Talk:List of avant-garde artists

LMFAO

Someone just came here and filled up the artists section with all their favorite artists from Spotify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.226.42.20 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with experimental, non-avant-garde artists

The article partially confuses experimental with avant-garde art and includes artists not avant-garde, e.g. Battles (generic math rock) and David Bowie (pop). 91.5.143.57 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply your opinion. In order to justify a change to the article, you need to provide references. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - "[...] very generally, avant-garde music can be viewed as occupying an extreme position within the tradition, while experimental music lies outside it." - David Nicholls

And for the named musicians: Battles - [2] "Experimental Rock"/"Post-Rock", meaning even if they wouldn't be considered solely indie rock, they would go to the exp. rock article.
David Bowie - [3] Same thing here.
Sigur Ros - [4]
Björk - [5]
They Might Be Giants - [6]
Jonny Greenwood - [7], [8]
87.171.251.233 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what I, or anyone else, is supposed to learn from these links---the Bjork myspace page?---or how any of this is supposed to prove your point. The David Nicholls quote is interesting, and somewhat illuminating, but is still only one opinion. Experimental and avant-garde are not necessarily two different things. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artist pages are references for the classification of the music by these artists, but yes, Björk's myspace page might be insufficient for reference. And while the quote by David Nicholls might be just one opinion, it's a acceptable reference. Some people might not make a distinction between avant-garde music and experimental music, but some people do, and as far as I know this is what matters. 87.171.248.129 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All information on wiki needs verification. Lists are no exception. If there are sources that say someone is avant-garde, it justifies inclusion. If there are no sources, they can be removed. However, wholesale instant removals would be disruptive, unless there is a very good reason for such, and matters should preferably be aired on the talk page in the first instance. Ty 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often experimental and avant-garde merge, however as Tyrenius says inclusions must be verified or referenced, and removals might be seen as vandalism. Web sites are generally not acceptable references. Modernist (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means that the whole article is full of wrongly attributed names, wrong because most names have no reference whatsoever, right? Wikipedia is, as far as I can see, no encyclopedia to tend towards inclusiveness, so I guess we give the unreferenced artists a time limit, and if there're still no references for them after this, they will be removed. Is that acceptable?
RichLow (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

Hi, The music part of this article is one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen regarding the so-called avant-garde. J. Zorn, The residents, Einstürzende Neubauten, Fantômas, The velvet underground, etc. at some point avant-garde, I'm fine with this. Mr. Oizo, Autopsia, PIL, etc. That looks like a bad joke. Where are the references to that ? What is or was avant-garde in their music ? Autopsia was maybe avant-garde or at least innovative in the 70's in Yugoslavia but not later, PIL was just a band (well) playing what many other bands were playing by that time, etc. Nothing new, no revolution. And what about people like L. Russolo, W. Ruttmann, H. El-Dabh, K. Stockhausen, P.Schaeffer. J. M. Beyer and hundreds of others, B. Haak ? A bit disappointed to see one more article talking non-sense on Wikipedia. Cdrk 23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is great about Wikipedia is that this encyclopedia is a work in progress. If you see something that is not right - you can change it. If something is missing you can supply it. I look forward to your positive input...Modernist (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Russolo changed the definition of what music was. He was one of the first composers to blur the borders between noise and music. He was also a part of the futurist movement. Therefore he was absolutely avant-garde. Pierre Schaeffer was a pioneer in the electroacoustic field and predated sampling. This was very avant-garde and expanded the definition of music. Karlheinz Stockhausen was also a leading figure in the post-war avant-garde and the electroacoustic field. The bands you first name may not be art music, but in the field of popular music, they were indeed very avant-garde.ThomasBJ (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six years later, I'm here to say the same thing. The music list is ridiculous. Les Claypool? Buckethead? The Melvins? Come on.JSFarman (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So make some appropriate changes...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martha Graham 1948.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Martha Graham 1948.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]