Talk:Arena rock

Kiss?

I certainly don't feel qualified, but surely KISS are the canonical arena rock band? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but as a layperson, I think I'd have to agree. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more a Journey/Styx thing

really?

"In the 1980s, the best-known arena for concerts was Wembley Stadium, although many arena rock bands had relatively limited success in the United Kingdom."

somehow i doubt this was true in the u.s.

Benwing 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Arena Rock Recordings

Arena Rock is also a recording company. http://www.arenarockrecordingco.com/

Kflorence 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Giants Stadium Sounds Like Shit!

Need I say more? Tommy Lee

When / By whom was the term coined?

AKA "This article doesn't cite its sources" :P No, I'm really curious, because... I grew up in that time (70s/80s), and I don't really recall it being called that back then --jae 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

first sentence

"Arena rock is not a style of rock music,[citation needed] often also called stadium rock." What is this supposed to mean? Is the "not" just there in error, or is the claim that arena rock isn't a style per se, rather a group of bands from other styles and that grouping is also sometimes called "stadium rock"? Avraham 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was vandalism. I reverted it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism. But it certainly is a poorly worded sentence. It starts out correct... arena rock isn't a genre... but then it just goes downhill from there. Wikipedia makes an extremely poor distinction between genre and style. There are a hundred articles listed under the rock sub-genres article. And technically they are all wrong. Rock is the genre. And the rest are styles of Rock. It's a mistake that slipped through the cracks in Wiki's earliest days and now, unless the genre project sets up a task-force to correct it, we are stuck with the blunder. Arena rock is not a genre... and it isn't a style either. Most of the bands that were labelled as arena rock bands were really just hard rock bands.... but they were filling football stadiums during their peak... getting sponsored by "non-music" companies and the tag just evolved. The article has been tagged correctly... it is very POV and in need of a re-do. The first thing to go would be the genre-box... since it isn't one. This point has already been brought up at the Wiki-genre project. 156.34.217.117 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"it is...in need of a re-do." Yeah, Im gonna work on a rewrite.

"It starts out correct... arena rock isn't a genre..." But thats an opinion that was stated at the beginning. Opinions arent allowed to be inserted into an article unless its appropriate (like a quote or something). In this case, it isnt appropriate.

"Wikipedia makes an extremely poor distinction between genre and style." What you call a "style", we call a "subgenre".

But please, keep WP:OR in mind when inserting the part about it being a genre. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. Its OK now, as I finished my rewrite of it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK??? You paraphrased a single source.. that doesn't meet WP:RS criteria and took a long article of original research and made it into a short article of dubious original research and blatantly incorrect information. A subgenre of classic rock???? Classic rock isn't a genre, its a radio format. Its Wiki article even makes that point by a strong consensus. Not only is there an unreliable source that fails WP:RS... it's used 19 times. It went from bad... to shorter and still bad. A call for help from some experienced and skilled editors on the Wiki genre and music projects is rq'd to try and rescue what is becoming a fast sinking ship. 156.34.233.42 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Classic rock isn't a genre" If classic rock is not a genre, then why does it even have an article?

"You paraphrased a single source.." I didnt paraphrase, I quoted a few sources. The quotes are cited; they arent paraphrased. And please, read the reflist before you make stupid claims about me using one source when I used three or four different sources.

"It went from bad... to shorter and still bad." Well, actually, It went from bad to decent.

"(you) took a long article of original research and made it into a short article of dubious original research and blatantly incorrect information." Actually, I took a POV, bad-toned, unsourced article and turned into a semi-acceptable article that is NPOV and sourced. Thats what I did.

If you like the old article better, I really cant understand your POV. So explain.And anyway, I believe youre the guy who put a blatant opinion into the article. So I wouldnt be talking if I were you. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

??? Wikipedia is not a playground. Your opinions and comments are uncivil and are ignored simply because they do not deserve an answer. You've read my comments wrong. You used a reference that doesn't pass WP:RS 19 times. It isn't an insult to you. It's an observation from an editor with close to 50000 Wikipedia edits. I have help push dozens of articles to featured status. And that doesn't happen to any article that uses a really really poor reference 19 times. The article was in bad shape. And it's still in bad shape.. plain and simple. The "arena rock isn't a genre statement was there long before you or I came along. But it is a statement supported by other users. When a cite can't be found, consensus is the next best thing. The proper discussion forum is not here it is woth the Wiki-genre project and its regular members. The internet is the absolute worst reference source to be tapping into. I have requested assistance from several users who are skilled at de-boning bad articles and helping to build them back into good ones. This article is a bad article. In time it can be a good one. Re-building step 1 is already being tackled. Establish clearly that arena rock isn't a genre... it's just a term. And go from there. "Why does classic rock have an article?" Was that some sort of joke question? Classic rock has an article because it is a very popular radio format. Radio formats are allowed to have articles. But the first point that is put across in that article is just that... that it's a radio format. It's not a genre. There is a lot of misuse of terms like arena rock and classic rock all over Wikipedia. It takes a long time to go through all the articles that have classic rock linked in the infobox genre field and delete them. It doesn't happen overnight. But slowly they are all being rm'd. Deleting arena rock from genre fields will be a long task too. Another one that's used incorrectly is AOR. Again, it's a radio format being added to e genre field when it has no purpose there. Books are the only really good place to go looking for references. Rather than issue challenges, you should get you mother or father to drive you down to your local library... or go into your school library and look for books about arena rock. And use those to try and reference the article. That would be a great help. 156.34.227.140 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about the incivility. I just get riled up easily on Wikipedia. Anyway, I deleted the uncivil comment I wrote.

"When a cite can't be found, consensus is the next best thing." OK, made a post on the talk page talking about how the consensus rules conflicts with WP:OR - read more on that talk page.

"The article was in bad shape. And it's still in bad shape.. plain and simple." You know, you should probably rewrite it. Im sure youll make it better than this piece of crap. Who knows? Maybe you can make this article a FA, too, like you did those other dozens of articles. Thats not a challenge, BTW. Thats saying "Please make it better if its so bad." Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Does AllMusic Guide count as "reliable"? Ive seen it used in a featured article, but most editors are telling me otherwise.

Actually, I remember there was an older version of this article, and it was really good. Then someone rewrote it (badly), and then I rewrote it again (badly, again). So maybe a revert to that older version is the best option? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Arena rock article needs to be reverted anywhere. It needs what content that is currently there scraped down and built back up with reliable sources. The most important thing to clarify is the "not a genre" element. All Wiki articles just take time, research, patience and several non-illegal sedatives and a stiff snort of CC. 156.34.219.206 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to imply that Arena (or Power) Rock is dead. What about all the bands writing and performing Power rock in the 21st century? User:DavidSumter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.152.162 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

OK. WTF?????

"After the tragic disasters during Woodstock (not enough sanitation, medical care, security etc.), these large, open air concerts were frowned upon. Few rock artists had a chance to secure a place to play to the thousands of fans that were ready to spend every last dime they had just get a glimpse of their favorite Bands. In the early 70's English bands, such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Black Sabbath,Cream,Deep Purple, had a difficult time securing enough seating for the thousands of fans that wanted to see the concert. Most convention centres had limited bench type seating, not to mention poor security. But a enclosed area that was large enough for a sporting event was ideal; plus noise levels were incredibly high at those events who would be bothered. Thus was born the Arena Rock Era. The Artists themselves loved the idea: no more long stays in nowhere towns or multiple dates in the same city, but thousands of rock hungry fans crammed into a safe baseball or football stadium. Plus, lets not forget the monies, 50,000 seats plus standing room only at $12.00-$25.00 a head. This was a promoters dream."

I bolded the really bad parts. I think this needs a prety big rewrite. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. Its OK now, as I finished my rewrite of it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

See above. Anyway, if you read the whole article, it is extremely biased against arena rock, with unsourced shots and negative statements with little positives about it. Thats called POV. Ill fix it up later. But if somebody could help, it'd be well appreciated. And I might rewrite it, anyway. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. Its OK now, as I finished my rewrite of it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the ref's are personal opinions of a blog writer's magazine which automatically makes it WP:POV. I recommend chopping it down to the bare minimum facts that we know are true... either that or finding better sourcing. Blog's are incredibly infamous for being opinionated [Even if the ref is a magazine - it's still opinion]. Scarian^Talk 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. I actually asked one of the anonymos users to rewrite it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Are the sources formatted correctly? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article overdid it with the footnotes after every sentence. Half could probably go since they are all from the same source. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New source

Hi, I found this source [1], which is about an episode that dealt exclusively with stadium rock (or arena rock as the article calls it). It gives some other bands that went under this label that the article doesn't already have (such as Springsteen, who I've always thought was one too). It also names Led Zeppelin as part of arena rock, yet the current article says they just inspired it really. Another fact contrary to what the article says is that it mentions "through events such as Live Aid and the rise of MTV, rock achieved a global influence on culture and politics", yet the article says that "By the time MTV had formed, "it no longer bore any relevance"". Anyway, how can it have beared no relevance when MTV formed and yet say, "Eventually, arena rock would lose its popularity to alternative rock and grunge"? MTV was formed 10 years before the popularity of grunge, so that part of the article makes no sense. However, the BBC source provides a citation for calling it "not a genre", as I think the source as it stands only says that implicitly. Furthermore, it mentions stuff like Live Aid, and briefly mentions its "global influence on culture and politics," which we could find other sources to expand on. Finally, it has some nice description of arena rock, which could be utilized too. What do people think of this source and the issues raised? Deamon138 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

was it you that fucked up the article with so many references? its too hard to edit to even take them out now.

Any RS is OK as long as it doesn't cause conflict with the consensus that the term describes an era of music and not a style or genre. Too many times (like British Invasion) the words 'arena rock' are incorrectly used in music article genre fields... which is just plain dumb. Without checking into it remember that many BBC music links are bogus essays/blog written just any ol' Joe with an opinion and have been rejected as reliable sources. Always check the authorship of anything found from BBC music (and many others for that matter) that the writer is a recognized author/respected music journalist and not just a Wiki-POV pusher who has blogged something onto BBC and then turned around and soap'd it onto Wiki. A common 'gaming the system' routine. Libs (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Petchboo, I did not "fuck up the article with so many references". I haven't added any. Nor is there too many. Why would you want to remove the references? Btw, remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes likes this "~~~~" Deamon138 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Libs, I think this source is reliable. It was written by Sebastian Barfield, who was the director/producer of Seven Ages of Rock, the series that episode described was from.

"Any RS is OK as long as it doesn't cause conflict with the consensus that the term describes an era of music and not a style or genre." Well this one doesn't do that, but if it did, we would have to include a mention in the article that opinions differ on whether it is a genre or an era. Obviously you and I know it is an era, but that would be OR on our part, so if a source did come up that said it was a genre, we would have to mention it unfortunately. Anyway, that's just a hypothetical. Hopefully we won't get that problem.

"Too many times (like British Invasion) the words 'arena rock' " What?! Who's been calling the British Invasion arena rock? The Beatles, Stones and the Who were never arena rock!

Anyway, what do you reckon with this source then? It seems reliable, and does provide some interesting description and points that can be expanded on with more sources that could be found, but it does have a couple of contradictions that I mentioned above with the current article. What do you say? Deamon138 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporate rock redirect

Corporate rock redirects here now, thus stating corporate rock = arena rock. Opinions? RCHM (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Might as well. The corporate rock page just puked out the same bad info this page has. At least this one has a weak attempt at structure and citation. The re-direct was long overdue cleanup of unrequired superfluity and original research. Wikipedia is over-populated with fluff pages like that. As it is even this page is crap. Better to have one turd to try and polish than 2. Libs (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If any of that Corporate rock stuff was true (I've never heard that term before, so I dunno if it was), then don't we need to add some info on the term into this article? Deamon138 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

if its decided its relevant, it would be a good idea. The redirect was attempted a few months ago from corporate rock, but no corresponding changes that you describe had ever been made here... RCHM (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It just seems odd that someone might search for "corporate rock" and get redirected here, and since there's no way of telling what the connection between arena rock and corporate rock is, the reader might get confused as to why they were redirected here.

I did a quick google of "Corporate Rock" and it seems to be a modern term, i.e. not related to arena rock, which is odd. Should this still redirect here? Deamon138 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one cannot deny that arena rock was very commercially motivated, so the redirect here seems reasonable. However, arena rock is generally associated with the seventies and eighties, so the two might not be completely synonymous since the corporate side of rock music has always and will always be around. Maybe a redirect to the main rock music article will be a good solution if an agreement to redirecting the page to arena rock (which I agree that it should) cannot be reached? — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who originally re-directed the article. It had been tagged a long time for being poorly written original research. And most of the content wording was just rehashing of content that appeared in this article. The content of any merit that is. And that was little to none. If some of the corporate rock content was salvageable it could be added as a section to this article. Re-directing both to the main Rock article, I feel, is a bit strong. Not tot try and support this article. But I feel the Rock music page itself is in such need of work that if the content from this page were merged into the Rock page it would just push that page beyond repair. I got a great laugh from the "polished turd" comment earlier. If we were to merge this article into the Rock page I guess we would just be spreading the manure on a different garden. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

C Class

I promoted this article to C Class as I believe it is no longer a stub. It has high quality, well sourced information. I am open to discussion regarding the change. Washburnmav (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree. Most of the article is weighted from a single reference. I am biased against pages that have a huge bulk of content lefted from a single source which is stretching WP:RS a bit thin. I will admit to not knowing the C class criterion very well so I may be 100% wrong too. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a C-class but a start class. Its to short and the article wouldn't hurt by expanding. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Rock

Hey- it looks like I'm late to this party, but I would dispute the redirect of Corporate rock -> Arena rock. Corporate rock is commercially motivated rock, while arena rock is only one type of this (and an older one at that). So I'm switching the redirect to Selling out, I think that's a bit more appropriate. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really late to the party. But what we described as "corporate rock" back in the late 1970's dovetails with the groups listed here. The anti corporate hippies were just 10 years in the past. Unlike 10 years earlier in the late 1970's bands were very willing to use traditional marketing techniques like focus groups. The "corporate rock" sound was as we understood it was a hybrid of hard rock guitars for the teenage boys and ballad like singing for the teen girls. These groups were criticized for being sellouts, dull, uncreative, and faceless all while selling record amount of product. The critics tended to be Punk and New Waver's who defined as themselves as much for being anti "corporate rock" as pro Punk/New Wave, and nostalgic former hippies. Edkollin (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

this sentence

Arena rock's origins can be traced to the late 1960s, with bands such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and The Who.

as much as i respect those other bands, it was the beatles, and none of the other bands who pioneered stadium rock with their concert at the shea stadium on Sunday, August 15, 1965.

at that time Led Zeppelin wasn't even formed.

so please, give credit where credit is deserved, the beatles were the first, and without them taking the risk of a disaster it wouldn't have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.175.179 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AOR is ambiguous

Because, there is also the definition of adult-oriented rock. So the term is as ambiguous as PC (political correctness and personal computer), though both do represent the rock genre. -andy 77.7.12.37 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AOR was also a 1970's/1980's United States radio format that was a more commercialized version of the progression rock radio format. Edkollin (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed AOR from the list of alternatives when I cleaned up this article because I couldn't find any evidence except for the radio format, which already has an article. It doesn't actually seem to be a synonym of Arena rock to me, but perhaps someone has evidence to the contrary.--SabreBD (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to U2, Bruce Springsteen et. al ?

Incredible article, how can any article about Stadium Rock not even mention U2 or Bruce Springsteen?

U2 redefined Stadium Rock with their Zoo TV Show/ Outside Broadcast Tour in 1992-93, and U2 and Bruce Springsteen dominated the genre from the late 1980's and into the millenium and beyond.

It seems to me that the article is actually written by someone who dislikes Stadium Rock, never mind actually knowing much about it or doing any in depth research.

Glam rock really had it's rise and fall during the 1970's

The Police and Queen took up the mantle in the 1980's and U2 followed them, adding and recreating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.188.89 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It is very straight forward, if you can find reliable sources that says this, then please go ahead and add them.--SabreBD (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

http://blog.playnetwork.com/2011/07/22/the-arena-rock-concert-evolution-is-u2%E2%80%99s-360-tour-the-best-a-stadium-show-can-ever-be-2/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/neilmccormick/100002560/u2-secrets-of-stadium-rock/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/live-music-reviews/6033853/Review-U2-play-to-biggest-ever-Wembley-Stadium-crowd.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/neilmccormick/100057328/are-u2-really-the-best-band-of-a-generation/

http://blog.playnetwork.com/2011/07/22/the-arena-rock-concert-evolution-is-u2%E2%80%99s-360-tour-the-best-a-stadium-show-can-ever-be-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.210.115 (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Last reverting

Hello. As you may have noticed I am an unregistered user. Thing is, whenever I come to this site to read about any possible subject, my sense of civic awareness also makes me feel obliged to correct whatever I know to be wrong and nonsensical. I saw that Sabrebd recently reverted back the edits I made to the "Arena Rock" arcticle, citing the fact that they were not sourced. Well, I know that, being this site an encyclopedia, everything appearing on its pages should be linked with proofs, but:

1) the edits I made were mostly just a matter of expressing the very same concepts with different words and a slightly improved writing style. At least I hope so, since English is not my native language. But I am pretty confident about this point.

2) the other edits I made actually corrected a couple of completely false and absurd statements that now still appear on this arcticle.

Never in this world have W.A.S.P., Quiet Riot and Ratt been Arena Rock bands. Never. I don't know who was the guy who included them in the list, but he was damn wrong for sure. If you listened to their music you would know it too. The arena rock sound, as this same arcticle and all of the sources claim, is a commercially oriented brand of hard sounding rock music. These bands are everything but commercially oriented. They have never been famous, nor radio friendly at all. The exact opposite.

On the other hand, bands such as Poison, Bon Jovi, Van Halen and Guns N' Roses, that I included in this arcticle before my changes were reverted, are not only much more easy-listening (and so much more Arena sounding), but they are also like a million times more renowned and worldwide commercially successful. Those ARE real Arena Rock bands.

So, I don't know why these changes were reverted. The fact that I didn't insert any source is not a valid excuse, since the content I wrote was more than just perfectly fitting. See ya.

Hi. Just so we know which edits we are talking about, these comments are unsigned, but do you now have an account as Averageblack? You can sign comments by putting four tildes at the end of your comments.--SabreBD (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I've looked at the page history and seen the new changes made by Averageblack. Sorry, it is not me. I don't have any account and I don't plan of creating one at the moment. I am just a casual user who sometimes tries to be useful. However, the edits I was talking about are those signed with the 79.2.240.184 IP number, right before you reverted them yesterday. The last one, revision dated 19.49, 1 April 2013, was what I thought to be my definitive contribution. Hope this helps, no problem in any case. Bye.

I have reverted those edits, since the only end result was an ungrammatical and unsourced sentence and the addition of an unsourced list. I would really like to avoid the addition of a list as they are just an invitation for flyby additions and edit wars, but I am happy to discuss that issue and other possibilities here.

Getting back to the IP edits, thanks for bringing these here. The main problem with these is that they change a text that is based on sources. Strange as it may seem, the threshold on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. The text here is trying to follow the sources cited, changing that text to something else means that it is no longer following the sources. The solution, of course is to find some reliable sources that back up the views that you want to express. Then we can consider which ones to use or how to state the contrasts.--SabreBD (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there major problems with this page? - I think so

What a surprise to be directed to Arena rock when I searched for corporate rock. They are vastly different.

Here are the problems as I see them:

1. Arena/Stadium rock concerns the giant concerts (which when it kicked off were mainly in the US with very few in Europe - which is why it is generally associated with the United States which already had the giant stadia). It's not really a genre of music, but a size and style of concert.

Performances became more spectacular (and longer) often with special effects/props and stories. Bands became increasingly divorced from their audiences. Lots of bands contributed to Arena rock especially in the beginning Led Zep, then later Floyd, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Kiss and Queen ... and more of course. The increasing gulf between band and audience of Arena rock was one of the later influences on Roger Waters and a partial inspiration for The Wall.

2. I have no idea what Anthem rock is. It sounds like a US radio term from the late 1970s to be honest.

3. Corporate rock refers to the take over of the music industry by corporate accountancy, the "bottom line" and production for profit ignoring the artistic merits of artists. Oddly Pink Floyd had something to say about this as well on Wish you were here when they sang Welcome to the Machine. In the US this was characterised by bland, non-threatening and non-challenging bands such as REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, and Journey. The purpose was simply to generate MOR rock hits to create money. see Urban Dictionary

Kiss wouldn't fit into corporate rock as although they had merchandise and lots of tie-ins (Gene Simmons was commercially smart) they didn't produce the insipid music of corporate rock and they also had control of their own music.

I believe that this page should be split into two different pages. Arena/Stadium rock and Corporate rock. Of these, I would suggest that only corporate rock is a genre.

Let me know what you think please,

Boston?

Any reason Boston isn't listed as an example of arena rock? They're really one of the pioneers of this style of rock. The link to Allmusic.com that cites Foreigner, Styx, REO Speedwagon, and Journey already mentions them. Also, what about the possibility of adding other artists that defined the classic arena rock sound, like Loverboy, Pat Benatar, Kansas ('80s output), Chicago ('80s output), ZZ Top ('80s output), Cheap Trick, Eddie Money, 38 Special, Heart ('80s output), Night Ranger, Bryan Adams, Billy Squier, Toto, Survivor, Asia, and Jefferson Starship/Starship to the article? Or would that be overkill? They're all considered arena rock by Allmusic.com (except for Bryan Adams, Chicago, and Toto, the former not even being on the website).BDR77777 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)BDR77777

Genre or not?

See discussion here. Johnny338 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Change of reference system

WP:CITEVAR clearly states that "editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." If you want to improve the article then please work round that and don't sneak a change of system in without getting consensus here first.--SabreBD (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be a joke ? I only used appropriate template, added links (eg. Rough Guides) and corrected an author which was not the good one. Also AllMusic links were the old ones from the Allmusic Guide. I changed all of this and I also corrected some links. So I don't see any problem with all of this. That's the way I always improved music-related articles and I've already been thanked for this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that you have changed the reference system in this article and that is not supposed to be done. Presumably if that was not your aim, you will have no objection if I restore the old system with the same changes to urls.--SabreBD (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I simply used appropriate templates in order to improve this articles, as I did for hundreds of articles before this one. And as I said in my edit summaries, I didn't remove anything at all. I only used a bullet point system to improve the readibility of the article (see the list of blues rock musicians for example). Why are you so harsh against me seriously ? And should I point out this article doesn't belong to you ? I've got the right to complete the references of this article using the cite book/journal, etc template. Why do you think these templates have been created for ? To be used in as much articles as possible. Also looking at your edit history clearly shows you're one of these typical "owners" who spend a most part of its time reverting edits (I'm not talking about vandalism and clearly unconstructive edits, of course) and don't seem to know what assuming good faith means. You're unfortunatly not the only one but you're one of the few editors who reacted so violently to my good faith edits so far. If you think I'm here to disturb the project then you're clearly and destroy this article then you're completly wrong. I know how to improve an article correctly and it's not you who would teach me how to do it (even I recently learnt new things by myself about it). Now drop this pathetic ownership behaviour and give up. I'm pretty sure you're able to understand it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not reacted "violently", I reverted twice and then came to the talkpage. This is not about ownership, but about following guidelines. Please stop misrepresenting and mis-characterising my actions, that is clearly not displaying good faith. Please take a breath. I have proposed a compromise that seems to me to achieve both our aims and I would be grateful if you would seriously consider it.--SabreBD (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not a response to my suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes

I believe that the article current qualifies as a C-class page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pink Floyd - The Wall

The concept of The Wall (album) by Pink Floyd evolved from an incident at an arena rock concert held at Olympic Stadium (Montreal).

Might be relevant to mention within the context of Arena Rock from the In the Flesh (Pink Floyd tour) after Animals (Pink Floyd album) An incident occurred and which evolved into conceptual ideas for an album developing for some time in relation to groups isolation from fans during large arena rock concerts in the late 1970's and may therefore be of reference to the section Critical Perspectives to arena rock events.

— Preceding un signed comment added by 81.147.130.240 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There Seems to Be Two Different Definitions of "Arena Rock"

Is it just me, or does this article seem to be using two different definitions of the term "arena rock?" It seems like there's an arena rock style and an arena rock genre. Anyway, the definitions seem to be:

Definition #1: Any rock music played in an arena or meant to be played in an arena. This article talks about '60s artists like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones (as well as Grand Funk Railroad), as well as '80s hair bands like Def Leppard and Poison. What's the common thread here? Is it that they play rock music in large venues? "Arena rock" is, of course, not a genre by this definition.

Definition #2: A specific genre of rock music (also known as album-oriented rock [AOR] or corporate rock) that's slick, highly polished, radio-ready, often (but not always) features noticeable keyboards, specializes in both hard rock anthems and soft rock power ballads, and largely began in the mid-'70s (as described in this article's introduction). I suppose the unofficial "Big Five" of this genre could be REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, and Boston, with other notable artists in this genre being Kansas ('80s output), Chicago ('80s and early '90s output), Cheap Trick, ZZ Top ('80s and early '90s output), Night Ranger, Heart ('80s and early '90s output), Eddie Money, etc., etc., etc (I can provide more examples if requested). These artists seem to belong to a genre by themselves. Listen to their style of rock and compare with it that from other rock artists not listed here. Arena rock/AOR/corporate rock, by this definition, really has a distinct sound of its own.

I don't really have any references/sources to back up anything I've just said, it's mainly just my observations. Maybe I just read the article wrong... BDR77777 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Being British I've not come across Arena Rock too much, as 'Stadium Rock' was always the preferred term. In the UK Stadium Rock was always aimed at those big 1980s Q magazine cover stars (most of whom were disliked by the NME) like U2...though by the mid 2000s the NME were describing U2 as Stadium-Alt. On the other hand, in the UK dad rock was always an insult aimed at not-so-indie, not-so-alternative, not-so-Britpop 'Britpop'-types like Ocean Colour Scene So there might be loads of definitions to what Arena Rock is, though it might be beneficial to do a UK-focued Stadium Rock article.

References

I do believe some of the problems with this article could be improved upon if the genre of adult-oriented rock (AOR) got a true page of its own. Right now, Wikipedia's article on arena rock is a mish-mash of talking about the adult-oriented rock (AOR)/melodic rock/"corporate rock" genre and about any rock music that's ever been played in a large venue. Adult-oriented rock (AOR)/melodic rock/"corporate rock" is the genre that the likes of Journey, Boston, Foreigner, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Toto, Eddie Money, Survivor, Pat Benatar, Loverboy, Night Ranger, Asia, etc., etc., etc. play, and, as of right now, this genre isn't represented on Wikipedia. It should be noted that "adult-oriented rock" is a bit of a misnomer, since the genre can appeal to just about all age demographics. That's just what it's called, though. If adult-oriented rock got a true page of its own, we could cut down on the synonyms used at the top of the arena rock page, since melodic rock, "corporate rock," and sometimes pomp rock are actually synonyms for adult-oriented rock. Also, album-oriented rock (also AOR) is distinct from adult-oriented rock (AOR), the former being a radio format and the latter being a genre. BDR77777 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We should be limiting this article's scope to songs that were composed with big crowds in mind. Songs with purposely anthemic styles, that a crowd will want to sing along with. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that Adult-oriented rock (genre), for better or for worse, redirects to Soft rock. Adult-oriented rock is a disambiguation page that reflects this. I'm not sure if "soft rock" is really a fitting classification of melodic rock (Soft rock doesn't even talk about the above bands at all, and they might rather be described as playing a "poppy", anthemic, keyboard-heavy kind of hard rock that is partially inspired, in a way, by progressive rock), but that's what Wikipedians have decided for now.

What I find surprising personally is that Queen have not been mentioned here (although, to be fair, keyboards play a significantly smaller role in their music), and the article overleaf does not mention them, either, except for an image. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the current adult-oriented rock page should say that it is a type of "commercially-friendly rock that has both hard rock and soft rock elements" or something along those lines, as most of the big AOR genre acts (Journey, Boston, Foreigner, Styx, REO Speedwagon, etc., etc., etc.) primarily do hard rock, but with a fair amount of soft rock power ballads thrown into the mix. For what it's worth, I don't think the band Queen is generally considered adult-oriented rock for whatever reason. None of their studio albums have AOR listed as a primary or secondary genre on rateyourmusic.com. They may not use keyboards enough, may have too diverse a sound, etc. However, the rateyourmusic.com genre classification consensus/"hive-mind" is sometimes...weird. For example, most of Def Leppard's studio albums have AOR listed as a primary or secondary genre, when I wouldn't classify them as AOR (they're more glam/hair/pop-"metal" in my book). Anyway, I think a proper adult-oriented rock page on Wikipedia would solve some issues, but the problem is reliable sources. Sure, lots of websites refer to the Journey/Boston/Foreigner/Styx/REO Speedwagon-style genre as "AOR" (the genre, not the radio format) but how many of them could be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? I wonder if there's any good books out there to elaborate on the genre... BDR77777 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Queen are respected too much to be associated with the moniker AOR, a widely derided rock genre, which Queen are felt to transcend – as in, despite their vast commercial success, their music was not felt to be "commercial" as in deliberately pandering to mainstream audience. I'm not sure that that's true (and I love Queen), it's just that they might have been the best and most successful AOR band that ever existed. While it is certainly true that their music is different from generic AOR, I can't help thinking that a certain amount of snobbery plays a substantial role here too. Queen are the kind of "dad rock" that even the kids like. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes, music snobbery is almost certainly a reason why Queen's name is virtually never thrown around in discussions of the AOR/melodic rock genre. That being said, I'm no expert on Queen, and them not using synths quite as much as other bona fide AOR artists and their greater diversity of sounds and styles may also contribute to them not being considered AOR/melodic rock. I could be wrong, but I don't I think that they embraced the conventions of the genre as much as, say, Journey, Boston, Foreigner, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Survivor, Eddie Money, Night Ranger, Pat Benatar, Loverboy, Toto, Asia, etc. Queen sort of blazed their own trail in comparison (and I say that as someone who considers AOR/melodic rock to be their favorite musical genre). Anyway, does anybody have any Wikipedia-suitable sources for adult-oriented rock (AOR)/melodic rock being its own genre? I think a page for that genre could clear up some of the issues with this "arena rock" page. BDR77777 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Queen actually has touched the style or genre or subgenre of AOR. Examples include We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions, Need Your Loving, The Hero, Radio Ga Ga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, A Kind Of Magic album (depending on the songs, especially One Vision), I Want It All, Scandal, Headlong, I Can't Live With You, Ride The Wild Wind, The Show Must Go On, their versions of Made In Heaven and I Was Born To Love You.

"300 Greatest Classic-Era AOR/Melodic Rock Artists" by DigitalDreamDoor features them at number 2 below Van Halen and above The Who under those that touched AOR but classified as something else: https://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-aor.html Wasn't able to cite or reference this but there you go. 67.43.190.226 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Good points, I'm convinced. I guess that I was just blinded by the Queen-is-not-AOR groupthink on RYM, which is probably rooted somewhat in snobbery (i.e. "Queen is too talented/good/acclaimed to be AOR"). Anyway, I think that if a separate, full page is made for the AOR/melodic genre, the title of the article should probably just be "AOR," as there is some minor disagreement over what the genre's acronym stands for. Many (most?) sources, like RYM, when talking about AOR as a genre, call it "adult-oriented rock," but Heavy Harmonies calls it "album-oriented rock" (and they're talking about the melodic rock genre, not the "proto-classic rock" radio format). I guess AOR, when referring to the melodic rock genre, is sort of an orphan initialism these days. BDR77777 (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad I was helpful. I almost forgot that their "Was It All Worth It" and "Too Much Love Will Kill You" also have essence of AOR as well. I as a longtime Queen fan have absolutely no doubt in my mind that AOR/Melodic/Arena Rock was one of the styles they have touched despite being musically diverse of a rock band. It's a shame that their 80's/90's inputs weren't appreciated here in the States at the time 'til now unlike Survivor, Toto, Journey, Foreigner, and many others of the style. 67.43.190.226 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry@Bowling is life: What do you think? 2402:1980:280:736B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I know that I'm not one of the two editors summoned by the previous post, but I'm just going to pop in once again to reiterate my support for a separate page for the AOR/melodic rock genre. Here are some terms we're working with here:

-AOR (more of an orphan initialism these days, but refers to "adult-oriented rock" according to RYM [and a few others] and "album-oriented rock" according to Heavy Harmonies): also called melodic rock or sometimes corporate rock, this is a highly melodic genre of rock that combines hard rock and soft rock elements with unironic sentimentality, prominient keyboards, and arena rock aesthetics (spearheaded by artists like Journey, Boston, Foreigner, REO Speedwagon, Styx, etc., etc., etc.).

-arena rock: a style of popular rock music that fits well with being played live in large venues (often highly anthemic).

-album-oriented rock (AOR): a radio format that could be described as "proto-classic rock."

There is obviously a lot of overlap between these three terms, but ultimately they mean different things.

If a separate page for the AOR/melodic rock genre is ever created, I would advocate for transferring the "melodic rock," "corporate rock," and possibly the "pomp rock" synonyms from the arena rock page over to the AOR/melodic rock page. BDR77777 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Holy cats

This article is a non-encyclopedic train wreck.... PurpleChez (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Total opinion

This entire wiki is opinion 173.191.170.57 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Arena metal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Arena metal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 13 § Arena metal until a consensus is reached. FMSky (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)