Talk:Arena rock

message: "In the 1980s, the best-known arena for concerts was Wembley Stadium, although many arena rock bands had relatively limited success in the United Kingdom."
somehow i doubt this was true in the u.s.
Benwing 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  really? 

message: Arena Rock is also a recording company. http://www.arenarockrecordingco.com/
Kflorence 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arena Rock Recordings 

message: AKA "This article doesn't cite its sources" :P   No, I'm really curious, because... I grew up in that time (70s/80s), and I don't really recall it being called that back then --jae 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When / By whom was the term coined? 

message: "Arena rock is not a style of rock music,[citation needed] often also called stadium rock."  What is this supposed to mean?  Is the "not" just there in error, or is the claim that arena rock isn't a style per se, rather a group of bands from other styles and that grouping is also sometimes called "stadium rock"? Avraham 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't vandalism. But it certainly is a poorly worded sentence. It starts out correct... arena rock isn't a genre... but then it just goes downhill from there. Wikipedia makes an extremely poor distinction between genre and style. There are a hundred articles listed under the rock sub-genres article. And technically they are all wrong. Rock is the genre. And the rest are styles of Rock. It's a mistake that slipped through the cracks in Wiki's earliest days and now, unless the genre project sets up a task-force to correct it, we are stuck with the blunder. Arena rock is not a genre... and it isn't a style either. Most of the bands that were labelled as arena rock bands were really just hard rock bands.... but they were filling football stadiums during their peak... getting sponsored by "non-music" companies and the tag just evolved. The article has been tagged correctly... it is very POV and in need of a re-do. The first thing to go would be the genre-box... since it isn't one. This point has already been brought up at the Wiki-genre project. 156.34.217.117 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK??? You paraphrased a single source.. that doesn't meet WP:RS criteria and took a long article of original research and made it into a short article of dubious original research and blatantly incorrect information. A subgenre of classic rock???? Classic rock isn't a genre, its a radio format. Its Wiki article even makes that point by a strong consensus. Not only is there an unreliable source that fails WP:RS... it's used 19 times. It went from bad... to shorter and still bad. A call for help from some experienced and skilled editors on the Wiki genre and music projects is rq'd to try and rescue what is becoming a fast sinking ship. 156.34.233.42 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ??? Wikipedia is not a playground. Your opinions and comments are uncivil and are ignored simply because they do not deserve an answer. You've read my comments wrong. You used a reference that doesn't pass WP:RS 19 times. It isn't an insult to you. It's an observation from an editor with close to 50000 Wikipedia edits. I have help push dozens of articles to featured status. And that doesn't happen to any article that uses a really really poor reference 19 times. The article was in bad shape. And it's still in bad shape.. plain and simple. The "arena rock isn't a genre statement was there long before you or I came along. But it is a statement supported by other users. When a cite can't be found, consensus is the next best thing. The proper discussion forum is not here it is woth the Wiki-genre project and its regular members. The internet is the absolute worst reference source to be tapping into. I have requested assistance from several users who are skilled at de-boning bad articles and helping to build them back into good ones. This article is a bad article. In time it can be a good one. Re-building step 1 is already being tackled. Establish clearly that arena rock isn't a genre... it's just a term. And go from there. "Why does classic rock have an article?" Was that some sort of joke question? Classic rock has an article because it is a very popular radio format. Radio formats are allowed to have articles. But the first point that is put across in that article is just that... that it's a radio format. It's not a genre. There is a lot of misuse of terms like arena rock and classic rock all over Wikipedia. It takes a long time to go through all the articles that have classic rock linked in the infobox genre field and delete them. It doesn't happen overnight. But slowly they are all being rm'd. Deleting arena rock from genre fields will be a long task too. Another one that's used incorrectly is AOR. Again, it's a radio format being added to e genre field when it has no purpose there. Books are the only really good place to go looking for references. Rather than issue challenges, you should get you mother or father to drive you down to your local library... or go into your school library and look for books about arena rock. And use those to try and reference the article. That would be a great help. 156.34.227.140 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Arena rock article needs to be reverted anywhere. It needs what content that is currently there scraped down and built back up with reliable sources. The most important thing to clarify is the "not a genre" element. All Wiki articles just take time, research, patience and several non-illegal sedatives and a stiff snort of CC. 156.34.219.206 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: first sentence

message: OK. WTF?????
"After the tragic disasters during Woodstock (not enough sanitation, medical care, security etc.), these large, open air concerts were frowned upon. Few rock artists had a chance to secure a place to play to the thousands of fans that were ready to spend every last dime they had just get a glimpse of their favorite Bands. In the early 70's English bands, such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Black Sabbath,Cream,Deep Purple, had a difficult time securing enough seating for the thousands of fans that wanted to see the concert. Most convention centres had limited bench type seating, not to mention poor security. But a enclosed area that was large enough for a sporting event was ideal; plus noise levels were incredibly high at those events who would be bothered. Thus was born the Arena Rock Era. The Artists themselves loved the idea: no more long stays in nowhere towns or multiple dates in the same city, but thousands of rock hungry fans crammed into a safe baseball or football stadium. Plus, lets not forget the monies, 50,000 seats plus standing room only at $12.00-$25.00 a head. This was a promoters dream."
I bolded the really bad parts. I think this needs a prety big rewrite. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: See above. Anyway, if you read the whole article, it is extremely biased against arena rock, with unsourced shots and negative statements with little positives about it. Thats called POV. Ill fix it up later. But if somebody could help, it'd be well appreciated. And I might rewrite it, anyway. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, most of the ref's are personal opinions of a blog writer's magazine which automatically makes it WP:POV. I recommend chopping it down to the bare minimum facts that we know are true... either that or finding better sourcing. Blog's are incredibly infamous for being opinionated [Even if the ref is a magazine - it's still opinion]. ScarianTalk 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Are the sources formatted correctly? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I promoted this article to C Class as I believe it is no longer a stub. It has high quality, well sourced information. I am open to discussion regarding the change. Washburnmav (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I agree. Most of the article is weighted from a single reference. I am biased against pages that have a huge bulk of content lefted from a single source which is stretching WP:RS a bit thin. I will admit to not knowing the C class criterion very well so I may be 100% wrong too. Anger22  (Talk 2 22) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a C-class but a start class. Its to short and the article wouldn't hurt by expanding. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: C Class

message: Hey- it looks like I'm late to this party, but I would dispute the redirect of Corporate rock -> Arena rock.  Corporate rock is commercially motivated rock, while arena rock is only one type of this (and an older one at that).  So I'm switching the redirect to Selling out, I think that's a bit more appropriate.  MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really late to the party. But what we described as "corporate rock" back in the late 1970's dovetails with the groups listed here. The anti corporate hippies were just 10 years in the past. Unlike 10 years earlier in the late 1970's bands were very willing to use traditional marketing techniques like focus groups.  The "corporate rock" sound was as we understood it was a hybrid of hard rock guitars for the teenage boys and ballad like singing for the teen girls. These groups were criticized for being sellouts, dull, uncreative, and faceless all while selling record amount of product. The critics tended to be Punk and New Waver's who defined as themselves as much for being anti "corporate rock" as pro Punk/New Wave, and nostalgic former hippies. Edkollin (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Rock 

message: Arena rock's origins can be traced to the late 1960s, with bands such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and The Who. 
as much as i respect those other bands, it was the beatles, and none of the other bands who pioneered stadium rock with their concert at the shea stadium on Sunday, August 15, 1965.
at that time Led Zeppelin wasn't even formed.
so please, give credit where credit is deserved, the beatles were the first, and without them taking the risk of a disaster it wouldn't have happened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.175.179 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  this sentence 

message: Because, there is also the definition of adult-oriented rock. So the term is as ambiguous as PC (political correctness and personal computer), though both do represent the rock genre. -andy 77.7.12.37 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: AOR was also a 1970's/1980's United States radio format that was a more commercialized version of the progression rock radio format. Edkollin (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed AOR from the list of alternatives when I cleaned up this article because I couldn't find any evidence except for the radio format, which already has an article. It doesn't actually seem to be a synonym of Arena rock to me, but perhaps someone has evidence to the contrary.--SabreBD (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOR is ambiguous 

message: Incredible article, how can any article about Stadium Rock not even mention U2 or Bruce Springsteen?
U2 redefined Stadium Rock with their Zoo TV Show/ Outside Broadcast Tour in 1992-93, and U2 and Bruce Springsteen dominated the genre from the late 1980's and into the millenium and beyond.
It seems to me that the article is actually written by someone who dislikes Stadium Rock, never mind actually knowing much about it or doing any in depth research.
Glam rock really had it's rise and fall during the 1970's
The Police and Queen took up the mantle in the 1980's and U2 followed them, adding and recreating it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.188.89 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very straight forward, if you can find reliable sources that says this, then please go ahead and add them.--SabreBD (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to U2, Bruce Springsteen et. al ? 

message: Any reason Boston isn't listed as an example of arena rock? They're really one of the pioneers of this style of rock. The link to Allmusic.com that cites Foreigner, Styx, REO Speedwagon, and Journey already mentions them. Also, what about the possibility of adding other artists that defined the classic arena rock sound, like Loverboy, Pat Benatar, Kansas ('80s output), Chicago ('80s output), ZZ Top ('80s output), Cheap Trick, Eddie Money, 38 Special, Heart ('80s output), Night Ranger, Bryan Adams, Billy Squier, Toto, Survivor, Asia, and Jefferson Starship/Starship to the article? Or would that be overkill? They're all considered arena rock by Allmusic.com (except for Bryan Adams, Chicago, and Toto, the former not even being on the website).BDR77777 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston? 

message: See discussion here. Johnny338 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre or not? 

message: WP:CITEVAR clearly states that "editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." If you want to improve the article then please work round that and don't sneak a change of system in without getting consensus here first.--SabreBD (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it supposed to be a joke ? I only used appropriate template, added links (eg. Rough Guides) and corrected an author which was not the good one. Also AllMusic links were the old ones from the Allmusic Guide. I changed all of this and I also corrected some links. So I don't see any problem with all of this. That's the way I always improved music-related articles and I've already been thanked for this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that you have changed the reference system in this article and that is not supposed to be done. Presumably if that was not your aim, you will have no objection if I restore the old system with the same changes to urls.--SabreBD (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I simply used appropriate templates in order to improve this articles, as I did for hundreds of articles before this one. And as I said in my edit summaries, I didn't remove anything at all. I only used a bullet point system to improve the readibility of the article (see the list of blues rock musicians for example). Why are you so harsh against me seriously ? And should I point out this article doesn't belong to you ? I've got the right to complete the references of this article using the cite book/journal, etc template. Why do you think these templates have been created for ? To be used in as much articles as possible. Also looking at your edit history clearly shows you're one of these typical "owners" who spend a most part of its time reverting edits (I'm not talking about vandalism and clearly unconstructive edits, of course) and don't seem to know what assuming good faith means. You're unfortunatly not the only one but you're one of the few editors who reacted so violently to my good faith edits so far. If you think I'm here to disturb the project then you're clearly and destroy this article then you're completly wrong. I know how to improve an article correctly and it's not you who would teach me how to do it (even I recently learnt new things by myself about it). Now drop this pathetic ownership behaviour and give up. I'm pretty sure you're able to understand it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not reacted "violently", I reverted twice and then came to the talkpage. This is not about ownership, but about following guidelines. Please stop misrepresenting and mis-characterising my actions, that is clearly not displaying good faith. Please take a breath. I have proposed a compromise that seems to me to achieve both our aims and I would be grateful if you would seriously consider it.--SabreBD (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a response to my suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of reference system

message: I believe that the article current qualifies as a C-class page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: The concept of The Wall (album) by Pink Floyd evolved from an incident at an arena rock concert held at Olympic Stadium (Montreal).
Might be relevant to mention within the context of Arena Rock from the In the Flesh (Pink Floyd tour) after  Animals (Pink Floyd album) 
An incident occurred and which evolved into conceptual ideas for an album developing for some time in relation to groups isolation from fans during large arena rock concerts in the late 1970's and may therefore be of reference to the section Critical Perspectives to arena rock events.
— Preceding un
signed comment added by 81.147.130.240 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Floyd - The Wall 

message: This article is a non-encyclopedic train wreck.... PurpleChez (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy cats 

message: This entire wiki is opinion 173.191.170.57 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total opinion 

message: The redirect Arena metal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  FMSky (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Arena metal]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]