Talk:Evanescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evanescence article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Good article Evanescence has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents


[edit] Logo removal

The logo is currently being used purely for decoration. As such, I have removed it. If you believe that it should be kept, add some sourced commentary about it, and place the logo in the relevent section. If no reliable sources can be found discussing the logo, it is obviously trivial information, and has no place in an encyclopedia anyway. I am not watching this page, so if you reply here, please drop me a bell on my talk page telling me that you have left a message here- don't just out-and-out reply on my talk page, as that would alienate others from the potential discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove the logo; that orphans it, leading to its deletion. I am restoring the logo. Discussion may continue while is in the article. Gimmetrow 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So what? If the image isn't being used properly, then it fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE and should be deleted. It adds no meaningful content to the article in its current state. It's not like it could never be re-uploaded. It takes approximately 5 seconds to upload an image to Wikipedia. If you're so worried that it will disappear forever and be irretrievable, I suggest you right-click on it and "save as." --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you have failed to provide any reason why this does not satisfy WP:NONFREE, your edits are the functional equivalent of vandalism. Further removal without a detailed, explicit description of the precise points where this allegedly fails WP:NONFREE, and without allowing time for response, will be treated as vandalism. Gimmetrow 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, while I too would like to see the image stay, I don't think that there is much that can be discussed without going into original research...simply comparing the old and new logos is stretching credibility to the breaking point, especially if both old and new logos are used. Orphaning of an image is absolutely not a valid reason to keep, and Milburn & IllaZilla make valid points. The presence of the fair-use logo has been challenged, thus the burden is on those who wish to keep to validate its existence (beyond mere prettiness). Given this, I see no real reason for it to stay.
Also, calling IllaZilla's removal of the image "vandalism" is incredulous, to be frank. As mentioned above, valid concerns have been raised, and the typical method of progression is to leave the contested material off the page until discussion is finalised. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I said it was the functional equivalent of vandalism. Uploading from a saved copy has other policy problems. (Armando could reupload in this case, since he can attest to its history.) We could, in fact, write stuff about the logo that wouldn't be OR, but it's not clear that this is required (it's apparently not for team and company logos), and neither IllaZilla nor Milburn have explained why it required. Gimmetrow 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I will pose a simple question: What informational value does the image add to the article? The answer is pretty clearly none. Does it identify the band? Maybe, but not in any way that their name and picture and the opening paragraph of the article do not, therefore it is unnecessary. As such, and since the logo is assumed to be copyrighed, it fails the following criteria of WP:NONFREE:
"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" -Since we already have the band's name in plain text, the logo fails this criteria.
"5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." -Of what encyclopedic value is the logo? As I've said before, it adds no information to the article at all. There is no text accompanying it saying what it is or why it is significant. Without any discussion of its importance, with references, it also fails WP:N and probably also WP:V.
"8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." -I think my comments above clearly show how the logo is not meeting this criteria. Its presence does not increase understanding, since we already have the name and picture of the band. Its omission is not detrimental to an understanding of the topic, as without the logo one still clearly can see/read that this is Evanescence.
I know you've been part of the discussion about logos at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist and you've made your views known there. However I think if you look back over that discussion the consensus is pretty clear: For a logo to have any value to an article about a musical act, then the logo itself must be notable in some way and be accompanied by some kind of referenced discussion of its significance. Without these criteria then it is clearly just cruft and only serving the purpose of decoration, and that is not allowed for non-free content under Wikipedia's fair-use policies. As to your comment about team and corporate logos, those have different guidelines unto themselves (WP:LOGOS) and it is not accurate to apply those guidelines to band logos. The reason that band logos are not included in those guidelines is because they are generally not the primary means of identifying the subject.
And I'll thank you not to compare my enforcement of policies to vandalism, especially when I provide a detailed and clear edit summary with a link to the relevant policies in it. It's up to you to read and follow those polices, not to me to spell them out for you. In the case of any dispute concerning non-free content, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the content, not the person who believes it should be removed. And as Huntster points out, orphaning of an image is absolutely not a valid reason to keep it in an article. Unless you can provide a compelling reason to include the logo in the article, then it should stay out and be deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:LOGOS which says it applies only to corporate and team logos to the exclusion of other organisation logos, or that WP:NONFREE does not apply to corporate and team logos. As to your explanations: 1) The band name is not the logo and does not adequately illustrate the logo. There is no free equivalent for a copyrighted logo which adequately illustrates the logo. 5) Having the logo therefore adds information about what the logo looks like. 8) not having the logo is detrimental to a complete understanding of the band, which includes the logo.
So you have explained your reasoning as to why this logo allegedly violates WP:NONFREE, and your reasoning is lacking. Furthermore, corporate and team logos would fail 1, 5, and 8 by your arguments above, if they were correct. Gimmetrow 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As much as I hate to see it go, I think Illa has valid points. Honestly, the logo inside of the band's infobox looked great, and gave a rather drab box a huge improvement. However, since the image isn't been released as Free, it busts the policy on non-free content. While I by no means can preach on following policies, we can't fight the vandals in the name of Wiki Policy, and then turn around and ignore those same policies when it doesn't suit us. I did some browsing this afternoon, and I couldn't find a single big name band on Wikipedia that had their logo in the article. Sad really, I'll miss that logo.  :( --Brownings (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that's because a set of WPians have taken it upon themselves to remove logos from a bunch of articles? No, he does not have valid points, as I explain above. Logos are the classic case of fair use - there is simply no way to illustrate a logo except by... illustrating the logo. Gimmetrow 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Illa hasn't reponded yet. If I see no response soon, I will have to assume the logo was invalidly removed. Gimmetrow 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I feel I've made my points crystal clear. WP:LOGOS is a set of guidlines that is a subset of official policy on WP:NONFREE. WP:NONFREE says very clearly here that Team and corporate logos may be used for identification. It says nothing about bands. WP:LOGOS further clarifies: "The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor, for example. It is difficult to explain in words what information is conveyed by such a portrait, yet most users feel that they provide something valuable. The logo should be regarded as a portrait." In the case of an article about a musicial artist, we have a portrait of the artist in the infobox. It's a visual identification of what the subject of the article looks like. Ideally this is a free image, though if one cannot be obtained then it might be substitued with a fair-use image. Why the distinction between bands and other entities like corporations and teams? Because in a vast majority of cases it's impossible to get a picture of an entire team or the entire personnel of a corporation. Also, a team/company is a non-corporeal entity: it exists independent of any individual member. A band, on the other hand, is a corporeal entity: it's a group of (usually) 3-6 people. And in a vast majority of cases it's easy to get a free picture of the entire band.
I disagree with you that "not having the logo is detrimental to a complete understanding of the band, which includes the logo." You can get a perfectly complete understanding of this band through a well-written and well-referenced article sans logo. If the logo were essential to understanding what Evanescence is, it would be in the article body somewhere alongside a discussion of its significance. Who created it? In what context is it used? Does it have some special meaning or symbolism? As far as I can tell it's just the band's name in pretty lettering, and the fact that so far it's just been plastered at the top of the article with absolutely no accompanying discussion of its significance attests to the fact that it's not really notable. As you've said, "having the logo adds information about what the logo looks like." If the only value in having the logo is to show what the logo itself looks like, then that use clearly fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE.
Please note, I'm not against having logos included in articles across the board. I just think (and I'm not alone in this belief) that in order to add any informational value to an article about a musical act, the logo itself must be notable in some way and it must be placed in the body of the article alongside a referenced discussion of its significance. You can see several examples of articles which do this very well here. If you can't tell the difference in quality and encyclopedic value between any of those examples and this then you need to reconsider your definition of an encyclopedia. Almost all of those examples also meet WP:NONFREE's criteria of being "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." What I (and others) oppose and are seeking to weed out is the carte blanche use of logos across Wikipedia in music-related articles strictly as decoration. In most cases, like Evanescence, these are non-notable images that have no significance outside of the fact that "this is the way the band stylizes their name on their album covers." In what way does that provide meaningful and informative content to a free encyclopedia? It doesn't, and these are the types of uses we must avoid if we are to continue improving WP's content. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons). Armando.Otalk · Ev · 3K 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the logo has been moved and has a bit of commentary attached to it. I don't believe that this completely satifies the criteria above (in that it doesn't say why the logo is of interest or why it is notable), but I'm leaving it for now. One glaring problem though: the caption reads "The band's logo and signature font was created by Aeryn when Fallen was in development." Who is Aeryn? That name does not appear anywhere else in the article. That definitely needs to be addressed. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"For now" - how kind. I don't think there's a verifiable way to state who Aeryn is, other than the person who designed the font. Gimmetrow 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If that information is unverifiable, then it should not be included on the main page. A mention may be warranted on the image page though. Curious, is the Aeryn the one who designed the logo for the band or just the font file floating around the 'net? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's verifiable that Aeryn designed the font. Aeryn is a pseudonym for someone involved with the band, but as far as I know Aeryn's identity is not publically stated in reliable sources. Gimmetrow 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys should settle this and stop dicking with the page. I don't know anything about any wikipedia guidelines all I know is it does look nice with the logo i even uploaded an SVG version which was very nice ;-) but there was an argument that it was somehow not fair use when the PNG was which got me annoyed! I know wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and is only here to provide certain things but i think a nice SVG or at least PNG logo is important information, if it wasn't the band would of not created it!!! The most important thing though is whether or not it is illegal to display it. As far as being free content it is free in that you can go onto the evanescence webpage and download it for free and Wikipedia would be using it in a non profitable way so i really can't see the harm. What we need is some citied reasons as to why we can/cannot display the logo and until it is agreed it can be displayed it should be removed from the page. Luke255 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for information, the logo released by EV is under a non-commercial and commercial-only-with-permission license. WP discusses the logo under fair use. Gimmetrow 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tag

I placed the tag on the caption of the image based on the discussion above. The caption says that someone named Aeryn designed the logo, but there's no mention of anyone named Aeryn in the rest of the article. This begs the question; who is Aeryn and what significance does it have that she designed the logo? As Huntster ponited out: "If that information is unverifiable, then it should not be included on the main page." Gimmetrow responded: "It's verifiable that Aeryn designed the font. Aeryn is a pseudonym for someone involved with the band, but as far as I know Aeryn's identity is not publically stated in reliable sources." So it doesn't seem clear whether the information is verifiable or not, and in either case it isn't currently sourced. And it seems questionable whether there may be any reliable sources that can be used to source it. So the citation needed tag is certainly warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what *exactly* do you want cited? It appears you want something cited which isn't even in the article, which is absurd. Gimmetrow 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. I do think that the image calls for more substantial, cited commentary in order for it to contribute anything meaningful to the article. But right now specifically I'm asking for a citation that Aeryn (whoever she is) did indeed design it. See for example Tool (band). The image caption says who designed it, and it's cited (yes, I know you've pointed out flaws in that example before, but I brought it up on the article's talk page and it's been fixed). You've said "I don't think there's a verifiable way to state who Aeryn is, other than the person who designed the font" and also that "It's verifiable that Aeryn designed the font. Aeryn is a pseudonym for someone involved with the band, but as far as I know Aeryn's identity is not publically stated in reliable sources." I'm asking you to follow through on that statement in bold, since it seems contradictory that you also state there are no reliable sources to tell us anything about her. I'm simply asking you to provide a source for the image caption: "The band's logo and signature font was created by Aeryn when Fallen was in development." --IllaZilla (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And what will be the next step in this? You'll just object to whatever is provided. Why don't you look it up yourself. Gimmetrow 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that it isn't the job of others to verify the statements of one editor; the impetus is on each editor to back up their own contributions. Why do you think I do so much reverting around here; so many folk throw random information up without sourcing it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of my whole point. The only bit if informative content that the logo relates to is a single sentence that you either can't or won't source. I'm convinced that the logo is only here for decoration, which violates the spirit, and quite likely the letter, of WP:NONFREE. The litmus test for this to me is: does having it teach me something about the band that the text of the article doesn't? No. Does having or not having the image make or break the quality of the article, or of a portion of the article? No. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I noticed this edit you made to Tool (band) and I have to raise a point here in comparison: You removed the logo from that FA on the grounds that the paragraph alongside it contained "no direct discussion of [the] logo." The paragraph does have more to do with the band's name than their logo, but it does mention their ideas about the name symbolizing "a big dick...a wrench" which is what the logo was illustrating. Anyway, the caption under the logo did have a valid citation about the logo's creator. Compare that to the logo in this article: Similarly, the caption consists only of a citation about the logo's creator, yet there is no "direct discussion of [the] logo" in the article body next to the image (or indirect discussion, for that matter). Based on your own seeming criteria for logo inclusion, how can you insist that the Tool logo be taken out, and the Evanescence logo left in, when there is clearly more discussion of the logo in the Tool article (some) than in this one (none)? --IllaZilla (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that it needs to be wirtten somthing about the Ev Logos to include an Ev Logo image on the article??? Armando.O talk ● Ev ● 3K 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically, yes. WP:LOGOS states: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." If the Evanescence logo is of interest for design or artistic reasons, then those reasons should be discussed in the article using referenced commentary, ie. in a section about the band's visual or artistic style. If no such commentary is present, it creates the impression that the logo's use is promotional (or decorative, which is essentially the same thing). Note that it is at best unclear to what degree the provisions of WP:LOGOS applies to the logos of musical acts, as WP:NONFREE (a policy of which WP:LOGOS is a subset of guidelines) only specifies that "Team and corporate (emphasis added) logos [may be used] for identification." Meaning, team and corporate logos can be used simply for identification; no supporting text is necessary. Band logos, on the other hand, require more substantial referenced commentary in order for their notability to be established. In my honest opinion, the way that the Evanescence logo is currently being used in this article gives the impression that it is only there to promote the band, or to serve as decoration. My basis for this impression is that there is no commentary anywhere else in the article discussing the band's visual or artistic style. The Evanescence logo, therefore, does not appear to be be notable or iconic in any way. And even if it were iconic, WP:NONFREE only allows "Images with iconic status or historical importance [to be used] as subjects of commentary." Simply stating who created the logo, even if it is referenced, doesn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image. Much more meaningful, referenced commentary is necessary. And in the absence of such commentary, we must err on the side of exclusion per WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough games Illa. Let's get a few things straight.

  • Your insistence on a cite for something you weren't actually disputing, and which you could have found in five seconds with google, reflects poorly on your character. That you soon after removed the logo suggests worse. I have no interest in jumping through your silly hoops.
  • You keep repeating WP:Notability despite being told that doesn't apply: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people)". Nobody is (at present) trying to write an article solely about the logo of this band.
  • Although some bands don't have logos properly speaking, this band has a logo. They also have a signature font which is a part of their "visual style" in your words. Absence of text about this from this article (before I added it) is not evidence of a lack of significance, but that Wikipedia is a WP:Work in progress. This article doesn't really have discussion of the *musical* themes of the band, either, but presumably you're not going to argue that because it's missing, musical themes are not a significant aspect of the band.
  • WP:LOGO is a guideline. So is WP:NONFREE. The *policy* for images is WP:FUC. There is nothing in WP:FUC which clearly says one set of organisation logos is held to a higher standard than others, unless you wish to make the argument that nothing about bands is encyclopedic. But I don't imagine that would go over very well.
  • You seem to have some bizarre notion that *only* "iconic" images can be justified. That's a very high bar, much higher than is justified by en-wiki policy at present. As evidence, I point out that the German wikipedia is considered to not allow any fair use, yet has had a logo (B/W reversed) in its Horde (Band) article for a long time (and in the infobox, even). But you removed the logo here. (The trademark template on de-wiki is heavily used and I can find other examples.) If your interpretation of en-wiki's fair use policy ends up more strict than a no-fair use wiki, it strongly suggests your interpretation has a problem.
  • If you really mean what you say, that "Simply stating who created the logo, even if it is referenced, doesn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image", why don't you remove the logos from your examplar articles, The Rolling Stones#1983-1991 and Tool (band)#History? These articles don't appear to say anything that establishes the images as historically important. This suggests to me that you might be using WP:IDONTKNOWIT to make these decisions.

Your attitude in the continuing removal of hundreds of logos is a user conduct issue. Most of the editors who work with the thankless image tasks do a remarkably good job of dealing with the difficulties. I don't have a problem with Lib's conduct regarding images, for instance, even when I disagree, but I would have no problem certifying a WP:RFC about you. Your actions are not only removing the work of numerous editors, but your attitude is discouraging quite a few and perhaps driving them away from WP. Gimmetrow 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that those stupid people that like to piss people off never stop coming to this article. Lol, I remember like 3 people like you...and yes, you guessed Illia or w/e your name is. Really, if you want to annoy people why don't you go to spam a blog or a forum or idk. Look how you contradict yourself.
So you are suggesting that it needs to be wirtten somthing about the Ev Logos to include an Ev Logo image on the article??? Armando.O
Basically, yes. [...] My basis for this impression is that there is no commentary anywhere else in the article discussing the band's visual or artistic style. The Evanescence logo, therefore, does not appear to be be notable or iconic in any way. And even if it were iconic, WP:NONFREE only allows "Images with iconic status or historical importance [to be used] as subjects of commentary." Simply stating who created the logo, even if it is referenced, doesn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image. Much more meaningful, referenced commentary is necessary. And in the absence of such commentary, we must err on the side of exclusion per WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE.
Wtf are u talking about??? Not even you believe your own 'argument'. Armando.O talk ● Ev ● 3K 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1998?

Hey, I have a question. Didn't Amy said she was 13 when Ben asked to form a band? If yes, tecnically Evanescence would be formed in 1994 (Amy was born in 1981) and I don't really think it makes sense to say they were formed in 1998, just a little before they releasing "Evanescence EP" (unless they two are too are extremely fast writers). It's just a doubt, if anyone could enlighten me, feel free... ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They formed a band (or began the motions of forming a band), yes, but as far as I understand it, the name Evanescence did not come until much later, so it would be inappropriate to say that Evanescence was started in '94. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So we don't know when exactly they named the band Evanescence right? It wouldn't as inappropritate to say they were formed in 1998? Just saying - they could have release "Evanescence EP" in the end of 1998, but that doesn't particulary means that the band was formed then. ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found this....Lee, a classically trained pianist, founded Evanescence in 1995 and by the late 90's the group had released its major-label debut, Fallen, which featured the worldwide hit singles "Bring Me To Life," "Going Under" and "My Immortal." Fallen went on to sell fourteen million copies worldwide. in Out of the Shadows, but I don't know if we should cite this since they say that Fallen was released in the 90s o__O, so maybe everything in that page is wrong. Armando.O talk ● Ev ● 3K 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection through Grammy awards

Although I said before this article doesn't usually get enough vandalism to justify semi-protection, after a spurt a few days ago it seemed best to semi-protect through the Grammy awards. Gimmetrow 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anybody know the name of song #9 on her albumanywhere but home?

i couldnt find the case and im in a bootcamp so i only have acces to wikipedia and national geographic[sucks dusnt it?] emoboy557 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is Anywhere but Home; all albums are linked to from this article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
yeah that really sucks xD Armando.O talk ● Ev ● 3K 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

I'm changing the genre, deal with it. Just having alt-rock is misleading as they don't even sound like the majority of alt-rockers (I just left it to satisfy you). Alt-metal is there because they are clearly metal. Goth rock/metal as the majority of people, fans or not, clasify them as goth, and symphonic metal as there is clearly symphonic influences, just listen to Whisper. And don't give me the whole "Evanescence don't like being called goth" rubbish, that doesn't matter. Motorhead hate the term "heavy metal" and Korn hate the term "nu metal". So there you go. Deal with it Titan50 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alt-rock, alt-metal can stay but they aren't gothic metal or gothic rock, maybe they have influence but while you can't provide a reference for us except some people's guess, that doesn't give us the chance to call them a gothic rock/metal band. And they have "very little" influence from symp metal, maybe Lacrymosa is a real symp metal song but there isn't another one.--Nazzzz (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they are alt-metal,But they surely are not gothic.Just listen to some real gothic rock - sisters or mercy,fields of the nephilim or gothic metal - theatre of tragedy,paradise lost and you'll see there is a great difference between them and evanescence.Just because some people call Evanescence gothic doesn't mean it is true.Yeah their music is kind of moody and gloomy, but there are many styles that incorporate dark atmosphere and have nothing to do with gothic music. So just keep alt-rock/alt-metal and thats all.With some hints of industrial and piano-rock, I guess.--Xr 1 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah they surely noth goth. anyways i think tey also have some influces from symphonic metal such as the songs lithuim, whisper, lacryose, hello, breathe no more(and others but these are the strongest ones) im adding it...-written by BlackDoggie

And I reverted the changes because there are no reliable sources to back up the change. Plently of reliable websites say "alternative rock" (even their official MySpace). I'm guessing because Amy listens to Classical music, that's where the symphonic metal comparisions are coming from but really Evanescence as a whole aren't symphonic metal nor are they entirely hard rock or post-hardcore or whatever people have been changing the genres to. Sure Evanescence have been/are compared to bands such as Within Temptation and Nightwish all of the time in the media and while these bands can be easily defined as symphonic metal, Evanescence can't simply because the genre doesn't describe the band's entire back catelogue. You have to take into consideration genres/styles of the Evanescence EP, Sound Asleep EP and the Origin album as they were the first six years of the band. Much of the stuff on those EP's/demo Cd's are acousticly/rock based with very little classical/symphonic metal influences showing. So that can explain the simple "Alt rock" in the infobox, but if you have at least three reliable sources (any well known music stations/websites (like MTV, VH1, AllMusic Guide) or magazines (like Kerrang, NME) etc.) backing up the symphonic metal comparisions go ahead and put symphonic metal in the infobox. For sources please do not use any blogs, fansites or mechandise sites as they are very much someone elses opinion and so are unsuitable as reliable sources. AngelOfSadness talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that alternative rock should be the only genre there. Evanescence does not play metal, I think this is clear. Influences, most probably, but the actual result of their music is not metal. I would like to know how reluctant the editors of this article feel about removing alternative metal from the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a "Genre" section with a paragraph or two summarizing (with sources) why people think they're X or Y genre, and just have "see below" in the infobox. Gimmetrow 22:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. A "Style and influences" section would be a good way to prevent the infobox from being flooded with genres. The infobox genre could therefore be Alternative rock (see below). Zouavman Le Zouave 13:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No; it's clearly seen that there style is alt-rock/alt-metal, with some influences from symphonic metal, industrial metal, piano rock, arena rock. So it should be like that:
Alternative rock
Alternative metal (see below)--Nazzzz (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, every time you discuss Evanescence's genre, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. I don't know who created the musician infobox for Wikipedia, but I curse them for ever putting a genre line in it. --Brownings (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol, no kidding. Say, perhaps we can elect to remove all mention of genre period, and thus avoid this rediculously and unnecessarily contentious affair. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so that people will fight over the introduction and the categories? False-good idea. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How about if there was no article at all, then there would be no need for these debates and lame edit wars over something so trivial. But seeing as we can't do that, we best do with what we got....whatever that is and improve it so we'll be that much closer to seeing the article as a featured article. AngelOfSadness talk 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Rolls eyes That was a rhetorical comment. However, I'd much rather fight over the introduction than genre...maybe progress would actually be made that way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in contributing to this article, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents and give a little levity with regard to the seeming disagreements over the band's genres. As far as the infobox goes, see Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre: "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])." So, "rock" or "alternative rock" should be just fine. Further discussion of what genres or subgenres the band's music falls under (ie. alternative metal, etc.) should be discussed in "style and influences" section, with references to reliable third-party sources. The only genres that should be listed in the infobox are those that are mentioned in the article body. It shouldn't be necessary to use references in the infobox, since the genres are already referenced in the article body (plus it just makes the infobox look cluttered, and it's supposed to be a simple at-a-glance thing). It should be very easy to find numerous third-party sources discussing what styles of music Evanescence falls into (Alternative Press, Spin, Rolling Stone, etc.), though I notice there's only one reference cited in the "style and influence" section right now and it seems like a weak one IMO. There's plenty of supporting source material out there, and there's no reason to go on arguing or reverting genre disputes when we should just be writing what the sources tell us. Discussions about genres shouldn't be added into the article without references, and only the genres discussed in the article should be listed in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "aim for generality" has been my mantra all along. And it seems like it would be easy to find sources, but in actuality, very few publications have any agree-ability on the topic; you also have those that call Amy Lee, for example, the 'queen of goth', when, as it has been readily pointed out before on this page, Evanescence is most definitely not goth. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree: as it seems even most of my arguments on generality back in November still stand. I said it then and I'll say it clearer now: Pretty much nearly every genre that Evanescence have been labled are derivitive forms of Alternative Rock and yes, that includes alt metal, gothic rock, post-grunge etc as the list goes on and on. It's two words, can be very easily sourced, will abide by the manual of style and is general. AngelOfSadness talk 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Huntster, I both agree and disagree with your comment on sources. Discussions of genre and style come from a variety of sources. The band may label themselves as one thing (or reject a certain label), while critics and music scholars may call them another (sometimes in contradiction to the band's own assertions). For example, I'm pretty certain I have several issues of Alternative Press lying around which discuss Evanescence's (and Amy Lee)'s links to goth, both in what ways they are connected and what ways they are not. So, since there are reliable sources to back up the idea that Evanescence are in some ways influenced by goth and in some ways reflect that influence in their own music and imagery, it would be appropriate to include goth as one of the genres that they fall under, even though there are other sources which argue the opposite point. Not that I'm doing that, I'm just saying it could be done based on reliable source material. And in my opinion there is no valid reason to exclude genres that reliable third-party critics have associated with the band. The sources don't have to agree, there can be opinions on all sides (as is normal with critical commentary). But as long as there is at least one good critical source provided for a particular genre label, then there is every reason to discuss that genre in the article and list it in the infobox. In the end it doesn't really matter whether the fans, or readers & editors of this article, agree or disagree with the genre labels. It matters what the reliable outside sources say. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever put "Styles and Influences" in, I love you!!! Titan50 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is best to write a long description about their music in the article. I started it as a stub with the name "Styles and influences", but it needs expanding. I'd like to do it, but I haven't got much time for now. Please someone write it. If doesn't, I'll try to do it but I don't promise.--Nazzzz (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.I need an external link from their proclamation that they do not want to be labeled as Christian Rock. Mr. Greenchat 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You can see it by clicking this link.--Nazzzz (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nazzzz. When I get the time I will edit the section. Mr. Greenchat 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed three of the references as overkill...the remaining two say everything that needs to be said. Also, whoever originally wrote the Christian label bit at the end...good touch, seeing how it nicely segues into the following "Christian controversy" section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea that was me.I'm going to get more info. today and proboly write it tommarow. Mr. GreenHit Me Up 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop there. When I created that section, I wrote a sentence like this "They are often called as a Christan rock band by some medias and fans, but their musical style isn't part of this genre in fact." and Mr. Green changed it to "They have been referred to as a Christian rock band by some media and fans; however, the band has publicly proclaimed that they do not want to be classified as such." The original idea was from me. You can check it from the archive. --Nazzzz (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, are you that desperate for recognition? How about I give a heads up to both of you guys; that way, no one's jealous! Zouavman Le Zouave 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pre-Fallen EPs & albums

According to a 2003 interview with Ben and Amy on DC101, they want fans to download for free pre-Fallen material, rather than paying insane prices for it on eBay. Another Evanescence information site has all the albums up for download in MP3 format. My question is, should this suggestion by Ben and Amy be included in a EV article and should we link the album's Wiki page to the download site? Obviously, I'm not going to even post the site here, until I get some feedback from everyone else. --Brownings (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because even if they "it's okay to download", unless it is explicitly placed in the public domain, it is (as I understand it) still a copyright violation to download the music without compensation. We should not link to such. I'd also not place the information on the article for the same reasons. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just wanted at least a second opinion on the matter before I started posting stuff. I just wish that if they really did want us to download pre-Fallen stuff, they'd place it on the official EV page. I was over there the other day and I noticed that the once free-to-download music videos must now be purchased through iTunes. Perhaps they'll one sell the pre-Fallen stuff through iTunes at least so that the masses can get it. --Brownings (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sales for Fallen

The sales figure in the lead is cited to [1], which says:

With 15 million records sold worldwide, and two Grammy Awards for their debut album "Fallen," Evanescence continues its stratospheric success with its latest release, "The Open Door" (Wind-up Records)...

I can understand reading this as Fallen sold 15 million. However, the first clause modifies Evanescence rather than Fallen, so it says Evanescence has 15 million in sales, which includes sales for both Fallen and Anywhere but Home. Gimmetrow 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. And speaking of sales, I reverted this edit because Media Traffic only lists an album's sales while in the top 40 and not current figures. The bottom of the ref says "The figures are the cumulative sales of an album during its time on the top 40 list". Spellcast (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then, any other sources that you know of specifically point out a sales figure for Fallen? Also, while I'd prefer to not use a source like Mediatraffic in the opening paragraph, would their numbers be adequate given we already term it as "more than X million..."? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOT ALT ROCK

Them fit between 3 genres, post-grunge,Nu metal, ghotic rock... alt rock is an loose definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that you started a discussion BEFORE you made changes. Oh wait, you didn't. Therefore, I've reverted your edits till a consensus can be reached here on the talk page. If you've bothered to look though this talk page, and its subsequent archives, you should be aware that you'll have a long and hard battle to sell this change. --Brownings (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. I personally consider them more Gothic Rock than anything. I mean have you heard their songs lyrics, they're all dark and creepy. Their Goth Rock. I mean, come on, the singer even dress's like a goth while on the stage. Emo777 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can "please" and "come on" all you like, but they are not a goth rock band, nor a nu metal band for that matter. They share hardly any characteristics with the nu metal genre. Sourced encyclopedic coverage of their genre should be written in the appropriate section of the article, not in the intro, not in the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Listion here! I was just stating my opinion, which, if i'm correct, is MINE! Second off I never said they were Nu metal, I don't even like nu metal bands. I don't know the guy who made this NOT ALT section but it's not me. I just stated that I thought that they were goth rock, that's all. So before you said that I said something I didn't check your source. BTW, I think SOME of there stuff is alternative rock, but I also think it's goth rock too!Emo777 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2008

I agree with Emo777, they are alternative rock but are also partly goth rock! I mean there not completely goth (if you hear Cradle of Filth, then you know what goth rock is!) but they definitely have a slightly dark and creepy sound to their lyrics!--Seán Travers (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

[edit] Not Metal

Okay, I'll agree that some of Evanescence is Alternative Rock, but the are in no way or form any type of metal. They might be hard rock, but not metal.Emo777 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I think a lot of their stuff could be classed as metal, which is obviously different to your opinion- but neither of our opinions belong in the article.. "Alternative rock" seems to be the most logical label given that most of the sources I've seen seem to use it. Alt rock is a ridiculously vague genre, but if the repeated arguments are anything to go by a vague genre is all that anyone will ever agree on for Evanescence. ~ mazca talk 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You got a point there, I suppose. I just don't think that they belong in the metal genre, they're not heavy, nor do they use the guitar style. But yeah, our opinion doesn't belong in the article, personally I consider them more goth rock than alternative. But I guess our opinions don't belong here.Emo777 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, hehe. Genre discussions can be one of the most pointless and irritating parts of a wikipedia talk page, as far as I'm concerned if there's any dispute you just have to go with whatever genre most sources seem to use. Pretty much no band fits absolutely perfectly into a genre, because otherwise they'd all sound the same! ~ mazca talk 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

True, still, some discussions make no point, it's all mostly people stating their opinion's and jumping on you when you state yours for not having any sources. Even though they don't have any "real" sources either, that's happened to me several times, and on this page too.Emo777 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Section?

I think that someone needs to rewrite the styles and influences section a little bit. There's really not that much wrong with it but, after reading it several times, I've noticed that it sounds more like someone's opion rather than an independent statement. And it might confuse some people, what does everyone else think?Emo777 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather agree, after some of the recent additions. Have any suggestions on form, that doesn't emphasize any particular attribute? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have any perticular suggestions on form. I just think it needs to be rewritten as a more neutral and independent statement, because I've seen some places describe them as Alternative Rock, others that call them goth, and then some that call them something else. So yeah, I think that it needs to be written as to wear it doesn't call them a specific genre of music, seeing as no one has a direct source on what type of music they are.Emo777 (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)