Talk:30 Seconds to Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 30 Seconds to Mars article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Emo and Pop rock?

Is there really any truth to this, the band really is more alternative then pop. As for emo thats kind of a stretch they don't really meet a lot of the categories, lyrically or even just image wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.84.144 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) They are really an Alternative Rock band, but they are only considered emos for their looks. Their songs have no emo genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avilezj (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive rock debate yet again

(I am copying-and-pasting the discussion from the progressive rock entry and moving it to this discussion page, where it rightfully belongs.)

[edit] The genre of progressive rock listed on 30 Seconds to Mars's wikepedia page

In the wiki page for the band 30 seconds to mars the genre "progressive rock" is listed. I have tried to remove it many times and have given reasons is the discussion page on how it does not fit, but one user is determined that it does and refuses to change it. I would appreciate it if I could get backup on my arguement and have other users to give him convincing proof that he is wrong. Zanders5k 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, Zanders5k, is a list of reasons why 30 Seconds to Mars is a progressive rock band, as defined by Wikipedia's definition. Please keep in mind that the only definition that matters in regards to this issue is Wikipedia's -- your opinion on what a progressive rock band is does not matter, and neither does mine.
  1. You previously asked for a place in which the band classifies themself as a progressive rock act. Well, their official biography states the following: ""In addition to being more lyrically direct, A Beautiful Lie has undergone a musical transformation as well. Progressive, multi-tracked passages have been replaced by leaner and far more impacting constructs and some of the eclecticism has been focused in order to compliment the honesty of the songwriting." I don't know how it can get more definitive than that in regards to how the band views their sound.
  2. You have claimed the band doesn't use different time signatures. This couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, their (arguably) most popular song -- "The Kill" -- is in a 6/8 time signature. Can you please define for me how the band doesn't use different time signatures? Because for someone who absolutely insists that they don't use different time signatures, you sure don't provide much credence to your claims. The band really doesn't use "repetitive riffs", either, as the article states.
  3. As far as the "form" section of progressive rock goes, you seem to be outright ignoring the second part of the following sentences: "Progressive rock songs either avoid common popular music song structures of verse-chorus-bridge, or blur the formal distinctions by extending sections or inserting musical interludes. Contrasts are often made between these sections in terms of dynamics, such that soft passages would build to louder passages and so on." The band constantly changes dynamics. Want a soft passage that goes into a loud passage? How about "Year Zero"? How about "93 Million Miles"? How about "Fallen"?
  4. Instrumentation in progressive rock is perfectly fit with 30 Seconds to Mars. Synthesizers? Keyboards? All there. It's a pretty dominant part of their music, in fact, such as the introduction to the song "Attack." Most of the songs on A Beautiful Lie feature large use of synthesizers and keyboards; most songs open to such instruments.
  5. In terms of harmony, the band uses "dissonant harmonies", as stated by the article. Listen to the song "Echelon", and you will clearly hear this distinct sound. Their guitars also use distorted harmonies in many songs as well. I don't know how this point could even be argued.
  6. Melody is also clearly of progressive nature with 30 Seconds to Mars, as leitmotif ("recurring musical theme, associated within a particular piece of music with a particular person, place, or idea") is emphasized in the entire debut album from the band.
  7. The band's debut album was also a conceptual album -- an underlying feature of many progressive acts. Many of the band's songs also have lyrics that "are sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy," as stated by the progressive rock article. Almost all the songs on the self-titled album fits this definition, as do some of the songs on A Beautiful Lie (such as "From Yesterday" and the ironically-named "The Fantasy"; "R-Evolve" also incorporates abstract lyrics).
  8. "Ambient soundscapes" are also a large part of 30 Seconds to Mars's music; I again refer you to "Echelon", as well as songs such as "Welcome to the Universe", "93 Million Miles" and "Fallen." The Wikipedia entry clearly mentions this in association with the abstract and conceptual element of progressive rock songs.
  9. Album art and packaging also fits with Wikipedia's description of progressive rock. The band's "look" on the first album rotated around science fiction and space, as was apparent in the band's stage outfits, the boy in a jumpsuit (the same kind of white jumpsuit the entire band wore during tours) on the band's self-titled album, and the logo to promote the debut album (and the "glyphics" associated with it) further added to the "look" and art direction that the band took.
  10. As for "stage theatrics", as stated by the progressive rock article, as I have already stated, the band wore space-themed jumpsuits in support of their first album.
Listen, I'm really not sure what you're expecting from them to fit your high-and-mighty definition of "progressive rock", but clearly they fit Wikipedia's definition, which is all that matters. You keep saying there are numerous other users changing it, but they are all anonymous users, which leads me to question whether they're valid users at all. Furthermore, it's not only me who revert it back after you remove the genre from the list -- so please don't act as if it's only me.
Please stop removing the genre after we've been over it numerous times and you have yet to describe how it doesn't fit the genre, you simply keep on insisting that I'm wrong. We've been over these points before, too, which makes it even more silly as to why you insist on removing it.
I would also appreciate if you keep this debate on the 30 Seconds to Mars page, where it rightfully belongs. Thank you.
Enfestid 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you actually have a source which shows they're progressive rock? Other than that vague line in their biography? That list you've just posted is entirely wp:or. While we're on the subject of genres, alt. rock and alt. metal need to be sourced too - although they're clearly not alternative (they make mainstream music, for f*ck's sake), I don't really care what's in this article as long as it's well sourced. Funeral 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware that it's original research, but even after I gave sources backing up my statement they were ignored. I gave this response as he's insisted websites calling a band progressive rock are not enough. I will go through the history and get those sources again.
Enfestid 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Funeral, I think you need to relax. While you are doing so, here is a reliable source that seems to agree with the band's own assertion that they are progressive rock. the_undertow talk 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha - sorry if I came across as uncivil or rude, it wasn't my intention at all. Funeral 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The_undertow, there is a good change that that source would have never even considered calling them progressive if the band hadn't already made a point of labeling them self as it on their Myspace. Zanders5k 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but it's possible I am missing something. This query shows that the term progressive is very often used to describe the band and I don't think all of these hits derive from the MySpace page. Since genre can be a bit subjective, I think that having the band label themselves as such helps make the case for the genre. If they consider themselves to be progressive rock we would have to find sources that discredit this claim, and proving the negation would be near impossible. the_undertow talk 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But by that same logic I could find many reliable sources listing them as "emo", but that doesn't make it so. Zanders5k 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources, but I doubt any reliable. Even if that were the case, then we are left with how the band labels their music - which is fine with me. If they say their influences were prog rock and they write prog rock and their music is prog rock, then I really don't see what the problem is. Genre is subjective. It's not as if a sheep was calling itself a duck - that would be problematic on many levels. the_undertow talk 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean anything rude by this, but how much experience do you have with the genre of "progressive rock"? You wouldn't call Atreyu "death metal" just because they have influence and some characteristics from it, it's more complicated than that. Though you are right about finding reliable sources. Zanders5k 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we are hitting a tangent, I'll reply on your talk page. the_undertow talk 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I can find several sources on progressive rock that do not list 30STM as a progressive rock band: [1] [2] [3] I'd venture that these folks know an awful lot more about progressive rock than you or I. gotroot801 • talk 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Lack of inclusion is not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. We are not attempting to prove a negative. Since there are sources that consider 30 Seconds to be prog rock, you would have to find article that assert they are not. The sources you provided omit the mention of 30 Seconds completely, which doesn't help. Besides, it doesn't matter what I know about progressive rock. I cited an article above, approved by the band, as part of an interview which is considered a reliable source. There are a lot of things I know - but I can't include a single one in this wiki without a 3rd party source, or else it is purely original research. the_undertow talk 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
To wit, an article that shows the band downplaying the progressive rock influences: [4] But if you're going to say the debut album was progressive rock (I disagree, but that's neither here nor there), the label should probably stay. I mean, no one's taken it off the Genesis page, and they haven't done much that could be considered progressive rock in at least 25 years. gotroot801 • talk 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we 'the people' mentioned in the band? Haha. Could be. the_undertow talk 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of 30 seconds to Mars within prog rock circles. Also, I am far from sure that Wikipedia's definition of prog rock is relevant at all for this issue, and even if it is, it is OR to claim that a specific band falls within this definition without a source to this effect. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the discussion. Thank you.
Enfestid (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I can find unlimited sources to support that Genesis was a prog rock band in its early years. Most important thing is also that it's commonly known that they were. But I cant see any source for 30 seconds to Mars, and only a few editors here to think so. Source provided above actually seems to support that they were not ("...that often caused people to label 30 Seconds to Mars as a progressive rock band."). But if the band considers itself prog rock, well, it may be that they are, or it may be that they dont really know what prog rock is (few people in the US do, especially Hollywood artists). --Childhood's End (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and the only way to make them fit the label is through technicalities. Most reviewers that label them as progressive rock only make the connection with their keyboard, which shows how little they know about the genre. And I have also never heard them ever mentioned in progressive rock circles, does that make all prog rock circles elitists?(hint hint). Most people that don't label them as progressive are fans of the genre. Most people that label them as it are not, or have little experience with it, Coincidence? And don't do the "The people that remove it barely have any previous edits, therefor they are elitists! The same can be said about the people that add it going off to edit articles like Jared Leto or Fallout boy. Zanders5k (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you must firstly go to the corresponding genre page, read it and if is so true that 30STM is prog-rock include it in the Timeline and in the list of prog-rock bands, but remember to pass through the discussion section first ;-). Geroa (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] post-grunge?

Surely 30 seconds to mars are post-grunge they sound very similar to bands like chevelle and breaking benjamin, all music guide and billboard also call them post-grunge. why isn't it on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockebox (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


++++++++++++ YEAH! 30SCTM NOT POST GRUNGE! and NOT EMO!!!! is ROCK ALTERNATIVE like a PLACEBO or MUSE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mars logo.jpg

Image:Mars logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Kelleher

Tim is not a member of the band, and as such should not be listed with the members. He is just the touring bassist, which the band has stated on a number of occasions. 140.232.155.51 (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

Between this article and that for their two albums, we have the following genres: "Alternative rock, post-hardcore, space rock"; "Alternative Rock (early works), Hard Rock (later), Alternative Metal/Heavy Metal (now)"; and "Alternative rock, Progressive rock, Hard Rock, Emo, Power Ballad, Acoustic". Aside from the fascinating question of how a band with just two albums has three stylistic periods, the key question is: are there sources for any of this? Do said sources come to any sort of consensus? If not, I suggest we stick with some relatively safe umbrella term, and defer any detailed discussion of assorted contradictory assertions as to their genreness to the article text. What we have at present looks like an OR laundry list. Alai (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the log of the discussion page.
Enfestid (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd album

It's been said that the 3rd album is due out in Winter 08/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.169.203 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)