Jump to content

Talk:Asia (band)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 26 March 2013 (→Genres vs. non-genres: AOR - not a genre). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Asia vs. Asia featuring John Payne

Someone needs to make separate articles for Asia and Asia featuring John Payne. Woknam66 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to suggest that, and someone's beaten me to it. The linear progression of Asia leads the version of Downes, Howe, Wetton, and Palmer, that is currently touring and recording. Asia Featuring John Payne is a totally separate band. (Hence, the fact that they are not the ones who tour, and record as "Asia".) Whilst it may merit mentioning these folks in the article, it certainly does not merit giving them virtually equal billing with Asia themselves.Mk5384 (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's reasonable. One could very legitimately argue that "Asia Featuring John Payne" is the "linear progression" (as you say), as they are a continuation of the original band which operated continuously (and gradually lost original members) since its founding, and when Geoff Downes left and started a new band as a reunion of Asia's original members, the still-existing "Asia" band were forced to change their name for legal reasons, as Downes had rights to the name. If one of the bands is the "new" one, and thus warranting a separate article, it would actually be the new group calling itself "Asia" - even though they are more high-profile and (most would say) higher quality of the two. Playing devil's advocate there - I see no reason to separate the article either way. I would vote to keep it as-is. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that talking about "Asia Featuring John Payne" helps tell the narrative of the history of the band; taking some of that material out of this article would make the history more clouded. I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but if someone were to pull out "Asia Featuring John Payne" as a separate band, I would encourage that person to leave behind as much material as possible as is relevant for describing the history of the original band. Regarding which is the "linear progression": the only thing that is clear to me is that this is a murky mess. If the goal is to have an encyclopedia entry about the band "Asia", it probably should all be here to some degree. SeparateWays (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SeparateWays. I am ambivalent about a separate "Asia Featuring John Payne" article, but if that is done, this article would still have to cover the Payne era and the split between the reunion Asia and the continuing Payne line-up, and the new article would have to cover the prehistory of AFJP, i.e. Asia qua Asia and Payne's time in the band, in some detail in order to be understandable. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's premature to create a separate "Asia Featuring John Payne" article. This article is already poorly sourced. I'm not sure we can find enough reliable sources to justify a second article. I suggest working on fixing this article, and expanding the Asia Featuring John Payne section. If and when the Asia Featuring John Payne section gets big enough to justify a second article, I think we can revisit the issue of creating a second article. I think that the biggest issue with this article right now is that most of it is not sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the guy who originally suggested a separate page for AFJP. But after thinking it over, I've changed my mind. But there's still a problem. The problem is that in the Asia discography page, "Military Man" by AFJP is there along with Phoenix and Omega by Asia, but there is no differentiation between which is by AFJP and which is by Asia. I think we need some simple way to make sure visitors know which new albums are by AFJP and which are by Asia. Woknam66 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woknam66: you're right about the Asia discography page. What a mess this whole thing is. Anyway, there's no magically "proper" way to do this; it seems to me that the best fix is one which is (a) clear and (b) easy. What about simply breaking it out AFJP as a separate section within that page? (actually, this last bit of discussion probably belongs there.) SeparateWays (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's just split AFJP into a separate section there. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the L.A. Guns page is a good example of what the Asia page should look like. Woknam66 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May we return to this issue? I'd like to suggest that a separate Asia Featuring John Payne article should be created. Both the original reunion Asia and AFJP are established, ongoing entities now. They have, so to speak, their own narratives (with line-up changes in AFJP meaning the band now has little connection to the last Asia qua Asia line-ups Payne was in). But there is ongoing confusion between the two acts:[1] I posit that those seeking information on Asia may be confused by the AFJP coverage in the article lede and the second infobox, while those seeking information on AFJP have to search through a long article to find it. (And this article is overly long, so some sort of subdivision seems appropriate.) Moreover, I note we have ongoing edit warring about AFJP content on this page.
For comparison, I had a look at what other articles do. I note that there is a separate article for Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash, with the band being linked to and covered in brief in a section of the Wishbone Ash article. That seems like a good model to use. There are similar arrangements for Heaven & Hell (band) vs. Black Sabbath, for Lowrider Band vs. War, Manzarek-Krieger (previously known as The Doors of the 21st Century, D21C, and Riders on the Storm) vs. The Doors, and for Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe vs. Yes (band). (On the other hand, I note the Barclay James Harvest article simply has two sections, for John Lees' Barclay James Harvest and Barclay James Harvest featuring Les Holroyd, although that article has much less content to work with than the other cases mentioned.) These precedents have persuaded me that this is the right approach.
None of this is to contradict A Quest For Knowledge's concerns about adequate sourcing, although I think there has been some improvement on that front.
The changes to split off an Asia Featuring John Payne article are fairly straightforward, so I'm happy to do them, but thought I would garner opinions here first. Bondegezou (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's SO much overlap with their respective histories… as long as everyone is comfortable with a huge chunk of each article being redundant with each other, I'm open to it… though I think it's unnecessary. The John Payne era of Asia (pre-reunion) is most definitely part of Asia's history, and shouldn't be excluded, despite the current Asia's exclusion of that era from their promotional efforts. This article / articles should remain objective and complete on that matter. And, of course, an article on AFJP wouldn't make sense without restating a lot of that same history… this is the "overlap" I speak of. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
…and a disambiguatation would be necessary in each article too, I think. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the article has just lost a whole of content regarding the John Payne era, yet the material hasn't reappeared anywhere else. I'm tempted to restore it unless Bondegezou has plans to build an AFJP article; currently, that just redirects here. Any thoughts?SeparateWays (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments all. To clarify, I've not removed anything from this article (yet). As I said, there's been ongoing edit warring over it, which in part is why I feel two separate articles would help, so I think that's what SeparateWays is seeing. I'll not enact any change without reporting here first. Do restore in the mean time as appropriate. (I'm busy IRL so I won't be doing anything for a few days.)
I agree with Shubopshadangalang that the John Payne era of Asia (pre-reunion) is most definitely part of Asia's history and I think that should stay here. In terms of band members, AFJP (as currently is) only shares John Payne with 95% of that earlier period. Indeed, the reunion Asia shares more personnel with that period (Downes + Howe and Palmer both guested during that earlier period). As I envisage it, an AFJP article would have a very brief intro on pre-Payne Asia, a section on the John Payne era of Asia (pre-reunion) (but shortened compared to here) and then the main content would focus on the split from Downes and subsequent work. So, some overlap, yes, but not lots. I'm basing this on the approach taken with Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash, Heaven & Hell (band) etc. Obviously, clear use of links to other articles + disambiguation is essential. Thoughts? Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but with a watchful eye for later for those others who would continue to edit from a revisionist history standpoint :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that sounds right to me. (And thanks to whoever restored the material, wasn't me.) SeparateWays (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now created Asia Featuring John Payne, largely using material from this page. I am now going to remove some of the material from this page. All input welcome! Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a great split, Bondegezou. Thank you for the hard work! SeparateWays (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - great work, and thanks!!—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Rock?!?!?

Can we please take off the page that Asia is pop rock? They are clearly NOT pop rock, proven in part by the fact that none of the individual album pages claim to be pop rock. Asia is a progressive rock band, and progressive rock is a sub-genre of hard rock, so those two are the only ones that should be listed on the page. Woknam66 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive rock is hardly a sub-genre of hard rock, and many prog fans dislike Asia for having moved away from the band members' prog origins. But I don't want to get into an argument around musical genres: the approach here is to look at what reliable sources say. If there's cites calling Asia "pop rock", then we call them "pop rock". If there's cites calling Asia "progressive rock", then we call them "progressive rock". If both, then both. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to argue about whether or not it is hard rock, but it is certainly not pop. Allmusic says that it's Prog-rock, Album Rock, Art Rock, and Arena Rock [2]. Please note, however, that what most people call a "genre", Allmusic calls a "Style". It does say that Asia is "Pop/Rock" under "Genre", but that's a very broad definition of "genre" (click on it). They also call DragonForce "Pop/Rock" under "Genre" [3], and I don't think anyone would claim that DragonForce is pop, so clearly we should go by what they call "Style". Woknam66 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no more objections a week from now, I'm going to remove "pop" from the "Genres" section. Woknam66 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genres vs. non-genres

There seems to be some confusion as to what should be in the genre field of the infobox. The field is not intended for just any descriptors of the band's musical style, it's only meant for explicit genres of music. In other words, musical style ≠ musical genre (see music genre for more). The term "album-oriented rock" is a radio format, and an extremely broad term that can be applied to the musical style of any artist that prefers to have their albums listened to in whole and not as singles. Similarly, "arena rock" is not a genre, but rather a broad blanket term that refers to artists from a wide range of genres during the corporate era of the 70's/80's who tailored their music for live performances. See the Wikipedia for both terms and you will see that neither is referred to as a genre. Feel free to use these terms elsewhere in the article, but not the genre field of the infobox. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been editing a large number of articles removing these styles from infoboxes. Thank you for explaining your reasons, but it seems to me that your reasons are just your opinion. You haven't cited any particular Wikipedia policies or past discussions, or demonstrated any consensus for your views. I looked at Template:Infobox musical artist and there wasn't much guidance there, but also nothing to support your position.
In situations like this, it seems sensible to fall back on basic policies like the use of reliable sources and the items given here are, at least, cited. So, on that basis, and following a WP:BRD cycle, I suggest restoring the material for now while it is discussed.
And given that you have made the same edit across multiple articles, it would seem appropriate to establish some consensus at Template:Infobox musical artist or a relevant WikiProject before reverting the work of so many other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, musical genre and musical style are 2 distinct things. The Allmusic reference cites "album rock" and "arena rock" as two of the group's styles, while it says "Pop/Rock" and "Rap" for genre. First off, the reference categorizes "album rock" and "arena rock" as genres, meaning they shouldn't be in the infobox's genre field. Secondly, the reference also lists rap as a genre for Asia, which is just ridiculous. The group has never been associated with hip hop, so I would immediately judge Allmusic to be an unreliable source for genre information for this group. Seems pretty cut and dry, if you ask me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic is not perfect, no. But we don't disqualify sources for occasional errors. And Wikipedia editing should still be driven by reliable sources and editor consensus. Are you happy to seek a broader consensus on your view before continuing? Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some cites to supplement AllMusic given your concerns. As for what is and is not a genre, that's always been an area of confusion. Given your edits to multiple articles, that broader question is probably better resolved elsewhere than here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the book Tarnished Gold: "The success of KMPX spawned a vast number of so-called progressive stations. In the 1970s there were an estimated 400 nationwide. One of these was KPRI-FM in San Diego, which employed Mike Harrison. Harrison called his version of progressivism "Album-Oriented-Rock", thus coining the acronymic term AOR." Do a few searches for AOR in that book and read what's in there. From the book Mass Media & Society: "Album-oriented rock (AOR) is an outgrowth of top 40. When audience enthusiasm for top hits declined in the late 1960s. Programmers began to program rock music from albums, often presented by a laidback disc jockey." From the book DJ Skills: The Essential Guide to Mixing and Scratching: "Tom Donahue, who owned station KMPX in San Francisco, pioneered this practice. Eventually, this format dubbed "Album-Oriented Rock," (AOR) and joined the other formats with its own charts and demographic figures, which seemed by many to be contrary to its idealistic hippie roots. Marketing departments' demographic surveys sliced the radio dial into formats aimed at various segments of the population, maximizing the efficiency of advertising dollars. Along with top 40, R&B, and Album-Oriented Rock, station formats came to include Urban, Country, Oldies, Adult Contemporary, Classic Rock, and Soft Rock." It is quite clear that AOR was invented by radio programmers/personalities as an FM format for their stations, and that it does not constitute a musical genre. AOR is as much a music genre as top 40 is. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asia_(band)&oldid=547102061"