Talk:List of garage rock bands

Size of list

ive got a feeling this is just going to turn into a massive list a wikipedians bands.Д narchistPig (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate these kinds of list pages, I don't think they're going to disappear anytime soon. I think we just need to be vigilant about the redlinks and maybe trim down the "revival" list. freshacconcispeaktome 11:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is, indeed, necessary to have an extensive list, at least, for mid-60's garage rock, due to the massive size and scope of this genre. Unbeknownst to many, this is the largest genre in rock history (in terms of number of participants and recorded songs). By its very nature, the essence of garage rock is epitomized by many of its lesser known bands (just as much as the better-known ones), so no list can do it justice that is not extensive. This article should serve as a useful resource to educate people about this magnificent genre and its many creators. We are also talking about whole era in need of greater scholarship (at some point the Library of Congress should get involved), because these wonderful bands are part of our collective history and their legacy and memory must be kept from receding into oblivion.

And, I think if you take the time to and check out recordings by a lot of these unsung heroes, you will come to the same conclusion that I have: this is some of the most wonderful music ever made and is well worth the space devoted to it here. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Splittin Up The Revival List

Well, I reckon, the band from 1979 to now need to be divided into 1979 - 1999 and 2000 to now, cos there are too many bands included! --Freiheitsgedanke (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Geography

It would be really useful and interesting if this list was split up by geographical area - say, by US state or city. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

While that might be an interesting idea (for perhaps a seperate list on a seperate page), it would make it confusing for the casual reader here to peruse. The first prioriy should be to get as many of the bands as possible (those who recorded notable songs), onto this list first, and then, after careful researching, create informative articles/links for all of these bands. It may soon become necessary to seperate the bands on this list into alphebetical letter-blocks (A-C, D-F, G-I, etc.) as I've seen done on other Wiki band lists in other genres, because this list is extensive and will continue to grow (there are so many bands to cover--no list could ever do justice to this magical genre). As far as this list, itself, goes, I think that it should always remain primarily alphabetical in orientation, not geographical, because one's primary reference contact with these bands/artists should be in a universal and generally applicable context.

However, we could definitely create a new geographical list as a seperate resource (on another page)--that would be a great idea. Sincerely Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for creating the alphabetical letter blocks. They look great. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that what we really need here is a sortable table - with columns for name, place of origin, and perhaps sources. A sortable table would mean that if readers wanted to see, say, bands from California, it could be ordered by state without having to scroll down the whole list. We could add a column for sources, which would help identify which of the bands are sufficiently notable to have their own article - I suspect that not all are. There would be a fair amount of work in creating a table like that, but I might be able to give it some time at some point, if other stuff doesn't get in the way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like an intriguing idea. I'm guessing that what you have in mind is a kind of graph (or graphic outlay) with links to other lists, references, etc. I would be all for this as long as readers first have access to an alphabetical primary reference. Then, these other features could expand on the alphabetical formation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I just went over and looked at the list of bands for punk rock on Wiki, and I now see exactly what you have in mind. It looks terrific. I love the way it even shows national flags, etc. And I love the way that it maintains alphabetical order, yet at the same time, provides other links, references, and geography. That format would be great for this site. Absolutely perfect.

By the way, we can put national flags here, too, because garage rock, though most prevelent in North America, was also a worldwide phenominon. There were was a large degree of garage/punk band activity in places such as Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Mexico & Central America--in addition to England and Ireland (though these bands are usually referred to as "British invasion," "freakbeat," "beat groups," some, such as Them, The Troggs, The Liverpool Five, and most famously, The Kinks, are often simultaneously classified as garage--there was a close and profound interrelationship between American garage and British beat groups). We could also put state/province flags well, for the bands form the USA and Canada. Also, there could be a "Description/Songs" column, in which stylistic features of the groups and songs they are best known for are listed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This is rapidly turning into a long list of unsourced names of bands with no articles and therefore no evidence of notability. Please note that incorrect direct external links to youtube are not generally considered reliable sources. They almost certainly break copyright and should not be added.--SabreBD (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I went in and deleted all of the Youtube links at your request--you are right to question the Youtube links. We certainly do not want even the slightest possible copyright issues. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the site as a list of bands, itself (not including the Youtube links, which is a sperate issue), I have Ghmyrtle's full blessing to further develop this list. He understands that this is an area where I have, not only passion, but knowlege, and we are working together to build up this site. You are absolutely welcome to partner with us in this endeavor. References should be forthcoming in time, of course, but please give us time to link the references for this site. We could use your assistence. Ghmyrtle and I want to map out info about the band's countries, cities, states, songs, etc. Two great places to get information on these bands are the sites, Garage Hangover and 60's Garage Bands. There are also numerous webistes and articles devoted to them.

Note: I have personally listened to recordings by all of the bands that I added--and I think that one criteria for all bands included is that they have made recordings which are still in existence, then we can further document them. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Please don't try to speak on my behalf, and don't claim to have my "blessing", whatever you think that means. It is not "you and me" working together - it is the whole community of editors, many of whom may have views very different to yours or mine.

My view is that this article should remain, but be made more accessible and structured. I would like to see a sortable table, with information on location and perhaps other columns, replacing the alphabetical list. In my view all potentially notable bands - that is, bands listed in reliable sources who could be worthy of having their own article - should be listed here. The problem with the current list is that it is completely unsourced, and many of those listed probably do not meet the WP:BAND notability criteria. If there are sites being used as sources, they should be indicated - and their value as reliable sources should be checked. The question then arises of whether non-notable bands should be listed here - but not redlinked - so as to give an indication of the large number and wide distribution of bands in this genre. I'm not sure of the answer to that, but am happy to discuss it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize if my choice of wording conveyed the false impression that I intend to speak on behalf of anyone but myself (or that I view the process as exclusive). I am fully aware of, and respect, the presence of the larger community of editors. I just did not realize that any others (but you) were interested in this site--and I would view their invovlement as, not only a necessary part of the process, but also a great advantage. And, I am also thankful for whatever degree of encouragement I may have recieved from you or anybody else, and I was intending only to show respect for the spirit of collaboration. I am still new to Wiki. I hope you understand. Now, about the article:

I acknowledge that the focus should now go towards finding citations, references, and links to connect to these bands, as well as making a host of other improvements and creating articles for each of the bands (or at least the ones that can pass a certain level of criteria). I agree with practically everything you recommend in regards to the formatting, etc., provided (as I have stated in the threads above) that the alphabetical component should not be eliminated (to do so would make the list confusing and less universally applicable). As much as I would like to retain all of the bands currently on the list (and I think that, for the time being, they should be retained), I understand that, at some, point we may have to eliminate some of them, however painful (although that would be an absolute last resort--it would be much better to try to retain them if we can). I am confident that most will survive the cut. Most of the bands listed have a commensurate level of popularity to bands with Wiki articles, such as The Human Expression and The Troyes. All of these bands have recorded songs, which are more often than not, included on various LP or CD compilations past and present--and are of interest to enthusiasts and collectors (or to those wishing to learn more about this genre): many of these songs are regarded by enthusiasts as bona-fide classics in the genre (not to mention that many of them were local and regional hits).

But, we must keep in mind that this genre, by its very nature, is a specialty genre and is epiomized by obscure artists, and no list can do it justice that does not recognize them. The criteria that is applied to contemporary artists (or more "pop" styles) may not work here, particularly in light of the long amount of time that has elapsed (almost fifty years). This list is, first and foremost, an educational resource, and we should strive to respect the dignity of those represented as best as possible. Other Wiki band list sites list equally obsucre artists. However, there does have to be some kind of baseline that applies even to a specialty genre such as this. I think that Wiki could develop a distict set of criteria that apply to specialty musical genres, particularly those that are historical in nature (at least when used in this kind of application), to meet the different set of educational needs required. Obviously, bands that might be appropriate to appear on this site might be too obscure to be mentnioned in more general interest Wiki sites or summary articles. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through the list in alphabetical order and sourcing the bands. Next to each band I am listing (in parentheses) its city and state (or country) of origin and then citations to references. This is a temporary arrangement--until articles can be created for each band. But, in the meantime, this arrangement will make it easier to create articles for each of the bands. After an article is created for a band, we can then remove the added info from this list (parentheses and citations, etc.) and transfer them into the corresponding article. I have already created articles for some of the bands, and there are more to come. It will take time, but this summer I will have some a lot of time to work on this project. I hope to be able to create at many at that time, but I would love for others to help me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have noticed that someone added a couple of bands (The Fantastic Fabulons and The Swamp Seeds) to the list (out of alphabetical order and without bullets). I know nothing of these two bands, so I cannot vouch for them, the way I can for those that I have added to the list. I will research these bands. I will contact the contributer who added them and see if he/she can provide any useful information. I have kept them in the position that they were placed by their contributer (out of alpabetical order and non-bulleted), so that they can be easy to recognizecand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did find infromation about the band, The Swamp Seeds and listened to their record, "Can I carry Yor Balloon," so I added citaitons to it and put it in alphabetical order in the "S" section. I will try to find information about the band "The Fantastic Fabulons." Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "garage rock"

Hello, been a while I wasn't around and as far as I see this list been improved, thanks all! I have somethings to mention though. Because what we try to do here is to reflect the accurate information, I think adding UK bands in this list won't keep up with our standards. By default, there is no 60s UK garage rock. If we talk about the wild sound of the 60s UK bands, then it is freakbeat, ain't it? We shall try not to fill this list with freakbeat bands, what say you? Elitropia (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

I noticed that the criteria for inclusion is surviving recordings - I assume vinyl records - and an article here at Wikipedia. I know of a few bands that have recordings from that time period, but have no article here. Two of them had their single release included on American Bandstand back in the day. I know this would make for a very large list, but what thoughts does anyone have as to including groups that have NO article here, but do have recordings?

Also, I have a site up - boonerock.net - that covers the bands in the small geographic area of Boone County, Iowa for what it's worth. It might be useful for some research at this larger topic as I cover some of the more general info from this time period (roughly 1961 - 78).

Also, the sheer scope of this genre, as mentioned elsewhere, is indeed truly remarkable. That time in history will most likely not be repeated again unless, of course, there is another event like the British Invasion that sparks the interest of a large set of folks with an inexpensive door open to their participation. Thanks to those who have worked on this article so far. I appreciate your efforts.THX1136 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Ramones were a punk rock band with that hyped up 4/4 rock beat with snare on 2 & 4, like a drum machine factory preset Rock 001, played fast, like most other punk, and definitely not "garage" in any way, shape, or form. Great punk band, but shouldn't be mentioned in a garage rock article.77Mike77 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)