Talk:Paramore

Discrepancies with Albums and Release Dates

As the title indicates, there appear to be inconsistencies between stated release dates in the chart of albums and EP's. For example, 'All We Know Is Falling' is listed in the 2005 row, yet is stated to be a 2006 release. Similarly, 'The Summer Tic EP' is listed in the 2006 row, yet is stated to have been released in June of 2005. Those are just a couple of examples. Can somebody look into this?209.173.81.173 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Add a CD

Paamore will be featured in the upcoming Now That's What I Call Music CD, the 27th edition. The chosen song in Crushcrushcrush. Please add this to the cd list.

Thta is a compilation, not a paramore album and is pretty much irrelevant trivia. --neonwhite user page talk 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Member Pages

With the new paramore.net there's plenty of info on the individual members so I think it's about time they get their own Wiki pages.

while I agree, there's a ton of stuff about Hayley than there is on the Farro brothers. - Nthach (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The information there isn't independent of the subject. Basically, it could be argued that anyone with a myspace (as I'm sure that tells plenty of info on a person) or any other self published source deserves their own Wikipedia article. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

According to guidelines to be notable, she has to have meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Most importantly she has to have been the subject of several reliable second party source indepedant of the band. Regardless, a split at this stage, with regards to the small amount of information, is unescessary and unlikely to improve the article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

She certainly deserves her own article, per reasons outlined by WP:BIO. See Talk:Hayley Williams for further elaboration. Consensus is trying to be reached on this topic. нмŵוτнτ 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Clark

JASON CLARKE WAS A FORMER BASS PLAYER FOR THE BAND..HE WAS THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH THE NAME (ITS HIS MOMS MAIDEN NAME) HE SHOULD DEFFINATLY BE LISTED UNDER FORMER BAND MEMBERS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy55 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Emo genre

More punk

It's quite obvious that they are more punk than emo. Even if they aren't punk, they are still moreso punk than emo. Neither are they a Christian band. They are all Christian, but they stated they are not a Christian band.

Jeez. No need to get mad b/c someone says Paramore is emo. Just accept the fact that they are awesome and their music rocks!--69.108.126.182 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Crystal

My god

In no way, shape, or form is Paramore Emo. They're songs don't have an "Omg...he broke up with me, I'm gonna slit my wrists"-vibe to them. I would argue that they are not punk either. {{}} Paramore is never emo they never are. goodbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know! they never were! Stop vandalizing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.56.102 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on info from reliable sources not on personal opinions. --Neon white 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually im a hard-core paramore fan and I am a Christian. But people consider me an Emo.. is that even possible? I think so in my personal opinion because nobody ever said that Emo's can't believe in God. :) I love you Hayley. <333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.22.120 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment just blew my mind.24.68.128.218 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG!?! ARE YOU PEOPLE PLAIN STUPID?! obviously! how can you call Paramore emo!! Jesus...you people must live a sad life...can we please remove it? Matt 2601 atl (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Emo(again)

I just noticed that the source used to demonstrate the band's genre as emo is actually a broken link and so it is no longer supported. I would change the infobox, but it sent me to the talk page where I am now making a section on it.Kurasuke (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference is a copy of an article on their official website, which appears to have been removed nevertheless the total guitar article still exists. --Neon white (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because people say they're emo doesn't mean they are. Emo is The Cure and Rites Of Spring. However, they are emo-influenced.--Tame The Tiger (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based an reliable sources, if they say they are, then they are. --Neon white (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cure most definitely is not emo. They may have influenced early emo, but they predate emo and have nothing to do with the emo scene whatsoever ... Anyways on topic, I don't consider Paramore emo, however as long as there are reliable sources that describe them as such then it should be listed as a genre in this article I suppose ... By the way, given that the link does appear to be broken, NME also regularly refers to Paramore as emo if anyone wants to add a citation. See for example http://www.nme.com/news/3241780.195.246.3 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a better nme page? press releases for tours arent generally considered a very good enough source. --Neon white (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, you say if they say they are, they are? But what about the many bands that say they aren't, nonetheless they're still labelled as emo. I think the wiki editors need to make up their minds.

Reliable second party sources are preferable to self-published sources in articles about themselves. It's all on the policy pages has been for a while. --Neon white (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think its soooooooooo funny that anyone can consider them as EMO and influensed by Rites of Spring. Here is the deal, Sunny Day Real Estate is influensed by Rites of Spring and Paramore is SDRE fans so ye they have taken a bit from them so it got a small spark from RoS but thats a very small spark. Whats Emotive Hardcore about Paramore anyway? Just because you sing about it is Emo. Paramore is today Power Pop/Pop Punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.216.179 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it humourous, nevertheless it is sourced and veriable, do not remove it again. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ok wikipedia either needs reality check or they are just idiotic

Paramore is not an emo band it is not on my opinion it is the fact. if they are emo they wouldn't sound post-hardcore and if they are emo they do not sound like one see what does emo sound like. don't get me started on panic! at the disco THEY ARE NEVER EMO use your brain please. they are not emo and never will. emo bands like alesana and boys like girls are ok to be called emo since on their myspace they put themselves as emo. use your brain people i beg of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

They are described as such by reliable sources, which makes it verifiable. --neonwhite user page talk 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try listening to the large number of people who post here, versus the single source (or small handful of sources) that state Paramore is emo. Like was posted above; use your brain. That album review is written by one person (or one small team of people), and just like anything else edited by a human - is prone to the possibility of error. Don't hide behind the policy - any good policy has its exceptions. Just because there's a website out there that states something is true, doesn't make it true. I could post that the square root of ten is five on any of my websites - again, that doesn't make it true.

Wikipedia generally goes on a consensus basis. Take a poll as to whether or not this statement (and, transitively, the source) should be removed. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You could write whtever you wanted but it would not be permissable as a source for wikipedia. The NME article was written by a journalist and published in a magazine which has a serious history in music publication and a clear editorial policy making it WP:V. Your opinion and those of anyone posting here have not and therefore are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not publish truth but verifiable facts. --neonwhite user page talk 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are utterly unwilling to come to a compromise here is rather disturbing. There is a very simple solution. Take a poll. On one side, we state that they're emo - on the other side, we remove the statement and the source of said statement. We don't, in any case, state anywhere that they are not emo, but in one case we do not state that they are. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you can flesh out cites that say Paramore isn't emo then we can say that the emo tag is disputed. That'll be an easier workaround. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

emo is a derogative term in some aspects, and labelling a good hearted christian band like that, is offensive and gives the band a bad name. there are interviews where Paramore THEMSELVES deny the Emo tagSteve37 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion and nothing else. Wikipedia reflects what verifiable sources say not the band themselves. --neonwhite user page talk 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Paramore have been described as Emo by various reputable sources. Therefore they are Emo as far as wikipedia should be concerned. That is how it is meant to work. The people who dispute that Paramore are emo seem to fall into two categories: Those who are Paramore fans and regard the term emo as derogatory and those who are fans of traditional emo (rites of spring etc.) who regard the association of Paramore with the genre to be derogatory. Either way, those who are disputing that Paramore are Emo appear to have alterior motives. The meaning of words change with time. Paramore may have little in common with Rites of Spring or the genre Emo as it was previously understood, but the term 'Emo' has changed and has come to describe the sound of bands like Paramore in popular usage.80.195.246.3 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say something I am a big fan of Paramore and I think some of their songs such as Emergency have emo influences! Not all of their songs are emo but emo rock is completely different from the stereotypical self harming depressed teen, emo rock songs are to do with depressing issues and sung in an emotional way! I am not an emo but I think some of you don't want to be fans of an emo band and are stating that they are not emo! --Seán Travers (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers, 18:54, 23 May 2008

It is not the source that makes paramore emo

It's the BAND that is the most reliable. if you go to their myspace it doesn't say emo anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. --neonwhite user page talk 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we use sources from the band itself? An FA, History of Michigan State University, uses a lot of MSU references. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can but independent second party sources are nearly always prefered. --neonwhite user page talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be preferable to use the Band as a source. My reasoning is that if you can find an interview where the band states specifically that they are not emo then we enter into a WP:BLP situation. Since the term "emo" can be viewed as a derogatory term and the band specifically states they are not emo we shouldn't call them emo just because a music reviewer did. At the very least it may be appropriate to state that some critics define them as emo but the band states they are not. Just some thoughts. Elhector (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We have two indepedant second party verified sources refering to them as emo, that is what matters, we clearly do not need self published primary sources here. This is not a biography, it is about a musical group. Your personal opinion about the word is only that, it is a music genre and is neutral. --neonwhite user page talk 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be stated (particularly in the infobox) that the band prefers not to be classified as emo (if what Elhector said is true and if it hasn't been done yet). The band is currently composed of living people so WP:BLP can apply here. --Howard the Duck 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: What will happen if someone comes up with 2 secondary sources stating Paramore isn't emo? --Howard the Duck 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's utterly unimportant what the band thinks. The infobox represents what the band are generally thought of, all generization of bands is subjective that's why there are generally a handful of them in there. The fact that NME and the NY Times considers them so is easily good enough for it to be there. Again this is not a biography about a living person. The band is not a living person. --neonwhite user page talk 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So what the band thinkz is unimportant in that band's article? Wow.

Yes, see WP:SOURCES. --neonwhite user page talk 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that'll virtually wipe out lots of information from biographical material (such as direct quotes). Nor does Wikipedia ban information emanating from the people or organization or association themselves, only WP:OR (such as instances when someone just comes up with a website proclaiming the end of the world on February 29, you can use that a source on end of the world)). In this case, this band is pretty popular and we can use their website for generic "about us" info. --Howard the Duck 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And not to mention WP:BLP is not only restricted to a living person's article, it simply says about biographical material, material not restricted to articles about the people themselves. It includes a person's dealings with other persons such as organizations, associations, etc. An example would be saying that Kobe Bryant choked on the 2006 NBA Playoffs on the Los Angeles Lakers article. Clearly, that's biographical material not seen in the Kobe Bryant article; is that passage "exempt" from WP:BLP? --Howard the Duck 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S.: What will happen if someone comes up with 2 secondary sources stating Paramore isn't emo? --Howard the Duck 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIVING does not apply here. We are talking about the genre of a band, it is not about a living person. --neonwhite user page talk 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An association of a group of people can be hurtful and anyone can invoke WP:BLP.

No it can't. You are misrepresenting policy which is incvil. The genre of a band is not controversial bio info. --neonwhite user page talk 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S.: What will happen if someone comes up with 2 secondary sources stating Paramore isn't emo? --Howard the Duck 05:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, infoboxes are for what genres a band is considered not what they are not considered. --neonwhite user page talk 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if two reliable sources state that they aren't, the same number who state that they are, I'd say that's sufficient to not state that they're emo. See my vote proposal above. It's a very simple solution. Once again, your unwillingness to come to a solution over a single word is disturbing. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The genres listed in infobox are one's they are commonly considered as. Genre's are subjective so you will often find different sources and different people think different things. That is why infobox's contained several different interpretations. It's not definitive, not absolute and not exclusive. There is no reason not to include it seen as it is well sourced. Whether some think they aren't does not change the fact that a number of major sources including a major newspaper and a major music magazine describe them as such. The consensus decided it was appropriate and so far all onbjections seem to be based on nothing but personal views which are inappropriate for an article. --neonwhite user page talk 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are 2 or more sources that say this band isn't emo, I suggest to add an asterisk or "(disputed)" beside the word "emo" to note that their classification as "emo" is disputed (though it won't be removed, unless the ratio is like 10:1). --Howard the Duck 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

None have been provided and it is irrelevant anyway. Genres are always subjective, the info represents a selection of genres that a band have been called in reliable sources, nothing really changes the fact that the nme and nytimes define their genre as that. --neonwhite user page talk 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Read my question: "if someone comes up;" an if-then statement, of course it will become valid if does find citations. Then it'll become disputed and it'll be duly noted. Who knows if someone a dozen other sources then it might be removed. Selection of genres can be dicey and can be widely debated by music fans, there's no point in ignoring this issue, especially if someone does come up with citations. The challenge for anti-emo people here is to find citations. No citations=it stays there, that's a good enough compromise, don't you think? Instead of "it stays there in perpetuity" that you'd want to happen. --Howard the Duck 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the final time the infobox does not represent what genres people don't think they are, there is no heading Genre's they aren't, it exists to represent what genres they are often known as and as genres are subjective we add multiple ones as they are bound to be known differently in different sources. Rhapsody calls them power-pop so we can add that, mp3.com calls them pop-rock so we add that. This ensures it complies with WP:NPOV. The only reason cited genres are usually removed is if there are too many, which is unlikely with most bands, but in this case the sources for emo are so strong that it would likely be the first to stay. There can be no valid dispute that 'emo' is a genre they are known as. The verifiable sources are cited and there to plainly see. The challenge for anti-emo people is to realise that wikipedia is not based on personal views, nor is it a soapbox and they would make better use of their time improving other areas of the article rather than taking part in pointless warring. --neonwhite user page talk 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramore are in no way whatsoever an emo band. They are an alternative/pop punk/pop rock band, you only have to listen to the music to realize this. Neon white, you said that "a number of major sources" yet there are only two sources which are both written by journalists who have written on opinion not fact there for just personal views which as you said are "inappropriate for an article". But seen as you are using these opinions as sources it would only be fair to use everyone's elses opinion here as sources well, making the majority of sources saying they are not emo, therefore "what the band are generally thought" the statement that they are emo in the infobox should be removed. Dark247 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not revelant as you are not a verifiable sources. The two source are major publications and verifiable according to policy. There are currently no sources saying that, regardless it wouldnt matter if there were. --neonwhite user page talk 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to both of you: The real challenge is to find enough citations that say "this band isn't emo," not just an article that omits emo as their genre. For example, if one article says, "Paramore, a band commonly classified as emo but it really isn't, since...", then if anyone can find 20 citations saying that it can be removed, or least said that the emo label is disputed, not simple omissions such as "Paramore is a power pop/rock/punk band." I'm not saying "emo" should be removed pronto, I'm saying in for it to be removed, or least labeled as "disputed", someone has to find credible, multiple sources that say that "Paramore isn't emo." --Howard the Duck 18:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You still do not understand the purpose of the infobox, if some sources think they are a different genre it doesnt change the fact that others regard them as an 'emo' band. All genres are subjective so it isn't a question of it being 'disputed'. The purpose of it is to simply represent what genres they are considered. As much as you obviously dislike it, that is one of a number of genres that the popular press use to describe them. You can't change that. --neonwhite user page talk 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard the Duck has a fair point though obviously as far as common sense goes it is unlikely for journalists to write "" band isn't a "" genre because that would be unprofessional. Even if it 'was' possible to find these sources, I don't know what would count as "reliable sources" as I doubt me or anyone else just writing 20 different articles or so saying "Paramore more are not emo" would count; so at least seen as the majority disagree, couldn't we just put 'disputed' next to 'emo' anyway at least for arguments sake? Also if anyone here doesn't like something, it is obviously you Neon white who seem so determined to keep the "emo" genre on their Wiki page probably because you don't personally like them and wish to give them a bad name especially seen as from your bad arguments, other than the two sources which seem to be your only [reasonable] point of argument.Dark247 (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no valid dispute, it's well cited. We do not remove something that is that well verified because of someone's personal opinion. Genres dont give anything a bad name they are utterly neutral as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. My arguements have been completely logical and follow policy. The point that is being misunderstood is is that the genres lists are not definitive or absolutes. Like all info on wikipedia it is not the truth or fact. The article is not saying that this band is 'emo'. It is saying that 'emo' is one of a number of genres they are known as and two verifiable sources are cited as an example of this. Some people may well say they aren't but that isn't going to change the fact that they are known as 'emo' by the popular media. There really is no need for any debate on this, it's obvious. --neonwhite user page talk 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You, it's only you who's been saying there's no dispute, but what are doing? Arguing a disputable statement which isn't a dispute? As I've said, the only way for emo to be even called "disputed" is if someone finds several valid citations for such. Heck, even if Paramore had an interview on Billboard that says they disown the emo label, that should be enough to add the word "disputed" after emo.

No citations for "Paramore is not emo" = the emo label stays. --Howard the Duck 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The only dispute is that certain editors are trying to change cited info based on personal opinion which is inappropriate. What they think is not rtelevant. They aren't a verifiable source. --neonwhite user page talk 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this bullshit is the reason I washed my hands of this website. You're more concerned with "playing the game" and making the article look how you want it to look, and contain the information that you want it to contain, than you are with making the article a quality one.

A publication doesn't say "X_band is popular", and suddenly X_band becomes popular; quite the contrary, in fact. A publication writes an article about a band because that band is popular. Simply put, the fans make the band. Clearly, the majority of the fans feel that Paramore is not emo. But, clearly you feel that they are, and as I mentioned, you're more concerned with playing the Wikipedia game than making a quality article.

Attempting to argue with this person is only going to be a waste of your time. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The fans don't make wikipedia, verified sources do. Personally, i have no opinion on their genre whatsoever, on account of never having heard any of their music. If you'd had bothered reading any other comments and policy you know that wikipedia does not claim to state the truth. The infobox represents a number of genres that a band is commonly known as. What genre you know them as has little bearing but the media's opinion does. --neonwhite user page talk 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The most pointless arguement to engage in is over genres. Just face it people, if there is a reliable source saying they are emo, then the genre goes up. It is not a case of anyone wanting to "make the article look like they want" as you suggest, but a case of simply following the guidlines and rules for verifiability. Maybe you should all ask yourselves why you are so adamant that the emo genre 'shouldn't be included? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side note to this debate... Paramore's MySpace page list "Regional Mexican" as one of their genres. It's as a joke of course but never-the-less it is out there. Genres are a joke anyway. Any writer can say anything about anyone and if it gets printed then it becomes a source. Those of us who are very much into the details of the sub-genre know that Paramore is not by any means an "emo" band. But now-a-days everyone uses the term "emo". I read an artical in this months Time magazine with the word "emo" in the title. Emo is being used to label everthing: music, fashion, people - whatever. Let's all just step back and be ok with the gerne of "emo" being on there knowing that some uninformed people may think that they are emo.

EINXIII (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that it is journalists and the media that have always defined genres rather than the fans or the artists themselves. 'Emo' might mean something different now to what it originally meant and what some people still understand it to mean. --neonwhite user page talk 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't think the Paramore fans realize is that emo is *not a bad thing.* We're not insulting them by saying that they're emo or trying to bring them down. It's just an observation on the band, who do have some emoesque tendencies. Just *chill.* 68.116.148.117 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you are all right. In the real world, they are not emo by how the genre has been defined, they just do not meet the criteria for emo in the real world. However, by the policy that wikipedia uses they do meet the criteria for emo. Policy states that if it has been stated by a verifiable source, then it is true by wikipedia standereds. They have been called emo by verifiable sources and thus emo stays. It is in no way, shape, or form definitive by real world standereds, as wikipedia does not state what is true or what is fact, only what is properly sourced, be it true or false. Many times (like now) what is stated is false, but it is still properly sourced and thus must stay. BTW, why do some of you seem to take emo as an insult?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The media is the real world and it is predominantly the media that ultimately define what a genre is. Even if it significantly different from what a minority think, the majority will likely know emo as similar to what paramore plays due to the influence of NME, MTV etc. --neonwhite user page talk 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of what you said is true. The media is part of the real world and they do define genres. What people often fail to mention is that after the media defines a genre, they don't use their own definitions to classify bands. They usually classify the bands based on trivial things like clothing (they often get this wrong too) or when that band reached it's popularity peak in with when a genre reach its popularity peak, the lyrics of one song while ignoring the majority of their songs (the first one and the third one are the biggies here). All media are guilty of this including MTV and NME. Therefore anyone smart shouldn't really care about what the majority of people think (or the minority of people for that matter) because all of them use a media outlet to tell them what a bands genre is, despite reasons stated above. Me? I take a look at how a genre has been defined and then I look at how a band plays a majority (being what they have done so far) of their music. If they don't match overall, it's back to the drawing board. BTW, most people don't watch MTV for music anymore, as now they spend 95% of their time making (poorly done) reality tv shows and whatnot, hardly spending any time on music at all anymore. As far as most people thinking Paramore is emo based on the media, doubt it, alot. The only way to confirm somthing like that is to ask people who have listend to a good amout of their songs, not fans, just people who listen to music and have happend to have heard a good number of their songs, about what they think. Second reason is because most media don't define said band as emo (I think...). Of course I wouldn't use any means stated above for wikipedia as it's OR (reasonably good OR but OR none the less). This arguement is irrelevent really, since we have sources that meet wiki standereds that also call them emo, so on wikipedia one of the genres they should be known as is emo (please note I have already stated this).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Emo

Paramore can only be described as a mix of pop, punk, and hard rock. Emo music has violent and or depressing lyrical content and an ethic that addresses sadness by the guitar riffs. Paramore is always bright and hopeful. Emo music is slower and is a form of hard rock without aggressive distortion or much feeling by instrument do illustrate the numbness of the state of depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.133.228 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep paramore do generally sing bright hopeful music but Emergency is a rather depressing song! I don't think they're complete emos but they do hav emo influences and I am a big fan of Paramore and I am not emo! --Seán Travers (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers, 19:00, 23 May 2008

Hello, you appear to be new here so here are some pointers/tips for you: sign your posts by typing four tildes(~), ALL stuff on wikipedia must be sourced by reliable and varifiable sources (yes, ALL sources MUST be BOTH), wikipedia does not include what is true only what is sourced (properly). Anyone who has listend to Paramore can tell you they aren't emo, however, we have proper sources that call them emo and thus, emo must included in the article. You see we can't use ourselves as sources.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't what the band says be considered more reliable?

MCR is labelled by a lot of magazines as "emo", yet they're not listed as "emo". Since the band doesn't consider itself emo, shouldn't they not be classified as emo? Also, there are many sources that say Paramore isn't emo. Should the infobox be changed to "disputed subgenres"? I'm new here so don't flame me... -- Blaze7755 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is actually being discussed on the talk page, the reason is largely due to the amount of sourcable styles and genres available. The bands opinion is exactly that, just their opinion and is not considered verfiable or reliable according to policy. We rely on second and thrid party sources for info. As far are as i know there are no sources that say that and regardless the list is a list of genres that they are considered, we don't have a list of what genres sources consider them not to be. The fact that two notable sources refer to them as that is what is what's important. --neonwhite user page talk 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Chart positions

Someone has vandalized the Chart positions (singles) section on this page. "Misery Business" only reached #26 on the Hot 100, and I don't think "crushcrushcrush" reached past the Top 50 yet. And I'm suspecting that the other chart positions are wrong too. And "When It Rains" is not really released yet and it says it reached #2 on the Hot 100, which obviously isn't true. Could someone please fix it? thanks --Crocodileman (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is stoping you from doing it? --neonwhite user page talk 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment - GA or A

Does anyone think this article should be nominated for good article class or A-class? It's very well sourced and definitely deserves a better rating than B. Timmeh! 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --neonwhite user page talk 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I felt like it deserved one quite a while ago. After re-writing it, the article has really improved, but alas, it probably will not pass a GA review. There is the whole edits back and forth concerning genre and one point of a GA is that it is stable and there are no edit wars occurring. So, for that reason, unless some consensus is made, it probably wouldn't pass the review. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IP/anon fiddling is the problem, it's annoying but not enough to restore semi-protection. --neonwhite user page talk 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Musical style and influences section

I think this needs serious improvement it reads very much like a self-serving press release at the moment. Can we remove some of the peacockness? --neonwhite user page talk 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

and all the people become favorite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.197.150 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.87.153 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What looks "Peacocky"? Let me know and I will de-fowl it. Although, it seems like the section is pretty well cited (both citation 6 and 51 support the longer sections that don't have many cites).

EINXIII (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK/peacock might be the wrong term, i think the POV is distinctively opinionated rather than factual. --neonwhite user page talk 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover Songs

Cover songs do not need to be listed on a bands page, if they appear on an album or single then they should appear only an that particular article, if they havent then they have no place in the article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammy Info

Since article this is locked... An admin may want to add a note in the History section about Paramore losing the "Artist of the Year" Grammy to Amy Winehouse.

As a side note - I'm not a big fan of the rules surrounding the "Artist of the Year" Grammy. Feist has been in bands and been putting out albums since the early 90's, but yet since she is now solo she is "new". Also, Amy Winehouse released an album in 2003 and has been winning UK music awards since 2004.

I think the "New Artist" award should be reserved for truly NEW bands / performers to the scene. EINXIII (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, as long as you have an account you can edit it. I have added a line saying they didnt win and removed the mention from the lead. Leads are summaries and as this point has no real weight in the article it doesnt warrent a mention in the summary. --neonwhite user page talk 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the Grammy statement back to the Lead portion of the article. Also the "EMO" thing was taken off the Genre tab -again.

EINXIII (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sound nothing like emo or pop punk

I read up the emo and pop punk genre in wikipedia. and emo is supposed to sound like jawbreaker, fugazi, rites of spring, etc. paramore dont sound anything close to that and their lyrics do not match the genre. pop punk; ramones, screeching weasel, the queers. even green day and blink-182 (before their s/t album) sound nothing like paramore. paramore sounds closest to the style of all american rejects, click five, etc. therefore, i am changing the genre to what i think is most appropriate, pop rock and power pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himynameisnick (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. We source information from verifiable sources rather than personal opinions. This is considered original research --neonwhite user page talk 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

just in case you didn't know this but ALL AMERICAN REJECTS are emo. Ive seen interviews where they've said that they were but yes indeed Paramore is not all that emo. Everybody thinks so because they dress in clothes from Hot Topic but not everyone who shops at hot topic is emo. and by the way when your emo you really shouldn't say your emo cuz that makes u a poser. :) I love u Hayley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.22.120 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Postponement/Cancellation of European Shows

As this is a protected article, I can't do it myself, but I think someone needs to add the news about how they have cancelled/postponed their remaining European shows....it's all explained on their livejournal: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.44.18 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be ok but ideally we would need a second party source for this. --neonwhite user page talk 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Faith

• According to the November 2007 edition of Breakaway magazine, there's a section near the end(entitled "Worth Joining Paramore's Riot?") that reads "...that's because some members of Paramore profess Christian faith...". It also says near the end of the article that the lead singer, Hayley Williams said: "...I'm a believer in Jesus Christ and I claim Him as my God...". LethalReflex (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? --neonwhite user page talk 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• They aren't a Christian band although some of the members are Christians. LethalReflex (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article says they are. --neonwhite user page talk 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article or the magazine article? LethalReflex (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Band Members

It's very unnecessary that it lists what every band member is at diffrent times, and only Rhythm Guitar changes. This should be changed to list all the current members, and when they joined, then list the people who were on rhythm guitar after the Current line up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.72 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I remade the band members section so it could be easier to understand.Optimous (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

not a real band

i have heard that hayley is the only one signed and that they aren't a real band - just a marketing gimic of the label's to call them a band rather then hayley a solo artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.128.36 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm well that's a load of bullshit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.86.250 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 

if it can be sourced do so. --neonwhite user page talk 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

US-centric wording

After the singles chart table, Ireland and the UK are referred to as "over there". Isn't Wikipedia meant to be geographically neutral? If so, can someone think of a better wording for this sentence? Allanlewis (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last part it's a bit of an unsourced specualtive opinion anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock

They are alternative rock. MP3.com calls Paramore an alternative rock band. MP3 is also not a self published site so yes they are alternative rock.Paramore AOL music says the band is alternative rock band. The band also calls them self alternative rock. You can se it on their official website and their myspace official website that they are alternative rock. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of alternative rock on either page. Myspace is not reliable neither is there offical site. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V) There is no evidence that mp3.com has any fact checking the only reason it is used in this case is because the origin of the text is actually allmusicguide which is written by music journalists. --neonwhite user page talk 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN, when lead singer Hayley Williams met brothers Josh and Zac Farro (guitar and drums, respectively) after moving into town from Mississippi. The two had a young band that the burgeoning singer was soon asked to join. Opening Williams' 13-year-old eyes to the likes of U2, the Cure, Sparta, and Failure, the teenagers began performing together under the name Paramore following the addition of Jason Bynum on rhythm guitar and Jeremy Davis on bass. Local hangouts and a school talent show helped the young bandmembers hone their chops before at last moving up to gigs at area rock clubs. The quintet's sweet melodies and earnest charisma eventually caught the attention of Florida's Fueled by Ramen label, which signed the band in April 2005. Working with James Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath) and Mike Green (Yellowcard, the Black Maria), Paramore recorded their full-length debut, All We Know Is Falling. The album was issued in late July 2005, and Paramore jumped quickly into their van to support it. In addition to a spot on New Jersey's Bamboozle Festival and multiple Warped Tour dates, they also played shows with bands like Simple Plan and Straylight Run. Hunter Lamb replaced Bynum on guitar in December 2005; time was spent in the early part of the next year on dates with Halifax, So They Say, and Bayside. Similar to many of their musical peers, summer 2006 was then passed back on the annual Warped Tour circuit. ~ Corey Apar, All Music Guide

AllMusicGuide ain't a reliable source and Answers.com calls them rock. First it's many sources that sais the album is alternative rock and many that sais them are Punk pop. Can't we just add alternative rock and Punk pop. Their are sources for both the genres. Lets add alternative rock and i wont take away Punk pop okay. They are both pop rock and alternative rock and the only reason i don't think they are pop rock is that lostprophets have many more popish songs and they are called alternative rock. Get Underground calls them rock. Starpulse calls them rock.--Freedom (song) (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic guide is reliable, it is written by music journalists. Answers.com is self-published and not relaible. Neither starpulse nor getunderground.com have any reputation. If there are reliable second party sources then use them. The sourced genres are on the main page. Pop-rock, power pop and emo. As album and single genres are hard to source, these are usually used. --neonwhite user page talk 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that Paramore are an alternative rock band I don't think all of their songs are alternative rock, I mean Pressure is a bit too poppy iI think to be alternative rock!--Seán Travers (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Pop rock

Pop rock is reliably cited and verfiable, there is no justification for removing on the basis of personal views. It is the most basic genre that accurately describes the music of this group. Pop is too basic. --neonwhite user page talk 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources for the genre, that's fine, but I see no reason why it sould be singled out as the primary genre in the first sentence of the article. Why not emo or pop punk? Given there's so much disagreement about the other genres here, the best solution would be to go with the broadest genre possible. And that would be just plain old rock music. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the most basic, general genre there is to desribe the band. It covers pop-rock and power pop. It's both obvious and common sense. 'Rock', however is unsourced and therefore OR so we can't simply put that. We have to go with sources we cant just make it up. Maybe pop/rock? --neonwhite user page talk 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not unsourced because all these genres being debated are all widely recognized as forms of rock music. Unless someone is debating they aren't a rock band at all, there's no need for a reference. Inline citations are for contentious items likely to be challenged. It would be like putting an inline cite for the fact that they are on the Fueled by Ramen label. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, pop-rock and power pop is associated with both pop and rock music. From the sources they are equally pop and rock which is the definition of pop rock. Pop rock is a major genre and it doesnt really need to be generalized any more. --neonwhite user page talk 13:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because they share pop characteristics does not negate the fact that both pop rock (a very broad term that I think is relatively useless) and power pop (a style of rock music that emerged in the 1970s that drew heavily from British Invasion rock bands) are rock genres. It'll just save a lot of aggravation just going with "rock" for the lead. Also, you can build upon genres in the lead. Notice in R.E.M. how the band is introduced simply as a rock band, then the new few sentences talk about how importance they are to alternative rock. Start general, then get specific. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop rock is equally pop and rock hence the name, though it's largely considered a genre of popular music. --neonwhite user page talk 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Music genres aren't math; you can't quantify how much "pop rock" is pop or rock in a set value, and you have to fully understand its origins to determine whether or not your view of the genre is accurate. For example, the name of Britpop is a bit of a misnomer; it's a style of alternative rock that emerged as a movement in the British indie scene against the pop mainstream, and it's quite rockist. Putting aside the terminology, without getting into the whole subgenre debate you can either say Paramore is a pop band (which they are, given that rock music is a form of popular music; thus even Nirvana and Slayer are technically pop bands), or you can say they are a rock band, which is more specific. Nonetheless I see no strong argument for putting "pop rock" in the first sentence over, say pop punk, which seems to be used far more consistently when describing this band. As no rock subgenre is widely applied to the band over the other, it's best to just say "Paramore is a rock band". WesleyDodds (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't call them pop rock! MP3.com calls linkin park and even METALICA pop rock! i think we should just stick to Punk pop/Powerpop/Alternative 'cause all these genres have reliable sources... I'm still not too sure about Emo though... but oh well. Matt 2601 atl (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No they dont, they are no verifiable sources for alternative rock and we are not calling them pop rock we are representing what allmusicguide considers them. Emo is also well sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, Paramore's Band Info Page passes all 7 criteria of WP:SELFANDQUEST. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesnt please read it carefully, it fails 1, 2 and possibly 3. This subject has sufficient second and third party to make first party sources unecessary and we should disregard them. --neon white talk 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Paramore should not be "Emo Bands" category

thats just off limits ok? God, paramore is pop punk going on power pop not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here.Is.Elle (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just stating what should be done, be bold and provide sources to prove that they're not, or use Wikipedia policy to disprove the current references as credible, such as I am about to do. Reference 2 (NME) is a questionable source because it is full of personal opinions and bias. And reference 3 (New York Times) states that "Paramore is loosely affiliated with the world of emo". Is loose affiliation enough to place Paramore in the Emo genre? I'm going to be bold, and say no; this is probably going to start some edit war, but I'm removing the Emo genre from the page as per WP:QS. Without credible sources, I will hunt down sources which prove they are not of the Emo genre and place them on this talk page. And before anyone points at the Joshua Martin quote saying that it proves they're emo, that is a writer's personal opinion of what they think Paramore's music sounds like. It would be like saying... French toast is bread, but with icing sugar, and its less healthy; yet French toast and bread aren't the same thing. They may seem similar, and may have qualities of each other, but they don't taste, look, smell, or feel like each other... and in before "French toast isn't Paramore", it's an analogy... I really need to eat before I edit, only analogy I could think of is food-related. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NME is one of the oldest and most reputable music publications in existance. Personal opinions about what is written is of no consequence. I believe there at least 6 seperate articles published by NME calling them emo by at least three seperate authors.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The NY Times is equally reputable and clearly states "Paramore is a fizzy emo band led by a tireless, clean-scrubbed singer named Hayley Williams". Josh Farro is also quoted in the article saying "It's emo without being whiney, or bratty" and add to that Rolling Stone [8] calling them "one the first emo bands" nominated for a grammy. That a whole load of very reliable sources. Being bold does not allow removal of content based on a personal point of view. There is no way on earth that these sources are ever going to be regarded as questionable. They meet all aspects of verifiability. What genres they are considered not to be is of no interest to this article. Remember wikipedia does not claim to state the truth it repeats what verifiable sources say. --neon white talk 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Pop rock

All Music Guide calls them Emo and Punk-pop not pop rock. So why does pop rock have allmusicguide as a source. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It calls them pop/rock in the opening paragraph. "The energetic, spunky pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN". Mp3.com isnt really a reliable source. --neon white talk 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but they don't take that on the genre secion. Why is that. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The verifiable source is the bio by Corey Apar, that is the only part of that page that is verifiable according to wikipedia standards. Classifications by online stores are not verfiable, they are simply ways to arrange releases. --neon white talk 16:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Band members

Why hasn'y the band members there own page her english wiki.--Alive Would? Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

None have individual notability. --neon white talk 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spell Check

could people actually USE spell check when adding things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.243.206 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God will people please stop removing the genres?!

Why is it that people keep removing the genres from Paramore's infobox namely the pop rock genre or alternative rock! Paramore ARE the following genres: pop rock, punk pop, power pop, alternative rock and emo rock! Please leave it that!!!--Seán Travers (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

I agree, although we dont have a reliable source for alternative rock, the others stand and are verifiable. --neon white talk 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre sources

I added an official review from a Sputnik staff member, which is much better than the online music store which are only data bases and AMG whic is notoriously unreliable. Please do not remove the Sputnik review--SilverOrion (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic ain't a reliable source. The reviewers aren't proper music reviewers. They are normel people which becomes users and writes reviews. While Allmusicguide is written by proper reviewers. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was written by a staff member not a contributor. Besides, AMG has a terrible track record. I have nothing against the genres, I just think that the citations could be improved --SilverOrion (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I gess your right but as long it's reliable we should juse it. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)