Talk:Hurt (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

This doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability for music. Most of the references are from the bands own forum, the whole page is written like a fansite/advertisement ... it looks like they put a lot of effort into polishing it up and looking notable with all of the references, but there is only one quasi-reliable source -- a brief article in The Huntsville Times ... does that make them a notable band? Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why?[edit]

You make it sound like the forum, the only place where information can be found, isn't very reliable. The only other place that we would even be able to get info would be the bands MySpace, which, according to Wikipedia, isn't reliable enough either. Because the band was dropped by Capitol, they don't get as much publicity as they used to with Capitol trying to sell their records. Everything has been found out via the band or Tom, the band's manager, and in turn posted on the forum for the sole purpose of letting the fans know, and having it available for referencing on Wiki. The band also hasn't updated their official page, www.hurtband.com, in a very long time, most likely because of the label drop. If we can't use their official site, their MySpace, or the forum, then there wouldn't be anything to this page. EOA3928 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't use their official site, their MySpace, or the forum, then there wouldn't be anything to this page. -- that's exactly what I'm saying. And none of those are considered reliable sources unfortunately, unless you are just writing about the band's opinions, which is one place that you can cite what they wrote and have it be considered reliable. Go through and read the the page on reliable sources and try to find some of those sorts of things to use as references. Otherwise, it belongs on Myspace or a personal page, and not on Wikipedia. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference link has all the relevant information that is needed for the majority of the pages information. Most information is from transcribed interviews, audio interviews, and other fact based sources. If you have any questions check them out.Xistenz99 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Satisfies notability[edit]

Notability?[edit]

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 2. Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." Ten Ton Brick was #6 on Billboard's hot Mainstream Rock Charts which satisfies that requirement which in turn makes this a notable band by the guidelines. Also Falls Apart made it to 16 and Rapture to 17. Here is the link: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?JSESSIONID=9TLLJ9gDvGbGv1GykhvhhDnX8LvRyk4mC96q231lgWy6WmlsPnrd!-1694887031&model.vnuArtistId=711315&model.vnuAlbumId=1087385

Awesome, so throw that up in the article. But the information from the myspace pages and forums needs to go, unless it can be verified from somewhere else. Since the band is apparently notable, I'll remove the deletion notice. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last bit[edit]

Instead of automatically putting up a red flag saying, "Hey, this article isn't good enough. Let's delete it," you could have just tried to fix things you saw wrong with it, ya know? This way, we wouldn't have to go through the process of trying to prove to you that the citations aren't bias or noteworthy. Also, you could have just checked the citations yourself to ensure they weren't taken out of pure context. EOA3928 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "automatically put up a red flag". First I asked you to find better sources, and you said: If we can't use their official site, their MySpace, or the forum, then there wouldn't be anything to this page. ... so I figured that if there wouldn't be anything to this page, then it shouldn't be here. Nobody likes looking at an empty page ... But you've found something now: namely those hits on billboard. So use that. But you still need to find sources for the other information, and not use a myspace page and personal forum as a source.Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Jrtaylor, correct me if I am wrong...you are basically saying that just because it isn't on RollingStone.com, that the source isn't a good one? If that is true, I believe you have much bigger fish to fry, as half of the pages on Wiki have information pulled from "press releases" issued by the bands themselves, which is again, nothing more than half the information on here.

I will make sure that these interviews are reposted on "media" websites. My issue with this theory is that I had conducted these interviews with Mr. J. Loren and Rek Mohr personally, for the sole purpose of making sure these articles are as truthful as possible, and that we could begin to build this page.

This will take care of the "not from a forum" issue. However, if you do not feel that these interviews are 100% true and or that they are not a reliable source, feel free to contact the band's manager at anytime to verify. --Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: It's not me that made up the policy about reliable sources, and I don't know how crappy other band pages are, because I rarely look at them. I happened upon this article while looking for something more important. And the fact that this happens all the time is why, every now and then, I take a bit of time to trim some fat off of wikipedia. But look: I've got to go do other things right now -- like drink coffee and eat peanut butter bread and rub my dog friend's belly. But what you can do in the meantime is read about reliable sources and verifiability, and then apply what you've learned to the article. And remove the stuff that you can't source. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more[edit]

This article could use some more information about the band's music. Nothing crazy just 2 new headings for their 2 albums. We may want to wait to see what happens with their new album first, but at least write something about how vol 1 was a great breakout album and vol 2 is a good follow up but it's hard to say how original the band is considering they sound almost too much like tool, and sound garden. Devin75.40.234.151 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


this would be done but the point of wiki is to remain non-biased about things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.6.35 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff added by me, JD[edit]

I added the singles chart, info on Vol. 2, and info on previously unreleased tracks from their myspace profile. **Added 10-12-2006**

NPOV[edit]

Dunno about anyone else, but the entire article seems to me to be attempting to sell this band. Recommending heavy edits, perhaps a complete rewrite. 68.231.159.127 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; actually, I think it was pulled directly from the band's official site or elsewhere. I don't know the band well enough to rewrite the article at the moment, though. Nani 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have met the band and they are great,J.Loren is a very cool and intelligent preson,if there music is as good as their personallities,THEY ROCK!!!!!!CAT APRIL 27,2006

I must say I agree as well. This article needs a whole rewrite. I don't know much about the music, but I'll see what I can do later.--Dess 01:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually gone out and boughtt their CD. From what I can tell, the description is indeed from their site, but in my opinion it captures their music very well. I'm sure permission to use it should be requested from the band website's web master or other authorized source. - Jax 5/4/06

Even with that, the article is still un-NPOV, and until we find out if it is a copyright violation, the copy-vio box is staying there UNLESS someone decides to tackle the the complete rewrite part to make the article have a NPOV. --G VOLTT 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Vol 1. is ripped directly from Top40 charts; can be found at http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=19732 - guest [Trauma] 6/8/06

I don't understand the Nu-Metal tag. They're not Nu-Metal in the slightest.

other than the song "forever", you mean. that's their only nu-metal song. Itachi1452 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a few people are looking at keeping an eye on the hurt wikis for vandalism etc and adding content when possible and where applicable following wiki guidelines obviously ...so hopefully the pages should be of the highest quailty they can be. who knows maybe even getting a gold star haha or being a featured wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.6.35 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up Origins, but we need a plan for renovation.[edit]

Origins now has a little better NPOV, but we still need some sources. I'm no music critic, so I can't fix the Style section, but I can see about getting some record sales facts and such. See if you can find some of that information, and some bios of the band members. If we can fix up the origin section and get more fact into the rest of the section we can make this wiki worthy.Zeketheo 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've NPOV'd it, so I have removed the rewrite tag. I'll try to find some record sales info. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's sounds like it was copied of the band's site to me. The Vol. 1 section needs to be changed by someone who owns the album and is knowledgeable about music. It's only about the album's single.12.181.11.241 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worded the Vol. 1 section, it sounds less like an ad now. 12.181.11.241 14:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still a "stub?"[edit]

I'm not quite sure on what makes an article a stub, but I don't think this one is anymore.--Jemijohn 04:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. It should now classify as a "start" due to the multiple sub-headings. But I lack the initiative to actually adjust it.

Band members, speedy deletes and merges.[edit]

I have requested speedy deletes on the articles for Evan Johns and Paul Spatola (both since deleted) as they duplicate information already in this article. I have also placed a WP:Merge template on the J. Loren Wince article as the autobiographical data can be placed in this one. Any future articles about band members should be of noteworthy items outside of their achievements with the band. I did not propose deleting or merging the Josh Ansley as he has a history outside of Hurt.LessHeard vanU 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vol. 1[edit]

somebody arrange album cover

I have uploaded

Hurtv1.jpg

also, here's track listing for somebody to put on its own page.

1. Shallow 2. Rapture 3. Overdose 4. Falls Apart 5. Forever 6. Losing 7. Unkind 8. Danse Russe 9. Dirty 10. Cold Inside 11. House Carpenter

Overhaul!![edit]

Hey, I helped a little (that's an understatement, jk). Made a seperate page for Vol. 1 and retooled some of the original page. Not much, but it's something!Zanny77 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup[edit]

I added the tag because the whole entry is way too spammy. Take the albums off the page and make them entries please. Also, the "Re-Consumation" and Vol. 2 should be toned down a bit (i.e. make them part of the article, instead of having their own section) etc. I also removed the nu-metal tag earlier, cause I have yet to hear J. Loren bustin rhymes, or flowing like Ludacris, so...Shatterzer0 02:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I did those things myself. But would anyone by chance have an album cover for "The Consumation"? I can't find it anywhere. Shatterzer0 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hurtv1.jpg[edit]

Image:Hurtv1.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 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 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Ok, as my edit has been reverted and I believe that is a more true reflection of the band, I will put this to consensus, as that is how wikipedia works. I believe that Hurt should be labeled more prominently here as either Art rock or Avant garde metal (both are the same, just different amounts of heaviness I guess) because of their use of instruments foreign to many genres and sub-genres of rock and heavy metal. Alternative metal is a derivative of nu metal which I removed about 3 or 4 months back because it was preposterous to label this band as such. So I leave this to a consensus. -- Shatterzer0 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What about them makes them "Avant garde metal" or "Art rock"? Expound before removing alternative metal, which is not derivative of nu metal and fits perfectly. Zanders5k 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you read the alternative metal entry, which you informed us all to read, you would have seen this: Derivative forms: Nu metal at the bottom of the infobox. Which means alternative metal comes from mainly nu-metal, bands like the deftones, newer korn, etc. if you read the avant garde metal, or art rock portions, they talk about using instruments not used in the general mainframe of rock and metal, which are violins, cellos, pianos, jazz style and include such artists as Tool, The Mars Volta, Radiohead, Queens of the Stone Age and so on. That is in a nutshell why I believe that Hurt is not alternative metal, but art rock. -- Shatterzer0 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Notice how the "alternative metal" article said "It is characterized by some heavy metal trappings (most notably heavy riffs), but usually with a pronounced experimental edge, including unconventional lyrics, odd time signatures, unusual technique, a resistance to conventional approaches to heavy music and an incorporation of a wide range of influences outside of the metal music scene." Art rock might work, but definitely not "Avant garde". Zanders5k 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

silly, alternative metal isn't derived from nu-metal at all. frankly, it's vice versa. the deftones aren't nu metal either. but when it says derirative forms, it means what forms came from alternative metal. if you wanted to see wehre alternative metal comes from, look at the roots section. hurt is kind of alt metal, and AMG agrees. but i mean, not all their songs are heavy, frankly, a good portion aren't. should we also consider throwing in gothic rock into the mix? their music has been described as that before, their music is really dark, and their music definately contains gothic elements. Itachi1452 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this back to Alt metal for the time being as some joker took it upon themselves to label it "Emo." Please continue this discussion and we will resolve it at some point.VinedC (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Ton Brick chart placing[edit]

An ip is changing the mainstream rock chart placing of the above single from 38 to 32 (most editors simply revert as vandalism). Can we have a source here for either of the placings, so this matter can be settled? LessHeard vanU 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HURT.jpg[edit]

Image:HURT.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 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page.[edit]

I've moved the page to HURT from HURT (band) because Wikipedia policy states we shouldn't keep it under HURT (band) if HURT is available. Thundermaster367Thundermaster's Talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come nobody knows about thier self-titled album?[edit]

I was just curious why nobody put it on here. Anyways, I added it to the discography and made a page for it as well complete with artwork and tracklist and other info! And the thing that sucks is I've never even heard the album, i just know about it! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwito (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is being updated by a few members currently. please stand by. album covers and track listings are being addedVinedC (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Titled[edit]

I am waiting on more details of this first before I put both it and The Consumation on the main part of this page. I should hopefully hear something back soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Whitemarket EP is gossip[edit]

the whitemarket EP has been confirmed to be "internet Gossip" by J. Loren. Until someone gets some sort of reliable reference, it should stay off of the page.70.58.16.69 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major overhaul[edit]

I have taken the time to not reorganize the page and add in a bunch of detailed history which has been cited in reference to an interview that I posted on the Hurt forums. This leads through all the albums, given the details that have been listed, and I tried to keep it as close to "word for word" as I could. I feel that the interview helped to have a much greater understanding for what all took place leading up to Vol. I and Vol. II, and helps us all to understand how the band has gotten to where they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added images to the page[edit]

An additional major update, I have replaced my image of the band from Little Rock with the band logo, and placed album images and individual images of the guys into the page.--Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction here...I'm noticing it is IllZilla's turn to nit pick the details of this page, and now the album cover images used in each section of the albums where removed. I do not fully understand the reasoning behind this as the images pertained to each album which was described on that page. Perhaps someone can fill me in?

The band logo was removed as well, which I replaced with the image from Little Rock once again.--Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More major updates coming[edit]

With Rek replacing Josh as bassist, and an upcoming break for the guys, I am planning on doing more major updates, including "interviews" with more band members and possibly future details of things to come. Stay tuned here for more details. --Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bly1993, please read!!![edit]

The edits you had made did nothing more than destroyed this page. PLEASE do not edit this page for any reason in the future. I will be going back through this page once again and fixing all of the stuff that you have "cleaned up" that didn't need to be removed. I will ask one more time, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE! You removed information that was sited and had a purpose from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sev, scorp here... you've got no chance stopping anyone else from editing any wiki let alone the Hurt ones which you've kindly put so much time and effort into I'm afraid mate. I haven't looked at the wikis for a while to be honest but I see it has been fudged up royally and as wiki is free to edit by anyone Se7 just get back in there and revert it to yours and then add any of Blys stuff thats worth doing! I gotta say its fudged at the moment as straight away I proof-read it and laughed at the spelling of 'Led Zepplin'

Try not to take it to heart mate when others stumble through an edit. They just need a bit of guidance i reckon ;o) - see you on the forums dude

Scorp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.21.229 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR cleanup in progress[edit]

I moved the band's Discography to a separate page, tagged as much of the article as I could, and reorganized a bit of it. All unreleased songs where also moved to the new discography page...which can be found HERE.--Se7ensmatrix1216 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read in an interview yesterday that J. Loren doesn't consider the band to be metal. For that matter, neither did the interviewer, or myself. J. implored the host to "spread the word" that HURT was a rock band, but not a metal band. If you need a link to the interview, I can maybe dig it up... I found it in the bands forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.33.215 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia vs MySpace[edit]

I will have to go through this article again in the near future to remove the crufty fan speak; we are not mates of the band, and it is unlikely that any such will be reading this (except for the lols), so we refer to band members by either full or surname. We also don't know how any one member feels about anything unless it is quoted directly in the cited material. And what does "Important Band details" mean? The rest of the article is, like, sowhat? I don't even know why I am bothering to write this, cos I doubt it will get any better before I can find time to look it over... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

I removed a lot of unnecassary information the other day and I got reported for vandalism. This page needs to be completely re-done. This article is horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.133.210 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official albums[edit]

As far as I know, the self-titled and The Consumation are not considered official albums by the band and are rather considered more as demo discs. I want to know if anyone can confirm this with a source. bob rulz (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much love from Jackson, Ms![edit]

   Wow! I was able to see HURT this past weekend at the Mississippi fairgrounds for the second time. I was even more blow away this time than before. The talent and heart that goes into to their music is phenomenal - i mean they are OUTSTANDING with J. Loren's violin and roars that take your breath away. My husband and I have 3 albums and there's not one that we don't love! Every song is touching and I pray they keep rocking it for years and years to come!

                                                                 With Love,
                                                                   Sarah, 27  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.27.197 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

latest recent thoughts on the hurt article...[edit]

noticing the 2 headings at the top about excessive detail and sources a quick read of the whole page leads to way too much unsourced statements/opinion unverified stuff and also i really think a trim down is in order now to the point of new articles for people in the band - i know, if you just create an article for paul spatola - it will get deleted but lets face it detail about the members is too much in an article about the band. Surely under notability wiki guidelines the members or some qualify for full pages on them to eliminate the detail from the hurt band wiki page. Anyone up for starting to work on sandboxing those pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.208.2 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurt (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurt_(band)&oldid=1207674821"