Talk:Billy Talent/Archive 1

Genre

In terms of the categories this article has been listed in, I would argue that Billy Talent is hardly a hardcore punk group. Inanechild 23:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Billy Talent is not a punk Rock group, they are more of a hard rock. Punk music barely hits the mainstream with the same impact as Billy Talent did.--Quena@sympatico.ca 00:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not quite, Watoosh (while they were Pezz) was an odd form of punk rock, and their first album as Billy Talent had distinctly more emo influences, making them sort of hardcore punk (since emo is based off hardcore punk). They aren't hard rock, that's apples and oranges. Anyway, overall, the only consistent thing you can say is that they're a punk band. --24.223.144.215 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't think he is a punk-rock person

Agreed, Billy Talent looks just like another Simple Plan or Blink 182. I believe "Punk Rock" is becoming more of a look than a genre of music. Correction officer06 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, if you're gonna have a valid argument, you need to back yourselves up. Nobody here has anything besides complaints about mainstream punk. Hard rock isn't hardcore. "punk rock" is a genre, not a bunch of mainstream emo bands. Hopefully I'm not picking a fight here, but there's nothing here to suggest anything should be changed.--128.146.68.89 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I really don't want to be brought into this argument. Music arguments always degenerate because they can't be resolved, it's all a matter of perspective. That said, I'm going to carefully state this. Punk rock has more diversity than mainstream emo bands display, and some 30-years of history. They cannot be defined by some emo band like Fallout Boy. It's unfair to make broad generalizations, especially considering you seem to be only familiar with popular emo bands you dislike.

It's strange that your calling Fall Out Boy a mainstream emo band, when if you look at the wikipedia page on "Rites of Spring" you will find that emo has been around for quite some time, and it is a genre of harcore punk. You'll also find that Fall Out Boy sounds nothing like them. As for Billy Talent, I'd call them Alternative Rock. I'd also describe them as political. I think they have punk roots but I wouldn't describe the band as punk. But... now that I think about it, If I add up all the time I've ever spent on the internet arguing about genres, it'd probably add to a week. A Winter's Tale 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) A Winter's Tale

This is all beyond the point. An argument on what punk rock "is" should be in the Talk:Punk_rock section. It doesn't matter here because none of this changes Billy Talent's genre. The Internet doesn't need another meaningless argument, I won't post here again.

On a side note, I thought you were referencing The Dickies, which is ironic beyond belief. Can't say I've ever heard of Dickies clothing. --128.146.68.89 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter what so ever if they are punk-emo-hardcore-whatever. That has nothing to do with any of it being that those lables are just for organizational reasons. What really matters is what the lyrics and sounds and voices make you feel. That's why they call music a strand of art. It is a piece that will give you stong vibes of emotion. Like Nothing to Lose- is about a kid being teased and bullied at school then commits suicide, Devil in a Midnight Mass- is about a child predator working as a preist. Bands are not at all about trying to 'be something'. It's about making an impact on people to find emotion in a topic. -Erica-Jean M. -15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EJ MACZ (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 May 2006.

and that's relevant to the article how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.254.9 (talk • contribs)

They are definitely a hradcore punk band and not a "modern rock" band. Their sound is very little like emo - any similarities are coincidences, because almost every musical genre will have at least something in common with another. Their grinding guitars, flat sound, and loud and screaming vocals are all staples of hardocre punk. No they don't scream like Death metal singers, but that's not necessary for hardcore punk to be hardcore punk Kame2000 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the genre to Post-hardcore and Emo-punk. If you disagree, dont be afraid and discuss it here. But this is how they are categorized on the All Music Guide, and that is the way it will stay until we reach a concensus on what their genre is. Do not change it until that happens. -- Reaper X 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Emo-punk!!!What's this? Billy Talent is post-hardcore, punk band. They aren't emo. DCman 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not emo punk, they are punk rock as all who have been to there gigs shall know why do you think it also says this on there myspace, it would be much appriciative if people wouldnt put them as emo punk as the only thing remotely emo was the song 'nothing to lose' as it was about killing yourself at a young age and this was simply to show the children of the world no matter how you are treated in school you dont need to go to such an extent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.226.96 (talk • contribs)

Any objections to BT not being emo? -- Reaper X 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the lyrics to alot of their songs, you'll find that it's hard to argue that they aren't at least slightly emo. That said, I feel that post hardcore punk would be a more accurate categorisation, though I don't see the necessity for the band to fall under only one category, is it not possible to reach some kind of compromise that allows for the emo-esque lyrics, the seemigly punk look, and the hardcore flat guitar sounds in many of their songs? Plebmonk 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have listed their genre as rock as it is the All Music Guide's tagging, and it is a very general category to list them under. This will hopefully stop any slow edit wars that mostly anonymous users have taken part in. -- Reaper X 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think billy talent are a melodic hardcore and Punk rock band. They aren't hardcore due to a lack of screaming, but many songs such as red flag make me believe that they are Punk rock, but the less agressive form of hardcore called melodic hardcore.

I'd list them under Punk Rock, listen to them and then listen to a regular rock band and another punk band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseAgainst01 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

If I was to catagorize Billy Talent it would have to be Punk Rock (derives from the Rock Genre), in which I think they should be listed as. Look at there lyrics, how they play, they're appearance, how they act on stage and listen to them side by side a Rock band such as Brand New, or Queen. Also on their official myspace page www.myspace.com/billytalent they list themselves as Punk/Rock. If this isn't good enough reason to change the genre to Punk Rock then the next step should be to either ask on their site or comment their Myspace. RiseAgainst01 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen and email to billytaleninfor@nettwork.com as to what genre they should be listed as, i await a response. Wake266 3:56 7th, May 2007

Billy Talent are just a Emocore/Alternative Rock band! they are no punkrock! Rise Against or NOFX are punkbands bt not billy talent! they look like emos and they make emo! only the songs Voices of Violence and Red Flag are punkrocksongs but the other ones are emo and alternative! Minutes to Rise

There seems to be alot of people mentioning punk rock. One of the CANOE sources I dug up has Gallant quoted as saying:

"We never really agreed with the punk rock label in the first place. We’ve approached our music in a way that we could be open to everything."

Interperet the last line however you want, but it shows that they have been labelled as punk rock, and it can be argued that their early stuff was at least influenced by it (it doesn't matter that the band doesn't agree with it, thats just their perspective, not the world's). I think because of thast, it should be listed.
Another listee should be something to do with emo, according to this quote here from the same article, and Gallant talking about Billy Talent II:

"We wanted to do something completely different from the first record because we had changed dramatically and had learned a lot from personal relationships. Everyone in the band is partnering up and dealing with those issues. The general theme of this record is trust, the lack thereof or breaking up. That seemed to fuel the record."

I would also go for something to do with rock, because that is a general category that they can be listed under, the instruments they use are a giveaway, and how they perform with them is the definition of rock music.
So can we come to some consensus here about the genre? Remember that we don't have to settle on one, but more than three might be going overboard. Those are my suggestions: something to comment on punk rock labelling and influences, something to mention the emotional tone of their newer stuff, and somethign to state the rock style of their instrumentation. Comments? -- Reaper X 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, emailing billytaleninfor@nettwork.com does no good. I tried it too, no response. -- Reaper X 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Billy talent is Rock/Alternative Rock and Emocore with some little Post-Hardcore influences but only on the first record! the second, Billy Talent 2, is more alternative! so i would put them under rock ,alternative and emo but not hardcore punk or punk rock! Papa Roach has got strong Post-Hardcore and Punkrock influences but not Billy Talent! or Bad Religion is Punk or Misfits is punk and Billy Talent are deffently not Melodic Hardcore or Hard Rock! Melodic Horror

well devil in a midnight mass sounds like hard rock, not plain old rock and fallen leaves is alternative rock, not indie punk.

I dont think that all the Billy Talent singles should be classed as just simply rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.8.3 (talk • contribs)

Alright, well this is a general genre over the bands career, let's not analyze songs. Alot of rock bands will occasionally make a slow/emo song. But for the lack of consensus, I agree with Rock/Alternative Rock and Emocore suggested by Melodic Horror. -- Reaper X 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Billy Talent, in iTunes, is classified as "Alternative". I trust that. --74.110.31.65 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Billy Talent have nothing to do with Punk rock! maybe voices of violence is a little bit punk but thats it! The rest is just Emocore and Alternative Rock!!!!! billy talent is not punk!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.245.5 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

red flag

please note that the song is not a single

Yeah, its a demo going around the internet. Nobodys is gonna have the real thing till June 27

Well it is getting air play on radio stationsJacknife737 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well they did play it but they took it off for a while because they weren't aloud to play it until the album comes out on June 27th of 2006... which is today... yay!!!

When it is officially released as a single EP and promoted by the record company, it is then considered a single. It does not matter if the radio stations get their hands on an free mp3 given out by a band. Until Warner presses Red Flag onto a CD, it is NOT a single. -- Reaper X 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, they are shooting a video for Red Flag, but that still doesn't automatically make it a single. You never know, the whole plan of making it one could be scraped in an instant. I know it looks damn likely its going to be the next single, but please ladies and gents, be patient, and wait until it s released. -- Reaper X 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep Its a single nowKChuck27 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)70.65.115.113 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How about erasing this section, umm this is pretty out of date now.

PEZ lawsuit

i reverted an edit that claimed that the candy company PEZ also threatened a lawsuit on the band back in the Pezz days. I'm skeptical about it, as there is a difference there, and the fact that it was poorly writtin. If 64.187.8.100 or anyone else can bring me a reliable source concerning this, I'll gladly put it in. Thanks. -- Reaper X 22:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • i thought it was another band that was named Pezz that would have sued if the change wasnt made. -(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)}

Scandalous Travelers

I've noticed a lack in any mention of the Scandalous Travelers DVD. Please incorporate it to this page. Thank You --KChuck27 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)kChuck

Image:Bt3.jpg

Damnit. Okay people, can someone either put an image summary on Image:Bt3.jpg, or get a new pic of the band? We really need it, it's almost crucial to any band page, it just looks good. Thanks. -- Reaper X 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm taking care of it. -- Reaper X 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if this is stupid but why cant you just throw {{promophoto}} in there and be done with it? -(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)}

I guess that works, I wasn't aware you could do that (I'm not very knowledgeable on licences and stuff). Thanks (chubbstar). -- Reaper X 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly had replaced Image:bt3.jpg with Image:BT10.jpg. However, I have reverted it because the latter only shows Benjamin Kowalewicz, the lead singer. The former illustrates the whole band, making it more appropriate. The band should not circulate around the lead singer. However, Image:BT10.jpg is excellent for Benjamin Kowalewicz's page. -- Reaper X 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Reaper X on this issue Fyver528 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, some anonymous user keeps replacing the infobox image with Image:BT Garden.jpg. It should not be replaced because 1, It has an unknown copyright status, and 2, we have a good alternative, Image:Bt3.jpg, where the author has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia, and 3, The image will just be removed again by bots. Unless copyright status is given to it, leave it out. -- Reaper X 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards

I trimmed down the awards section, it seemed to be taking up too much space. Instead I modeled it like the Alexisonfire Awards section, and removed most nominations. -- Reaper X 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Single from II?

Can anyone confirm the next single from BT II? Everytime I check back it goes from This Suffering to Fallen Leaves and such. Until it can be sourced, I don't see a use in putting it on the page.--R-Tiztik 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Billy Talent II (section)

I have cleaned up and rewritten the BT II section. I removed a couple POV and unsoucrced statements and such, and changed the tense in alot of places, it was still in present and future in some places! But the section still seems...gimicky or something, i can't find a good adjective. It really seems like alot of the information such as "they played this @ BBC and did this song and this song" and thing like that belong in the album's own article. You know, stuff that has to do with the promotion of the album. This article is centralised around the band itself, their promotional jockeying. If someone could transfer that information before I find time to do it, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Reaper X 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

EPs

Can anyone comfirm that Red Flag EP and Fallen Leaves EP are real? I'm wondering if someone mistook it for a singles section or something... -- Reaper X 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What Happend

Where have the Awards and discography Gone?KChuck27 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Could someone Revert it to be more like this "13:21, 18 March 2007 CIreland (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edit by 80.73.127.158 to last revision by 70.65.155.137. using TW) " in history

Yea, I dunno what the hell happened, but someone removed the image caption. I put it back as I modeled it after The Smashing Pumpkins page, which is a Featured article. As for the logo in the name field, it's a great idea, but that thing needs to be improved, because it looks like a grade 2 cut it out. Quite tacky. -- Reaper X 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Demos/Non Album Tracks

Do we really need this or can it be deleted. I know Billy talent has lots of unrealesed stuff and demo but i think this artical is too long and hard to source. Also quite a bit of stuff is being put down thats wrong.KChuck27 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KChuck27 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)KChuck27 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

That's the kind of stuff that would belong separate discography article. This is not in existence yet. So I will create Billy Talent discography as it is now in the article. I will do some modelling after the Oasis discography when I have time unless someone beats me to it. Beyond that, expansion is urgently needed! -- Reaper X 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo by

I have removed the note that the image was by Robin Wong. For one, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Secondly, he is already noted for his contribution on the image description page, and it is unnecessary to note it again in the article infobox. Thirdly, the only reason I had it for Image:Bt3.jpg is because it was copyrighted, and one of the copyright's holder's conditions was to have a link to his official site. But we do appreciate Robin Wong's contribution to Wikipedia by providing us with a free image, so I will personally write him and thank him for his work. -- Reaper X 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See commons:User_talk:RobinWong#Thank you. Add anything if you like. -- Reaper X 22:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that "with permission" images have been banned from Wikipedia for about two years, possibly three. -- Zanimum 21:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's gone, no worries now. -- Reaper X 03:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tour changes

I hate to seem like I'm violating WP:OWN or something here, but I have reverted changes to the Billy Talent II section claiming that BT has changed their plans for touring before they record their third album. I apologize 74.106.181.12, but as I said on your talk page, you have to provide sources. I am on my way to trying to make this a good article, and uncited material wouldn't help. If you can provide a source, be bold and throw it on there, because thats all you need, I'll be happy to put it back in if you have one. -- Reaper X 20:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'source' is right on the official Billy Talent website under Tours. I think that's pretty good proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.181.12 (talk • contribs)

Thank you 74.106.181.12. I will add it back in. -- Reaper X 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Albums

I believe that there should be a list of albums that a band has made in all articles about music bands, it's a valuable resource and isn't that what Wikipedia is about being a resource? Also it should be marked whether or not the album is a single or not. And, finally only fully recognised albums should be listed. Pathean 01:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See Billy Talent#Selected discography. -- Reaper X 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake at least this up to prevent others from making the same error Pathean 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No sweat, even Wikipedians are human eh? Thanks for discussing it first. Cheers. -- Reaper X 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I did a partial review placed this article on hold waiting some improvements:

Please try to use {{cite web}} template.

• Billy Talent is a Juno Award-winning Canadian Emo band

This is not good, you do not open saying that XXXXXX is Oscar-winning actor or YYYYYY is Gold medal-winning runner. Also unnecessary due to Awards section.

Members section

Add (1993 - present)

Unreferenced

These need source:

• The album achieved minimal success in the United States, despite the band's participation in the Warped Tour 2006 festival.[citation needed]
• where the disk came in at #134, selling only 7,231 units in week 1.[citation needed]

Footnotes

Should contain full reference about title, date, author, publisher and accessdate if possible.

• Source #5: link is dead. Try to find http://web.archive.org
• Source #10: necessary accessdate, author and date if possible.
• Source #11: link is not correct.
• Source #12: link is not correct.
• Source #14: link is not correct.

If fixed, I will do another review to find errors. See ya Carlosguitar 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Juno award reference has been removed. (1993 - present) added to members section. The refs are completed with the most information I could get, and #5 and #10 have been fixed. See all edits here. I'm busy in real life these days, but I will try to get citations for those 2 points tonight. As for using the cite template, I originally was, but the dates were screwed up and redlinked, so I just kind of substituted them (see here and here). I also did that because another featured music article, The Smashing Pumpkins, does the same thing. Finally, as for links #11, 12, and 14 not being correct, the actual links are javascript popups, so I don't think I can directly link to them. So I did the next best thing and linked to the original official news page is where you can click on the link and it will pop-up. Cheers. -- Reaper X 18:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About red links, please see Template:Cite web: accessdate: Full date when item was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, for example "accessdate = 2007-09-16". Must not be wikilinked.

It is possible to link javascript popups, here is a example: http://www.billytalent.com/tool/display_newsbt_new.jsp?id=3195 just right click and see proprieties or page info. But I have tried to find the links for these news without successful. Seems to be removed from their site. Carlosguitar 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made these edits, which include fixing the links for those javascript popup news stories, and removing those uncited claims you pointed out earlier. I found this, and from it I can replace those uncited figures with a general statement about BT not being able to crack the U.S. mainstream, and add some more new info. Please continue to examine the article while I find time in my life to add that, and changing the ref format back over (is that really necessary right away? it's using the {{cite}} template, it's just substituted!). Cheers. -- Reaper X 04:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not worry about time, I can wait if you are busy. {{Cite web}} is more a suggestion, feel free to use or not. Carlosguitar 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did a full review and these should be sourced:

• Billy Talent's second album was mostly recorded at The Warehouse Studio in Vancouver, British Columbia, again working closely with good friends Gavin Brown and Chris Lord-Alge.
• The band also recorded cover songs of John Lennon's "Cold Turkey" and the Buzzcocks "Ever Fallen in Love?" during these sessions.

Clarify:

• The band went on a large overseas tour, beginning on June 1. 2006 or 2007? Carlosguitar 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made these edits. This involves citing Gavin Brown and Chris Lord-Alge working on Billy Talent II, removing the second uncited claim, removing another uncited claim about lawsuits over the name Pezz, some clarification about the album leaks, and about the large overseas tour being in 2007.
In the end, I have completed all your points. As for the {{Cite web}} template, I do initially use it, but I choose to change it over into a substituted version afterwards.
So what do you say? Is this good? -- Reaper X 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did my last review and found these unreferenced:

• During this time, Kowalewicz ran into a co-worker, Jen Hirst, at 102.1 the edge, the Toronto radio station he worked at.
• She had previously seen the band perform as Pezz, and he asked her to check out the band's performance at a club.
• This would prove to pay off, as Hirst was later hired by Warner Music Canada to work in A&R. Carlosguitar 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Those points are included in reference #2, which has a citation in that paragraph. -- Reaper X 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

About genre, I know how hard is it, but it would be good if you guys establish consensus. Carlosguitar 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• GA - I want to thank you Reaper X for the extensive edits and everyone whom helped to meets GA criteria. Thanks again guys. Carlosguitar 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And thank you Carlos for your dedication. I'm psyched this is GA material now. Woo-hoo! -- Reaper X 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

East Coast Tour

When you talk about the last tour for the year, you just can't say Halifax. Either include all 3 cities or don't mention any at all. Halifax is not special. Mrbillybob 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you find me a source that includes all three cities? I would have included all 3 if I had a reliable source, of course they aren't on the official site now that they are done. -- Reaper X 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need sources for general knowledge that everyone knows :| . And why do you think you get to decide.. --204.81.167.151 15:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't "decide", I follow the policies on verifiability and GA criteria. But I'll remove the reference to Halifax altogether anyway. -- Reaper X 20:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Verified all three shows from here. -- Reaper X 21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)