Talk:List of math rock groups

Bad Link

Hullo, just here to point out that Giraffes? Giraffes! links to the humor book, and not the band. 71.243.218.7 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What band should it be? I'm finding several bands called that on here. Do they have a wikipedia page? If so, maybe you can update the link. Amnion (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffes? Giraffes! redirects to Dave Eggers, who co-wrote a book titled Giraffes? Giraffes!. There is no article on Giraffes? Giraffes! (band), which is why it's not found on this list. In fact, so many editors keep linking to Giraffes? Giraffes! that I've added a hidden comment in the article asking them not to. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planet 22

just found out about "Math Rock" today when I was playing my band, Planet 22, for a freind. See for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/rjs121576/planet22.html

the times are: "Mr. Happy" : starts with 4/4 but starts dropping in measures of 10/4. The middle part is 6/8 and then back to 4/4. In part 2 the times go from 10/4 to 11/4 a few times followed by a middle part where the drums, keyboards, and sax play 11/4, while the bass(me) and guitar play 11/4 for a 110 beat polyrythym.

"Muffin jugs" : A funk song, the bridges have measures of 5/4 and 3/4 thrown in. The middle part is all 5/4 Check out the bass knob volume fade ins

"Mushrooms on the Wall pt. 2" : College age guys, our friend threw a mushroom from his pizza on the wall and it stayed stuck there for weeks, yuck! This song is based on the circle of fifths, starting in G#. The bridge or "B" part alternates between major and minor. The time slips in the third bridge followed by 5/4, and 3/4, resolving at the end to 4/4.

"Mushrooms on the wall pt. 1" : this one starts with 8 beats and subtracts a beat each measure. the "B" part is a Cmajor 6/8 theme I often use, it can be played against most music in C including Beethoven 9-4. The middle part of this song goes from 4/4 to 4/4>3/4>4/4>3/4 to 3/4 to 6/8 to 5/4

"Mushrooms on the wall pt. 3+4" : the first part are 20 beat cycles where every other 20 beats the instruaments alternate between 4 5/4's, 5 4/4's, or 6 3/4's+ 1 2/4 the final section starts in 4/4 where the guitar and bass remain, after a few turns the drums and sax start dropping beats, so each time through they are synchopated in a different way until on the 4th shift they are back in time with the bass and guitar. Check out the bass knob volume fade ins.

skip some other songs down to "take jack" for a good 5/4 jam

Take Care... Joe www.degicank.com

Adding Artists

I know these are more on the popular side of things, but wouldn't Tool and Meshuggah qualify as Math Rock?

Tool has some songs that are in mixed meters but not exactly in the same way or extent as other groups. And I don't think that all their songs are in unusual meters. They don't identify as "math rock" as far as I know. They're more of a melodic metal band with some rhythmic complexity. Maybe some other math rock aficionados reading this could weigh in on this one. Although Meshuggah does use a lot of complex meters, they identify more with "tech metal" than "math rock," don't they? Badagnani 19:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no. in the context of what is "math rock" and the genre's history and place in independent music history, no. tool and meshuggah are definitely not math rock. shellac is a good example, and bands surrounding shellac. but not bands surrounding and related to marilyn manson. if you read any zines from about 94-98, you'll find math-rock bands well-featured and documented in this time period. bands like- lynx, table, shellac, oxes, etc. this list has really gone too far and needs an overhaul. we should move to thoroughly alphabetize this and list ones that drive home the point of what math rock was and is, and not just a free-for-all. because then shit like "mars volta" starts popping up on this list... 130.85.80.104

IT IS A PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS, THAT MESHUGGAH SHOULD NOT BE IN THE LIST OF MATHROCK BANDS! MESHUGGAH IS METAL NOT ROCK!

I completely disagree. Tool is an amazing band that completely blows the timing socks of many accomplished musicians. For example, Schism changes time signature 47 times! And Mars Volta incorporates pretty tricky signatures very smoothly. They also play the majority of the time in variations of 3 (which is not common at all). Maybe I'm misinterpreting this genre, idk. Derekjoel (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Tool can be classified as math rock. We'd need an external source for that, but I think they fit the criteria. Seriously. Almost every song on Lateralus incorporates odd times and polyrythms to some extent or another. 10,000 Days is almost equally complex in the realm of meter shifts and odd time signatures. But usually they're just classified as progressive metal. Mars Volta, I think no. Not enough odd times. They mostly play in 6/8 or 4/4, neither of which are particularly odd. In fact, Octahedron only has one song with any weird time signatures in them, "Cotopaxi". They use irregular meters sometimes but not enough to classify as math rock.Plus I've never heard them referred to as such. Again, a prog rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.225.70 (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposed name change

I would like to propse a name change to "Math rock artists" for the sake of consistancy with other music lists. 192.103.41.201 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure all other similar lists are titled like that? Because I don't know of any math rock "artists"; most are bands. Otherwise, the change seems fine if all links are fixed. Badagnani 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Ruins alone is an example of an artist playing math rock alone. The drummer used to have a bassist to play with, but now he just plays alone over pre-recorded samples. Tanynep (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your own band

please stop adding it to lists and the page. and your friends' bands too. it's annoying. just because you have one song that has one part in 5/4 doesn't make your band math rock. try "progressive screamo"

I just listened to the samples on the We Versus the Shark page and while the band plays for long stretches in 4/4 there are a lot of sections in 7/4 and other odd meters. So I'd say they're a "1/2-math band." Seriously, though, other hardcore math bands do have 4/4 sections in their songs. Badagnani 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

true. but doesn't provide a valid example of math rock. the music is not even mathmatetical in aesthetic, hence why the genre was tagged as such in the first place. on the same token, i wouldn't claim a band like unwound is math rock or that foo fighters are math rock just because of "enough space" and "times like these." you could even argue that cherubs were a math rock band, but thats off base too. odd timings, yes, but you wouldnt think of labeling them math rock.

im not sure what you mean by "hardcore math bands" but yeah, some bands do have the 4/4 sections, but they actually sound mechanical and have a taut mathematical sound to them. for example, some stretches in bellini songs. i feel my own band is mathy in sound, but i wouldnt think of adding them to any of these pages on the basis of possible derision and its not necessary or poignant in describing the sound or dead genre.

Are these comments being written by different people? This is getting confusing. To answer your question, I think the best example of real "math rock" (to me) would be Craw (or, more recently, Keelhaul, who share a drummer with Craw). Crushingly heavy and so damn complex (due to constantly changing times) you couldn't figure it out if you tried. I agree with what you say about Unwound. Even Tortoise, who have songs in 7 or whatever, are so obvious about it ("hey, look, I'm playing in 7!") but they don't seem to have internalized it the way Craw has done. Many of the more recent bands have a "lighter" sound that is more "indie rock" based, using clean guitar sounds, etc., and are much less metal-influenced. I guess it's a just a sign of the times, and who's driving the music...teenage and 20-something nerdy bloggers instead of blue collar kids. Badagnani 05:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On time signatures

It's important to note that math rock isn't defined by odd meters; it is defined by changes in meter. For example, playing a jazz waltz isn't math style. The appeal of well-executed math rock, to me, at least, is the elegant fusion of these different meters. AdamSap 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with this; it's a very good point. Your definition would thus exclude a lot of the softer Chicago/Louisville bands that have been grouped under the heading, which will, for example, play a whole song in 7/8 with clean guitars. It's quite different from something by Craw or Don Caballero, though these bands also on occasion play an entire song in 5/8 or 13/8. Badagnani 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bands to Remove(?)

I don't see how !Forward Russia! are math rock in any way. The fact that their songs are just numbers is completely irrelevant surely? I don't think they should be included in this list.

Good call. Some people just don't know what they're talking about and in this case you're correct that they definitely should never have been added. However, it's hard for everyone to know every band (especially very obscure ones), so we often trust editors to add bands whose style matches what is described in the article. I just watched some of their videos on YouTube and it is all 4/4 (though there are occasionally some syncopations in the drums, within that 4/4 beat. They're going now, never to return to this article. If you find any others you think shouldn't be here either, we'll listen and give our verdict. Badagnani 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched the videos on YouTube again and found one song in 7/4, with the intro to another song in 3/4. Otherwise, it's still all 4/4. This doesn't meet the definition and the band is being removed -- again. Badagnani 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole heap of post-rock bands that don't really classify (especially Explosions in the Sky) and i have no idea why Mudvayne is in there. Just because something uses alternate meters doesn't mean its math rock, its a pretty specific group of bands.. Mwhale 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest the inclusion of Minus The Bear and Mute Math. A live Mute Math performance does include several songs that border on being "mathy" with time changes, overdubbing pedals, and complicated rythm, but all in all they are certainly a pop-rock band.--Whip It On Jim (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the Bear removed. Their songs are in 4/4. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that Autolux be removed from this list. They don't have the time sig changes which are essential in math rock. Just as Minus the Bear's songs are in 4/4 so to are most of Autolux's.irishmagpie (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

Someone added Tool again? Please see earlier discussion and re-evaluate. Badagnani 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional Math Rock bands?

I added Uphollow, which has two Math Rock albums and two predominately non-Math Rock albums. Do they qualify, or should they be removed?--GulCratt 09:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armored Bear

Armored Bear removed--the one song on their MySpace page is slow and in 4/4. Badagnani 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creta Bourzia

Creta Bourzia removed--all 4 songs on their MySpace page are in 4/4 throughout. Badagnani 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bands

I definitely think Ahleuchatistas qualify.

Tristan da Cunha and Ahleuchatistas were just removed, but taking out 2 minutes to listen to their tracks online shows that they both meet the definition of math rock perfectly.

http://www.slendermusic.com/tristan/#hear

http://www.myspace.com/ahleuchatistas

This edit was hasty and careless. One needs to truly evaluate each band before removing so that this sort of mistake is not made again. Badagnani 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Bands

Bands that are redlinked:

Some of these are valid (I know Oxes should be there), but really, we can't have these on the list until they're sourced or there's an article for them. Torc2 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Cynic and Extreme Noise Terror

These bands are not at all math-rock in any sense. Although Cynic is jazz-influenced, and has some technical parts in their songs, they preceded the inception of the math-rock movement. Extreme Noise Terror is blatantly not a math-rock band. There aren't even any odd-time signatures in their music, nor do they ever make mention of being influenced or defined by math-rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.243.108 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whole list is problematic

This article is in a parlous state. Its inclusion criteria are massively subjective, there's not a single source, and lots of edit-warring to include or exclude bands on seemingly rather whimsical and ORish criteria. I think this might be better off in non-list form, the better to hedge and qualify in each case, or, at the very least, work towards including a band only where multiple sources can be produced to describe them as practioners of such a style (or alleged genre). If that's not going to be feasible, it might be the merciful thing to take it off to AFD. Alai (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could go the way of List of didgeridoo players or List of hammered dulcimer players, requiring a source for each band. Many of them are certifiably math rock and the list is too long for the Math rock article. Yes, it's an actual genre, not an alleged one. Badagnani (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the Bear

Alright, let's go into a proper discussion here. Numerous sources (some of which are very reliable) found in Google search reveals that Minus the Bear is math rock, and I highly doubt that the several thousand sources worth would all be "mistaken". Second, listening to a full track of their music proves it. If you're listening to the 30-second Amazon sample songs then that doesn't cut it. Much of the odd time signature lies in the early parts and the end of the song. Making false claims like "all songs in 4/4, all listened to" when you clearly have no consideration of the sources or the songs really gives me doubts to as if you're really trying to improve Wikipedia. If you truly listened to all their songs in succession you would have taken up 2 hours of your time, which I highly doubt. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are incorrect, as all songs (including their newest album) are in 4/4. They are, thus, by definition not a math rock group, and do not merit inclusion in an article listing notable math rock groups. Contrary to your statement, I have listened to all of the group's songs in their entirety and read through the incorrect sources you have provided before editing. Badagnani (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the evidence is where? You clearly haven't listened to their songs. Anyone with a good ear can tell it's not in 4/4. Using overly colorful language isn't helping your argument either. GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a glance at a Google news archive search for "minus the bear" and "math rock", it seems clear that a. there are several sources that unequivocally classify Minus the Bear as math rock, and b. there are several other sources that dispute the classification, or say something along the lines of "Minus the Bear is called a math rock band even though they may technically not fit the definition." In the absence of any pre-defined standards for this list, may I suggest that Minus the Bear be included (since clearly there are many sources that call them a "math rock group") but with the band name followed by a parenthetical statement, something like "(classification as math rock is disputed)" and with a few footnotes linking to some sources that clearly discuss the band's identification with the genre? Propaniac (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this group's songs are in 4/4, and they are not a math rock band, despite what some sources claim. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I believe your personally listening to the songs and noting the meter is original research. There are several sources that back up your assertion that the band is not math rock, or that the classification is questionable; however, the fact that these sources were even discussing whether the classification applies, in addition with the sources that do unequivocally classify the band as math rock, indicates a strong popular association between the band and the genre. (By contrast, I doubt there are many sources that feel compelled to discuss the reasons that the Beatles were not technically a jazz group, or why the Go-Gos should not be considered a death metal band, because nobody is associating those bands with those genres.)

Since a prominent association clearly exists between the band and the genre, whether it is correct or not, and many people and sources do classify the band as a "math rock group", omitting any mention of the band from this page is a disservice to our users. Hence, I suggest that the band be listed along with a clear caveat and footnotes that will allow users to understand why Minus the Bear is not unambiguously a math rock group. Omitting them from the list entirely is only going to result in the impression, among users already familiar with the band, that the list is erroneous and incomplete. Propaniac (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the Bear are in no way a math rock band. I am very confused here. – —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.249 (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try reading the discussion? I will even summarize it for you: a lot of people think they are. Propaniac (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minus The Bear has quick- shifting time signatures... Their timing is outstanding. Screw the technical b.s...they are a Math Rock band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.202.238 (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they're in the article. Currently, at least. But anyone can remove the link if they don't think it's appropriate and a reliable source would be needed to put it back. Woodroar (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More removed

I removed some bands that are blatantly not math rock, and I plan to remove some more and add some references at least. Battles is a tough one, as lots of people seem to think they are, and you could definitely find references describing them as such, but they're most certainly not, so I {{fact}}ed it. Should be fun. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Ruins are progressive, they are highly math. I'd like to hear your justification for removing Ruins, as well as The Fucking Champs and Cap'n Jazz. Badagnani (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, first, none of them were referenced, so they could've been anything. Ruins: zeuhl. The Fucking Champs: nothing in their article about math rock. Cap'n Jazz: emo, maybe post-hardcore (whatever that is). If these bands are math, add 'em back with a reference stating such. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TesseracT, Karnivool

Just wondering if these bands have been discussed before. They are both listed in their Wikipedia page as progressive rock, but honestly, that's kind of a catch-all genre, don't you think? Kind of like how alternative used to be a catch-all genre. Anyway. Just some inputs. And what about Dream Theatre? I know for a fact that Mike Portnoy utlizes 13/8 and 15/8 time signatures. Amnion (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only about the time signatures, but the musical roots. Math rock developed from indie rock whereas progressive rock took elements from psychedelic rock as well as jazz and classical. Progressive metal, then, is descended from prog rock and metal. Of course, there's cross-pollination and bands that bridge the gap, but math rock and progressive rock/metal are distinct genres, albeit with some of the same elements. Woodroar (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fecking Bahamas list

We at Fecking Bahamas have been trying to compile a list of all the math rock bands we can find. There's over 650, many without Wikipedia pages. The definition is of course subjective but we have our methodology. Is it worth including these? See http://feckingbahamas.com/interactive-shit/the-world-of-math — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:1b:6006:862b:2bff:fe01:6126 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 February 2015

Probably not at this time. We generally don't link to external lists like this, unless it was some kind of official list, like if the article was "List of math rock groups according to Fecking Bahamas". Your site isn't yet considered a reliable source—though I hope that changes in time—which is another consideration. We do sometimes link to more established directories like DMOZ, but it doesn't look like they have a directory for math rock bands yet. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]