Talk:List of ska musicians

Bands that aren't "notable"
Just because you like a band, that doesn't mean the band is important enough to be in this list. The bands should be fairly well-known and influential, otherwise the list will be meaningless and too long.Spylab 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)spylab

by :( disgruntled reader
 * Learn how to spell. It's spelled "notable"...not that difficult, one should hope


 * Thanks for the tip.Spylab 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab


 * OK, so what's the criterion? Any suggestions about how well-known or influential a band has to be, or how to measure it?  82.45.161.53 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For a start, if the band's not important enough to have its own Wikipedia article, it shouldn't be on this list. There's no point in listing a band name if people can't click on it to find information. As for a scientific method of deciding notability, there isn't really a specific measurement, but the band should be fairly famous and known outside of just their home region. I've seen many other lists of musicians related to different genres of music, and most people seem to figure it out. Take a look at the musicians in the first two sections of this list for an idea of how notable the bands in the third wave section should be. The third wave ska sectionis one of the worst lists for people without Wikipedia accounts adding unknown bands that are only locally important. If every single ska punk band that's been around for a few months is added to this list, it becomes cluttered and irrelevant. And since this list is for all three waves of ska, the third wave section should not overshadow the first two sections, especially since many third wave bands barely even sound like real ska anyway.Spylab 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab


 * But, as it stands, the third-wave column DOES overshadow the other two columns...greatly. Most of the bands featured shouldn't even be ON WikiPedia. For instance, the band known as "Union Jack & The Megaphones" have a semi-professionally written page, yet it still doesn't hide the fact that they were a bunch of high school kids that released two self-made EPs from 1997-2000. I believe the criterion should be that only the bands that had mainstream/chart success and/or were on a major label (or a notable one such as Moon Ska Records or Jump Up!) should be included within the third-wave section.

I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there, smash mouth actually is ska and kind of helped the third wave get out there. Most of their singles are all pop-rock but most of their other songs are ska so i'm going to go ahead and put them up there, listen to all of their albums before you think about taking it down. oh and listen to "why can't we be friends" and then try to explain to me why it isn't ska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.177.36 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But they're not PREDOMINANTLY ska. Notice that this is "List of SKA musicians", as in that the bands mentioned in here should play enough ska in order to meet the guidelines of being a SKA BAND, enough so that most, if not all, people would recognize and label them as such. Smash Mouth, though they do have a fair amount of ska songs, none of them were hits, and most people don't associate them with being a "ska band".Skibz777 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The opening reads "This is a list of notable bands and soloists who mainly performed ska or ska-influenced music at some point in their careers." I think that Smash Mouth (and a few of the other notable bands you deleted) fit that description. Ash Loomis (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we be friends was pretty big and that was most definatly a ska cover of the war song. just because most of their singles weren't ska doesn't make them not a ska band. Go to a smash mouth show and at least half the set list is going to be ska songs.

The Third Wave over shadows the 1st and 2nd because there are more bands in that era, look at how pathetic the 2nd wave was in regards to known bands. Not the third wave's fault for having a lot of good bands and artists. Before deleting any bands take a look at their page, listen to their music, look up who the toured with and ask your hardcore ska friends if they've heard of them.

Five Iron Frenzy?
Pretty much the only hits that come up on google for Five Iron Frenzy are the Wikipedia article, an article on a Christian music site, lyrics sites and a site selling their CDs. I have seen no evidence that they are in any way notable to the overall ska genre. They seem to be only known within the small Christian ska scene in the United States. This band is constantly added to this list (sometimes along with two other Christian ska bands) by people with no Wikipedia accounts. I suspect that a former member of Five Iron Frenzy is using Wikipedia to promote the (defunct) band. That is considered vanity posting, which is not what Wikipedia is for. This list is for bands that are fairly famous and/or are influential to the overall ska genre.Spylab 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's already an article about them then they should be included.Jesusinmysock 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) March 2007

They Might Be Giants
Last I checked, TMBG wasn't ska, so why is it even on this list? Aederrex 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone just added them yesterday. I just deleted them today, because there is nothing ska about them. Spylab 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

311
As the user above stated, some bands on the list are not, in fact, considered to be ska. For example, 311. 311 is barely ska, as their music does not include the characteristic horn section or the walking bass lines. Yes, I'd definitely define the band 311 as more of a funk-rock band. Definitely not ska.

311 is considered ska, as terrible as i find them to be, horn lines don't have to be included for ska it's just really common. As long as it stresses the off-beat and stresses some upstroke its ska. But yes they can also be considered a funk-rock band as well, bands can have multiple genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.177.36 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ska-P
Ska-P I wouldn't know how to categorize the band, but should they not be on this list? Maybe I missed something. Bloodbeard 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Ska-P should definitely be included. Before quitting they were very popular and widely known. I guess i see a lot of names which are much less influential than Ska-P and should not be included... i'll list them in my next coffee break :) Inks002 08:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ska-p is NOT ska —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.67.2 (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who ever wrote the last comment here should really listen to a couple songs by them, they are clearly a ska band, they are much more well known in spain and other places, proubly because they sing primarily in spanish. Any ska band coming out of spain likely has ska-p at the top of their influence list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.177.36 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Wave/Ska punk split
Should Third Wave and Ska Punk be split into two separate sections instead of both being clumped into one? Both genres have their own separate pages, and it's odd to put bands like Hepcat in the same category as Against All Authority. Skibz777 03:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that the split will open a can of worms, since ska punk is part of third wave ska, and even many of the more traditional third wave ska bands have some punk rock influences. For that reason, it will be very difficult to classify many of the bands. For example, Fishbone is currently in the third wave ska section, but they have a lot of punk influences (as well as funk, soul and rock). If the sections have to be split, at the very least ska punk should be a subsection of the third wave ska section.Spylab —The preceding  signed but undated.

I was thinking that, but the simplest way (at least to me) is to split up the bands that mainly use distorted power chord guitars, and the bands who mainly use the syncopated ska offbeats. For instance, about 90% of Reel Big Fish's music features distorted guitars, but bands such as The Planet Smashers, The Busters, Bim Skala Bim and Mephiskapheles don't, keeping that constant offbeat that literally defines what ska music is. It's a suggestion, I guess... And then there's some bands that stick out: Fishbone, for instance, started out purely Third Wave, but then developed punk and heavy metal influences much later. The Aquabats!'s first two albums are pure third wave ska with no punk influence, but then their other three albums are pure punk with no ska influence. No Doubt used to be a mod-inspired ska band, but is now completely pop. Where would you define those artists? By what they did then or what they do now? Then there are some who say that ska shouldn't be categorized into waves at all...71.254.162.177 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Skibz777 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See, this is where the problems come in. If you play 1960s ska songs next to the most-known songs by The Planet Smashers, The Busters, Bim Skala Bim, Mephiskapheles, Fishbone, The Aquabats and No Doubt, there is no way that those bands could be considered traditional-style ska. They all have strong influences from either punk, pop punk or rock. Maybe the sections should, in fact, be merged into one list, and have the title changed to List of ska and ska-punk musicians. Spylab 10:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if you play 1960s ska next to The Toasters, The Pietasters, Let's Go Bowling, or even The Slackers, there's no way THEY could be considered traditional-style. They all have strong pop and rock influences, which is what sort of defines the third wave. But they, along with bands such as Bim Skala Bim, Planet Smashers, etc., lack the strong punk influence that's present in bands like RBF or LTJ. Also, this is just MY opinion, but I think compiling all the names into one lists seems...I dunno, cluttery or something. Ultimately, it's up to the Wiki Admins. as to what to do.Skibz777 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged the two sections back again, because splitting them caused more problems than it solved. Ska punk is part of the third wave, and there will be much disagreement about whether certain bands should be classified as third wave or ska punk. For examples, the articles of two bands you moved from ska punk to third wave (Bim Skala Bim and The Uptones) both say they play ska punk.Spylab 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll settle for the current layout. However, if you've ever listened to BSB or The Uptones, they're definitely not ska-punk; The Uptones are very 2-Tone influenced and BSB are in the same vein as The Toasters...both were some of the original 3rd wave acts back in the early 80s.
 * The only problem I have is that The Toasters are labeled under 2-Tone; 2-Tone exclusively denotes British bands who performed under the record label of that name, where as The Toasters were an American band who formed after the second wave's decline in popularity. Even the page for 'Third Wave Ska' lists The Toasters as the first band of the genre. But I'm probably just being nitpicky. O_oSkibz777 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about The Toasters. I have deleted them from the 2 Tone section many times, but somehow they keep sneaking in there. I have deleted them once again.Spylab 18:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sublime
Where the hell is Sublime, I'm not a crazed fan boy but it should be under third wave.156.34.166.13 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.247.42 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

notable bands without pages
How do some notable bands not have wikipedia pages? I expected to see a page on the Arrogant Sons of Bitches, I think someone should get around to that, because they were just as popular as jeff's current band, bomb the music industry!

What About Kicked in The Head? Them and Big D supported each other and toured together alot and had the halloween shows together, they are broken up now though.

78 RPMs should have a page. Even though they only released a EP and one album, I think, what makes them notable is that the band is made up of former members of Skankin' Pickle and The Rudiments.

Great idea. Let's also make a page about my 9 year-old cousin Skeeter's ska band 'The Skankin' Goofballz'. They own an album that sounds *like* Skankin' Pickle, so that makes them notable enough. ;)

Hey, how 'bout we not act like an a-hole. The difference between your stupid cousins band and 78 RPMs, is that 78 RPMs actually(as you may or may not have noticed I mentioning before) had former members of Skankin' Pickle and The Rudiments,and that makes them notable.

Some Japanese ska bands
I would add the Japanese bands MURAMASA☆ and LONG SHOT PARTY, but neither of them have their own Wikipedia articles yet (although I would definitely say they're notable). It doesn't seem like a band having its own article is a requirement to be on this list, but I still think it would look a little strange... So, what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.109.134 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a Wikipedia article is a requirement.Spylab (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ASOB
I noticed awhile ago that someone wrote an article for ASOB, so I thought "great I'll add it to the list," but when I try to add it the bot takes it out it for having a profanity, so how to I add to the list with out the bot thinking I'm vandilizing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryRobo (talk • contribs) 04:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added them with no issue. Weird. 99.240.253.31 (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Leningrad
I figured I'd ask before I just go ahead and add Leningrad. But is anyone opposed to that? I don't see why you would be. DrJorin (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Third wave/ska punk split (yet again)
It occurs to me that since ska punk and third wave ska/ska are separate articles/genres, wouldn't it be sensible to split the extensive third wave list into two sections covering both? It doesn't seem like there'd be much conflict of opinion with a clearly distinct categorization. Skibz777 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not two distinct styles. Ska punk comes under the umbrella of third wave ska. There has been some discussion about merging the two articles, but there was no consensus.Spylab (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nazipedians
Seriously why the hell make this an open source website if you're just going to edit everyone? It's bullshit. If someone thinks a band is influential and ska, who are you to question them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.71.167 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Wow, 4 days and I still haven't been edited. Yay! Maybe Slightly Stoopid and illScarlett are influential enough and "Ska" enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.71.167 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because a lot of the bands people feel compelled to put on this list are not listed as "ska" at all. Slightly Stoopid, for instance, has six genres listed in its infobox but not one of them "ska", the opening paragraph makes no mention of the genre and the band does not belong to any ska-related categories. So why should they be included on a list of SKA musicians? Because you, quote, "think" they're influential and ska?
 * I'm removing them for now, but if you or someone else can provide verifiable sources that would label them with the words "ska band" (and not something that simply includes "ska" among a handful of other genre influences), then they can be kept. I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to most people.Skibz777 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

All bands have multiple genres. Some are certainly more limited than others but nothing is clearly defined. It's all a matter of opinion. I guess yours is the only one that matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.71.167 (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate: Slightly Stoopid's page has SIX genres in its infobox, not one of them "ska" or "ska punk". Their intro paragraph, which should adequately summarize the band's music, reads only "a fusion of acoustic rock and blues with reggae, hip-hop, and punk", with no mention of ska. The band does not belong to any ska-related Wiki categories. I even took the time to do some research and failed to find any mention of "ska" on the band's official press bio, Facebook ("Dub/Rock/Blues") or MySpace ("Psychedelic/Reggae/Rock"). There's no information on their page that indicates Slightly Stoopid being a ska band, and that's not my opinion, that's fact. There are actual rules here on Wikipedia: unsourced "opinion" comes in issue with Wikipedia's policies on Original Research, Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Categorization is not based around opinion, particularly on genre-specific lists such as this page whose purpose is to illustrate artists predominantly involved with and influential on said genre, not artists who apparently value six other musical styles over said genre.
 * Each band on this list can be linked to verifiable sources identifying them as being predominantly active in the ska genre, being influential upon it or simply just being given the label of "ska band" by the media. Slightly Stoopid's page indicates the complete opposite, but - while I question your adamant desire to add to a list of ska musicians a band that they themselves don't even identify as such - feel free to work on their main page to reflect ska being a primary influence on their work (with verifiable sources). Go for it. :)Skibz777 (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2-Tone
What constitutes an addition to the 2-Tone section? I noticed Akrylykz was removed and Allniters was moved to "third wave" despite both being non-US bands who started in the late '70s. Surely the list isn't exclusively limited to bands that were signed to 2-Tone Records, thus excluding the many other British, European and Australian bands who were active and recording at the same time as the 2-Tone bands? Skibz777 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See the 2 Tone article.Spylab (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So...why isn't Akrylykz on the list? And why is Rico Rodriguez added twice? By that logic, all artists who were active during more than one period of ska would be needlessly duplicated (e.g. all 2-Tone artists would be repeated in third wave, etc.). And why is Neville Staple included when he didn't release solo material until the '90s? By that logic, all individual members of The Specials (+ Madness + The Beat + The Selecter + etc.) would be listed. None of that makes any sense. For a handful of late 1970s British ska bands to be denied inclusion on a list of late 1970s British ska bands in favor of erroneous filler is confusing.

''The Akrylykz was a Ska band from Hull that had Roland Gift (Fine Young Cannibals) as a saxophonist. The band existed in the late 70s to the early 80s where they had limited success, releasing one single, "Spiderman", on York's Red Rhino Records.Other members of the group were Steve Pears (vocals, tenor sax), Stevie “B” Robottom [Washington] (vocals, alto sax, keyboards), Piotr Swiderski (drums), Michael "Fred" Reynolds (bass), and Nik "Akrylyk" Townend (guitar).'' Nik Townend went on to form his own record label Vital Records featuring his band Bushfire. That version didn't say anything about 2 Tone, so there was no justification for having it in the 2 Tone section. The current version does mention links to some 2 Tone bands, but doesn't actually call them a 2 Tone band. Feel free to add them to the 2 Tone section, but don't be surprised if someone else disputes that later. I deleted Rico Rodriquez from the 2 Tone section, as per your comment. I left Neville Staple because the name of this page is "List of ska musicians", and Staple started his music career in the 2 Tone era. Yes, it would be a good idea to add links to other musicians who started their careers during the 2 Tone era.Spylab (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In January 2011 (when you posted your original comment), the entire Akrylykz article consisted of the following:


 * I feel it's insane to base the entire middle section around bands who were only connected with the 2-Tone record label. 2-Tone-signed artists represented a mere fraction of active European ska bands in the late '70s/early '80s. True, not all of those independent bands were as notable, but that's not to say there weren't any that don't warrant a Wiki article in the near future. This is "List of ska musicians", not "List of artists signed to 2-Tone Records"...I'll accept that early Australian bands like Allniters can be excluded for the same reason The Toasters are, but there's no reason to exclude British SKA bands like Akrylykz, Amazulu or The Hotknives, who were all actively performing and recording while the 2-Tone groups were still topping the charts.


 * I was actually implying it'd be a bad idea to include individual musicians who started their "careers" during the 2-Tone era, particularly if they never released solo material (Mike Barson, Andy Cox, Chris Foreman, Chas Smash, Daniel Woodgate) or never released any ska solo material (John Bradbury, Jerry Dammers, Mark Bedford). If one were to apply the same to the third wave section, you'd be adding upwards of 100 extraneous names. It's nothing but filler because of the weird restrictions on the second wave section. If someone's looking for ska musicians, I won't believe that providing a link to a one-time Beat guitarist who joined Fine Young Cannibals and spent the rest of his career in electronica would be of much help. It sounds like I'm making a bigger deal out of this than I really am, but I'm not. I'm just nitpicky. :) Skibz777 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change the definition of 2 Tone, you should raise the issue on the talk page of that article. If you want to argue that a certain band not already on the list is considered 2 Tone, you should back it up with references. The third wave section is way bigger than the other two sections, so adding individual musicians to the 2 Tone section seems acceptable in order to balance it out. I doubt many individuals from third wave ska bands have their own Wikipedia articles, because they aren't very well known in their own right. Spylab (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2 Tone entry actually supports my suggestions. It doesn't restrict the "genre" only to bands that were connected to one record label, which is what you're doing. It describes itself just as a UK-based "genre" which ran roughly from 1979-1984, named so because "most" (not all) bands were on 2-Tone. There's absolutely no indication of anything that would exclude the aforementioned bands. Please provide a rationale.


 * I'm all for balancing out the 2-Tone section, but preferably with bands and notable musicians instead of blatant filler such as the few aforementioned musicians who have tenuous-at-best ties to the genre beyond one band. To address your doubt, I wasted my (admittedly worthless) time visiting each band entry under the third wave section and counting the pages for individual musicians - taking careful notice not to double-count names and verify that the links weren't redirects - and discovered there are an additional 115 musicians who can be added to the third wave list. No matter what, the third wave section will always eclipse 2-Tone's, because 1) it's covering a period of time 5x longer than 2-Tone and 2) it covers international bands in comparison to solely English ones. If you want to expand the 2-Tone section, it'd help for someone to create entries for the unknown-but-notable other groups of the era, or at least include the ones already made (Akrylykz, Hotknives, etc.), since, under this categorization, they inexplicably cease to exist.


 * I know I'm starting to sound like a psycho at this point, and, yes, I fully realize the complete triviality of what I'm arguing over and couldn't care less if this list stayed exactly the same for the next century, but this categorization really doesn't make sense to me. Skibz777 (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)