive rock band.

This needs to be removed from the entry because the suggested influence is highly dubious at best. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems like somebody who is a fan of these bands trying to suggest an influence that doesn’t exist.

The importance of the prog rock is far overemphasized (if it even exists at all) when the band which started math rock came from the post-hardcore scene. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You removed a number of sourced statements in your series of edits. Which of these sources are not credible and/or don't support the statements? Woodroar (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Pitchfork source for one. The source doesn’t explain the connection between the album Red and math rock.

Rush isn’t even mentioned in any cited source.

How was mathrock influenced by these bands when the first math rock band/album wasn’t influenced by prog rock itself? It was influenced by punk instead, specifically post-hardcore, which is where math rock primarily comes from.

This entry makes it sound like King Crimson invented math rock, but this is not supported by music critics/historians. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pitchfork: Red, released in the autumn of 1974, does not sound like a eulogy.... It was equally influential for Kurt Cobain and Trey Anastasio; as seminal for metal as it was for math rock

Rush: Song by Song: The next section '7/4 War Furor [sic.]' is a mind-melting composition of what would, in about twenty years' time be called 'math-rock' (direct link) and The amorphous space-rock intro is suddenly transformed into a tight and crispy math-rock riff (direct link)

The article says that King Crimson and Rush influenced math rock in general, not every single band, and certainly not that they invented it. That being said, if you have sources that claim they in no way influenced any part of math rock, then we can include that as a cited counterpoint. But Wikipedia is simply a summary of what reliable, third-party published sources say, no more and no less. We don't edit articles based on our own opinions or original research. Woodroar (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

But they didn’t influence it in general. Those are not high-quality sources and need to be removed. The source especially is basically a fan biography.

There are numerous legitimate sources that do not give credit to these bands.

The connection they have to math rock is not clear. Spiderland was the first math rock album. That album was not influenced by those bands.

So how can math rock be influenced by those bands? Jjjohnson69 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Rush source Jjjohnson69 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And I didn’t say the sources implied they invented it. I said the math rock entry overemphasizes these supposed influences to the point that it comes across as if they were the primarily influence.

But the band who actually pioneered math rock decades later was influenced by post-hardcore.

This is all confirmed by other Wikipedia articles. This is not my “independent research.” Jjjohnson69 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a summary of Alex Body from Amazon:

Alex Body is a life-long Rush fan and musician. After first seeing the band on the Roll the Bones tour in 1992 he has seen Rush multiple times on every tour since and been a devoted Rush fan ever since. Passionate about music and aviation he has written about both (though not yet at the same time).

This author is not reliable source for the claim that Rush somehow influenced math rock. He’s just some random fan. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The book was published by Fonthill Media, whose books have been cited almost 300 times on Wikipedia. This is part of their "Song by Song" series of music books written by a variety of authors, including John Van der Kiste and Andrew Wild—who also wrote several "On Track" books from a different publisher, favorably covered here. There's no reason to believe that this specific book bypassed their standard editorial process or that its claims are inaccurate. That is, unless we have other sources contradicting its claims or perhaps pointing to other influences. Barring that, our own policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV require that we faithfully summarize what this source says about the subject.

In addition, please thread your comments correctly. This helps keep Talk pages readable and also aids users with screen reading software. You can see WP:THREAD for more on that. I'd also suggest reading all of the links on your own Talk page, they'll get you up to speed on our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

But there is reason to believe his claims are inaccurate as he is not a music historian or somebody qualified to make claims such this. Not only that, he is biased source on the account that his only qualification is as a “Rush fan.”

The publisher is irrelevant to the veracity of these claims.

This is a biased source. And nothing you said refutes this. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a neutral point-of-view.

He is a self-described “Rush fan.”

That is not neutral. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This entire entry violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Our neutral point of view policy is about us, as editors, not the sources. It says that we must fairly summarize what the sources say. Failing to summarize a source fairly, discounting it, or omitting it entirely is what violates NPOV. NPOV also specifically addresses biased sources and says that we can't ignore them. Ultimately, we have no reason to doubt this source except by analyzing other sources that counter its claims. If you have them, please produce them. And again, please remember to thread your replies and read all of the links on your Talk page and in this discussion so that you can understand why we do the things we do. Woodroar (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Both the source and editing for the article is biased.

No, we have reason to doubt it because he is not a neutral view point of view by the author’s own admission,

This clearly violates Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also: undue weight.

“ Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view.”

This and the Rush source are absolutely minority opinions being overemphasized. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And because of that, this violates policy of neutrality. Jjjohnson69 (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, you either have sources that counter this one or you don't, it's that simple. Bias is irrelevant because sources can be biased. Undue weight is irrelevant because you haven't produced any other sources. I'm sorry, but it's clear that you're not willing to find sources or understand our policies, so there's really nothing more to do here until that happens. And please—please—start indenting your comments appropriately. Woodroar (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the Rush source is over represented in the article. It is brash to take one source, which is not corroborated by other sources, and present it as the commonly held opinion. The only sources I can find which cite Rush as the roots of math rock are ones which either cited the original article (circular journalism) or are clearly just copying the Wikipedia article (as I'm sure you know many online publications and blogs do.) Esobrev (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a case of WP:CIRCULAR. Rush wasn't mentioned in the article until this edit in January 2020 which added both the band and the source. The book Rush: Song by Song came out in July 2019. The article now mentions a second book, Progressive Rock Reconsidered, which was released in 2002, before this article even existed. I don't have access to the full Progressive Rock Reconsidered but from the index it does appear to discuss math rock and Rush together.

As I mentioned above, if we have sources saying that Rush was not an influence, we can certainly work that into the article—but we need to start with the sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing: the part of Progressive Rock Reconsidered that I did manage to find specifically mentions King Crimson as an influence from prog rock through alt rock to math rock. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's more a matter of how many sources *don't* mention rush Rush than sources which say Rush *isn't.* How is that reconciled? Also consider the fact that math rock, and the groups and scenes over the decades which comprise most of its history and culture, are not very popular. This means there's not a lot of publications or research by music historians into it, and it would stand to reason that sources mentioning math rock most likely to get in print would be associated with extremely popular and successful bands like Rush. Do you see how this could introduce a disparity?

I don't have an opinion on the King Crimson part. Esobrev (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In short, we (mostly) can't reconcile that. All claims should be directly and clearly supported by a reliable, secondary source. (In this case, 2 sources.) We can't assume that everyone else means "not Rush" unless they come out and say (write) that. (After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)

That being said, if someone does find sources that say "not Rush" (especialy multiple or many sources), we can change the article. If it's 2 sources vs 2 sources, then we mention both points of view. If it's, say, 5 or 10 "not Rush" sources against the 2 "yes, Rush", we'd likely still mention the "yes" POV but say that it's a minority position. More than that and maybe we don't mention Rush at all. These aren't hard and fast numbers, just approximations of how we balance disagreements between sources.

There are other possibilities as well. If we find a number of sources that say, for instance, "only King Crimson was an influence" or "only King Crimson, Band 2, and Band 3" were influences, that could put mentions of Rush into a minority position, too.

Of course, these are all just hypotheticals. Everything, and I do mean everything, depends on what the sources say and how many of them there are. Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)