Talk:Evanescence/Archive 4

message: i dont see the point of having that many pics in the Ev article, the one next to the info on 'The Open Door' is a live performance pic and has NOTHING to do with TOD, maybe if you changed the caption to, Amy performing live for The Open Door tour, and even then im not sure if it should still be there.
The same goes for the pic next to the Fallen part. its another live performance pic. (im not signed in but this is from Zacanescence) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.7.244 (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually is has a lot to do with the sections. In the Fallen section, that image shows the Fallen line-up (with Ben Moody), in the AnB section, the image shows the concert that is featured on the DVD (at Le Zenith), and in the The Open Door section, the image shows a concert of The Open Door Tour (for the promotion of The Open Door...). Armando.Otalk • Ev 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: xD...I got another image...i mailed the Evanescence Website administrator asking her for the permission of an image. this is the image http://lnx.evanescencewebsite.com/TheOpenDoor/displayimage.php?pos=-23665, Evanescence at Zepp, Tokyo (30-01-07). Now she just have to add the CC license..but do you think we need to upload that image? I think it's a pretty good image. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'm not too keen on that image as it is rather small.  Now, if she has a larger format image, you should ask that she herself upload the image to commons so that she can clearly state that she is releasing the image into the public domain.  You really should not make such statements for her.  The more significant question is, was she the one that actually took the picture?  There is no statement on that page that I can see which says whether she did or not.  If not, then the release would obviously have to come from the original photographer.  Still, good first step in mailing...I just don't think the current small format would be good (yes, good enough for an article thumbnail, but not good as a standalone image. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she's the webmaster and she holds all the copyrights...she always asks some photographers and always atribute their work, and about the size, I think you're right....200.121.219.165 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just because she is the webmaster does not mean she holds copyrights.  Wow, how many album covers and promo images does she host on the site? Does she hold copyright on those as well?  No, they are being used and reprinted under a (probably broken by now, given volume of reprinting) fair-use doctrine.  Most of the stuff on the site she pulls from other sites as she finds it, I would wager. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: k xD. Armando.Otalk • Ev 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another picture 

message: I wonder if this article could get the FA status? It's a GA, there isn't lack of cites, just free-images, well-written and neutral. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel it is stable, I would suggest a second peer review to get additional opinions.  Don't want to rush into the FAC pool...let's get everything secured first. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've been checking other FAs and all of those are long. That's my doubt, I don't know if there's a minium length or something. By the way, I'm adding the article to the FA review.Armando.Otalk • Ev 01:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved to FAC rather than FAR. Article is currently at about 1800 words. FAs of that size exist. Nice job with replacement images, by the way, although note there is an issue with the licensing on :Image:Evanescence early line.up.jpg. Gimmetrow 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I just don't see this being a goal that can be accomplished quickly or with any completeness...it is just so variable.  And by influence, I would say they mean both:  how they are influenced themselves (which we have some of Lee's influences on her article, so we would need Moody's to complete, at least for Fallen), and how they have influenced others.  However, I'd say the former is a more immediate concern than the latter. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not the point. What you say, has been discussed time ago. Check the archives. Armando.Otalk • Ev 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand it has been discussed, but I am not satisfied with the result. Almost any band can be listed as "Alternative Rock" these days, that tells me nothing about Evanescence. Wikipedia is about giving information to the world, and Post-Grunge or Alternative Metal are much better descriptions, that's the bottom line. Look at Nickelback's article, or Seether's. They are not listed as "Alternative Rock" primarily, they are listed by their rightful genres. Nickelback doesn't have a source for "Post-Grunge", they just ARE. If the bottom line is that we need sources besides Wikipedia itself, then I'll shut up.  Progdrummer17 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that is basically what it boils down to.  There really are no articles that give an agreed upon style for Evanescence, and the only real "official" thing was the band's MySpace page, which gave Pop/Rock/Alt Rock as their styles, and I think everyone agrees they are not Pop.  Alt Rock is a basic genre that they do fall into, even if it isn't very specific. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Of all the terms that have been bandied about by the band and by news articles, that's one I've never seen used before to describe them.  Unless you can find a very authoritative reference, I'd say no to that one. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly this is true, but in the absence of a more clearly defined genre, it is most appropriate to use a basic one.  It gets the idea across without being blatantly off-target. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemme get this straight... arrording to your logic, the Sonata Arctica song "Paid in Full" would be considered "Alternative rock"? The reason why i mentioned Paid in Full is because the style is somewhat similar to Evanescence's "Bring Me to Life" (well, the beginning of the song does seem like something Evanescence would do) 68.147.223.143 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: The major issue I see with this becoming a featured article is that people are noting a lack of sections outlining the musical style and influences. This is going to be a major task, as Evanescence's style varies greatly and has evolved quite a bit since it's start.
With influence, do they mean who influences the band, or do they mean how does the band influence the rest of the world? Gyakusetsu 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I just don't see this being a goal that can be accomplished quickly or with any completeness...it is just so variable.  And by influence, I would say they mean both:  how they are influenced themselves (which we have some of Lee's influences on her article, so we would need Moody's to complete, at least for Fallen), and how they have influenced others.  However, I'd say the former is a more immediate concern than the latter. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not the point. What you say, has been discussed time ago. Check the archives. Armando.Otalk • Ev 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand it has been discussed, but I am not satisfied with the result. Almost any band can be listed as "Alternative Rock" these days, that tells me nothing about Evanescence. Wikipedia is about giving information to the world, and Post-Grunge or Alternative Metal are much better descriptions, that's the bottom line. Look at Nickelback's article, or Seether's. They are not listed as "Alternative Rock" primarily, they are listed by their rightful genres. Nickelback doesn't have a source for "Post-Grunge", they just ARE. If the bottom line is that we need sources besides Wikipedia itself, then I'll shut up.  Progdrummer17 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that is basically what it boils down to.  There really are no articles that give an agreed upon style for Evanescence, and the only real "official" thing was the band's MySpace page, which gave Pop/Rock/Alt Rock as their styles, and I think everyone agrees they are not Pop.  Alt Rock is a basic genre that they do fall into, even if it isn't very specific. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Of all the terms that have been bandied about by the band and by news articles, that's one I've never seen used before to describe them.  Unless you can find a very authoritative reference, I'd say no to that one. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly this is true, but in the absence of a more clearly defined genre, it is most appropriate to use a basic one.  It gets the idea across without being blatantly off-target. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemme get this straight... arrording to your logic, the Sonata Arctica song "Paid in Full" would be considered "Alternative rock"? The reason why i mentioned Paid in Full is because the style is somewhat similar to Evanescence's "Bring Me to Life" (well, the beginning of the song does seem like something Evanescence would do) 68.147.223.143 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Style and Influence 

message: I'm brazilian and called Izaque Tomas. I'd like know about Evanescence's style. I've got my doubts about this topic. I don't know to say If the evenescence "is a christian band or others" Could someone help me. My e-mails are ijoliveira@aracruz.com.br and ADD ME in izaque_tomas@hotmail.com I would like in say with pleasure. THANKS!!! —The preceding unsigned--200.216.186.101 16:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone help me about this band's style? 

message: Despite the disclaimer at the bottom of the most recent reference that provides Evanescence music, I do not believe that is sufficient to establish use permission for the purposes of Wikipedia.  I could be wrong, but linking to a fan site that contains copywritten material with just a small easily modifiable "chat" log at the bottom is not all that reliable  http://www.evanescencereference.info/music/ Sentineneve 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't ideal to use such a page, but I know not of another page which has it transcribed and established.  The reliability is established because they state where the interview came from and also provide an audio version.  Until something better can be found, this should suffice (it has passed scrutiny from reviewing admins thus far, after all. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: I removed an uncited paragraph that remarked evanescence as being labeled by some as Gothic Rock. It did mention that some of the gothic subculture would not consider it "canon" so correct me if I am wrong but is not "canon" a word used for work of literatures or a franchise. This is music, and I never heard of something being considered "canon". The only way I have this used in music is in reference to which pieces of music are imitated EXACTLY. Now some may call it "gothic", it is no different than calling marilyn manson gothic; a remark that is thrown around and never taken seriously by anyone who is familiar with the genres.
:You were correct in removing this paragraph, well done :)  I can't believe I'd not caught that before. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :)
Regardless of whether or not the band is considered 'Gothic Rock', they are certainly NOT Alternative. Even though they may claim to be, that doesn't make it so. I could claim to be President, and yet, it doesn't make it so. Alternative will always be bands like R.E.M, 10,000 Maniacs, etc. If you need to come up with a new classification... fine, so do, but don't claim that they are something that they very much are not. One other thing to note - bands do grow/change/evolve over time, and Fallen and previous works might need a different label now that Moody is not writing the music.
When I think of 'Gothic Rock', I think Lacuna Coil and Within Temptation. When I think 'Gothic Metal', I think Nightwish, Leaves' Eyes, Tristania, etc. Surely these bands are different, but Fallen will always remain closer to these bands than it is to, say, 'The End of the World As We Know It', or 'These Are Days' from the two aforementioned artists. Now, I'm not going to foolishly change the entry, but I strongly urge the powers that be to reconsider this obvious fallacy, and quit citing the band as a 'cop-out' instead of presenting the correct information. 128.175.74.62 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither Lacuna Coil or Within Temptation are gothic rock. Crescentia 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly believe they would fall into another category as well, but thus far, no other genre has ever been fully agreed upon by external sources, except for the generic label of Alt Rock.  Until there's some consensus amongst the third-parties, or the band itself calls it differently, I'd strongly suggest leaving it at Alt Rock.  Remember, this is a generic term...the other genres are more like subcategories of this. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What's more entertaining is that Gothic Rock and Gothic Metal have no true existing correlation in style. I urge you all to take a look at the allmusic page for Evanescence though and consider the fact that they are considered gothic metal. Thanks. Jotsko 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeling Controversy:Gothic Rock

message: I added the tag because I feel that the whole "departures" section could be combined.  There's 4 separate entries for them, which is unnecessary.Shatterzer0 06:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems entirely unnecessary when you could simply remove the section headers and put them under a single header.... -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: What are we going to do about Amy Lee's change to Amy Hartzler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.96.200 (talk • contribs)  07:33, 18 May 2007  (UTC)
:A mention should be made of this change, but her article should remain at "Amy Lee" as that is what she is best known as. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed her listings under band members to Amy Lee Hartzler and added a redirect to the Amy Lee article. --A7XDeathbatGNR 07:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be reverting these edits tomorrow, sorry.  Wikipedia guidelines state that the common name for the person should be used.  As "Amy Lee" is what she is most widely known by, this is the proper name to use.  See WP:MOSBIO. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: http://www.evanescence.it/bboard/index.php?showtopic=9482&st=1200
Read the post that Jack from Mourningside has posted on the internet... should we mention some of the things in it, most notably, the part about Evanescence ending in November? (Tyrannitar 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a rumor site? I tend to agree with the guy (5 band members and one manager leave the band in the space of 2 albums? Smells like a pattern), but that doesn't mean every post he makes on his blog needs to be on Wikipedia. Sheep81 22:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unable to access the site, as it will not allow me to register for some reason (and admins there haven't returned my email), so you may want to copy/paste the relevant information here. Scratch that, I just read it on EvThreads.  This is third hand information, possibly spurious, probably inflammatory, and cannot be taken as reliable.  Unless it comes from some kind of official (band or label) or reputable (news agency) source, we really should not include it here as it would be, at best, speculation, especially on the heels of Lee herself saying that the band would remain solid.  I'm not saying it isn't true, because the whispers are in the wind, but for now, we should just be patient and include verifiable facts. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it's not a rumor site, it's an Evanescence forum that keeps updates of the "conflict" that's rocking the Evanescence world right now with the departure of John and Rocky. I guess we shouldn't mention it until we get official verification of the band (or related parties) first, but some of the things in that article (most notably the possible hiatus of the band in November) could be worth a small mention in the article. (Tyrannitar 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, not saying that the site is just a rumour mill, but it is generally against policy to quote message board posts (Amy Lee's posts on EvBoard and EvThreads are used because it's easily verified that her account actually does belong to her).  This information absolutely deserves a mention here if true, but only after something verifiable is made available to confirm it.  Remember, we're not here to propagate rumours, but to report reliably obtained facts.  At this point, any claim of disbanding must be considered a rumour. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Corruption" of Amy Lee? 

message: Do we really need those tiny articles on Will and Troy? They don't have any references and don't actually tell you much about them; it's basically one sentence about how they're in Evanescence now. (Tyrannitar 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd give them a little while, hopefully someone can come along and flesh them out a little more...perhaps provide some information from Dark New Day and before, though I admit to not knowing how popular that band was and if there was much in the way of published publicity for either of them. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Member Articles? 

message: Anybody besides me see the similarities?  It seems he uses a remixed version of My Last Breath as his intro...Shatterzer0 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Last Breath/[[Jason Reso|Jay Reso]] Theme 

message: Should we change Amy Lee to Amy Hartzler in the article or add lee in brackets. Its a good Idea! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.72.236.247 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 10 June 2007  (UTC)
:Actually, no.  Per Wikipedia guidelines, articles and name usage within them should use the most widely recognized form of a word, except in extenuating circumstances.  You could likely ask nine out of ten people who have some knowledge of Evanescence who the lead singer is, and they'd say Amy Lee.  Until she becomes much better known as Hartzler than Lee, we should keep it as-is. (A good example is Elizabeth Taylor.  She was married multiple times, but was always popularly known by her maiden name.   -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change? 

message: was deleted by User:Neil dont ask why... --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evanescence_-_Bring_Me_to_Life.ogg 

message: Well guess we need some new ones... what time should they be to avoid them being deleted? 15 secs max? --Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As "fun" as it is to have music samples, I simply don't see the need to have them at all.  To be honest, they don't add a lot to the articles.  I'd suggest getting rid of the lot of them.  I see it happening anyway, as Wikipedia is moving to eliminate everything that isn't free (except those things that simply cannot be obtains for free, like album covers and similar things...and even those will likely be eliminated soon). -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Sample 

message: Amy has mentioned in a couple of interviews that she's going to "take time off" after September. Is this notable enough to be added to the article? --VpvFin 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evanescence taking a break 

message: I think so, since the tunes of their songs seem to give a fantasy feeling. 68.147.223.143 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the numerous discussions on this subject above and on the archive pages.  Consensus was reached to keep it as "Alternative rock", as this is the only term that varied sources seem to agree on.  If you can pull a number of sources that call it Symphonic metal or Power metal, then such a can be included, but until then it is just speculation. See WP:OR for details on this policy. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See my reply directly above.  In light of the lack of available sources agreeing on something, editors here agreed to use Alt-rock until something better came along.  Thus far, nothing has. Please, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think alternative rock would aim for the high fantasy feeling. 68.147.223.143 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As another point to support Huntster's position: the guidelines for  specifically say "aim for generality".  This has been discussed extensively at WP:MUSICIANS.  The problem is that genres really mostly apply to individual works; musicians and bands frequently tend to cover a range of genres, and, especially, minor subgenres.  So it's a broad genre in the infobox, and, if necessary, discuss critics' claims about subgenres in the body of the article.  Saying "disputed genres" is a terrible solution that will never get you to FA status, especially since it's usually only random fans having the dispute.  This is not a fan site, so popularity (and how much you "hate" a term) is not an issue.  What matters is what verifiable, reliable sources say.  In this case, the reliable sources seem to support Alt Rock, and it's a broad enough term to meet the guidelines, so it looks like a good choice to me.  Xtifr tälk 11:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can they be considered Power Metal or Symphonic Metal? 

message: Would you say Moody/Balsamo is lead guitar, and then LeCompt/McLawhorn is rhythm guitar? FallenWings47 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, its fairly irrelevant to the article unless a citation is found to support such a distinction. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just kind of wanted to know myself. FallenWings47 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, remember that talk pages are not for general discussion.  Keep it focused only on material that will benefit articles. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead guitar/rhythm guitar