Talk:Slowcore

Notable acts

Acetone Akron/Family The American Analog Set American Music Club Anchor & Braille The Antlers Arab Strap Arco Armored Frog Art of Fighting Audrey Bedhead Barcelona Barzin Black Heart Procession Bowery Electric Bill Callahan (Smog) Canyon Carissa's Wierd (sic)

Cat Power Catnip Chokebore Coastal Codeine Copeland Damon and Naomi Dirty Three Julie Doiron Dolorean Duster Early Day Miners Emily Haines & The Soft Skeleton Mark Eitzel Geoff Farina Galaxie 500 Lisa Germano Gravenhurst Great Lake Swimmers

Gregor Samsa Hugo Largo Ida Idaho Joseph Arthur Mike Johnson Damien Jurado Karate Margot & the Nuclear So and So's LN Low Mazzy Star Mojave 3 Movietone Nerdkween Scout Niblett Nicole Atkins Stina Nordenstam Pedro the Lion

Picastro Poppo Radar Bros. Red House Painters Rex Rocky Votolato Seam Shearwater Slowdive Timonium Spain Sun Kil Moon Songs: Ohia Sophia The New Year Thee More Shallows Tiger Saw Tram TW Walsh Shannon Wright

This list or a shorter one should be added to the article to help explain what is consider 'slowcore'. there's on article here that could help too http://drownedinsound.com/news/4136195-slowcore-week--an-introduction Jonpatterns (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've done a major revamp on the page and have rewritten the article using new sources. I have removed the long, long list of bands considered to be Slowcore as these lists are not really appropriate to Wikipedia. However, I know for a fact that this list gets added to every single week on the main page and I'm not in the habit of deleting anyone's new favourite band (including mine, the incomparable Shannon Wright) so the list can now be found above. Apart from Faith No More. I had to take them out. Sorry. Not having it.Silverwood (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad/Slow-Core

What's to be made of the fact that slowcore redirects here? Should the two be split (argument: different music genres) or should they be kept together here (argument: fundamentally the same type of music). If it's the second choice we're going for, I can do a great deal of work on this article, but I'm unsure as to which action should be taken. Matthew 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In my mind sadcore and slowcore are two similar yet distinct genres. When I think Low, I think slowcore, not sadcore. I really don't hear the word sadcore thrown around very much these days, but I just may not be into the scene enough. At any rate, it seems to me as though they should be split into two articles; however, as I said, I'm not an expert in the genre, and I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say. Imaginaryoctopus^(talk) 18:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "slowcore" for most of these bands. Presumably the original author of this article thought otherwise. I don't hear the term "sadcore" much, except in this article. Badagnani 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering if there should be a split as well (Allmusic.com, for instance, recognizes the two as distinct genres). However, I do wonder if there's enough material to fill two separate entries. WesleyDodds 07:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there probably isn't enough material for both, and with the similarities in the two styles, it wouldn't hurt to combine them for the time being. Also, looking at the list that is up now, I find with some of the bands that are listed, I would have never put them under the umbrella of slowcore, or would have put them under a different genre entirely. For example, Slowdive? They fit into shoegazer exactly; though both genres have some similarities but in my eyes there are some clear differences that can't be ignored. I'd like to edit this list at some point if there is agreement that it needs editing. Lettersandpackages (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On the hopes that someone's watching this page, I'd like to chime in and say that I believe the two pages should definitely be merged. (Albert Mond (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm against merging the two pages. They are both quite silly terms really as they do not denote anything constituting a self-indentified scene with regular club nights or specialised labels that I am aware of, but "sadcore" is still the best term in use to describe what is after all a distinctive subgenre. While I've dug up a few good references for uses of the term "sadcore" and have kept that page in vaugely decent shape, I have not been able to do the same here. I feel the term "slowcore" is not being used as much and if anything rather than merger I would advocate just removing this page perhaps. All we have here is a NPOV violating list of bands "considered" (by whom?) to be slowcore that gets added to every week or so by people including their chosen band and is somewhat pointless. I won't be nominating it for deletion myself though as I don't really like doing that. There's always the chance someone will dig up some good references and remove the subjective list in the future who cares enough. Drop me a line if you want to collaborate on improving either page Silverwood (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Debates on whether Slowcore is a genre

I absolutely can't believe it. "Slowcore"? "Sadcore"? What the hell has the world come to? These genres are ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.135.10 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This genre doesn't exist just because Allmusic Guide says it does. None of the bands have anything even remotely in common other than having some songs that are "slow". In what world can you even compare Radiohead to Talk Talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the list. But more fundamentally, what is with this genre's name? Simply appending a musically descriptive adjective with 'core' does not makes a genre name. Adjectives are used to describe music (obviously), but appending one with 'core' doesn't create a legitimate label/ noun. 'hardcore' is/ was a term used in the punk culture to describe an offshoot of punk rock music that was more extreme or 'hardcore' than the traditional music of the culture. The previous page reflected the fact that if this is indeed a genre of music, then this name for it makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.122.40 (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Slowcore and Sadcore are not real genres like punk or hardcore in the sense that they don't have a proper scene or movement attached or any leading record labels etc and that the term has not been widely adopted by critics. However they are still terms that are in use and I feel the article now reflects this accurately. Whether the terms are senseless or silly is probably beyond the scope of the article. The fact that the leading acts have rejected the term probably covers it Silverwood (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, I did delete an article on "Shitgaze", no kidding, that was up here as a genuine rock subgenre (it isn't btw) Silverwood (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have always considered Slowcore to be a legit genre, but the list above is ridiculous. Slow for the slow part, core for the loud/heavy part. Bands like Bedhead, Dirty Three and especially Codeine are both slow and loud. Some bands, like The New Year and Galaxie 500 might be debatable, But Mazzy Star? Damon & Naomi? Seriously? The list is way too long, but who makes the call and how? 66.140.101.252 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowcore and Sadcore merge

Should these two articles be merged? They appear to be used similarly if not the exact same. The articles themselves note this to be true. On the alternative rock page they are put together as slowcore/sadcore as part of the subgenres, implying they are the same genre. I argue that the two pages should be merged. Dekai Averett (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the common application of the term "sadcore" is fairly inconsistent and not exclusive to slowcore. I have seen it used to refer to sad pop and emo rap almost as much as I've seen it used in reference to slowcore bands. so, generally speaking, the sadcore distinction seems to be based on mood and lyrical content whereas slowcore denotes compositional and aesthetic themes. I would keep the articles separate. 2601:CE:4002:7BD0:E024:1443:CB87:C2A6 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What is a "downbeat melody"?

I suspect that this is nonstandard/informal language. If that's the case, then I think the article should be edited to use less ambiguous language 24.20.45.10 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slowcore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 12:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like it is an interesting article, and, on a cursory glance, seems close to meeting the criteria to be a Good Article already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 2,839 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 317 words. It is currently three paragraphs. Suggest combining them as two are very small and a single paragraph will make the article easier to read on mobile readers.
• Authorship is 95.4% from the nominator with contributions from 55 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• There are a few duplicate links, including the American Music Club, Bedhead, Cat Power, Codeine, Low, Pitchfork, Red House Painters, Radar Bros, Rollercoaster and singer-songwriter.
• If it is possible, it would be good to have an image that can be used to illustrate the genre in the infobox.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Please reword "Slowcore traces its roots in the late-1980s"
   • The article sometimes uses British English in the body and American English in the lead; e.g. "sombre" and "somber" are both used. Please be consistent. British English seems to be the most common version. Examples include "characterisation", "emphasises" and "recognised".
   • I believe it should be "when" rather than "where" in "mid 1990s, where Low played"
   • Also is there a reason for the hyphen in "late-1980s" but not "mid 1990s"?
   • Please tighten up phrases like "Releasing their debut The Restless Stranger in 1985, the band's music was slow and with characteristics akin to genres like folk and singer-songwriter." Currently, it states that the band's music released The Restless Stranger and is not clear what The Restless Stranger is.
   • Please address the punctuation in "There were other early bands that formed in the 1980s that would help define slowcore, however many would not release anything until the 1990s."

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply.
   • I feel that the use of the word "present" in the title "2000s–present" may be appropriate but can you confirm that it meets the requirements of the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Many of the references include quotes that show where information comes from.
   • Spot checks confirm Crystal 2014 (including the online sourcing to the OED), Dowling 2009, Eddy 1991, Judkis 2021 and Metzer 2017 talk about the topic appropriately.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 42.2% chance of copyright violation with an article in the Guardian, which seems to be mainly quotes from artists, and 37.1% with a page called Slowcore: A Brief Timeline on a blog site called bandcamp, which seems to be mainly album names. Please confirm that all the quotes are correctly cited and the article is compliant.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers most of the aspects of the genre and seems to include the most well-known artists.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into a lot of detail but is generally compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced, including commentary on the name from multiple sources.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images seem to have appropriate CC tags but I am not sure about the licenses for images from album covers. Do you have any information on this please?

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate.

@Anarchyte: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above, particularly the copy violation concern, and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)