Talk:Post-rock

weak analytical foundation

the categorization of bands and genealogy of the term "post-rock" seems to me arbitrary. in fact, the whole article should be restructured. we should pay more attention to the distinction of bands that...

1. were formative for the aesthetic definition of the term, but did not identify themselves with a particular genre (bark psychosis, tortoise, mogwai)

2. operated in the past and have been labeled as post-rock after the emergence of the term (talk talk etc.)

3. explicitly refer to a tradition of post-rock bands (this will destroy you, capsian, mono etc.)

one should distinguish between the attribution of the term by the media, the self-definition of bands and the actual aesthetic appearance. at the moment, these things are still mixed up. everyone who has spent some time dealing with this sort of music could object to every second sentence. most important: there is not "decline" of the genre, just further confusion about how to map a very vital and diverse musical landscape. just have a look on myspace. in the last 12 month literally hundreds of bands emerged, which describe themselves as post-rock. i think the term is more present than ever before.

i think the article should be restructured and rewritten. since i am a n00b on wikipedia, i'm not sure how to do that, without offending the original creators of this text. please help.

best, alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.130.113 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fully agree that the post-rock article is pretty bad and should be re-vamped. It should also be mentioned that 'post-rock' technically has been around for ages, and examples of this should be noted in the 'Early Precedents'-section; it wasn't before someone influential coined it as a term, that it gained accepted as some sort of movement, or scene, or musical approach. I also think that Reynold's post-rock definition should be noted in the intro of the article, instead of mentioning which instruments are used in post-rock, as instruments used in post-rock are a wide, wide variety; and this should be mentioned in a side-note. It should be made clear that post-rock, in the first place, is more of an idea, or an approach to making music, than it is a genre. (And it should probably be mentioned that despite this, post-rock developed a certain 'sound' with its 2nd wave).
  • Lastly, I can't believe that Wikipedia still calls 'alternative rock' a genre. It is an umbrella term considering genres and movements with its roots in various independent music-scenes, generally associated with american scenes (but some, like indie rock, has its roots in britain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.190.109 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vacant

That The Vacant band listed has not even released an album and they already feel they must be in Wikipedia? Their article has been voted for deletion. Remove them from here also! - User:Dalegrett, April 10, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalegrett (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

alternative origins?

Not that I pretend to know about too much about rock music (worse, I can't cite sources), but I read in some booklet about rock in Mexico that Jorge Reyes (a Mexican, of course, and not the Cuban this link refers to) coined the term "post rock" in the mid '80s. For me, his music is as new age as I bear to listen to, but it certainly fits the technical description about the use of the guitars.

Adding more as the Wikipedias expand: Jorge Reyes is in fact this musician, formerly of the band Chac Mool. Since Simons Reynolds' claims to coining the term in 1994 is now relegated to its proper status, maybe someone with more knowledge can have a closer look at post rock's prehistory?

klaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.12.95 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dec. 8 2006 reversion (God is an Astronaut) + generally God is an Astronaut

I've made a reversion to an edit by an IP (see the history)--they included God is an Astronaut in a listing of bands that have used death metal-style vocals. Regardless of whether it is the case, the band doesn't seem to be notable in the genre -- and if it is, it needs to have an article written about it. This should carry over to other bands in the listing; are there any issues with this? Moonty 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they do not use death metal-style vocals: the band is purely instrumental. I'd say they're talented but not notable as GYBE, EitS and so on... Doubt97 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubt97 (talk • contribs)

Seeing as how they have become quite notable in this genre (in fact having more traffic on Facebook than many other mentioned bands), I think it is about time they got a mention on the page. --122.169.67.231 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, traffic on Facebook means nothing to us. We need references from reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see WP:V). If you can find quality sources, by all means add a mention in the article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added them now.
Stats from Spotify:
65daysofstatic - 132656 monthly listeners
GIAA - 161392
MONO - 112149
Do Make Say Think - 54532 Psfinaki (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Psfinaki! Unfortunately, making comparisons based on Spotify numbers would be original research. We'd need something explicitly stated by reliable, third-party sources, like recognized music journalists. You can see some examples of sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources.
Based on those Spotify numbers, I'd expect that we'd need to add a new section for the 2020s, and that there are likely other contemporary bands to mention. But the sources have to come first. Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of time to search for sources right now, but I have found a few examples of contemporary bands with post-rock elements:
Greet Death and Holy Fawn mentioned at Paste
Touché Amoré at Pitchfork
Nothing about GIAA yet, though. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar hmm I see, thanks for the references.
A bit off topic, but the system feels weird to me - I mean measuring artist popularity by mentions in whatever music magazines. The band is popular (and we're only talking about popularity here) if people attend their concerts and listen to their music, and the music itself might be awesome or crappy - that's what experts can debate about in the magazines. But Spotify
or last.fm would be the places I'd look at if I wanted to start with a music genre.
But yeah who I am to judge Wiki's criteria for data credibility. Anyway, the band is not new, it started 20 years ago, so I wouldn't call it contemporary anyway, it's really from the generation of Explosions In The Sky and 65daysofstatic.
But worse I don't actually understand how to prove the point - should I look for some "best post-rock bands ever" rating from some music magazine from some year where GIAA are mentioned? Like I found this for example on the AOTY but again don't know how credible this is. Psfinaki (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psfinaki, it really comes down to the fact that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source based on secondary sources. Our "job" is to fairly and transparently summarize what reliable sources say about our subjects without adding our own interpretations or spin. Unfortunately, that also means that if reliable sources don't cover something, then we shouldn't, either.
The issue with using Spotify/Last.fm is twofold. First, streaming numbers can be manipulated. And second, but most importantly, it would involve interpretation by any random person like you and me. On Last.fm, for example, GIAA has ~100k more listeners than 65daysofstatic or Mono, very different from those Spotify numbers. Maybe ticket sales would give an entirely different ranking? Would we use pre-pandemic sales? Would we adjust numbers to account for record sales? It would be a mess, edit warring would be rampant, and everyone would be right—at least based on which numbers they used. Reliable sources like music journalists are (theoretically) trained to deal with interpreting all of that, plus incorporating intangibles like influence on other bands and society at large—which are surely signs of popularity, right?
As for AOTY, they're listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES because there is No clear editorial discretion between sources, including several amateur critics alongside otherwise reliable/professional ones. The source you mentioned doesn't have a listed author and may have been taken directly from Drowned in Sound? That's weird and definitely not something a reputable publisher would do, so the ALBUMS/SOURCES finding sounds about right.
Anyways, I spent a few more minutes searching and found more articles from Kerrang and Paste, but neither mention GIAA. This Revolver source does, but it also says "the group is hardly a household name, at least not outside of specialized circles"—which is kind of the opposite of what we're looking for, sadly. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar alright, thanks for the explanations and the links, interesting reading by the way. Your arguments and Wiki policies on that make sense then. Yeah I also spent some time searching for some magazines mentioning the band and didn't find much which surprised me a bit but well I'm also biased because I really like the band and have seen them 4 times live.
Anyway, let's keep the article as it is then. I appreciate that you spent time explaining probably basic stuff to a Wiki-newbie :) Psfinaki (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psfinaki, glad to help! And I get it about wanting to mention GIAA. Several of my favorite bands are obscure enough that they don't even meet the notability requirements for an article. Everyone else's loss, I guess! Woodroar (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Post Rock (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Post-rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 20:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hey Catto! It's me again, reviewing GA nominations for things I like. I like post rock

Hey there! Not sure if that BCNR review was your first, but you did a great job assessing the article's prose for GA :) I'd recommend, per WP:GAN/I#R3, reviewing at least 10 sources or 15% of the sources in the article, whichever is larger. Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): meh b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    many instances of awkward phrasing, will detail later Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Nothing much to address here - as always, the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted. All of the sources are reputable, and there are sufficient inline citations to support each source. There aren't any citation errors, copyvios, or original research either that I can find. WITH 1 EXCEPTION:
    "In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Bristol, England, emerged as a notable hub for post-rock, characterized by a loosely connected group of musicians working with home-recording setups and a distinctly lo-fi aesthetic. Trip hop, which began as a scene in the same city, influenced Bristol post-rock in the turn of the millennium. Bands such as Movietone, Crescent, Flying Saucer Attack and Third Eye Foundation were central to this movement, initially releasing music on the local Planet label and gathering around Recreational Records before later partnering with Domino Records." cites only 1 source. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The single citation is sufficient here, as it specifically covers the Bristol post-rock scene and comes from the reliable source Pitchfork (website), though I merged the paragraphs on the Bristol and United States post-rock scenes. Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finding more sources would be helpful but not necessary, and after a whole lot of research I'm pretty sure the Pitchfork interview is the only direct source on this - but the content does seem to match what the source says, for 3b Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    covers most of the post-rock history without bias, though I'd say that BCNR are a big proponent of modern post-rock, too, popularizing the genre, or at least mention the Windmill scene, which are at the very least heavily inspired by post-rock Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    More images wouldn't hurt, but currently the sparseness of visual reference isn't detrimental, either Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Nitpicks for 1a

  • "Groups such as Talk Talk and Slint were credited with producing foundational works in the style in the late 1980s and early 1990s. With the release of Tortoise's 1996 album Millions Now Living Will Never Die, post-rock became an accepted term for the associated scene of artists. Over time, post-rock diversified, spawning fusion subgenres like post-metal and blackgaze, and influencing indie rock, electronica, and forms of metal."
    Complaint: The tense seems to be a bit inconsistent; I think using "are" instead of "were" would be better - "Slint are credited with producing" Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term post-rock was coined by music journalist Simon Reynolds, being popularized in a review of Bark Psychosis' 1994 album Hex..."
    Complaint: A bit loopy, "The term post-rock was first popularized in a review of Bark Psychosis' 1994 album Hex, being coined by music journalist Simon Reynolds..." would flow better IMO Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vocals in post-rock can be de-emphasized or entirely absent. When post-rock bands have vocalists, their performances are often non-traditional, with them employing vocals as purely instrumental efforts and incidental to the sound.[1] When present, vocals may appear as spoken word, found audio samples, or stylized delivery such as murmured or shouted passages.[21] Bands often treat the voice as an additional instrument.[22] Lyrics, if included, are often non-narrative, poetic, or opaque,[23] reflecting themes of alienation, ambiguity, or abstraction."
    Complaint: "can be de-emphasized" doesn't really convey much - it's like saying "I have the option to pay for my groceries with cash" - you can, the option is there, but it doesn't convey any information. Making this clearer, e.g. "Vocals have a much lesser role in most post-rock" or something similar would work much better. "may appear as spoken word. found audio samples, etc...." also suffers from the same issue - perhaps "Are often presented as spoken word, found audio samples, etc...." or similar. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term post-rock was initially used by English music journalist Simon Reynolds in a Melody Maker article in late 1993, which he remembers as the first time he wrote of post-rock.[28] He later employed it in a review of the 1994 album Hex by Bark Psychosis, which appeared in that year's March issue of Mojo magazine.[29]"
    Complaint: "which he remembers" makes this paragraph sound like an interview, which isn't encyclopedic - maybe "which is the first instance he wrote post-rock" or similar - make it more objective Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the release of Tortoise's 1996 album Millions Now Living Will Never Die, post-rock became an accepted term for the associated scene of artists. Over time, post-rock diversified, spawning fusion subgenres like post-metal and blackgaze, and influencing indie rock, electronica, and forms of metal."
    Complaint: Doesn't read very encyclopedic - "Over time" and "became an accepted term" have weird tense compared to the rest of the article, and completely re-writing the paragraph would probably be the right course of action, e.g. "The release of Tortoise's... led to post-rock becoming an accepted term for the genre." And the "over time, post-rock diversified" could probably be changed for a paragraph on subgenres - we don't need to link it to the popularization of the term post-rock. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cattos💭 18:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.