This page is an Archive of the discussion page for Canadian rock. (August 2006 - December 2008) Please Do not edit!
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As of August 2009 the main body of the article has been re-written.
Adding Groups
The article says FAMOUS examples. So quit adding random Canadian groups that have had minor success. I took a lot off and there are still some little known groups on there, so feel free to take those off. And feel freeto re-add those groups or add new groups but show a little discretion. ~Scorpion0422
And only your definition of "famous" applies right? I agree, there are some pretty regional acts listed, but Rheostatics, Alannah Myles (sp), Amanda Marshall, Terry Jacks... all achieved fame. Outriggr 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I realise everyones criteria for what qualifies as famous is different, but I mainly left all the groups that are 20+ years old on as well as some of newer groups that have had a lot of recent success. The ones I took off were all groups I hadn't heard of. But Like I said, feel free to re-add any I took off. I was in a rush when I took those names off and thus probbaly took some big ones off/left some small ones off. Don't forget: This is a list of ROCK, not POP. That's why I took Daniel Powter off. ~Scorpion0422
What's the deal with the bad alphabetization? Paul Anka- regardless of whether or not he belongs on ANY "rock" list- should be an "A" and not a "P." Jack, August 01, 2006
how about adding Default? They're one of the most famous and popular Canadian rock bands!
Adding to that how come there's no information on what is probably going to end up in the elite league of the 'best enduring heavy metal band of the world' - Annihilator. Agreed that more often than not, its ends up looking like 'The Jeff Waters Band', but this page definitely needs some mention of that band.
Suggestions:
It's time to add a separate section for Finger Eleven. They have had a couple hits here in the US, a theme song in the WWE, and Paralyzer is a runaway hit across the rock and pop charts.
Streetheart was huge in Canada for a lot of years, big headliner, could use its own section.
Wide Mouth Mason had three or four hits in Canada and they toured the US as an opener for Johnny Lang. They should be in there somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.204.240 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost forgot Tupelo Honey. I heard Why I Bother down here, otherwise I never would have heard of them. Great single, got a couple weeks airplay on the local modern rock stations. I don't know how it did in Canada.
Why is this mainly devoid of Vancouver bands? Where is 54-40 or Odds? Both having MAJOR success in Canada in the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.58.77 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The List
I was wondering if we should just cut out the list of groups. There is already a list of bands from Canada and people are continually adding random groups. So maybe we should just cut out the entire thing. Unfortunately, without the lists, there isn't much of a page. Any suggestions? -- Scorpion0422 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"The List", like all Wiki-lists, are hit and miss as far as merit. For the most part the list is manageable as long as there are no nn or "dead" links added in. I've done shows with more than half the bands/artists on the list and they have all achieved enough career success to pass the Wiki-notability test. It's bloated, but doesn't really need any trimming. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Then we should remove the part that says famous, because only half of of those groups have achieved consistant mainstream success, and only a handful have been successful in the United States. I think the article needs more content, because without the list, there really isn't a lot. -- Scorpion0422 15:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the list is bloated. As for famous, I don't think US fame should be a criteria. It's a "Canadian rock" article so a decent level of "Canadian fame" should do. Judging fame can be tricky. Anne Murray is probably...globally...the most famous Canadian artist(Soft rock is still rock) on the entire list and I think you tried to delete her. Max Webster/Kim Mitchell...one of the most unique Canadian rock artists of all time. Kim Mitchell's 'Go For Soda' was a big hit in the US and was used in ads by MADD. And I think you deleted him too? It would be nice if each entry had some little blurb about who they are or some little notable tidbit. But too much info can be overkill since all the entries have Wiki-articles of their own.[there is a fine line between content and crap :) ] Is there a "Canadian Rock" project?(or Canadian music in general) If there isn't then maybe we should start one?(like I'm not stretched too thin on here already!) Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If I deleted Kim Mitchell, it was an accident. As for Anne Murray, I dispute your claim that she is the most famous Canadian musical artist, but I deleted her because she is not rock. But, she's listed in the new format now, so... -- Scorpion0422 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
References
What's with the dots across the top of this article? Rather than have the references in the body of the article, they're all up here. Why? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree need to Make REF better i will take the time soon to make them proper but feel free to take the time.Lucifers hammer 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I find it's easier to do it right the first time than to go back and fix it later. Also, please note that a reference is a link to an article that gives data about a statement. Don't add a reference to a list of search results or to the root page of a web site; it needs to be a link that takes you directly to an article describing what you're talking about. For example, if you say that so-and-so won a Juno award in some year, any reference there should be to a web page that tells you exactly that, not to a search page or the main Juno Awards page. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
we have now made it into Articles with unsourced statements we need to find the page at the Juno Awards that list all the winners, I see that wa have an artical called Juno Award can we use this as our Juno REF's ????????? --216.106.111.138 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Sorry forgot to sign in ---Lucifers hammer--
No, you can't use other Wikipedia pages as references. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE ADD References
ok added as many REF's as i could! now 184 ref's as of July 1, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzzsherman (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - I removed some of it as part of my cleanup. We don't need to list every award a band has ever won on this page, do that on the band's real page. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Originally we only mentioned Grammy award wins/nominations, but random users started adding more awards to various sections. -- Scorpion0422 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
puffery
the page generally looks great, but after reading some of the text, thought I should comment that some of the descriptions seem to be inflated. Seems to be advocating on behalf of April Wine to get more awards, for example. Trooper's "legendary status" in Canada? a bit overstate, and this is the first I've heard that there was ever a "Canadian invasion" of the US by rock bands (comedians maybe). Also, it's not too clear what the parameters are, i.e., why some bands are featured with a paragraph and others not. Just some thoughts. Just wondering what others think before jumping in and mucking about. Bobanny 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the text needs work. Some of the "puffery" has been toned down, but it still reads the an article from a mucis magazine rather than an encyclopedia. The individual entries (if they're to stay like this at all) also need to be self-contained. The Hip section starts thusly: "No band benefited more from that landscape, however, than The Tragically Hip" which implies a comparison, but to whom? And what does it even mean? Sounds like they were making use of the hills as amplifiers or something. And what does this line mean: "Unlike the Guess Who, The Tragically Hip's lyrics proudly wore their Canadian perspective on their sleeves"? "Runnin' Back to Saskatoon" doesn't have a Canadian perspective? A lot of clean up to be done... Matt Deres 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Three Days Grace
"They were also nominated for best New Group Of The Year in 2004." Which award? The Junos? -- Scorpion 15:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sheriff
Why isn't Sheriff on the page? They had a #1 Hit in both Canada and US. One member went on to create the band Alias with the 3 Canadian members of Heart. No mention of Alias either. They had a #2 hit in the U.S. 91.17.240.87 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
1990s
How come Our Lady Peace doesn't have its own section? They were just as big as I Mother Earth or The Tea Party, if not, bigger. They should definitely be included among those groups. And I think Sloan as well.(Pwnage8 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
I agree i have added them:-)
5.4 Indie rock
This does not sound right for this page "VERY OPINIONATED" SHOULD BE redone our "deleted"
YES / NO your OPINION PLS write back
"It can be difficult for an indie group to break through in Canada because there is no nationwide rock station. In England, the BBC has its own nationwide rock network and any indie group that can get onto the playlist instantly gets nationwide play. It was because of this that groups like Oasis and Blur were able to become internationally famous. In Canada, on the other hand, although rock bands may get some exposure from outlets such as MuchMusic or CBC Radio 3, on terrestrial radio bands must largely rely on building an audience city by city, as each commercial radio station makes its playlist decisions independently." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.128.49 (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs more and better citations.
Sections of this article are quite personalised, written by either a fan or critic. This needs to be addressed, especially where there is a dearth of citations. Halogenated (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I will ensure this tag stays in place until the overall article improves. The fact remains that many if not most sections do not meet wiki standards for articles. I should probably add a POV tag too, but it is a close call. When I have a chance I will go through the article and make/suggest specific edits. For now, it is important to make the reader aware that the article is still under construction, and could use some help with verifying claims. Halogenated (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Scorpion0422 I'm not sure why you seem to think that the tag that exists to suggest that more references are needed should not be applied because there are 48 references. Read here: refimprove. This article is quite large, and the majority of sections are both unsourced and sometimes appear written by a fan (making it also a POV issue). 48 citations is meaningless in this context. If you like then perhaps we can put the tag at the bottom, and then highlight specific sections. Halogenated (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is simple: you're using the wrong tag. It should only be used in articles where there are few/no sources. Use {{fact}} and {{references|section}} to tag specific sentences and sections. This will be a lot more useful because then people will know which parts to work on. -- Scorpion0422 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There are relatively few sources for the size of the article, and almost all but one section are completely unsourced. I've edited a lot of articles, and this is one of the most clear-cut examples of an article where the refimprove tag is needed. Stated directly from the refimprove page, "This template indicates that the article needs additional references". Clearly this article requires additional references to actually verify the majority of the content claims. Ergo, this tag is applied appropriately here. Halogenated (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Soory i guess 50 references are not enough ????
Most of the articals are from other pages---that is y there is links to them -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.128.164 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't in this instance. If most of the info comes from other articles, then the links to the other articles should be made more clear (e.g. Main article: XYZ). However I understand that it isn't always convenient or necessary to introduce the same references from the other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halogenated (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Article now has 184 ref's as of July 1, 2009 — (Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
Post-rock
What this article needs is a post-rock-section, Canada being one of the main countries in that genre with many of the leading bands. Revan ltrl (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sections for different artists?
Why do some artists have separate sections... is there even a need for these? After all, each of them have their own articles. If an artist is notable enough, a sentence or two about them can be integrated into the main text. As it stands now, this article is very long, and the separate sections for the artists just break up the flow. The 'special status' of having a separate section for an artist just gives the temptation for admirers of each band to add their own, and this article will just continue to grow. Compare this to the Rock and roll article. It's much shorter than this one, with no sections for any band. I propose a radical solution: delete all of these sections. Readers will still be able to read about these bands by clicking through to the individual articles. What do you think? Rawr (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually i like the sub sections ...I believe that a small description of the BIG guys in Canadian music is good, much better then ratting on about the CRTC etc... The history of Canadian Rock lies with the artist of the day and not with the media etc.... (Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
Le Canada français
I would love to work on the French-Canadian section by incorporating 1-2 Québécois/French-Canadian bands within each heading, they won't be immediately recognizable to many English-Canadians outside of Québec, but are still undoubtedly an important face of music in Canada and Québec, I'll start as soon as possible, but I'd like to know any opinions on this. 69.157.172.155 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that was me, I thought I was logged in.
Basser g (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea, but due to the length of this article already and what will no doubt be a lengthy section itself, it might be better as a stand-alone article with a short section in this article linking to it. Halogenated (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver Bands (Odds, 54-40)
I feel this needs a better Vancouver section. The list is missing some of the most popular bands in Canada in the 90s, apparently because they have the misfortune of being from Vancouver. Where is 54-40 or Odds? Both having major success in the Canada and even a little success in the US in the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.58.77 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
54-40 was added then removed because of no References... Pls fell free to re_add them with proper REF's ..(Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
Not bad written, but, this article needs a copy-edit [for proofreading]. The introduction of this article need to be rewritten, as the current text does not summarize the article adequately.--Cannibaloki 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, considering the lack of [reliable] sources in some sections.--Cannibaloki 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I think not.--Cannibaloki 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
B. Focused:
I removed those mini biographies, it seemed more a list of major Canadian rock artists than the history of Canadian rock. [in short, totally off-topic]--Cannibaloki 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No images so far.--Cannibaloki 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I will put the article on hold during seven days for the GA nominator fix the problems.--Cannibaloki 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The article contains several non-reliable sources, and references that don't support the statements. The article also is confusing in some sections, and contains an excess of information about charts and awards.--Cannibaloki 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The World War II era bandleader, Guy Lombardo, and his brother are believed to have sold an estimated 200 million phonograph records during their lifetime. The source states, "Between 1927 and 1954, Lombardo & His Royal Canadians sold well over 100 million records on a variety of labels, including Columbia, Brunswick, Decca, and RCA Victor; it's estimated that his total worldwide record sales ranged between 100 and 300 million copies." You should reword and find a better source.--Cannibaloki 06:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"The World War II era bandleader, Guy Lombardo, and his brother are believed to have sold an estimated 200 million phonograph records during their lifetime. The source states, "Between 1927 and 1954, Lombardo & His Royal Canadians sold well over 100 million records on a variety of labels, including Columbia, Brunswick, Decca, and RCA Victor; it's estimated that his total worldwide record sales ranged between 100 and 300 million copies." You should reword and find a better source.--Cannibaloki 06:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)"
