Talk:Red (band)

Nonneutral

Note: on 11 September 2006, the following discussion, relevant to the NPOV flag on the main page, was blanked. I have reinstated it. This involved losing a more recent edit which simply stated that there did not seem to be any NPOV issues. Notinasnaid 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think this article isn't written in a neutral tone?

Response: I very much agree. The article preaches God, which is clearly unbiased. And it preaches the band as being good, another bias. It's not written in a professional tone.

"The article preaches God, which is clearly unbiased"? ;)

Plus it sounds like advertising to me.

• To be specific, but not complete "Clearly, End of Silence is one of the most compelling debut albums of our time." certainly has no place in Wikipedia unless it is a sourced quote. Notinasnaid 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted that "Breathe into me" and "Already Over" reached #1 on the rock charts. There is no proof.

BREATHE INTO ME, LET GO, ALREADY OVER, BREAK ME DOWN, AND LOST....ALL REACHED #1 ON THE "CHRISTIAN ROCK RADIO CHARTS" REF: RADIOANDRECORDS.COM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.245.194 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I took away most of what read like a press release. However, someone should add citations still. Thief12 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to edit it now. I saw that as well, thoguh I do love the band, the page is very biased. I'm gunna try to help this out a bit. IronCrow 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion about charting on the Christian Rock Charts vs. Billboard 200. Repeated attempts were made to claim a #1 position on the Billboard 200 for RED's album "Until We Have Faces". This is simply untrue. The album did indeed gain #1 on the Christian Rock Chart, but in no way has it charted yet on Billboard 200. These are two very different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.122.178 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red band.jpg

Image:Red band.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BREATHE INTO ME, LET GO, ALREADY OVER, BREAK ME DOWN, AND LOST....ALL REACHED #1 ON THE "CHRISTIAN ROCK RADIO CHARTS" REF: RADIOANDRECORDS.COM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.245.194 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Endofsilence.png

Image:Endofsilence.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Redlogo.png

Image:Redlogo.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Voice similarities... who cares?

I think the last two additions (but particularly the most recent) about the lead singer's voice are neither encyclopedic nor relevant. At the very least, they need to be referenced with some reliable, notable sources, so it's not just someone's random opinion being attached to what's supposed to be an informational work. Kiyura (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph until any objections are raised. Kiyura (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal?

I don't see how that's an apropriate genre for this band.Nu metal is very similar to Rapcore and mixed with Groove metal.That's not Red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.234.107 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the nu metal page any time recently? Let's see...

"Nü metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing similar to pop and rock, guttural screaming and shouting..." - yeah Red falls into that well. "One common trait of most nü metal bands, however, is to emphasize the guitar as a rhythmic instrument. Riffs often consist of only a few different notes or power chords played in rhythmic, syncopated patterns." - once again, Red fits in great. Probably the best example of Red's nu-metal influence is in this quote - "A popular format is to have a song structure of instrumental introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus. The bridge is often a climax to the song, has a relatively different sound to the previous two and sometimes is just one line repeated, getting gradually louder. It is generally louder in the instrumental parts and the choruses than in the verses." --198.133.245.253 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Symphonic Rock

Anyone else think that Symphonic Rock should be included as a genre here? It certainly fits...Red has a similar style to many in this category, and often include classical instruments in their music. Just my thoughts...

3nails4you (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

I changed the name in the article from "Red" to RED because that's apparently what they are usually called. Seemed to me to be their common name--SKATER ^Speak. 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian?

Ok, what happened to the history section?

And would everyone please stop fighting over the christian non christian ordeal. Yes the members of their band are christian and many of their songs have hidden christian meanings. (posted by Zefert1 one)

It's a valid ordeal. There are no resources cited on the claim that Red is a christian band, nor is there any mention of the word christian on their website. Just because their songs 'might' have christian meanings, or their members are christian, doesn't make them a christian band. Any reference to the word christian should be removed. Darktangent (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First, this talk page needs a major cleanup. And second, the genre should not be changed until their are resources proving the otherwise. They are a Christian Rock Band as seen from this]--SKATER ^Speak. 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a valid source. I had heard people talk about God over and over again when talking about their music, though I couldn't find any substantial information that indicated they were a 'Christian Rock' band. I still don't consider their music christian, as there is no mention of God or anything remotely religious in their music, but if they claim to be a christian band I won't argue over removing it from the article. And I don't think a band should be labeled christian unless proven otherwise, rather the opposite.

Skillet is another band that songs often have Christian undermeanings to them, It may be the case that they might not be the most..."broad" influence, but they are Christian. I'm gonna clean up the talk page now.--SKATER ^Speak. 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* You guys make us IP users do all the work. They state they are a Christian band here: http://www.titletrakk.com/music-interviews/red-anthony-armstrong-interview.htm Quote: "If they ask us if we’re a Christian band, we tell them yes. And if they ask us why, we tell them why." 64.234.0.101 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the ref, however, I'm not putting it into the intro because that's just lame. I stuck it in the history section and infobox because it's more out-of-the-view of the reader, so they don't get barraged with some Christian label or something. Someone should change CCM to "Christian music" or something more specific. CCM is a generalized term that confuses people, should probably have something more specific. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that all traces of them being a Christian band have been expunged from the article. I'll have to look into this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Walter/All - I went back to 6 August 2010 and see nothing that's been deleted from History that talks about Red being a Christian band. How long has it been gone? I'll keep going back, but it doesn't seem to be recent. Ckruschke (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I saw a fair bit, but it's just as easy to source new material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Genres

If the All Music Guide, which is not a review, it's part of an opinion just like the list of genres, reads that they're "Christian-based alternative rock" then we should add that genre. The only problem is, wikipedia doesn't have that genre. Don't hack-up the written genre. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic is a review site (see WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) and not just opinions. I noticed you also ignored what I said with your reply "Left-hand side. See the list of genres." The Style (which is the list of genres you mentioned) is secondary to the review like I said. There is no basis for that list, so the review is more reliable. Also don't see how putting alternative rock is hacking up a genre, it still states alternative rock so no reason for exclusion. I interpret Christian-based as being related to Christian music, I wouldn't assume that "Christian-based alternative rock" is its own genre.

The point of having just rock in the articles lead, is to cover all the genres in the article infobox. Much in the same way articles such as Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Nirvana - known grunge bands. Alternative rock, Christian rock, hard rock, heavy metal and post-grunge are all covered by rock. The lead needs expanded anyway because it is supposed to summarise the articles content and is a little short, their music being Christian related can be mentioned somewhere. But Christian rock is too specific and covers only Christian rock. Hope I explained that well?

Should also point out that having Alternative metal is redundant with heavy metal included in the genres. HrZ (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine on the rock/metal issue I don't want a genre war over it, but I've restored Christian rock to the lede. They are a Christian rock band. They are not afraid to label themselves as such and it's not incorrect to include it in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wither they are afraid or not to label themselves as a Christian rock band is irrelevent and not a valid reason for its inclusion. Like I said before, the lead is a summary of the article. How does Christian rock cover the other genres the band have also seen their music described? It doesn't, rock does. Lead sentence from the Christian rock article: "Christian rock is a form of rock music." To repeat, Rock music covers everything in the infobox including Christian rock. Having an overarching genre also helps with desputes on what the band is labelled as also, such as Talk:Red (band)#Christian?.

Would I be correct in assuming that you think the exclusion of Christian rock in lead would give the impression they aren't, despite it being sourced in the infobox? A better solution to this would for a Musicial style section added to the article. That would explain in better detail the band's music (as well as moving the sources out of the infobox and into the article). But there is no reason to add it to the lead when it is covered by Rock music. HrZ (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You can think what you want. It's not an accurate reflection of who they are. It would be equivalent of removing American from the lede. I will let you restore it since I am at WP:3RR and don't want to get nailed for it. None of the other genres nor their nationality is being discussed in a separate section so I don't know why this has to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that on the main article say that they are a "rock band", when it should say that they are a "Christian rock band"?

Can someone please change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.234.134 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead re-write

After continueing the (above) discussion with Walter Görlitz on his talk page. We propose a re-write of articles lead:

“ Red (stylized as RED and R3D) is an American rock band from Nashville, Tennessee, formed in 2004. The bands lineup consists of singer Michael Barnes, guitarist Anthony Armstrong, bassist Randy Armstrong and drummer Joe Rickard and are known for their Christian rock music while incorporating other sounds such as alternative rock, hard rock, heavy metal and post-grunge. Jasen Rauch and Andrew Hendrix were the bands rhythm guitarist and drummer, respectively, from their formation. Hendrix was replaced by Hayden Lamb in 2006, who was then replaced by Rickard. Rauch left the band in 2009.

To date, Red have released three studio albums: End of Silence (2006), Innocence & Instinct (2009), and Until We Have Faces (2011). The first two albums earned the group Grammy Award Nominations for Best Rock Gospel Album.

”

Does anyone disagree or have any comments? This wouldn't be the definitive lead, it can later be expanded upon. In my opinion, an improvement on the articles current. Please bare in mind MOS:LEAD also. HrZ (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

facebook page

http://www.facebook.com/redmusiconline this is their official facebook page. Should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.217.250 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:EL. In the Links normally to be avoided section, item 10, it lists: "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." There's an official website and so they can link to their Facebook page from there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)