Talk:Yakuza (band)

First comments
The verification on exact role/ contribution of Jackson and his full name is required. the page is no more a stub since it is an almost full band page now. Kindly contribute to make it more authentic. track listing and credits obtained from respective CDs. (putush (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

The page looks great! Yakuza rocks! Deepfryer99 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Progressive metal?
The band is currently labelled in the intro sentence as a "progressive metal" group. I added a citation from their bio on Prosthetic Records: "Staying deeply rooted in a genre all its own, YAKUZA’s existence lies on a metal base with progressive flair, while somehow also incorporating elements of jazz, world beat, and post-rock ambiance." This doesn't really say that they're a progressive metal band at all; it says they have their own genre. It does use the words "metal" and "progressive" in the same sentence, so I left the designation as it is. The trouble is that progressive metal, as I understand it, describes bands like Dream Theater and Queensrÿche, with whom Yakuza have nothing in common. The label page does indicate King Crimson as a main influence, but not really "progressive metal". I think Yakuza would be better labelled as avant-garde metal or possibly as post-metal. Aryder779 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the designation to avant-garde metal, as Yakuza clearly have more relation to Celtic Frost than to Dream Theater. Aryder779 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed it again, this time to post-metal, with a reference from the Onion AV club. I think this is the most accurate designation; Yakuza have most in common with Neurosis, Godflesh, and Isis, who are generally considered post-metal groups. Aryder779 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but naming Yakuza as mainly a post-metal band is not totally accurate. Your statements how they have nothing in common with Dream Theater or Queensryche are inaccurate and misleading. Try comparing them to Tool, Opeth, Mastodon or Baroness instead, with whom they have more (or much) in common. Please notice how Opeth can be compared to Dream Theater and how Tool can't, but how they're both still progressive metal. This stresses that the progressive metal genre has poles, which means all bands don't have to be tied. I'm not saying post-metal shouldn't be in the genre box, but in the intro sentence? No. (Progressive metal should at least be in the genre box btw) I'm asking you to read between the lines; if a metal band has a progressive flair and are influenced by King Crimson, it has only so many outcomes. I'm not saying you haven't heard their albums, but I'm fairly sure I'm more familiar with Yakuza and the post-metal bands you mentioned (Isis are also labeled as progressive metal). I could give you tons of examples from their albums if you want. I'm changing it back. If you're insanely against this, i can go for avant-garde metal. Revan ltrl (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I changed it back to avant-garde metal, which I guess resolves our disagreement, though I don't think that makes me "insane".
 * Just for the record: Did you notice that I included a source for the post-metal designation? Also, I really don't think Yakuza sounds much like Tool or Opeth at all. For that matter, Tool is considered post-metal as well, for exactly the reason you indicate: They don't belong in the same genre as Dream Theater. I'm also really not sure where you're getting the idea that Isis is a progressive metal band. Rorschach is influenced by King Crimson too, but they're definitely not a prog metal band. Yakuza's a lot closer to Rorschach than Queensrÿche.
 * I don't think we're at odds anymore since you're ok with avant-garde metal, but I think many of the claims you've made represent your distinct POV. Aryder779 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get insane from? I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused with all these genres, and kind of lacking in research and experience, when you need to compare Yakuza with, and include, bands like Queensryche and Rorschach in your defense. Well, first off, I feel your "source" has gone to your head and I believe there's an unhealthy obsession with these called "reliable sources" here in wikipedia when it comes to genres. The best sources are discussion and common sense. Secondly, Tool are not considered post-metal, and please don't say it out loud in another article, especially not in Tool's, for your own safety, some editors and admins are merciless. About Isis, I recommend their latest release 'In the Absence of Truth', where they include many progressive elements, and you'll find similarities with Opeth's Damnation. Like in the opening track 'Wrists of Kings' where they kind of go neo-prog in the softer sections. 'Dulcinea' on the other hand, is a progressive tour-de-force, after the last verse of singing. The build-up, the time signature-changes and the climax is nothing but progressive rock, and that can't be denied. Plus, it's infinitely more accurate to call Isis progressive than Tool post. You don't think Yakuza sounds much like Tool or Opeth. Well, that's your right. I'm not saying they're in the same family as those bands, and I probably wouldn't put them on a "see also..." list. But listen to the intro of Yakuza's 'Steal the Fire' from their 'Transmutations' and notice how that just as well could have been Opeth. The third song from the same album 'Congestive Art-Failure' isn't to be excluded in comparisons with Tool either. And about Tool, they are in the same Genre as Dream Theater, the genre being progressive metal, and listen how I said that that very genre is quite vast, which means every band doesn't have to be tied with the next.Revan ltrl (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your attribution of being "insanely against" the prog-metal designation, but I should have just let it go - it's not important.
 * Two points: 1) Reliable sources is what Wikipedia is about. That's just how it works. If you don't want to interpret sources, you should discuss these matters in a different forum. It can be frustrating to confine yourself to material published by someone else, and there are definitely days when I think I could write these article much better if I could just share my own interpretation, but on the other hand part of the challenge of Wikipedia is figuring out how to write a good article while substantiating its claims with the relevant media. I think Yakuza sounds a lot like Painkiller at times, but I don't have a source to back that claim up, so I'm not going to put it in the article.
 * I'm going to leave Tool aside since I don't really know their work too well -- the necessary sources for Tool and Isis as post-metal are over at the post-metal page.
 * 2) What really seems to be the issue is that you want to argue that progressive metal is a kind of umbrella term that includes avant-garde metal and post-metal. I think there are reasons why this is not the case. It's for the same reasons that experimental rock and progressive rock are not the same thing. King's X has an approach to metal that's world's apart from Blut aus Nord. There's no reason to consider them under the same label, just because both have long songs or weird rhythms. This is really a discussion we should be having on the progressive metal or avant-garde metal or post-metal talk pages, however. Aryder779 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue can be seen in whichever way one sees fit. It's a matter of opinion after all, but that doesn't really mean anything here, does it. The division is understandable and probably works well in wikipedia, even though it really is an umbrella term that transcends "long songs" or "weird rhythms". I've opposed wikipedia's ways before anyway, and probably always will and I doubt this system and some of its its ground pillars (like the reliable sources-policy) will hold. But you have a point with that interpretation mention. No point in arguing anymore, since our opinions don't clash that much and don't really change anything. What I really wonder, though, after arguing for some time with different admins and editors, is why these discussion forums are here, what purpose do they serve? I think ordinary mortals (like me) have misunderstood their supposed purposes and actually thought that discussion would lead somewhere, but it all concludes with an admin or such mentioning "the tons of reviews" or "the tons of articles". I think something that would fit this system is admins, editors, all of us, numbly exchanging links, media, which in turn get administrated by the, uh, admins in a separate talk page or something that requires a pass card or a code handed out by those above the admins, whoever they are, sitting there enjoying their awareness of how irrelevant our questions and ideas are... Not for you to answer, though. Let's hope for a Yakuza album in the U.S. top 250 instead. 84.217.60.92 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)