Talk:Mudvayne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nu metal

Wikipedia is clearly fucking retarded. You add a note telling people not to add nu metal to the genres on System of a Down which actually is nu-metal, then add it here when it's not warranted, because you say "consensus" on SOAD and deny consensus here.

What consensus has been broken here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Look all throughout the talk archives and you'll see a clear consensus against nu metal being named in the Infobox. The sources don't vouch for Mudvayne as a nu-metal band when the ones saying it aren't music experts but random journalists with no concrete background in music theory. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Genre is subjective and we have to reflect that. It's important to note how a group was labeled, even if we or the band do not agree with it. If it's a great error, like how people catgorized Marilyn Manson as goth rock or something, than there is bound to be articles noting a backlash of this genre misnomer. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Genre is not subjective. Progressive rock and progressive metal are objectively defined genres - and what makes up a progressive metal band is what Mudvayne does. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd per the description here WP:SUBJECTIVE, it is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, if genres are subjective, Pink Floyd is a crunk band. That description makes sense if genres are subjective, aren't they? 173.86.184.32 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. We do take things into consideration if we feel they are truly inappropriate. See WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Er...IP, do you know what subjective means? It's "open to interpretation" or "more than one right answer". Not "there is no wrong answer". Truly terrible example. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to include nu metal in the infobox in the talk archives. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. There is a strong consensus that Mudvayne is not nu-metal. There is a consensus that System of a Down is nu-metal. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Just checked the talk page: While the discussion on nu metal on the first archive ended with the removal of nu metal, in subsequent discussion in other archives the discussion deemed entirely opinion based (Talk:Mudvayne/Archive 1) and thus not reliable. All the subsequent discussions ended with the consensus that Mudvayne is nu metal. (Talk:Mudvayne/Archive 1; in fact, you were the only one contested it.) The System of a Down's genres have nothing to with this discussion; you should discuss about it on Talk:System of a Down. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You're obviously a troll. Do you think anyone who actually understands music thinks that progressive rock is nu-metal? Wake up. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, what people think is irrelevant. It's what reliable sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Using only sources claiming Mudvayne is nu-metal is like writing an article on capitalism and only using sources from the really left-wing guy who writes for Forbes, or writing an article on health and sourcing it from Natural News. 50.45.194.113 (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That analogy is completely broken - we're not using "only sources claiming nu metal". We're using many sources to source the use of many genre. Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not. You distort evidence to say what you want it to say. That's not how research works. By all evidence, Mudvayne is not a nu metal band. TheRealBoognish (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Last I checked, there are multiple reliable sources verifying multiple genre for the band, nu metal included, which was my assertion. Not sure I follow your objection exactly... Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sources that are either not being used correctly, misquoted or aren't reliable; the citations don't rely on evidence and the assertions are unfounded. TheRealBoognish (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll have to be more specific. I've worked on this article with Serge and the sources seem to be either newspapers or music magazines, and are easily readable from their links. If you have access to the quotes, can you state what is being misinterpreted? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not required that these references have what you perceive to be "evidence". As long as they're reliable, respectable publications, what they say goes, and that's the way it generally goes around here. dannymusiceditor ^oops 12:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not elaborating. There's 4 sources presently in the article. Please articulate how each one isn't valid. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

More sources

Not that there's anything wrong with the sources already in the article, but there are a number of other reliable sources that call them nu metal as well. I'll start a list. All sources have a consensus of reliability and usability on Wikipedia per WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

1. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/album-preview-mudvayne-reinvents-itself-says-nu-metal-will-be-back-20081023 - ("As one of the last bands standing from the nu-metal pack at the turn of the millennium...")

• Opinion. TheRealBoognish (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

1. http://www.metalsucks.net/2015/01/06/trivium-bassist-paolo-gregoletto-shares-ten-favorite-nu-metal-songs/ ("Some of them represent the very small percentage of nu-metal that wasn’t total drek (Sevendust, Mudvayne).")

• Opinion. TheRealBoognish (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

1. https://www.popmatters.com/mudvayne-lostandfound-2495984708.html ("It was only a matter of time: nu-metal is dying a quicker, uglier death than hair metal did in the wake of grunge back in 1992...Out of that entire scene, bands continue to find ways to survive. System of a Down have completely cast off the nu-metal tag in recent years (they're too talented a band to be limited to such a limiting style), Slipknot continue to do well, thanks to a knack for sly vocal melodies and an incredible live show, and Godsmack's mainstream-friendly approach to the sound continues to sell surprisingly well. Mudvayne, on the other hand, have plenty of catching up to do.") Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Opinion. TheRealBoognish (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You see, all genres are going to boil down to an "interpretation" or "opinion" as you dismiss it as. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." I don't always agree with genres described by performers, but just dismissing content initally with "oh its not what the source says!" and follow it up with "well that's just their opinion!" is not really following the rules of Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's opinion. We're talking about genre. Genre is subjective. Every source is going to be an opinion. But these are from reliable sources. Not obscure ones, but long-running ones in the music industry. Like it or not, on Wikipedia, they're valid sources to show that they are called nu metal. Sergecross73 msg me 10:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm These are supposed to be opinions. Theirs matter, ours don't most of the time, this time included. Genres aren't news, they're analysis. There is not a way to remove nu metal from Mudvayne that makes any logical sense. The way I seem to see you trying to win this is to go the classic American way by using a failed argument and push it to such a ridiculous point that we grow tired and yell "FINE". That won't happen. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Broken up? Hiatus?

I cannot find anywhere where any member of Mudvayne has definitely stated that the band has broken up. There also does not appear to be any press releases about their official status. I'm inclined to say that they are still on hiatus and change the title of the "Hiatus and Breakup" section simply to "Hiatus." Any thoughts to the contrary?--Phil Meltzer (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the word hiatus usually meant to represent periods of time as long as a decade though? I always felt like hiatus was meant to represent more of a short break in the world of music. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

While I haven't been able to find examples of hiatuses as long as Mudvayne's, there are examples of bands going on extended hiatus for many years (Destiny's Child and NSYNC are 2 and I wish I had better examples.) And I feel like a "breakup announcement" would be necessary since there have been several Mudvayne hiatus announcements, at least in several interviews by all of the band members. I think this article might sum it up best: https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8252348/fifth-harmony-break-why-hiatus-not-split --PM 21:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Meltzer (talk • contribs)