Talk:King Animal

Low Importance albums???

How can that be determined when the album hasn't come out yet? How sloppy to label it any known importance. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really, when there are tens of thousands of albums in scope for the project, this isn't really that important. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's being pretty heavily advertised and it even has YouTube ads, how do you know this album won't be more important upon it's release? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything has Youtube ads! It's not that important outside of the Soundgarden fanbase in the scale of the Album Project. Do you have anything to say it IS important? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(Ha - maybe that link should goto Burden in My Hand...) Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock?

Whoever added psychedelic rock to the genre section is wrong. Not only will no source ever tell you Soundgarden is psychedelic rock, but this album itself was never called this by any source as well as it not exhibiting any psychedelic like styles. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly written in the REVIEW, "There are moments of contemplative and compelling psychedelia. There are moments of divine shredding. " And FYI grunge itself is a blend of psych, metal and punk. And Soundgarden have abandoned their early strong heavy metal leanings since Superunknown. They've been more experimental & psychedelic. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we add psychedelic rock to Down on the Upside then? Because anything here that can be considered psychedelic is used in the same manner as Down on the Upside. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course Down on the Upside is psychedelic so is Superunknown. Both the records are like a mixture of Sabbath, Zeppelin & Pink Floyd. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

'Grunge'?

I know Soundgarden was one of the prominent bands of the 'grunge' movement, but can we really put the term 'grunge' here? I see it's sourced with the allmusic link (a reliable source according to wikipedia). One of my friends is a content editor there & he told that Allmusic's digital feeds are filled with errors & mis-assign pile of subgenres to albums/artists. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

When I heard the entire album on the itunes broadcast most of the songs sounded very grungy plus it's sourced as such. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I've just heard the album a few hours ago. And it has got 'that thing' going on with a fresh approach. But what I'm tryin' to say is 'grunge'(Seattle), 'stoner rock/metal'(Palm Desert) these are more like terms denoting movements at a time than subgenres. 'Stoner rock' is still applied to certain bands but 'grunge' is no longer quite applicable as it got a more commercialized, watered-down brother known as post-grunge. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would never call anything by Soundgarden post-grunge and I feel that bands that were considered grunge from 1987-1996 (When grunge was most relevant and no I don't consider Cobain's death the death of grunge I kind of consider Soundgarden's break up in 97 and the decline of Alice in Chains being the death of grunge...) but if a grunge band got back together and they make grungy sounding music and are sourced as such I'd call it grunge. Just as Aerosmith's new album is still classic rock even though 1980 kind of killed that sub genre as well. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"I would never call anything by Soundgarden post-grunge". Neither do I mate thats why I said post-grunge(Creed, Nickelback, Puddle of Mud etc.) is the commercialized and watered down brother of grunge. Maybe a 'grunge revival' is on the way, who knows. I never really considered grunge a subgenre more of a term actually. Each band from the grunge scene sounded different. Like Nirvana had a sound reminiscent of punk rock, Pearl Jam rock n roll with folk elements. And Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were more like heavy metal bands came out of the grunge scene. Soundgarden experimented a bit later on and on this record too. But AiC never lost that metal grip. Even their comeback record Black Gives Way to Blue is a fantastic metal record. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but my point is that if Soundgarden makes a grungy album that is sourced as such it should be labeled as grunge on wikipedia. For instance Stone Temple Pilots made grunge music for Core and Purple, but Tiny Music was so far from grunge that of course it wouldn't be labeled so. Unless Soundgarden goes to an non grunge extreme like that it's grunge. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support the removal of grunge since to me it was more of a scene/period in music rather then a legitimate genre. Most grunge bands are basically either just Alternative rock or Alternative metal and in some cases heavy metal, hard rock and punk rock. Although i'm sure their will be numerous reviews from reliable sources which will label this album grunge since it's the genre Soundgarden are most often associated with. I call the big one bitey (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

But that's your opinion. The fact is Soundgarden is a grunge band who's new album King Animal is grungy and will be referred to as such. To me if a band was considered grunge during the time period and their music hasn't drastically changed genres, then they still made a grunge album. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you define 'grungy'? For example Gothic/Doom metal band Paradise Lost has done a lot of songs which sound 'grungy' to me or even Black Sabbath's first four albums are very 'grungy'. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well nothing before Green River's first EP in 1985 should ever be called Grunge. But I've heard Sabbath's first 2 albums and they never reminded me of grunge. Soundgarden reminds me of Sabbath sometimes, but never in vice versa. Soundgarden IS considered a grunge band who made a grunge sounding album. King Animal sounds like the same genre as Superunknown and Down on the Upside, therefore shouldn't it be labeled as such? Your argument would make more sense if you said "no albums should ever be labeled grunge in the genre section because it's a time period more than a genre" but if it is a genre, King Animal is definitely grunge. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Well nothing before Green River's first EP in 1985 should ever be called Grunge." That's hypothetical and completely your opinion. Most critics believe Black Sabbath, The Cure, Swans and Black Flag laid the blueprints to the term grunge. According to many Master of Reality is the first album that produced the grunge sound as well as influential to stoner rock and doom metal. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It all comes down to when you considered the main grunge movement to end. A lot of people consider "the death of grunge" to be April 5th, 1994, when Cobain died. But, as is evident by albums such as Down on the Upside and Alice in Chains (ST), that is not really the case. The way I see it is that if "Black Gives Way to Blue" by Alice in Chains can be considered "grunge", than so can King Animal. Yes, not every element that defined those 2 bands is there that labeled them "grunge", but then again, not all of the same prog elements are there on "Clockwork Angels" that made Rush "prog". Vinciryan (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the grunge tag from AllMusic link is gone. So, I guess it has no business here. And as wikipedia works on third party policies I'm putting psychedelic rock back as it is clearly mentioned in the Artistdirect review. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

But King Animal is te same genre as Superunknown and Down on the Upside and their only tag is grunge. How can two albums of the same sub genre be listed as different subgenre? If you really think grunge is just a time period, doesn't that mean no album should be tagged as grunge? Two albums of the same sub genre being marked as two different ones makes little sense, right? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grunge#New_albums_by_old_grunge_bands I've decided to make this into a bigger deal. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Look i have no problem with grunge being added to this album's genre field, since Soundgarden are undoubtedly one of the most important bands in the grunge genre, just add a reliable source calling it such and it can stay. However with Alice in Chains (the other old grunge band making new material) it's a totally different equation since they originally began as a metal band, then changed their sound to fit in with the whole grunge scene, before returning to metal on their latest release. (their are sources backing this claim up btw.) I call the big one bitey (talk) 4:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it's more Ravenlord than you. Ravenlord refuses to allow grunge to be added. Plus Ultramega OK and Louder Than Love are both classified as Grunge on their articles. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to I Call The Big One Bitey: Where do you get that implication from? How do they go from metal, (I'm assuming you're considering Facelift) to ominous-sounding Ann Wilson backed songs (SAP), BACK to that "metal" formula (Dirt), to acoustic (Jar of Flies), to a gothic-esque album (Alice in Chains) and find them to be "fitting in" to grunge? All the way from Facelift through Alice in Chains, Alice in Chains claimed that they hated the term "grunge". Does that mean they're not a grunge band? I would say not. I think you might be confusing Alice in Chains with Stone Temple Pilots or Pearl Jam, where both bands have had extreme sound changes that went from grunge to plain alternative-rock. Honestly, listen to songs from each and every Soundgarden release up until Down on the Upside, and then listen to King Animal again. Is it THAT stylistically different that it can't be grunge? In my opinion, no. If this isn't grunge, then go back and get rid of it on "Black Gives Way to Blue" and every other subsequent "grunge" album, including "Nevermind" and "Ten". Vinciryan (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Vinciryan, you bring up good points, but consider your tone WP:Tigers. Also he never said anything problematic about Soundgarden. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but he did make some odd comments about Alice in Chains that I felt I needed to make clear that don't make much sense to me. But I do apologize for my tone. Vinciryan (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically what the guy who started this page is saying is this should be Post-Grunge since it came out after 1994.--Greaymarshess (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Which leads back to Mrmoustache's argument that if it's a time based thing, it shouldn't be considered a sub-genre at all. Also, considering the stylistic differences between bands such as Creed and Godsmack and the bands/albums that could be considered post-grunge today (Alice in Chains and Soundgarden), wouldn't this be post-post-grunge? Post-grunge isn't the appropriate label for this either. Vinciryan (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Um no... Kurt Cobain didn't kill grunge, he killed himself, Nirvana, and possible weakened grunge's popularity by doing these things but grunge was still popular in 1996, then it died... (a morbid way of putting it, but yeah it gets to the point) and grunge was still popular until after Down on the Upside's release. Post-Grunge may literally mean "after grunge", but it's really a different subgenre spawned by bands inspired by grunge. Soundgarden wasn't inspired by grunge because they ARE grunge. I refuse to believe grunge is a time period, I mean who came up with that crock? Call it neo-grunge if you have to, but personally I feel it's just grunge. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

@vinciryan Alice in Chains were originally a glam metal band, then when they signed to columbia in 1989 they were directed at the thrash/hard rock market. You can tell, because many of the song's on Facelift sound exactly just like that. Then they made sap which was them basically reinventing themeselves to appeal more to the punk rock crowd of Seattle as opposed to the thrash/hard rock crowd of before. On Dirt you can still hear some doom metal like riffs and stuff which is nearly as heavy as the music on Pantera's Vulgar Display of Power. Same can be said for the stuff on their new album BGWTB. Alice in Chains fit in more with metal then alternative (mainly due to their lack of punk influence), And their music is worlds away from the punk rock/noise rock of Nirvana and the Pop rock/classic rock of Pearl Jam. I call the big one bitey (talk) 5:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Facelift is glam metal? What? Isn't "Man in the Box", "Bleed the Freak", "I Can't Remember", "Confusion", and "I Know Something (Bout You)" very much like Alternative rock? As for the other 7 songs... they're more heavy metal, no? Sure they're not really punkish at all, but they're not glam metal. Isn't glam metal more Motley Crue, Poison, Cinderella, Def Leppard, and Ratt? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i wouldn't calll the music on Facelift "Alternative" or "Glam metal" it's pretty much just straight up heavy metal/hard rock similar to that of Black album era Metallica and Deep Purple. Some of the stuff on the album could even be called funk metal or groove metal or even nu metal!, but in the end it's all just straight up metal /w no Punk or Alternative influences. I call the big one bitey (talk) 6:05 ,17 November 2012

No, Facelift isn't glam metal. But AiC started as a glam metal act. Facelift's music is a mix between Sabbath, Metallica and Deep Purple. But there was originality too. 'Love, Hate, Love' is almost a doom metal track. And no, nothing by AiC can be called 'nu metal', icall the big one bitey. It'll be a terrible sin to do so. Anyway, I don't have any problem now as the 'grunge' is sourced but there are several third party sources described the album as psychedelic rock, Metal hammer's track by track review even stated it bridged the gap between 'stoner rock/metal' and 'grunge'. I believe you won't have a problem with that either @Mrmoustache14. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

@Ravenlord If you won't challenge grunge being in the genre section I won't challenge psychedelic rock. @Bitey Nu-Metal didn't exist commercially until 1994 and Facelift came out in 1990 so it can't be nu-metal. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I came across this in Grunge:talk. The way I see it: if it's a genre it has no expiration date and King Animal and Black Gives Way to Blue's articles should be labeled as grunge. If it's only a time period don't allow grunge as a genre for any album article, not even Nevermind, Ten, or Badmotorfinger. You talk with very little sense Mrmoustache14. First and foremost grunge was a movement much like NWOBHM. The term was coined when Mark Arm wrote a letter to record company describing Green River's music as pure shit, pure grunge, pure noise. Watch the Metal Evolution:Grunge(Ep-7) documentary by Sam Dunn to know more about it. Now, more or less all the bands from the NWOBHM movement like Saxon, Def Leppard, Raven have NWOBHM on their albums which were released during that period. Later releases are marked as heavy metal, speed metal or hard rock. Past is past. What happened at a time it's over and it's myth. You dig too much, learn to move on. I hope you understand what I'm sayin'. :) Ravenlord5150 (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As much as I understand, I don't agree. I don't have much interest in the NWOBHM articles on wikipedia, but if I did I'd probably use the same arguments as here. I like to use genres as classifications of the sound of music not the time period. It almost makes me hate sub genres that have expiration dates to a point where the genre section is meant to tell the reader "what they should expect from the album's sound" not "when was this album out"... it's release date covers that... Basically If King Animal came out anywhere from 1985-1996 Instead of 2012, no one would argue that's it's not grunge. I really wish neo-grunge was a term because in a sense King Animal is exactly that. I really wish year wasn't a genre factor and that it was based completely on sound... because isn't that the intention of having genres to classify albums and songs by their sound? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand. But you see in wikipedia and various other sites the timeline of grunge is shown as late 80's to mid 90's. Then it's commercial, watered down, accessible poppy brother post-grunge came as media was tired again after glam and grunge so they coined another term. Post-grunge has really nothin' to do with bands from the 'grunge' scene. In the Metal Evolution:Grunge documentary Mark Arm's exact reaction to 'post-grunge' music was these bands are influenced by grunge? and if I’m somehow responsible for grunge… Just fucking kill me. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor Mark Arm, a man of that talent shouldn't take responsibility for post-grunge, but when I say neo-grunge I don't mean post-grunge. I know very well and loathe post-grunge. When I say "neo" I guess I mean "new grunge" almost like how neo-classical music was the "new classical". I feel like the only reason something like neo-grunge hasn't happened is because Soundgarden seems to be the only band hitting mainstream that still sounds like grunge. Emphasis on still. I feel as though this is getting a little off topic though... Can we agree to just keep the genre section as you just currently updated it? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't take responsibility for post-grunge man. I forgot to put the question mark above, haha. He was actually shocked when he came to know about 'post-grunge' and those awful bands stating how 'grunge' influenced them. And yes, I get your point about the possibility of the term neo-grunge and I agree about keeping the genre section as it is now. It's stable and no more unnecessary changes are required. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put a warning regarding the genre on the infobox. Just wanted to ask if everyone's ok with it? Ravenlord5150 (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Breaking a slave

"Most critics believe Black Sabbath, The Cure, Swans and Black Flag laid the blueprints to the term grunge." Hmmm, interesting (if true). Could you link to any critics who've cited Swans as "laying the blueprint" to grunge? I believe Kurt Cobain listed their EP "Raping a Slave" as one of his favourites. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because Cobain liked a band doesn't mean it laid grunge blueprints. I've heard Swans... they're experimental and all, but don't seen to have any elements of grunge. Also this discussion was about whether King Animal is grunge or not, not a general grunge discussion... --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read somewhere about Swans being predecessor of 'grunge'. Give me some time, hopefully I'd find it. But Sabbath and Black Flag are undoubtedly forefathers of grunge. Ravenlord5150 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers RL. I agree with Sabbath and Black Flag, but would like to read more about Swans being linked into it too. BTW, everyone should listen to Soundtracks for the Blind and Public Castration Is a Good Idea. Have fun. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors keep deleting the Pitchfork review

Could we somehow stop people from being able to do so? It's a very well known and reliable review site and even though the review is more negative it still should be on the page. Wikipedia isn't only supposed to have positive aspects about albums, it's supposed to have whatever relevant information that's properly sourced included. Negative reviews are under that umbrella. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert and place warning on the users talk page if users continue to delete the pitchfork review. The suitable warning template to use: Template:Uw-delete1, use higher level warning for those who repeatedly delete content. You could also request semi-protection but I doubt admins will add protection to this page as the level of vandalism/unconstructive edits is fairly low. The1337gamer (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By Crooked Steps being advertized/hints toward it being King Animal's 2nd single

I'm sure any Soundgarden fanatic knows "By Crooked Steps" recently had an official music video. I read an interview where Chris Cornell said it would probably be the album's 2nd single and some credible sources are referring to it as such. Even though the single hasn't come out yet,(If it will come out [Which evidence points to this happening soon]) Its been advertized enough at this point where I think it calls for its own article. With the chance that Soundgarden may not officially release this song as a single I'm wondering if its currently notable enough for its own article. If it is, I'd like to make it. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Check here to see if it's appropriate: Wikipedia:NSONG#Songs. If there isn't sufficient coverage from reliable sources then it's not appropriate to make another article, and I'd recommend just writing about the song in the album article. There is no point having an article for a song with little information in, when can easily be merged into the album article. On can always move information to a separate article if it becomes appropriate. The1337gamer (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well currently it has had independent reviews of the song. Its more than probable that it will independently released very soon. Charting or awards for the song on the other had are non existent at its current state and saying that the song will have either would be completely biased and currently impossible to source. Though I think it has enough independent reviews (some of which talk about it as Soundgarden's new single) and the fact it has an official music video that has a cameo of Deadmau5 that I think it fits the criteria for a song article. Though if the length of the article is in question I guess I'll just wait until the song is released and if it isn't, I'll just put the information about the reviews and official music video into this article. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Its been the focus of 2 Rolling Stone articles, 1 Spin article, and it had a "behind the scenes" video. It also charted on Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks at a position of 16, so I gave it an article. It could still use more information so don't hesitate to add to it if you find anything credible. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Halfway There" is a single?

Are you sure "Halfway There" was released as a single? I haven't been able to find any source supporting this. It may have charted, but that doesn't make it a single. It could always be grouped with "Rhinosaur" on the discography page as a "other song that charted." As for this page it shouldn't be listed as a single unless it is one. I'm removing it until citations can be found. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)