Talk:Daydream Nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genre (Avant-Rock vs. Avant-Garde Rock vs. Experimental rock)[edit]

There's a bit of a dispute between several different genre labels. It's switched pretty often between "avant-rock" and "experimental rock". It currently sits at Avant-rock. I'm wondering why this is, considering that such a label is a tad esoteric. Experimental rock conveys the same ideas and is nearly interchangeable while also being a much more common term (and the main title of that page). Even "Avant-Garde Rock" seems better then "avant-rock" which I haven't really seen elsewhere on the site. Discussion/explanation? Mellothumb (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited uses the former--"avant-rock". I don't really want to lean on a Wikipedia article as a factor in deciding things (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), especially an article with verification issues, but if you search either "avant-rock" or "avant-garde rock" with "Sonic Youth" at GoogleBooks in a search for relevant literature on the topic, "avant-rock" "Sonic Youth" shows more results than "avant-garde rock" "Sonic Youth". Also, the source currently cited--the 33⅓ book on this album--is one of the most reliable sources on the topic (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, alright, fair enough. Still seems odd to me to subscribe to the wording used in a source when more descriptive or effective wording exists, but I can understand the reasoning. Mellothumb (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, either, why it is listed as "avant-rock" when "experimental rock" is clearly more well-known a label. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most genre discussions might be arcane and subjective, but this one is a little more clear-cut: "experimental rock" is clearly a more standard term than "avant-rock" for much the same thing – as noted it's the name of the WP page which avant-rock has to redirect to – and one surely far more commonly applied to SY as a band (if we want to count google numbers, according to my search it has about 8x more hits in conjuction with Daydream Nation than "avant-rock" does). As for the 33 1/3 book, we don't blindly follow the terminology of individual sources, and in any event, IMO & FWIW, it's an appallingly written, pretentious jargon-heavy book whose language should probably be avoided, unless we want WP to describe the album, without attribution, as containing "boggling sound composites", "vocal new-spew" and "treacherous, gaga material" etc etc. N-HH talk/edits 11:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Besides, Daydream Nation was an influential, acclaimed work LONG before that single book was ever written or published. It's not like there aren't hundreds of reviews and articles written about the album before the 33 1/3 book was published. And the book wasn't exactly a bestseller. I doubt that every Sonic Youth fan or rock critic who has written about SY has actually read the book. So why would it be considered the primary overriding source esp. when the term it uses is relatively obscure? Change it to experimental rock! Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of shitting on one particular source that could do wonders for this article, can anyone find a source that calls this record "experimental rock", whose Wikipedia article has multiple issues including original research, verifiability, and poor writing? Dan56 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book could indeed be useful as a source insofar as it deals with facts and accounts from the band themselves (although the article is not short of details and good sources). All I was saying, with some justification, as the quotes suggest, is that we should not necessarily genuflect at and take straight some of its more idiosyncratic phrasing or terminology. It's an extended personal essay, written in a flowery style, not the sole, definitive judgement on all things Daydream Nation, or written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are at least two well-regarded biographies of the band out there, and multiple news and directory pieces about the album specifically. It's also a general, sound principle not to rely too much on one single source. As for those others, the Allmusic entry already cited on the page classifies it as "experimental rock", as does this Billboard collection. Google is your friend, as they say, as indeed is the Stearns book itself, which on page 6 describes Daydream Nation as the sound of an "experimental rock band". As for that WP article, yes it may have problems, but none appear to relate to the title per se or to any claims that it is not a common description of the music of bands such as Sonic Youth. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic's sidebar is unreliable. Google was my friend in the first comment I made in this section above, where I brought up "avant-rock" "Sonic Youth" shows more results than "avant-garde rock" "Sonic Youth", so i'll use it again--"Avant-rock" is not idiosyncratic or unique to the writer of that book since it shows up in a number of other books ([1]). Dan56 (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'm happy to ignore Allmusic's sidebar if it's been deemed "unreliable" (although what that means in the context of something as subjective as genre/style descriptions and terminology, who knows). That still leaves Billboard, and 101 others available via Google and in hard copy books, including Stearns's. I know you cited Google numbers for avant vs avant-garde already, as I responded directly to that point earlier; what you seem to be avoiding doing at any point is searching for the term "experimental rock" yourself. And I never said avant-rock is used solely by Stearns and cannot be found anywhere else. All I've said from the outset – and other editors, the relevant WP page and Google numbers seem to agree – is that "experimental rock" is surely a more standard and common term for what we are talking about here than "avant-rock", and that Stearns's use of the latter does not, and cannot, clinch the matter. Yes it's no big deal, but you're the one who went running to ANI over this, and I came here to give my view. I've done that now. N-HH talk/edits 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if you would've bothered to go to the page I linked regarding the sidebar, you would understand what that means. Secondly, the burden isn't on me to find a source for a term you prefer. Thirdly, according to whom is that term "surely a more standard and common term"? And lastly, I never "ran to ANI over this", so I don't know what you're talking about. Dan56 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daydream Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daydream Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daydream Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daydream_Nation&oldid=1211168341"