Talk:Garage punk (fusion genre)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Garage punk. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtviggy.com/articles/please-explain-garage-punk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis
In response to this edit]: I checked the sources, and no, they don't explicitly corroborate the text. There is WP:SYNTH throughout the article, pretty much every time more than one citation is used for one statement.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ilovetopaint, you are mistaken, the citations do indeed mention the content in the article's statements and are very clear. Let me go through them one by one:


 * Garage punk is a rock subgenre that combines core influences of 1960s garage rock and early 1970s proto-punk with later punk rock and other forms...


 * Berverly Ryan: "influences including, but not limited to:’70s power pop, ’60s girl groups and garage rock, hardcore punk, early blues and R&B, and even surf rock. The approach could range from reveling in nasty guitar sleaze like occasionally reunited ’90s trio The Oblivians to the sweet, Shangri-La’s worshiping fuzz of Vivian Girls, but it’s all punk and all driven by fervent, evangelical conviction..."; "For Khan, who believes that there were garage punk bands even back in the ’60s, his mission has more to do with the present than the past: "I don’t think of it as revivalism. I think of it as carrying on a tradition of rock ‘n’ roll, without being purist, because I think rock ‘n’ roll is very important, like, for now."
 * AllMusic (early 70s influence): "...garage punk drew its inspiration chiefly from the Detroit proto-punk of the Stooges and the MC5..." (AllMusic misses the boat on the 60s part, but is correct about early 70s influence)
 * Heller: "Garage rock in the ’90s had more up its sleeve than the raggedy hiss of lo-fi. The decade hosted a slew of garage punk bands, those who mixed the Neanderthal stomp of garage rock [i.e 60s garage and later retro-revival] with fatter guitars, faster beats, and a hot-rod-sized chip on their shoulders [i.e. modern garage punk]. Everyone from New Bomb Turks—whose gas-guzzling 1993 album !!Destroy-Oh-Boy!! defines ’90s garage rock—to The Devil Dogs, Mono Men, Makers, The Fall-Outs, Nine Pound Hammer, Didjits, and Gas Huffer found their own unique ways to update, if not mutate, the garage-rock tradition for a the incoming class of willfully low-brow malcontents."
 * Comment: The sources state clearly the 60s garage and early 70s proto influence, but done in a modern "like for now" context.
 * The term was originally mentioned to describe 1960s garage rock bands...
 * Lenny Kaye, 1972 Nuggets track-by-track liner notes (not to be confused with his essay liner notes that appeared on the same album) describing "Oh Yeah", by the Shadows of Knight: "...they came on as a classic garage punk band..."
 * ... and is sometimes still used by commentators and enthusiasts to refer to 1960s garage
 * Beverly: "’60s psychedelic music and garage punk, if you want to call it that."
 * Hann: title reads: "10 of the best: garage punk" and then goes on to describe 60s bands
 * ...as well as more recent garage rock revival bands that attempt to faithfully replicate the 1960s garage style.
 * Sleazegrinder: referring to the Chesterfield Kings (who had been the leading garage retro-band in the 80s), "at the dawn of the 90s, one of garage-punk's biggest and most revered bands released an album..."
 * Newer bands generally view themselves as successors of 1960s garage, but they do not necessarily attempt to emulate the exact sound and look of that era, the way "retro" or "revival" bands do, and thus incorporate later influences into their stylistic approach, such as 1970s punk rock.
 * Heller: "Garage rock in the ’90s had more up its sleeve than the raggedy hiss of lo-fi. The decade hosted a slew of garage punk bands, those who mixed the Neanderthal stomp of garage rock with fatter guitars, faster beats, and a hot-rod-sized chip on their shoulders. Everyone from New Bomb Turks—whose gas-guzzling 1993 album !!Destroy-Oh-Boy!! defines ’90s garage rock—to The Devil Dogs, Mono Men, Makers, The Fall-Outs, Nine Pound Hammer, Didjits, and Gas Huffer found their own unique ways to update, if not mutate, the garage-rock tradition for a the incoming class of willfully low-brow malcontents."


 * ...as you can see, the sources clearly state what is in the Wikipedia article.


 * As for WP:Syth: I am not misusing synthetic reasoning in the article.  In order to do that I would have to either a) combine sources in a way as to arrive at a conclusion that is off-base or misleading 2) not be able to find direct mention in sources of what I am stating 3) come up with an original idea or conception based creatively combining different sources, but which is not actually expressed in the sources.
 * What is allowable:
 * What SYNTH is not :
 * SYNTH is not a rigid rule: "Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." "
 * SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition: SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing.
 * Comment: Combining and weaving sources is OK, as long as you do not invent a new thesis, say something at odds with the sources, or say something off-base. Be in-line with the sources.  Harmonizing sources (in an accurate way) is OK and is even sometimes necessary.
 * SYNTH is not summary: SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".
 * SYNTH is not explanation: SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis.
 * SYNTH is not presumed: If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH.  You prove it isn't."  The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable.  But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.
 * Comment: burden of proof's on you, pal.
 * SYNTH is not important per se: Please note that this section does not apply to potentially-controversial statements about living people, about which Wikipedia policy is stricter than about other statements. What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world, not that someone has gotten around to typing up a specific bibliographic citation in the article.  Citations are not an end in themselves.  If there's a statement for which no source is cited, that's normally ok, as with the example on No original research: "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for it exist.  Likewise with very many unsourced statements, regardless of whether they could be deduced from sourced statements in the same article, we know the sources exist.
 * Final Comment: Do what is best for the article--get it right. Summaries and generalizations gleaned from a variety of different sources (i.e. when pieces are taken from different sources and then overlapped) are OK, as long as the information is accurate and does not run contrary to what the sources are saying and the intentions of the sources, at least overall, are respected.  If a source contains an error, then use other sources to correct it--harmonize the sources to get the overall gist of what the prevailing view is--and get it right.  In certain general topic articles, particularly in tight passages that summarize an era or period in history, an editor sometimes has to make broad generalizations and put together a composite taken from various overlapping sources in order to render the topic properly.  To do otherwise would be to get it wrong, even downright mislead the reader.  Proverbs: "The sources are the maps, not the destination."  "The one thing more important than reliable sources is a team of reliable editors." Now, let's get rid of all those ugly tags and make the article look presentable again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The main problem is like this:
 * Source 1 - "Water is wet"
 * Source 2 - "Water costs $1"
 * Wiki - Water is wet and it costs $1. [1] [2]
 * This format implies that both sources state the claim, when in actuality, the claim is split among the sources. Which is WP:SYNTH. In order to mend this issue, you would have to format it like this:
 * Wiki - Water is wet [1] and it costs $1. [2]
 * This makes it easier to verify citations, and it doesn't mislead the reader into thinking that many sources share the same definition of garage punk.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Like most editors, I usually place the citations at the end of the sentence as not to look unsightly and unreadable (it also makes things easier to read on the edit page). I might divide them in cases where there would be too many at the end.  Generally most editors are OK with that as long as the points in the sentence have corresponding citations afterward.  Keep in mind that there may sometimes be a citation that applies to the whole sentence and others that apply to certain parts--some may apply to a couple of parts--but if we put the broadly conclusive citation at the end of the sentence (when we already had placed specific citations before in the sentence), then the readr may not be able to see how the conclusive citation applies to all or how one citation relates to a couple of parts but not all--you don't want to repeat them excessively.  This is a judgment call.  Generally, putting citations at the end is OK--in some cases necessary (when some citations are specific and others are comprehensive, as not to cause a train wreck) Guidelines stated above make clear that not all overlapping is bad as long as our statements reflect the majority opinions and finings of the sources and do not lead to errant conclusions or result in original ideas.  The overlaps I made were not syllogisms, but instead, objective empirical summarized statements reflect the prevailing views.  However, I can go back and sub-divide the citations here if you want me to, but it is usually not necessary. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. " SYNTH is NOT where the footnotes or references are placed. Carptrash (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Whether the citations appear different intervals of the sentence or at the end doesn't really matter, as long as the content agrees with the sources.  However, for the sake of consensus, I'll try to go in and separate the citations here (if it is prudent in context of the needs of the statements)--I shouldn't have to do this, but I will this time.  Then, I'll remove the tags--because it is now clear that statements are verified by the citations and there is no WP:SYNTH, and that they are accurate and reflect the prevailing synoptic (not synthetic) view expressed in the sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I went in and moved the citations around, then removed the tags. I've tried to do it in such a way that will make everyone satisfied. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I reinstated some of the old wording in second paragraph, because the later statement "newer bands..." did not make clear enough the distinction between newer bands who try to replicate the exact look and sound of 60s bands and those that don't. The term "garage punk" is usually used to describe the latter (although, as made clear in the first paragraph, it is also used sometimes for the former, as well as sometimes for the original 60s bands, whom the phrase was originally intended).  That may seem confusing, but let me break it down.  Here is the hierarchy of how the term garage punk is employed in order of frequency of use:
 * 1) Modern bands influenced by 60s garage, but who do not try to duplicate the exact look and sound of that era and incorporate later primitivist influences (i.e. post-1975 punk rock, etc.): These are the kinds of bands that the term "garage punk" is usually applied to at the present time.  These bands view themselves as part of the 60s garage tradition, but see their role as part of a natural evolution of the form, not a throwback.  Since 1970s punk was influenced by 60s garage and early 70s proto-punk, these bands think of garage punk as a continuing lineage that started in the 60s.  However, many outside commentators view them as something more isolated unto themselves--wrongly, I might add (they don't do it out of of any disrespect for the early influences, but rather because of an understandable tendency to want to categorize and tie things down).  Even though I personally define it the same way the bands themselves see it, I recognize that there is an external perspective that that often defines these bands as a modern subgenre unto themselves, and that is also the understanding in the popular mindset.  So, we at Wiki have to define garage punk first according to the prevailing popular understanding.  But, we also have a responsibility to mention the other related usages and discuss the history and etymology of the term's use.  All of these usages are closely related and interdependent.
 * 2) Original 1960s garage rock bands: It was these bands for whom the term was originally applied (Lenny Kaye, in the track-by track-liner notes for Nuggets).  60s garage rock enthusiasts still often continue to use the term "garage punk" to describe 60s garage bands, which is the next most popular usage for the term.
 * 3) Modern retro-revival garage rock bands: These are modern bands who try to emulate the exact look and sound of 1960s garage rock bands all the way down to wearing mod clothes, Beatle haircuts and Beatle boots, and using vintage style instruments, etc.  They are sometimes referred to as garage punk, but not as often as the first two.
 * So, I hope that the article now strikes the right balance and discusses the topic with balance, clarity, and accuracy. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20, 2016: Still an issue

 * It's bothersome to come back to this page and see the tag withdrawn, yet I still see the synthesized claims "originally mentioned to describe", "sometimes still used by commentators and enthusiasts", etc. The sources do NOT state this. Either address this issue or leave the tag up for somebody else to fix.
 * I've searched through "garage punk" and it's overwhelmingly clear that the term is actually used "most often" to describe 1960s proto-punk bands. In fact, "garage punk" is what "proto-punk" was before the Internet decided that "proto-punk" was a cooler label to use. Now thanks to poor Wikipedia articles like this, most neophytes would not consider all proto-punk to be under the umbrella of "garage punk", when it really should be. The best way to think of "modern" garage punk bands is that they're a continuation of 1960s proto-punk styles - in other words, punk bands who kept an additional foot in the 1960s that the mainstream-sounding punk bands didn't.
 * Anyways, that's my interpretation. The article should not be edited to reflect this, but it should be edited to directly support what the sources say. Please read WP:ADVOCACY, and stop pushing your "three-definition" interpretation.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ilovetopaint Believe it or not, you will be surprised to find out that I actually agree with you 100% (as far as my own personal opinion is concerned). I am actually grateful that you see it this way--there may be hope for the world at long last.  The term proto-punk predates the internet--it goes back to the late 1970s when, in the aftermath of the punk rock movement, critics (who had previously used the term "punk" to refer to 60s garage bands) redefined their terms to avoid confusion--the use of the term had shifted and, in the public mind, it now referred only to punk music after 1974.  User:Ghmyrtle and others will tell you that I am a personal proponent of the primacy of 1960s garage as the origin of all things punk (whether garage punk or any other kind of punk), so much to the point that a few years ago I argued the point a bit too passionately, but I did have my share of facts on hand, and I managed, to a certain extent, to get other people to see my points, just as I had to take into consideration theirs.
 * I had to begrudgingly accept that the way genres are defined is tricky and that they have a nomenclature that sometimes defies common sense and is beyond me. I can be opinionated on talk pages, but when I am editing in articles, I try to separate myself from my own personal predilections and try to see things in an external way, and of course, try to be as neutral as possible.  In fact, so much so that, in the issue presently involving this article, I am actually taking a position that runs contrary to my own thoughts (I agree with you).
 * The problem is that we have an article here that is a not the same article as garage rock, and therefore needs to treated as its own separate entity. If we define garage punk as starting in the 1960s (which is actually my opinion), then garage punk essentially becomes the same thing as garage rock (which I believe that it is--at least a continuation of it).  The problem is that, if that is so, then we don't need a garage punk article--we would then just have to merge this article in with garage rock, which in the Revivals section there deals with garage punk as an outgrowth of 60s garage.  But, if we are to keep this article as a separate piece, then we end up having to deal with its subject more in terms of how it has traditionally treated the matter (i.e. a modern garage variant).
 * The early editions of this article admitted the same dilemma, but put favor towards garage punk as a modern genre. This article was created in 2005, not long after the garage punk craze of the late90s/early 2000's that produced popular bands such as the Hives.  It may very well be that the popular usage has changed.
 * For the last couple of years I've tried to evolve the page to allow for more of the 60s background, etymology, and perspective. But, I have not gone as far as asking us to change its whole orientation from what it has traditionally been.  This is what it looked like before I got here:.  Back then the article was to tilted towards the modern.  It treated the genre is almost exclusively modern terms as a "fusion" between 60s garage and later punk.  It seemed to be saying: "garage punk is a bunch of contemporary people taking some 60s garage over here and mixing it with some punk over there and, wallah, we have a new concoction!"  It was not taking into account the way the musicians themselves saw it: as a living and breathing continuation of 60s garage, but evolved.  The article at that time was probably over-dependent on Urban dictionary's definition  (another editor took that citation out--he went around Wikipedia removing all Urban Dictionary cites as "unreliable").
 * So, in bringing in more of the 60s perspective, I still tried to do so within the framework of what had been established before I got here. I've actually moved it into the direction you would like to see.  I'm just not yet ready to go quite as far as you would want at this time.  The things you regard as my added "synthesis" (my concessions to the modern definition) are just simply me trying to acknowledge what was here before me.
 * I just now removed the word "still" to remove any perceived POV in the sourced statement referring to modern bands. I changed "originally mentioned" to "earliest attested use of term was in early 1970s" (referring to Lenny Kaye's use in track-by-track liner notes of Nuggets).  I added a sourced statement about how musicians view it (i.e. as continuation of 60s garage).  I made some other changes that bring it closer to where you want to see it.  I removed the template because I believe that I have now adequately addressed your concerns.  The article is now accurate and neutral and takes into account different perspectives,yet treats the topic as its own sub-genre worthy of its own article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to say this again, because it seems you still don't understand the issue. The article needs to stop doing this:
 * "It is often viewed by its creators ..." — Source doesn't say this. The closest thing we get is the opinion of two musicians who say that garage punk is influenced by '60s music.
 * "The earliest attested use of the term ..." — Source doesn't say this. We're only given a reference to a 1971 LP. This doesn't tell us that it's the earliest use. It doesn't even tell us if it's an early one.
 * "... is often used by commentators ... and in some cases by subsequent garage rock revival bands" — Source doesn't say this. Similar to above.
 * "The term is also associated with ..." — Ditto.
 * Unless the source states these claims verbatim, they need to go. It doesn't matter if the sources are clearly using different definitions. They're still talking about "garage punk", whatever it's supposed to mean.
 * These types of extrapolation — where we're treating individual opinions as collective thought — is completely unnecessary and needs to go. The job of this article is to consolidate everything reliable sources have to say about "garage punk". The only time we need to talk about conflicting usages of the term "garage punk" is when one source appears to contradicts another. For example, if we have one source that says garage punk originated in the 1960s and another that says it stems from the 1990s.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As painful as this process is (even for someone just reading it) this is an example of the best of how wikipedia solves this sort of issues. What i now propose is that  rewrites the sections that they have highlighted here and posts them here for all of us to "oh" and "ah" over and suggest more or less changes and then hopefully something emerges that we all can live with. Carptrash (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Bringing proposed text changes before everyone would be a good idea. By the way, I don't necessarily disagree with Ilovetopaint on many of his points--my edits had evolved the article in the direction he has gone, but I tried do so in a way that operates within the framework of what was previously in place (but just providing more 60s background and perspective, etc.).  Let's just make sure that we can all reach consensus about what is in some of the statements here, because we are defining a subgenre for the benefit of readers understanding, so I just want to make sure that we get it right.

In reference to latest changes
The way appears now, it does one of two things: it either makes garage punk look like an offshoot or division that splinterd from the rest of garage rock even back in the 1960s. Or, it conflates garage punk (as the article defines as a separate subgenre) as essentially the same thing as garage rock--in which case why have a separate article? If it appears to make garage punk look like an offshoot of garage rock even in the sixties, let's consider some things: In the 1960s there was no concept of any garage genre at all, much less offshoots. In the early 70's, when words like punk" and "garage punk" were first used, it meant garage in general, not a sub-variant of garage. The only writer I've read who comes close to making these kinds of distinctions as this is Mike Markesich in the introduction to his book Teenbeat Mayhem.  Markesich is a second-generation garage writer, and did not start writing about the topic until the 80s.  He prefers neither "garage" or "punk" to refer to 60s garage genre as a whole, but rather his own term, "teenbeat".  He openly admits that his views are out of step with most 60s garage rock writers, including Greg Shaw, who he extols as being like a father figure.  But, he does use several different terms to designate stylistic variations within 60s garage rock strictly for describing songs, such as "mover", "punk", "folk", "psych", etc.  He does not see these stylistic variations as comprising separate genres or subgenres, but rather as just adjectives or descriptors for songs--Like Greg Shaw and the original generation writers, he sees 60s garage as a diverse genre. He mentions that Shaw, right up until the very end, still insisted on using the word "punk" to describe all 60s garage, not just the harder and more raucous numbers. In the liner notes to the Nuggets box set Shaw mentions the diverse nature of 60s punk/garage punk. Shaw's view is still the majority view amongst most garage commentators and enthusiasts, but there is no doubt that the more raucous songs epitomize the "punk" or "garage punk" tags given to 60s garage. But, whatever scenario, we have to use precise language that is helpful to the reader.
 * Ilovetopaint is correct that 60s garage writers often use the term garage punk to refer to 60s garage. I fully agree.  Maybe we need to better reflect that here.  But, there is still the perception amongst many (since the 1980s) of garage punk as a modern subgenre of bands doing an updated version of garage rock--that was the definition the article was originally built around, but I made sure to add the stuff about the 60s.  And, then there are the modern bands that do an exact replication of the 60s groups too, who are sometimes called "garage punk" or more specifically "revival", but there is nothing about that now, and now it makes the updated bands look like "revival".  By, the way I had a source directly referring to a revival (i.e. retro) band as "garage punk".  I know that this is all very confusing, but I thought we had gotten the article to a point where it struck a good balance and made these distinctions clear to the reader.  Now I worry that there may be confusion.  I'm willing to go along with much of what Ilovetopaint wants (because I actually agree with a lot of his position--and he made some good points above), but we still need to clarify some matters to avoid reader confusion.  Another thing, when defining whole genres or subgenres, we cannot just go by one or two writers ad verbatim.  On broad matters, commentators in sources can have their own opinions and can be subjective.  We have to take a bigger picture into account to get to the best and most accurate place.  One can do ad verbatim for basic facts, but for generalizations, which involve synoptic overviews (synoptic not to be confused with synthetic), we have to look at the big picture, and consider what has been said in a lot of places.  We've made some strides, but let's fine-hone it a bit more. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is a possible solution for the lead statements:


 * Garage punk is a term used to describe 1960s garage rock or a later rock subgenre of bands influenced by 1960s garage rock and early 1970s proto-punk, but who incorporate more recent influences such as punk rock and hardcore.

We could transfer the commentary about fuzz boxes, psychedelic, etc. into the main body of text rather than in the lead section. By, the way some of the comments ("...fixated on novelty sonic effects, such as wah-wah and fuzz tone"...) sound biased. Just because one person had the opinion that it was "novelty" and "fixation" does not necessarily make his view worthy of that kind of characterization in our overview. Furthermore, he is wrong about wah wah pedals. Very few mid-60s style garage bands used them. Out of the over 5000 bands I have listened to, I can only think of a few songs that used them. So, just because he said it doesn't make him infallible. Also, we need to put more emphasis on the modern bands in the lead section. Right now there is no meaningful bridge between the discussion of 60s groups and "...often fast-paced and characterized by dirty, choppy guitars and lyrics typically expressing rebelliousness and sometimes "bad taste", and may be performed by "low-fi" acts who are on independent record labels, or who are unsigned..." That line is referring primarily to modern bands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that the use of the or conjunction. It would be like writing
 * Psychedelic rock is a term used to describe 1960s psychedelic music, or a later rock subgenre influenced by post-punk.
 * That's a bit off the mark. The reality is that "psychedelic rock" is some 1960s psychedelic music, and includes later bands. Garage punk is some garage rock, and includes later bands. There is no or.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Though your comparison to psychedelic should seem logical, it is not how things are actually viewed. You are applying the "if this is so in one genre, it must also be the same in another genre" analogy, in a way that is contrary to what is actually said in sources (i.e. WP:Syth).  The term "garage punk" when used by fans of 60s garage generally tends to be used as an alternate catch phrase for the larger 60s garage genre--it is not thought of as a separate subgenre within 60s garage.  Please see Greg Shaw's liner notes to the 1998 Nuggets box set.  You are inventing a subgenre of 60s garage that does not currently exist (i.e. WP:Synth and "original research").  When the term "garage punk" is used to designate a separate subgenre (from the rest of garage rock), it does so when used to refer to bands who have emerged since the 1980s (who are grounded in 60s garage rock and early 70s proto-punk influence--usually with later punk influences).  That has been the context of this article since its earliest days.  My problem with article before I got involved with it was that it underestimated the 60s influence, both historically and etymologically, and viewed garage punk (i.e. modern) as a "fusion" between 60s garage and later punk.  After reading the MTV article, I felt that a modification was needed, so I went in and corrected that misunderstanding.  The artists who play modern garage punk see it not so much as a fusion, but rather as a living continuation of the 60s garage rock tradition (as their foundation), but who are open to more recent influences.  So, I slightly re-framed the definition from being a "fusion", instead to being a subgenre grounded in 60s garage, but incorporating modern influences  (though accurate, I'll admit that I could have to come up with better wording).  I added the etymology of first use of the term (used to designate 60s garage) and noted that the term garage punk is still used by followers of 60s garage.  So, I evolved the article closer to what you have here now.  However, followers of 60s garage generally do not see garage punk as subgenre within 60s garage, but rather as a blanket term for 60s garage as a whole (perhaps epitomized by the more raucous songs, but not as something separate--incidently, I've heard the term "garage punk" to refer to folky, psychedelic, or pop-sounding 60s garage songs).  For instance, Hann's article, though dealing with garage punk both 60s and modern in continuum, still does not attempt define garage punk as a subgenre within 60s garage.  By, the way, there is nothing necessarily wrong with regarding the 60s and modern garage punk in continuum (I personally see it that way)--the Garage rock article (being broader in scope) treats it in that way.  However, if we want to treat garage punk as its own separate genre (apart from the rest of garage rock) and have an article on it (outside of the garage rock article), then we have to focus on the periods from the 80s onward (i.e. here).  The reason of this article's existence, all along, has been to refer primarily to a subgenre of bands who have emerged since the 1980s (albeit rooted in the 60s)--the older references treat garage punk more in modern isolation,, whereas the MTV article correctly brings in the 60s influence as the foundation, but still pertains to modern bands operating under that influence),[ and I think that the article should still operate within that framework--but give the 60s etymological background and make note of how the term is also still used by fans of 60s garage.  So, the statement about the modern bands (and that they are 60s influenced) should come first and then be followed by the background about the etymology and how 60s garage rock fans still use the term (as another catch phrase for garage rock).  But, the way you have the article written now  is problematic and could cause confusion for readers wanting to access an article about the modern garage subgenre, which is what this article has traditionally done for nearly its entire existence. [[User:Garagepunk66|Garagepunk66]] (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A thought: we could go back to the lead sentence defining the genre as a modern "fusion" or "hybrid" between garage and later forms (the way it was a few years ago), but I'd prefer a modern bands-perspective that takes more 60s "foundation" into account. I just found a statement that they might like by Mike Markesich:
 * Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.
 * The statement above makes clear that the there is subgenre of modern garage punk that started in the 80s (as distinct from its reference used as an alternate phrase for 60s garage).  Throughout the book, Markesich (a 60s garage fan) constantly uses the term "garage punk" to refer to 60s garage, but in this particular statement, he is making a key distinction from those other usages. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've reached my limit over this issue. I stopped reading after you claimed that calling 1960s garage punk a distinct genre was WP:OR - it's exactly how The Guardian describes it. Not only that, but they also say that the Nuggets compilation fails to provide an accurate representation of it. You can disagree with The Guardian, but you can't WP:CHERRYPICK on Wikipedia.
 * 10 of the best: garage punk: Pull on your Chelsea boots – we’re heading back to the mid-60s for its fiercest, toughest, angriest garage rockers [...] in the late 60s garage punk began to blur into psychedelia. (Look at the tracklisting for Lenny Kaye’s original Nuggets album, the record that codified garage punk and you’ll find an awful lot of music that would not now fit comfortably into the genre ).

The bottom line is this: if you want your views to be reflected in the article, then you'll have to supply reliable sources that explicitly support those views. My advice for you is that you do what I've done and provide direct quotes.-Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate you willingness to discuss this, and I don't mean badly. I am fully aware of the Guardian article, and have no problem with its contents--keep in mind that my namesake is "Garagepunk66" after all (so I am abundantly aware of "garage punk" term in relation to the 60s).  When Hann calls it a "genre", he means garage rock (the garage rock genre), and the 60s bands that he mentions are examples of garage rock.  As I said it is perfectly normal for garage rock fans to use the term "garage punk" as an alternate phrase for the genre.  As you know, in 1972 the term "garage punk" was used on Nuggets by Lenny Kaye, but it was done so along with "punk rock", the term for garage at the time (there was not yet a name "garage rock").  That remained the case until after the arrival of the Sex Pisols in 1976, who created so much notoriety, that the term "punk rock" became established in the public mind as something new, associated with the new breed of bands coming out of New York and London at the time, and the term "punk" ceased to be used for 60s bands, except amongst garage fans, who have continued to use it as an alternate phrase for garage.  After 1976, rock journalists (many of the same critics who had previously used the term punk for the 60s bands) started using terms such as "garage rock" and "proto-punk" to describe pre-1975 music.  Some occasionally continued to use the terms "punk" and "garage punk" to describe 60s garage, and still do.  But, in the 1980s the term "garage punk" took on a new life--to designate a new subgenre of garage rock.  There were two kinds of garage-oriented bands in the 80s.  The first were commonly known as "garage revival"--they attempted to replicate the exact look and sound of 60s groups.  But, another wave came along that combined 60s garage influences with later ones such as post-1975 punk rock.  Comments Mike Markesich (as mentioned above):
 * Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.
 * Markesich clearly is addressing the new "garage punk" subgenre that emerged at this time. States AllMusic:
 * Before the punk-pop wing of America's '90s punk revival hit the mainstream, a different breed of revivalist punk had been taking shape in the indie-rock underground... (i.e. post-1980)
 * Urban Dictionary states:
 * Garage punk is a subgenre of rock music. ...in the late 1980s and into the 1990s, a new breed of revivalist Punk began to fester in the indie rock underground, that became known as "garage punk".
 * According to Reddit:
 * Garage punk combines the raw fuzztones of the original garage rock bands of the '60s with the tempo and attitude of punk rock. Garage punk is often used to determine the difference between modern bands with a more '60s revivalist sound and modern punk bands indebted to the path-breaking of the '60s garage rock without the same stylistic deference....
 * Obviously this is complicated. We are talking about a whole subgenre here, so we have to take a lot into account.  The term "garage punk" has two valid usages:
 * Garage punk as an alternate term for garage rock (already addressed in Garage rock article). This is the sense of the term that Hann and Reynolds use.  But, they are not advocating that it be seen as a separate 60s genre from the rest of garage rock.  When they mention garage punk as a "genre", they mean the garage rock genre.  Lenny Kaye's liner note to Nuggets were essential in codifying the genre that is now known as garage rock (his use of 'punk rock" and "garage punk" refer to what is now recognized as garage rock).  We have a Wikipedia article dedicated to garage rock that makes clear that the term "garage punk" is an alternate term for the garage rock.  We should not misconstrue Hann and Reynolds (or Kaye) as advocating a 60s-derived garage punk subgenre separate from garage rock.  That is not their intention.  We have to be faithful not just to what sources say, but (more importantly) what they mean.  The way we have it now, we cannot escape one of two problems, either: a) we are making the mistake of assuming 60s-based garage punk as separate entity from garage rock, when the sources don't intend it (and there is no such thing) or b) we treat it as the same thing as garage rock (which is perfectly OK), but in basing this article on this particular usage, we end up with a redundant article to the Garage rock article.
 * Garage punk as a modern subgenre of garage rock (supposed to be the focus of this article) Sources that use the term in this sense are speaking of it as separate subgenre of garage rock that began in the 1980s.  That has for years been the domain of this article.
 * Some of the sources such as Urban Dictionary and AllMusic say nothing about 60s garage. AllMusic mentions early 70s protopunk, but not 60s.  I consider that a shortcoming in both.  But, they do boht address the 80s subgenre.  One of the best articles I've seen is the MTV Iggy.  It addresses garage punk as a post-1980 subgenre of garage rock--all of the artists interviewed are modern acts.  But, they all testify to the 60s influence and see themselves as part of that lineage.  So, what I think the article should do is treat garage punk as a post-1980 subgenre, but mention the 60s influence and etymology, as well as mention the fact that many followers and commentators of garage rock still use the term "garage punk" to refer to "garage rock.  I'm actually trying to strike a balance that reflects your understanding of the term, but keeps the article grounded in a post 1980 framework.  But, we need to recognize the that the way the article defines the term at the present time can lead to confusion both here and at other places such as at the Acid rock article.  A lot of editors and readers there are going to get confused.  So, we need to make changes both here and there.  I mean well in saying this.  I think that you could consider the points I have made. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Urban Dictionary and Reddit are not reliable sources. You've failed to provide any quote that says when people talk about garage punk from the 1960s, they actually mean garage rock. We'll never get anywhere until you do that. These thin extrapolations of Reddit posts are meaningless — it has nothing to do with how the article is organized and everything to do with your original research. This discussion just isn't working. Yes, there are numerous sources that contradict each other, but that doesn't mean they support the claims you want added. Here are a few reminders:
 * We can only say what the sources say. WP:IMPARTIAL:
 * Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
 * In order to preserve neutrality, there is no way we can note that the sources disagree with each other or use terms differently except by simply juxtaposing their statements. WP:INTEXT:
 * [...] [don't] lead [into] inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view:
 * Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars.
 * The reader already knows that some sources talk about bands from the '80s and '90s. There is no need to clarify the obvious. WP:DECISION:
 * If an editor knows that a POV statement would be true, they should instead use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion. For example, an editor does not need to say that Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac hell-bent on killing all the Jews. If they provide enough cited statements about his books, speeches, and concentration camps, then the reader would likely draw that conclusion.
 * --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , here are two quotes from reliable sources that treat the term "garage punk" in the two different senses:
 * Garage punk as an alternate term for 60s garage rock (as treated in the Garage rock article): Here is a quote from If You Like the Ramones, by Peter Aaron that directly establishes that "garage punk" is the same thing as garage rock, when used to describe 60s music:
 * The term "garage rock" didn't actually come into use until after the era of its original practitioners passed. Theoretically, this music, also called "garage punk", was developed by amateurish, middle-class teens who rehearsed in the garages of their families' suburban American Homes during the mid-1960s.
 * On the previous page Aaron discusses Nuggets and Lenny Kaye, which was instrumental in establishing garage rock as a genre, though at the time term term "garage rock was not yet used. The term "garage rock" became the preferred term for garage genre after the punk rock movement of the mid-to-late 70s.  Obviously, the term "punk rock" became affixed in the public mind with bands like the Sex Pistols, so another term had to be found.  But, in the early 1970s, "punk rock" and "garage punk" meant garage rock.  Hann and Reynolds are using the term "garage punk" in the sense it was used in the early 1970s as many garage rock fans and commentators still do.  We have to take them at what they actually mean (and not misconstrue them to mean something else).  A person who has read a lot about garage rock will understand that they are using the term "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock.
 * Garage punk as term for a post-1980 subgenre of garage rock (which is the topic of this article): I repeat Markesich's quote:
 * Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.


 * You now have quotes from two from two reliable sources. Please take my word.  This is an area I specialize in.  I think I have earned enough credibility to be trusted on this topic.  I'm not trying to make life hard for anyone or score victories.  I just want to make sure that things get properly represented here at Wikipedia.  Now, can we come together on this?  We can work together and collaborate to get this article where it needs to go. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing these sources.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I just have a question for. If garage punk, according to your definition, defines some 60s bands, what is proto-punk now? Garage punk was/is always seen as a revival of garage rock in the 1980s with added influences of punk music. I think you are confusing garage punk with proto-punk because proto-punk is bands like the Sonics, the Music Machine, the Monks etc. which have stylistic features that inspired future punk groups. What you are saying with this article is garage punk, an 80s genre, is actually a 60s genre which simply is not true.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've never put forth a definition for garage punk. Details and definitions are dictated by the sources, not by me.
 * What you say is "simply not true" is, in fact, the truth. It's indisputable that some people use "garage punk" as a label for '60s bands. It's also indisputable that "garage punk" refers to a movement from the '80s. Nothing can be done about this discrepancy until an RS takes it upon themselves to clarify the matter. I'm perfectly aware of what proto-punk is and how sources define the term.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with TheGracefulSlick, but I don't mind Ilovetopaint's concerns. And, I apologize for making it all sound so complex. It is really very simple:
 * a) When the term "garage punk" is used to refer to 60s bands, it means garage rock. So, at Wikipedia, all garage-related/punk-related referents to 60s music automatically default to the garage rock category.  Yes, the term "garage punk" is used to refer to 60s garage bands (and often), but is done so, not to designate a separate subgenre of garage, but to refer to garage rock itself.
 * b) When garage punk is spoken of as a separate subgenre, it is the post-1980 music. When mentioned in this context, it defaults to the garage punk category, which is the rightful topic of this article.  It is a subgenre of garage rock--connected to garage rock, but distinct from the rest of it.
 * So, at the acid rock article, when it now speaks of garage punk influencing acid rock, it is supposed to say that "garage rock" influenced it (as per Wiki category nomenclature)--if we say it the way you have it, people are going to get bewildered and confused. The sources you mentioned use the term "garage punk" as meaning the 60s garage rock genre--that is the intention.  Now, as far as this article is concerned, even though I believe that it should define the subgenre of garage punk as a post-1980 phenomenon, it still has a responsibility to mention the 60s background, etymologically speaking, influentially speaking, and also address how the term "garage punk" is still used by adherents and commentators of 60s garage to refer to 60s garage.  To leave that out would be a glaring omission.  The article also has to address the two different kinds of garage revival in the 80s and make a clear disticnction:
 * a) the earlier type usually referred to as "garage revival", which consisted of "retro" bands attempting to look and sound exactly like the 60s bands
 * b) the subgenre usually referred to as garage punk, that consisted of bands influenced by 60s garage (and seeing themselves in that tradition, i.e. as witnessed in the MTV Iggy article), but adopting later infuences such as early 1970s protopunk and late 1970s punk rock.  It is this second type of revival that this article (and its Wiki category) has traditionally covered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I need to go into my sandbox and work on some things. I'll try to rectify whatever changes I make with much of what you have here.  But, right now, the article is confusing and will lead readers further away from understanding the topic.  Our ultimate responsibility is to teach the readers about the subject so that they understand.  That comes with no disrespect--you do great work, but this is a topic I (and TheGracefulSlcik) have a lot of experience with.  I need re-orient the article back to its post-1980 orientation, but keep the discussion of the 60s influence, etymology, and a lot of what you've added.  There may be a few things that I need to take out, at least out of the heading.  The things about acid rock can be explained in the article, but are probably not necessary at the top.  Keep in mind that this is a simple and primitive subgenre.  I need to re-organize and delineate things to make it more cogent.  After I'm through, by all means come back in and continue adding and refining things.  We can all talk things over each step of the way and give each other feedback--you, me, TheGracefulslick, Carptrash, and any other editors that want be involved.  Give me a spin for a while, and then we can go from there.  I thank you for your additions and want you to keep contributing.  I'll try to come up with something you like (I'll try to come up with something better than what I had put in before), and then you can come back in and continue making additions.  I think that this process will all work for the best with all hands on the deck. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I made some changes that I hope that everyone will find acceptable. I returned the article to its previous post-80s context, but retained all of the 1960s background, etymology, different types of usage of the term, etc.  I tried to retain most of the recent additions that Ilovetopaint made--I think that they constitute a real improvement in the body section--good additions (and I like that Ilovetopaint cut out some unnecessary material--I agree that someone had put some extraneous stuff in the text years ago, and it needed to go).  I removed a couple of small things.  The reference to teenagers playing in garages (that had been at the end of the 1980s to present section) pertains to 60s garage bands and was already mentioned in a prior paragraph.  Obviously the most stable ground rule of interpretation is that, when speaking of 60s bands, "garage punk" practically always means garage rock--that is the sense that Hann and Reynolds and others use the term.  Sadly, the garage styles (of whatever stripe) are rarely played by teenagers in garages any more--they are now usually performed by slightly older "hipsters" in urban scenes.  A typical teenage garage band today will, more often than not, play a non-garage style (i.e. heavy metal, etc.).  I made a slight correction on Lenny Kaye and Nuggets. It was not the first use of the term, "punk rock" (there were a handful of earlier uses), but was the first known use of "garage punk" (the liner notes used both terms).  Nuggets is the mother of all garage rock compilations.  Let me know if you see anything that needs to be changed, fixed, or improved. I took out mentions of acid rock, because that writer was using the term "garage punk" as meaning garage rock.  But, if you'd like, I could put it in at the end of the 60s section.  I want make clear that I thank Ilovetopaint for his many contributions and that he has challenged all of us to think about how this can become a better article.  This is now a much better article as a result of his involvement, so I give him much credit and thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Persistent POV pushing
I noticed that in the latest slew of edits, this sentence was inexplicably removed by Garagepunk66
 * The Guardian's Michael Hann writes: "Look at the tracklisting for Lenny Kaye’s original Nuggets album, the record that codified garage punk and you’ll find an awful lot of music that would not now fit comfortably into the genre."

Good faith edits are appreciated, but we're way past good faith at this point. This is clearly being done purposefully now, and if it continues, you (Garagepunk66) may be blocked from editing the article any further. As I've already said, my patience is at its limit. I know how the terms garage punk and garage rock are defined and used. I've read the sources. Please, spare me the walls of texts. I'd like direct quotes from reliable sources that support your assertions, not your ridiculously verbose OR.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, another POV-push I found:
 * Hann locates the "golden years" of the genre to 1965–67

...was changed to:
 * Hann locates the "golden years" of garage rock to 1965–67

Guess what Hann actually wrote?
 * Here the limits are the golden years of garage punk, 1965 to 1967

There is no excuse for this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot explain the change in quotes, but I see what Garagepunk is trying to do and it has merit. You were making it seem like garage punk is a 60s genre but it only has influences from the decade. As for "golden years", Hann was clearly referring to garage rock but I agree the quote should not be altered. That is why bands like the Sonics are actually described as garage rock and protopunk, not garage punk. If you keep the article as is, you need to explain carefully that garage punk is an 80s genre.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hann was clearly referring to garage rock"
 * Actually, he wrote garage punk. This is not up for debate. But I know what point you're trying to make: he's referring to garage punk (1960s), not garage punk (1980s). The article already explains the differences - it clarifies that the terms are synonymous, and that there exists a distinct movement of garage punk bands from the 1980s. I'm not sure how there could still be confusion about this matter.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , you know that when Hann uses term "garage punk" he means it as garage rock. By the way, you had a paraphrase, not a quote (a quote there would have been misleading), and the way you had the statement worded was inaccurate and out of context--you were ignoring the true meaning of Hann's words.  When the word "garage punk" is used to refer to 60s bands, it means garage rock.  Period.  Aaron's quote I gave you above demonstrates that.  You are misinterpreting the context of how Hann uses the term and are misappropriating it.  In our continuous prose statements, when a source says "garage punk" to refer to the 60s, then we are correct to transpose it to garage rock.  In a statement, I might use the term "garage punk" to describe the sound of a 60s band--as long as I am not speaking directly about genre definitions.  If there is a situation where the use of the term "garage punk" about the 60s could be misconstrued as genre re-defining, then I will change it to better fit Wiki classification.   There is no separate subgenre called "garage punk" within 60s garage rock.  Words such a "punk" and "garage punk" were used to describe the 60s garage rock genre before the term "garage rock" (in the wake of the 1976 punk rock phenomenon) became the official term.  Garage rock fans and commentators still use the term "garage punk" to refer to 60s garage, but they do not mean it as separate from the rest of 60s garage.  When the term "garage punk" is used to represent a subgenre of garage rock (distinct from the rest of garage rock), then it is used to refer to bands from the 80s and beyond, not 60s.  We have to get our terminology straight.  We cannot misinterpret sources in order to misappropriate established Wikipedia categories.  As for the whole thing about blocks, I'll just ignore that.  No administrator is going to block me from this or any other garage-related site.  And, in my mind we are not past good faith (unless it would be the case with you).  By making rash warnings, you are trying to place yourself in a position above me (you do not outrank me, by the way).  I do not consider myself above you or anyone, but I am respected as a specialist in garage-related topics--so is TheGracefulSlick.  You would do better by trying to work harmoniously with others.  You should not consider yourself as the only one who has a valid position here.  I acknowledge that you have had some valid points in this discussion, but I think that you misunderstand how the topic is properly defined.  When I made my latest round of edits, I tried to keep them within the shape and structure of what you had added and keep most of it in there.  I re-oriented the heading in a way that described the topic in the most helpful and accurate way possible, coming from the judgment of someone who knows this topic well.  That is not POV, but accuracy.  Now, once again, we have text that is confusing and inaccurate.  While the new heading you put in is better than what you had before, it still misses the mark.
 * The way you had the heading before defined garage punk as starting in the 60s and as a subgenre of 60s garage. I'm glad you've backed off of that somewhat, but there are still things that are confusing in the heading.
 * Now, the way you have it in the lead sentence defines garage punk too much in terms of post-70s punk (when you say "sensibilities of punk" and blue link it to the punk rock article, I am assuming that you mean punk as it is defined as a post-1975 genre). While 80s/90s garage punk bands mixed 60s garage rock influences with later 70s punk rock, the style is not 70s punk-based. It is still grounded in 60s garage, but allowing for later influences such as 70s punk and other genres.  Garage punk is not generated out of the sensibilities of 70s punk--its connections to 70s punk are strictly musical, not sociological.  Garage punk has no interest in being part of the punk subculture.  It is just people who want to play rock & roll.  The two sources you have there (Markesich and Iggy MTV) say nothing to the effect of what you have stated in the lead sentence.  Then after discussing in an almost solely post 1975 punk framework, you immediately flashback to the 60s in a way that is going to cause confusion.  My previous opening statement was much more line with what Markesich said (see the quote I placed three times above), and also echoes Iggy MTV more faithfully.  Here's what I had in the lead sentence:
 * Garage punk is a rock subgenre that is a hybrid between garage rock and other influences such as modern punk rock
 * Here is what you have put:
 * Garage punk is a rock subgenre that evokes sensibilities and approaches identified with punk rock.
 * Here is what Markesich says (once again):
 * Holdover 80s scene garage groups [*"retro" revival bands] and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence [ Garage rock ], preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll [i.e Detroit protopunk] and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk. *Note: On the previous three pages (pg. 40-42), Markesich discuses 80s bands that did an exact replication of 60s garage.
 * R&B was only one of the influences of original 60s garage bands (along with surf, British Invasion, blues, rockabilly, etc.), so the sole emphasis on just R&B in the lead section is shortsighted. So what if one author said just that? There have been hundreds of other things written.  We don't need to go into too much detail about the actual influences of 60s bands at the top of this articke.  We can go into more detail about that later in the article, and there mention several things.
 * Whether or not punk was solidified as a genre in the mid-70s is not relevant to what garage punk is. Most garage punk artists (i.e. as attested in Iggy MTV) see all things punk as having a an earlier inception (60s garage and its 50s precursors).  Garage people in general see 70s punk as taking too much credit for punk.  They know good and well that the term punk had been used for garage rock before 1975, when certain rock critics were attempting to define what we now call garage rock as a genre.  While it is true that punk solidified in the larger public mind in the mid-70s and the 80s garage punk bands are open to its influence, a statement like that in the heading is unnecesary.  You can mention it in the text (in Etymology), but it has no place in the opening heading.  As per MTV Iggy: "‘Wow, Little Richard is more punk than the Sex Pistols. Now I’m influenced by Little Richard’ or ‘The Sonics are the most punk band ever..."
 * In the lead section, you mention too many genres as influences for 80s garage punk--you could mention all of them in the body text of the article. The key overriding influences to be mentioned in the lead section are 1) garage rock (still the most talked about influence--80s garage punk grew out of garage rock revivalism, though it came to incorporate other influences) 2) Detroit protopunk (AllMusic), and 3) 70s punk rock.  While hardcore is an influence, it is not as strong as the first three, and is only so in certain cases.  Garage punk musicians see themselves mainly as just rock & rollers and don't really want to engage in the extreme subcultural and political stances of hardcore.  Power pop and girl groups are influences, yes, but not as key as the three above.  We can mention them in the body of the article, but keep it simple up at the top.  I had said "mixing core 1960s garage influences with heavier styles such as Detroit proto-punk and modern punk rock, along with other genres..."  The "other genres" allude to all of the other things that we can mention in the main body as influences.
 * You mention garage rock later as only one of many influences and combine it with girl groups (via non-comma "and"). Garage rock is still the primary influence.  In MTV Iggy, 60s garage bands are mentioned over and over.  You have gone from the extreme of over-emphasizing the 60s inception in defining the genre, earlier on, to now almost completely de-emphasizing it.  80s/90s garage punk is a subgenre of garage rock, after all.
 * There is no longer any discussion about the distinction between "retro" garage revival bands and garage punk bands in the 80s. This is key background.  The quote from Markesich alludes to this.  Markesich, himself, has played in several "retro" bands, but he makes clear that origin of 80s garage punk came about by garage-oriented artists who wanted to keep the 60s garage tradition alive, but growing, so they decided to let the form evolve and allow for more modern influences, such as 70s punk rock.
 * In the Etymology section you misstate Beverly Ryan in your paraphrase. She is making a clear distinction between bands that are "retro" revivalists (garage revival) and garage punk. the garage punk bands have the 60s influence, but don't want to copy it to the point of cliché and accept broader influences.  They don't try to dress just like 60s groups either.
 * I don't mind the addition of stoner rock in the heading. That's fine.
 * Info box: You re-instated acid rock as a derivative form. If the purpose of this article is to address the post-1980 garage punk subgenre (as opposed to usages of the term referring to 60s bands, which mean the same thing as garage rock), then we cannot list acid rock as a derivative form here.
 * The wording I had in the heading was much more clear and accurate. You cannot base genre definitions on a few quotes--you have to take a lot of things into account and accurately represent what the prevailing view is.  Sometimes you are not going to understand that until you have read literally hundreds of things--and sometimes there are complicated sub-dynamics to consider.  You can use a few sources to help back up the broader understanding, but you cannot properly define a whole genre based on just a few quotes.  It's impossible.  You have to have experience with broad topic and an deep understanding of it to know how to accurately characterize it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

For additional discussion on this topic, see Dispute resolution noticeboard. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED. This might not be the ideal solution, but there appears not to be one, and I read consensus to be that the proposal is better than the status quo, and no worse. Perhaps there is even a better solution; I don't know, but this moves us in the right direction, at worst. The only opposing arguments are based on TWODABS and don't address the proposal. TWODABS is not applicable to this proposal because the proposal leaves the situation consistent with TWODABS. The main issue is that there are two uses of "Garage punk" which leads to the question of which is primary. The TWODABS argument does not address the question of which is primary. There is no other opposition. The argument that the Garage rock use is primary for "Garage punk" is essentially unchallenged. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 05:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Garage punk → Garage punk (punk subgenre) – This punk fusion genre shares an AKA with Garage rock. To eliminate confusion, a WP:PARENDIS may be necessary. After move, Garage punk will redirect to Garage rock, which itself will contain a Redirect hatnote. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * has a good point. I'd be fine with the proposed change in title here.  Perhaps we could use a title such as "Garage punk (post-1980s genre)", since it reached its peak in the 1990s and has continued into the new millennium.  But yes, I am all for having this kind of change.  It will help distinguish the later subgenre from how the term "garage punk" has been used for 60s garage rock.  As for the "Garage punk" re-directing to Garage rock, I'd be fine with that too, as long as it does not entail any new sections added to the Garage rock article--that article is currently large enough. I'm assuming that the re-direct proposal is for purposes of disambiguation (not a merger).  As long as that's so, I'd be fine with it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But isn't it a bit peculiar to redirect garage punk to garage rock, when garage rock is a 1960s development and the term punk wasn't applied to such music until the 1970s? I think some sources are needed to verify this strange terminology. If that's what is used now, fine. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Garage punk" predates the term "garage rock" by 10 years. There are numerous sources cited, not only in the lead of Garage punk, but also in Garage rock and Punk rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pretty tough case, eh? I must refrain from voting, i.e. stay "neutral", until I'm ready to decide. However, I'm worried about content forking when splitting the page into decades or eras or something like that. How to describe "garage punk" and "garage rock" shall be addressed at a more populated venue when this discussion is over. WT:PUNK is less visited, so WT:WikiProject Music is a better venue, where people can distinguish "garage punk" and "garage rock". Meanwhile, this RM discussion might be... too complicated for an average voter, like me. I'll do my best to make some research and then comment more before I vote. I'll add sources in this talk page soon before the RM closes. George Ho (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This book uses the term to refer to the 1980s. Another book mentions '90s garage punk bands, like Teengenerate. Another book mentions mid-1960s music. This book says that "garage punk" referred to "punk rock" in 1985. This book briefly mentions "garage punk" but barely. This encyclopedia says that "garage punk" refers to "raw, amateurish rock recordings, typified by" 1960s one-hit wonder American bands imitating British counterparts. Not sure what to do with this book. This refers to '60s bands of the genre. Same for this one. You can help me evaluate more sources from Google. George Ho (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after the 1990s is when the terms began to blur. But the majority of sources reference it to 1960s music (Neil Campbell, Simon Reynolds, Thomas Ryan, Bruce Eder/Richie Unterberger, David Thomas ...) There's more confusion in the fact that many modern bands labelled "garage punk" are actually not part of the "garage/punk" fusion talked about in this article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I vote, if moved, what are your plans for this article? Would you create new articles about such music styles? What about the rules and the risks of breaking them? George Ho (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? There's only three "styles" referenced, garage rock, punk, and garage/punk, and each already has its own article. What rules?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... sorry... I almost overlooked the nom's OP. I didn't realize that the redirecting is proposed. Never mind what I said previously, which is struck now, including the "rules" part. It's not that important anyway. And... you're right that the three articles you mentioned are well referenced. George Ho (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I renamed the destination article from Garage punk (1980s genre) to Garage punk (fusion genre).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh... didn't expect the change to "fusion genre". This book says that "garage punk" is a subgenre of punk rock/music. So do other sources, like this one and that one. Could not find sources calling it a "fusion" genre. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point - changed to "punk subgenre".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:TWODABS; a hatnote is always sufficient to disambiguate between two competing articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How is that an "opposing" argument when that is exactly what this proposal sets out to do? The point is that the primary usage of "garage punk" refers to "garage rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Statistics say that "rock" is more viewed than "punk". However, the statistics are not easy to analyse and argue for or against the move. And we're unsure whether most readers would associate "punk" with "rock". George Ho (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a source that explicitly states that "garage punk" is more likely to refer to "garage rock" or "garage revival", which is what's covered by Garage rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SMcCandlish. We've actually got an article called "Garage punk" and the hatnote works well. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you understand that this discussion is for? The proposal concerns WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, not WP:PRECISE. I'm dumbfounded by the rationale you gave. Of course there is already an article for "garage punk" - isn't that obvious considering the talk page we're on?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Did I give enough background and context to this proposal? I assumed that if an editor was uninformed of the subject, then they would check the articles themselves.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Apparently I'm the only editor to vote thus who took the time to understand the background of this proposal. There are distinct differences between the garage punk of the 1960s (another name for garage rock) and this garage punk subgenre created in 1980s. There was an enourmous debate about the title and content of this article and Ilovetopaint's proposal is a solution to the problem. I urge other editors to actually take into account the past discussions before voting.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support name change (here) and new disambiguation to Garage rock (there) (as long as there is no section transferred to Garage rock, as part of any kind of merger): I know that the discussion that led to this was complicated, but Ilvoetopaint has come up with a good idea. Perhaps we could use a title such as "Garage punk (post-1980s genre)", since it reached its peak in the 1990s and has continued into the new millennium.  But, I said that I could suport a change along these lines.  It will help clarify the two different uses of the term "garage punk".  As for the issue of "Garage punk" re-directing to Garage rock, I support it, as long as it does not entail any new sections being transferred/added to the Garage rock article--that article is currently large enough, and I believe that it already covers all of these issues. I'm assuming that the re-direct proposal is for purposes of disambiguation (not as a section merger).  As long as that's so, I support the proposal. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still neutral – I'm a little worried about the genre scenario. Opposers argue that hatnotes and two distinctive titles are enough. Supporters say that more accurate title should reflect the content. I appreciate all the hard word done by those heavily involved with the topic, especially by looking at their usernames. However, we must do what is best for most readers, especially those little aware of the genre, per WP:AT. Seems to me that more research is needed before deciding on the name change again. Also, article content may need some improvements. The more the research, the more likely another title change request may be needed. I can see their own viewpoints about this, but I don't think a mere title change would resolve both the content accuracy and lack of other unrelated topics of the same name. Also, maybe leaving the titles alone wouldn't resolve research issues as well. As said before, the appropriate venue is WT:MUSIC. It does have music experts there. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 05:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree this article needs improvements. If you look at the above discussion, Ilovetopaint tried to point out and begin to resolve those concerns but was sidetracked into the discussion we are having now. Perhaps I spoke too soon on this vote because I understand both sides. Another alternative is to properly add content about the 1980s movement and the influences taken from 1960s garage music while including the hatnotes mentioned above. By the way, I don't mean to sound egotistical, but me and are the closest things to "experts" on these genres.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fusion Genre
Garage punk is defined as a fusion genre throughout this page. However, the sources don't refer to it as being a "fusion"- AllMusic doesn't, The Guardian doesn't, MTV doesn't- it's simply described as a genre of punk and rock. And this makes sense to me. Glam punk and progressive metal aren't described as a "fusion genre" despite their similar history as developing out of rock genres first. Fusion implies that very much separate entities came together to form a new one, but garage rock has always teetered on the line between rock and punk, that garage punk emerging as a genre just seems likes an unsurprising, natural development.

Anyone agree/disagree?

128.54.139.29 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but sources say that the garage punk in this article is heavily informed by 1970s-style punk, which is the genre's main distinction from other styles. It's basically "neo-garage rock". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)