Talk:Switchfoot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSwitchfoot was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 7, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template[edit]

This template should be placed on all pages strongly related to the band
This link can be used to monitor all articles within the template


Names in bios, etc.[edit]

I keep seeing the band members referred to only as 'Chad' or 'Drew.' In my opinion, this sounds unprofessional, and if they aren't being introduced, it seems more encyclopedic to refer to them as 'Butler' or 'Shirley'. I think this makes it sound less like a fan site. If you think about it, you rarely see someone referred to solely their first name in a newspaper or anything else. It would make sense to change this on the individual member pages as well. The only question I have is what the best way is to efficiently distinguish Jon and Tim, without saying 'Tim Foreman' every single time. I want it to sound professional, but not redundant. What does everybody else think? —Akrabbimtalk 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point, although as you mentioned it is difficult with brothers in the band. Looking through the reference it appears as if most magazines/articles and stuff refer to most band members by their last name, but in most statements/ press releases from the band they refer to themselves by their first name. I would be opposed for going through and changing them all, but we probably should mix it up a little more --T-rex 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoS:BIO addresses this. "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only...The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally...To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others." I had a fun time trying to figure out how to apply that at the No Doubt article since Eric Stefani left, but his sister Gwen stayed. ShadowHalo 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean we refer to Jon and Tim as 'Jon and Tim' or 'Jon Foreman and Tim Foreman'? —Akrabbimtalk 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that line seems to refer more to where one has preference over the other, such as mentioning Tim in the Jon Foreman article. I'm actually starting to think this might be a poor idea, looking at some other good articles I've found U2 switches between Larry Mullen and Larry, but no instances of Mullen (I ignored Bono and The Edge as obvious exceptions), Howie Day switches between all three, and Bob Marley always seems to use the full "Bob Marley", The Fray (band) which half has the brother thing going on switches between first and full name, but mostly uses their full names --T-rex 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the main article doesn't really have much of a problem; it was more the members' respective pages. I've fixed what I saw there though. —Akrabbimtalk 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, as a matter of opinion, that it's okay to address them with their first names. I'm subscribed to thier Newsletter and they always address each other with their first names and they sign their weekly Newsletters with just their firstnames too. To make it sound friendly and warm I guess. Fleurbutterfly 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touring?[edit]

At school, I recently saw a poster or something for this Christian Youth thing in Sydney. It was about a month or two ago, just wondering if they are touring? andrewrox424 Bleep 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should try checking on their website for tour dates. Individual tour dates, unless something important happens at them, do not belong in Wikipedia articles. =David(talk)(contribs) 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switchfoot is almost always on tour. For individual dates check switchfoot's website. It is highly unlikly that any individual tour dates will be listed here. --T-rex 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Switchfoot website is www.switchfoot.com. It has a listing of all the upcoming tour dates and locations.Ladyjanegrey94 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot Christian Songs Chart[edit]

Someone keeps erasing all Christain chart peaks put in the singles section. Would the Billboard Hot Christain Songs Chart be erased as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.145.6 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to integrate into the text or infobox that their song "Awakening" was the 9th most played song on Christian Hit Radio in 2007.(ref)2007 Year End Charts/Top Christian CHR songs, R&R magazine, Retrieved January 6 2008(/ref) Most mainstream music contributors to Wikipedia appear to not understand that Billboard charts do not accurately rank Christian Hit Radio (aka Contemporary Christian music), but it is instead done by their sister company R&R (magazine). I contend that Billboard is not the only chart to include in Wikipedia articles. I understand both Christian and mainstream music very well and I regularly listen to both on the radio. Royalbroil 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Umm...Why is Switchfoot listed here as Post-Grunge? They are way too light to be anywhere near the grunge genre. Don't get me wrong, I really like this band, they're one of my favorites. They are simply a lighter band. Christianrocker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I agree that's just crazy will someone change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.155.141 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is due to many people only being familiar with their earlier singles, such as Meant to Live which do venture into "post-grunge" more than their other stuff. That said, I've removed this as a genre. --T-rex 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well to add to this suject the band is in fact a post grunge band. Many due to the albums Beutiful Letdown which had Meant To Live and Amunition, then they really became post grunge when they relesed Nothing Is Sound. With songs like Loney Nation, Stars, Politics. Also many websites label them Post GrungeRockismorethanmusic (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The post grunge genre is really a very non-specific term (our article says it has become the "main rock format in America"), so I wouldn't say it incorrectly defines Switchfoot. It really encompasses all rock since the mid-90s that has skirted the mainstream rock and pop arenas, and that maintains a heavy sound (which I think Switchfoot has). There is certainly nothing 'grungy' about them (the term evokes the hobo kinda look like in this picture), but that doesn't exclude them from the post-grunge genre. —Akrabbimtalk 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a more accurate description of the Switchfoot genre is Surf Rock, based upon the fact that they are a San Diego band with a name based on a surfing term and a sound that matches more of the lighter California underground genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.30.19 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Rock is a sound. It is not based on the band's name. 71.229.38.183 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POWER POP?!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.73.243 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up before spazzing out. 71.229.38.183 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

The section titled "Additional information" should either be integrated into the article (as I tried to do here, but was reverted twice by Joberooni) or should be deleted. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that makes no sense? What is your reason for integrating it into the article? You must explain that first. I explain perfectly well why I think it shouldn't be integrated. It's miscellaneous information regarding the members of Switchfoot, but doesn't have to do with the band directly. It still belongs because it's educational, interesting information, but shouldn't be in the main article.
I'm with Joberooni here. The current layout works much better. --T-rex 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like Additional Info sections... sometimes it's nice to have a few random facts that aren't really important, but are interesting to fans.Ladyjanegrey94 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a source for random information meant for fans--it is meant to be an encyclopedia. I am a huge Switchfoot fan, but all of the information in the "Additional Information" section can be found in other places and if it cannot be integrated into the article it probably doesn't belong in the article. Even though it is "educational, interesting information," not all information of this nature belongs in an encyclopedia. Having said this, I have no desire to take the time to fix any of this, being a WikiSloth, I just agree that it shouldn't be here. --the authentic david christians (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture[edit]

I know this is kind of nit-picky, but the picture currently on the article is from over 2 years ago. Can someone find a good current, non-press, group photo from within the past half-year? I will try to find one myself.Joberooni (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's outdated, though ideally it would be nice to get one a little clearer, if someone can. This one is fine for now though. —Akrabbimtalk 14:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone re-upload a picture THE RIGHT WAY without copy infringement?

San Diego Music Awards[edit]

The awards listed on wikipedia have no citations, and don't entirely tally with the awards website Andrew Duffell (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing obviously wrong, but it probably should be checked and cited. --T-rex 03:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Rocks[edit]

Just a quick comment of encouragement form a longtime 'Foot fan...I loved reading this article! It's very informative and well-written. Keep up the good work. -Luinfana (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is an excellent article that really does the band justice (and coming from a huge 'Foot fan like myself, that is high praise!) Good job! Ladyjanegrey94 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else feel this reads like a fan article? It just seems they make a lot of unencyclopedic claims and statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.254.138 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian music[edit]

Can we have an honest discussion about the guidelines, policies, and precedents on Wikipedia, rather than on what the band prefers? Is it reasonable to suggest that there are multiple, significant, reliable sources for adding Christian Rock to the list genres? In many other articles, the preference of the article's subject over branding, marketing, and labeling is dismissed in favor of what has been stated in sources regarding the article. Thoughts? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a thought: What brought this about? Is there a problem that you're trying to address? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this. Categories and genres should not be influenced by the band's preference, but rather by reliable sources, and ultimately by readers and editors. If adding the Category:Christian music or Category:American Christian rock groups helps a reader to find this band, which undeniably (a) consists of Christians and (b) appeals to Christians, and sources such as Christianity Today and Jesus Freak Hideout, all include their music under the general auspices of "Christian music", then I think it should be included in the list of genres and/or categories. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Never should a media source define a band or its music. The band itself doesn't like the label. Why should we slap it on them then? Just a thought. Joberooni (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Pope didn't like the label "German Roman Catholics", would we be required to leave it out of his article? The band's music, its members, its marketers, and its followers all suggest its inclusion in the category of Christian rock bands. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Is it a problem though? Why would you want to associate a band with a genre if they don't want to be associated with it? Sounds to me like they are ashamed of associating with Christ, so we should let them live their faith the way they want and let them live the Laodicean dream. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not ashamed, but rather, leery of the idea of associating the name of Christ with commerce. Anytime you put a genre or label on music, it's usually in a commercial manner, and the band is not comfortable with using the name of Christ as a selling point. They're more concerned with making music for everyone, and the label of "Christian music" is pigeonholing to the max. So on two points, we should exclude the label from this article. Joberooni (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK maybe not ashamed. They're using their faith to help them sell their music, not to get them to some eternal goal. When they were getting good mainstream airplay, they distanced themselves from the "Christian" label. Then their airplay dried-up and they suddenly said "we had better hitch ourselves to that thing we didn't want to before". They never went back and clarified their earlier statements. In press conferences/Youth lead meet & greets I've attended (Creationfest) they were clear that they still didn't like the label. Many of the youth pastors left there saying that they just didn't want to be identified as Christians. Who wouldn't want to be identified as Christians in the middle of other Christians? Oh, right. They're ashamed. Say what you want. The facts are simple no matter how you dress them up: They don't want the name of Christ associated with them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a great philosophical discussion we've got going on, but it doesn't address the main point... they identify themselves as Christians and they acknowledge Christian themes in their music... they are marketed to a Christian audience and played on Christian radio... multiple reliable sources have added the label/genre of Christian rock, which is "a form of rock music played by bands whose members are Christians and who often focus the lyrics on matters concerned with the concept of the Christian faith." For reliable sources, try the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music by Mark Allan Powell, or count their Dove awards, or check their artist page at Jesus Freak Hideout or Christianity Today. For precedent in this matter, see The 77s. I don't think it matters whether they prefer to disassociate with Christian rock. If we were creating a Switchfoot fan page, I agree it would be disrespectful to go against their wishes. But this is an encyclopedia and I contend that their association with Christian rock deserves a mention in the list of genres and qualifies them for inclusion in Category:Christian rock groups. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If they don't want the label attached to the band, why should we do it for them? Bob Dylan became a Christian. Released albums with more overt Christian lyrics than Switchfoot has ever done. He doesn't have the Christian Rock category attached to his article. Granted, he never had active distribution through Christian channels. The only category that relates i [[Category:Converts to Christianity]]. What next? Do we add the Jonas Brothers to the Christian Rock category as well? Any others? I don't buy it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, sounds like someone should add a Christian Music tag to Bob Dylan's Christian albums then...--the authentic david christians (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add those reliable references into the Switchfoot and Christian music section. It would help I think to add more "what a lot of [Christian] journalists say about SF" to what is mostly a section on only what the band has said about themselves (also reliable and sourced, but let's try to be as NPOV as possible and include just as much of both sides).
I wouldn't say that it belongs in the infobox genre slot, but I think the category is appropriate. —Akrabbimtalk 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I am fine with this as well, as long as we remove it from the infobox. Joberooni (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power pop vs. Christian rock[edit]

Power pop is characterized by bands like Weezer and Fastball, which don't really compare at all to the sounds of Switchfoot. However, the opening line of the article for Christian rock essentially describes Switchfoot (not to mention their picture featured in the article). Furthermore, their entry in AMG has three mentions, including "Alternative CCM", "Religious", and "Contemporary Christian". To leave this out of the genre list smacks of POV. Multiple reliable sources indicate that "Christian rock" is a legitimate description of the genre for this band. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with including both in the infobox. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Here are some sources for the power pop label: [1] [2]. —Akrabbimtalk 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point conceded. I wouldn't describe them as such, and probably neither would they. But then that's not what matters, right? Feel free to re-add "Power pop" as a genre. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "Christian Rock" from infobox because the source cited doesn't justify it; also, as per previous discussion topic. Joberooni (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided has the following quotes regarding Switchfoot's genre:

  • "Switchfoot -- which, interestingly enough, began its career as a Christian rock band."
  • "And if bands like Switchfoot ... can somehow have an influence on the secular rock industry ... Christian rock bands will have served their God well."

The source justifies the label just fine. If you want more, please see their entry in AMG, Jesus Freak Hideout, or any of the following: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Please don't remove this genre again. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest issue that people have with genres (for lots of bands, not just SF) is that styles change over time. The fact that they have much more mainstream secular popularity now doesn't negate the fact that they were more involved in CCM earlier in their career. And since this article encompasses their entire history, it merits inclusion, since it is notable to their fanbase, whether they are moving away from it stylistically or not. —Akrabbimtalk 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, U2, Bob Dylan, Anberlin, Creed, Flyleaf, Evanescence, Lifehouse, Dashboard Confessional, and a host of other "mainstream" acts should also include that tag in their infoboxes. They don't have "christian rock" in their infoboxes because it is no longer accurate, and is also misleading to new people who come to these articles to read their info. I find it rather odd that a band's genre is determined by a market they were unintentionally associated with due to contract and label buy-out issues. Switchfoot's musical genre has never been "Christian rock," so I move that the genre should be removed from the infobox. I have no issue with mentioning their association with that market in their early history and as a category if so insisted, but I just think keeping it in the infobox is misleading to cursory readers.
In addition, there is already a giant section on this article dedicated to the band's distinction from that genre. I think that's enough to get whatever point needs to be made across.
Also, the only reason Switchfoot still has a deal in place with EMI CMG (Christian label) is because they don't want to alienate Christian fans they already have; the only relationship it has to EMI is distribution and placement, much like the deal American Idol winners and the Jonas Brothers have with Christian book stores. Their intentions are to reach out to the Christian market, despite the fact they aren't "Christian rock" acts. Same thing applies to Switchfoot. But the main record label Switchfoot are now signed to is Atlantic, who own the 360 rights of the band and is NOT a Christian label, obviously. EMI CMG has no such control. Looking at this whole discussion in terms of empirical marketing facts instead of what a few misguided journalists have said provides a much more compelling argument, I think. Joberooni (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with what label they are signed to. Please refer to the article regarding the genre of Christian rock. It is neither a "mistake" nor "inaccurate" nor "misleading" that the "members are Christians", and that they "focus the lyrics on matters concerned with the Christian faith". Unless they change one of two facts about the band (stop playing rock music, or stop being Christians), they should remain categorized in the genre of "Christian rock". I'm not opposed to someone adding the genre of "Christian rock" to many of the bands you mentioned (such as Anberlin, Flyleaf, and Lifehouse), based on their personal testimony and their continued lyrical content. Some of the others are no longer or never have been associated with the Christian rock scene, so their inclusion is less tenable. I think we've reached a stalemate, and I'd like to call for an RFC. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Rfc. Again, I am not opposed to having any mention of the band's association with Christian rock throughout the rest of the article. However, I do have issue with "genre." That's all it is. You can leave the "Christian" category and in the history section, etc. Just not in the infobox. Joberooni (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Should "Christian rock" be a genre?[edit]

Should the genre "Christian rock" be included in the infobox, given the multiple reliable sources which have identified the band by this label (and continue to do so), despite the band's own distaste for the label? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being Christian is about personal faith and doesn't have anything to do with what the band does. Musical "genre" has to do with music, not lyrical content. The infobox asks for "genre" and musical style, not some perceived attribution. Please refer to the article regarding Music genre. I quote: "A music genre is a categorical and typological construct that identifies musical sounds as belonging to a particular category and type of music that can be distinguished from other types of music." Musical sounds, not lyrics. Therefore, the infobox shouldn't have "Christian rock" in it, because the only distinction you are drawing is in lyrical content. Joberooni (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • per WP:DUCK, "if it looks like a Christian rock band, acts like a Christian rock band, and sings like a Christian rock band, it's probably a Christian rock band". Based on all the evidence at hand, as much as they don't like it, Switchfoot is a Christian rock band. If they really don't want to be known as a Christian rock band, then they should probably stop playing concerts at Christian music festivals, stop performing alongside other Christian musicians, stop writing songs with Christian themes, stop accepting awards from Christian organizations, etc. Ἀλήθεια 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to start an argument, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "if it looks, acts, sings like a Christian rock band." That is a highly subjective thing to say. And what of them playing with mainstream acts, writing songs for American Idols, touring with Blue October, playing rock clubs regularly, and having songs on Alternative rock radio? That seems to get lost in this whole thing –– the mainstream associations are also rather large, and arguably larger than their Christian associations, which are only limited to summer festival season. Just a thought. Joberooni (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I don't think anyone is advocating the removal the information that they don't want to be known as a "Christian band", nor are they trying to eliminate the mainstream genres of post-grunge and alt-rock. (Though in at least one instance an editor did try to eliminate "power pop", which they clearly are.) Switchfoot has done what very few bands have done successfully. They are a Christian band, and they are a mainstream band. Usually one (and often both) is sacrificed in the process, and I applaud them for remaining Christian while going mainstream. Ἀλήθεια 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your civilized reply. While I was walking back from class, I had the same epiphany. They are indeed Christian dudes, but they make music for everyone. So they have successfully coexisted in both worlds. That being said, should that be provided in the article somehwere, as a way to explain why "Christian rock" is in the infobox? I still feel that it could be a bit misleading. Again, thanks. Joberooni (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps we have arrived at a resolution. We can leave "Christian Rock" in the infobox, but put a (disputed) next to it (a la Flyleaf), linking it to the section "Switchfoot and Christian music" on this article. Sound good? Joberooni (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine for now, at least to get rid of the article protection, so agreed. However, I doubt it will serve as a permanent fix, just like the rest of the agreements we have come to over the past few years (on this article alone). We've got "Not Christian by genre" in 2005, "I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but..." in 2006, "Christian Rock" in 2007, and here we are again in 2009 with the two sections above. Whether it's T-Rex, Walter Gorlitz, Phil, Joberooni, or Akrabbim (I don't even know if I've taken the same side in each discussion), it's been the same arguments each year. The Definitions section in the Christian rock article lays the issue out very well, I think. I think we need to come to an encyclopedia-wide (or at least project-wide) consensus on this issue on Christian rock as a genre.
The problem is that the term "Christian rock" does not operate the same as other genres. Though some terms like "emo" may generate a decent amount of controversy, most genres end up boiling down to a few stylistic characteristics of the instrumentation and vocals (though not usually lyrics), so when the bickering dies down you can just call it a duck. "Christian rock" is much more difficult, because it is not defined by instrumentation and vocal styles, but instead by lyrical influences, band member lifestyles, and fanbase. So it comes down to the definition of a genre. Even the music genre article is conflicted: "Some treat the terms genre and style as the same, and state that genre should be defined as pieces of music that share a certain style or "basic musical language". Others state that genre and style are two separate terms, and that secondary characteristics such as subject matter can also differentiate between genres." It comes down to either, as Joberooni puts it: "Musical "genre" has to do with music, not lyrical content. The infobox asks for "genre" and musical style, not some perceived attribution." Or as Alhtheia says: "If they really don't want to be known as a Christian rock band, then they should probably stop playing concerts at Christian music festivals, stop performing alongside other Christian musicians, stop writing songs with Christian themes, stop accepting awards from Christian organizations, etc."
Now we are just arguing semantics. Joseph Heller would have a ball with this, as the whole concept operates almost as a Catch-22. Why is this band Christian rock? Because they have a large Christian fan-base. Why do Christians listen to them? Because they play Christian rock music. I'm not arguing against the label, but I'm just trying to make a point of the odd nature of genres in our culture. This discussion is bigger than Flyleaf, bigger than P.O.D., and bigger than Switchfoot. So I don't know if a guideline needs to be drawn to establish consensus, but I don't want to see another edit war in a year. —Akrabbimtalk 03:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do then? Joberooni (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a perfect answer to Joberooni's question of what should we do. I will comment that I have removed the notion of "Christian" from my genres on my iPod. I categorize all my music according to musical style, and add tags like "Christian" using the grouping feature. Christian rock is no different from rock as a musical genre. I would argue that Christian rock could better be described as a movement. Perhaps we should edit the article about Christian rock to remove references to it being a "genre", and thereby eliminate all references to "Christian rock" in the genre section of all musical articles. This sounds like too much effort to me. I think the compromise as implemented in this edit is satisfactory, but I might be inclined to include the source as well.

On a related note, it should be noted that CCM is a different genre than standard pop rock. CCM has developed its own musical style, and Switchfoot has carefully (and thankfully) avoided this. Editors would be justified to fight against applying the term "CCM" or one of its derivatives to this article. HokieRNB 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with your rationale of why genres should not include lyrical influences, the fact is that a large majority of music listeners consider Christian rock as a genre. And nobody has any problem applying the term "wizard rock" to Draco and the Malfoys. Should Wikipedia make this distinction where no consensus exists outside of the encyclopedia? I honestly don't know the answer to this question. —Akrabbimtalk 17:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer either (thus this RfC), but is everyone OK with the removal of the word "disputed" from the genre? It's not necessarily limited to a dispute amongst editors. I should think that their inclusion in the genre "Christian rock" is disputed by the band itself. Therefore, the word is an appropriate disclaimer in the list of genres and probably merits the source being added back in too. I've been placed on 3RR watch, so I can't make the change. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help out with that. I think its valid if the band itself disputes that genre. Joberooni (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I don't think that an additional disclaimer is necessary. Like people have already mentioned, we already have a section dedicated to the dispute on the same article. Additionally, the fact the the words "Christian rock" are linked to the Christian rock article where there is further discussion of the disputed nature of the term is sufficient enough to justify the tag, even when the band itself disputes it. The Christian rock article covers that, so I don't think linking to it does the band any injustice. —Akrabbimtalk 19:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points to contribute:

  1. We definitely shouldn't have "(disputed)" in the infobox. That's a disclaimer, and something that has to be explained in the article body. It doesn't particularly matter if it means "disputed by editors" or "disputed by the band"; it can't be properly contextualized in the infobox alone, and we don't link to subsections from the infobox (partly because we already have a Table of Contents to do that job, which has a clear link to the "Switchfoot and Christian rock" section). The infobox is merely a summary and a list, anything that implies or requires more detailed explanation (such as "disputed") doesn't belong there. This was a big problem we used to have in many articles about emo and alt-rock bands. Editors would argue about what genres to use, often arguing that "the band doesn't consider themsevles ____", and instead of listing genres would put "disputed subgenres" or some other poorly-worded phrase that linked to a subsection. That's not what the infobox is for; it's to summarize the info presented in the body. If it can't be summarized in simple listed terms, just leave it out. It can easily be touched on in the lead section.
  2. It also doesn't particularly matter if the band considers themselves Christian rock or not. We rely primarily on third-party sources to analyze & classify genres, and clearly there are a multitude of sources that classify this band as Christian rock. While explaining the band's position on the label is obviously quite appropriate in the article body, it's not appropriate to either strike "Christian rock" from the infobox nor disclaim it with "(disputed)" merely because the band doesn't agree with it. Again, comparing this to emo, we would have to use the "(disupted)" disclaimer in pretty much every infobox that uses "emo" because there has pretty much never been a single act that admits to being "emo", and most who have been given that label by critics vehemently dispute it. But still, it doesn't matter: the infobox merely summarizes the genres discussed in the body, and in this case Christian rock is clearly one of those.
  3. Finally, whether some editors think that "Christian rock" is even really a genre is entirely irrelevant. There are multitudes of sources, including entire books, devoted to Christian rock as a genre of music. Clearly the music community, most significantly the critics, historians, and analysts within the field, recognize it as a valid term for a genre or classification. We can't discount this multitude of sources simply because some editors quibble over the definition of "genre" and whether "Christian rock" can be used as a genre. Clearly it is used this way by academia at large.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the matter. Anything more than genre names really doesn't belong there, especially "(disputed)". It simply doesn't look professional, seems to place undue weight on that genre, and is redundant to the section links provided in the Table of Contents. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style and influences[edit]

If anyone wants to expand on the first paragraph of Switchfoot#Style and influences, feel free to pick up where I left off with my kind of permanent writer's block (one of the reasons I went into engineering). I think there should be more describing their sound and style, but it is slow going for me as a writer, especially since I am trying to avoid sounding like a fansite. —Akrabbimtalk 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Switchfoot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

  • A problem I see in many GAs I'm sweeping is that there are many quasi-paragraphs scattered throughout. By definition a paragraph has three or more sentences; there are many one- and two-sentence groupings that need to be cut, expanded, or merged together. This is an issue starting with the first paragraph and right on to the last sentence.
  • Large sections of the article are unreferenced, and more importantly smacks of original research. Examples:
    • "Their major label debut, The Beautiful Letdown, under Columbia Records/Red Ink, represented the band's evolution from the predominantly lo-fi, indie rock sound of their early albums, toward a more layered, synth-influenced sound that helped launch the band to mainstream popularity. This shift sonically could be attributed to the fact that the album was the first to include keyboardist Jerome Fontamillas, formerly of industrial bands Mortal and Fold Zandura. Fontamillas had been touring with Switchfoot since 2000, following the release of Learning to Breathe."
    • "...and with Shirley's inclusion saw Switchfoot's sound become even more densely layered and guitar-heavy, resulting in an album that was edgier and darker than any of their previous work" is cited to Indie Vision Music (see below)
    • "Switchfoot's next album, Oh! Gravity., was released on December 26, 2006 to considerable critical acclaim."
  • There are many seemingly unreliable references used, in addition to now-dead links that have to be replaced or updated. What makes Indie Vision Music, Antimusic.com, UnRated Magazine, PrefixMag, Jesus Freak Hideout, Monstersandcritics, and homestead.com reliable?
  • I'm not sure File:Dare You to Move sample.ogg meets WP:NFCC as currently used. The song isn't discussed in depth, and there's no sort of critical commentary on its style or substance. If you could find refs about their musical style as in that song, then adding the sources, updating the Fair use rationale and moving it to the style section might make a better fit.

In short, the article needs some minor reworking, and most importantly a proper citation and verification audit. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days, longer if significant improvements are made. Keep me appraised at this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no progress has been made on the above, I am delisting the article. It may be renominated at any time, but I encourage work on the above points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Popular Songs[edit]

The song "Dare You to Move" was immediately a hit, and is now their most popular song as of yet. They always close their concerts with this song, as a result of it's growing popularity. The songs "Meant to Live," "Only Hope," and "This is Your Life" have also been selected as Switchfoot's "Best" songs. All of these songs were included on the 2008 greatest hits album, "The Best Yet." The most popular album today would most certainly be "The Beautiful Letdown", which included "Meant To Live," "This is Your Life," and "Dare You to Move." -Trey Brockman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.184.143 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Switchfoot[edit]

I've moved the awards to a separate article, as they were taking a lot of space here. I could use some help with providing reference sources for the awards (so far only the Grammys and an ASCAP award for Jon are covered), and there are probably also some nominations missing, as only Switchfoot's wins were listed in the Awards section of this article. I've found info about the Grammy nomination for Learning to Breathe, but I have no knowledge about for example any other GMA Dove Awards or San Diego Music Awards nominations. So any help with developing that article will be much appreciated :-) — Mayast (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Band Member Chart[edit]

After looking at several other bands pages, I noticed that there are these little charts at the bottom, showing a visual of the band members and their activity in the band instrument wise. I noticed Switchfoot didn't have one, and added that myself a month or two ago. It now makes this band fit in with the other bands out there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micah1104 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian rock as genre[edit]

Please see some of the following as reliable sources for inclusion as a Christian rock band:

  • AllMusic.com artist page
  • Switchfoot by Robert K. Zimmerman (2006) ISBN 1404207090
  • SPIN magazine January 2007
  • Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: Pop, Rock, and Worship: Pop, Rock, and Worship edited by Don Cusic (2009) ISBN 0313344264

That's just a beginning. There is absolutely no reason in the world why Christian rock should ever be removed from the genre for this band. This has been categorically affirmed and is the consensus view. Please don't remove the genre. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not sure that using language like "absolutely no reason in the world" is all that helpful in amicably reaching a consensus. Second, if it's that clear, why is there a section in the article discussing whether or not they are classified as Christian? Yes, some (most?) sources put them there, but obviously there's at least some debate -- genre classification in this case, as with many others, involves a fair bit of subjectivity. And since the article covers the issue in some detail, why does it matter if it's included in the infobox or lead? Fretting/warring over genres happens far too often around here, and it's a waste of time and resources. Personally, I'd prefer in general to limit genres in both infoboxes and leads to one, two at most, except in very rare circumstances. And when a sub-genre can't be agreed on, we should default to a more generic one. It would save everyone a lot of hassle. Like, maybe just "alternative rock" here... If consensus is to keep "Christian rock", I don't have a problem with that either; I just don't consider it absolutely necessary. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that assigning a genre can be somewhat subjective. However, in Wikipedia, it need not be subjective at all. The preponderance of reliable sources always have classified Switchfoot as "Alt Rock" and "Christian Rock" primarily, and continue to do so. There are other sources that will also point to other sub-genres, and they would be fine to mention also, but to insist on the removal of "Christian rock" as a genre is to ignore not only Wikipedia best practice, but also reality itself. It is not ambiguous as to whether Switchfoot is classified in the industry and in media (and thus in reliable sources) as Christian rock. That's why I used such strong language.
For a very long time, the infobox contained the following: Alternative rock, post-grunge, hard rock, Christian rock. And each had sources. It was not until this edit in January of this year, that the other three genres were removed, under the guise of "per Template:Infobox_musical_artist". However, the edit itself was misguided. "Aim for generality ... and preferably use 2-4. I have restored these four genres, which had broad consensus for several years prior to that one edit. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this question was settled years ago, but for what it's worth, yes here on Wikipedia we take into account first and foremost what reliable sources say, and we try not to put much stock in fanboy opinions. If we need to revert to the era when we had several specific sources citing the genres in order to resolve this ridiculous edit war, so be it. For what it's worth, I've also removed the hidden text over at List of Christian rock bands, which I was thinking about taking under my wing and cleaning up. I'm second guessing that thought now. Ἀλήθεια 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Switchfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Switchfoot/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
The article is looking nice, but could be improved in a few areas.

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, "trivial information is not appropriate on Wikipedia. If a particular fact is worthy of inclusion, it should be placed into proper context in the body of an article. Do not use the Trivia subheading."

There are some red wikilinks throughout that should be removed or the articles created.

In some places the band members are referred to by first name only. They should be referred to by last name per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). -- Pepsi2786 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments were deleted by User:T-rex with note of (not a biography, nothing wrong with a few red links, and already GA). I have reverted them back. While this is a Good Article, and I'm not saying it isn't, I feel that the comments I left apply. The article would be better without red wikilinks. Trivia shouldn't be included, and while this is not a biography, I still feel band members should be referred to by their last name, and not their first. If you disagree, that is quite alright. But as this is a talk page, and a discussion area, please do not delete my comments. -- Pepsi2786 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Switchfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Switchfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Switchfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interrobang[edit]

Added a sentence about the new album under Interrobang and there’s another that has an album with this title. Rossidor (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add[edit]

Associated Acts Otter Bea (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Switchfoot&oldid=1210601804"