Talk:Laibach (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Cite sources
Clearly, Tasic's additions drew heavily on Laibach's VH1 biography, but were not credited in the article to that source. I am adding that citation. Someone else may want to judge whether it drew so heavily on that site as to raise copyright issues. These were Tasic's only contributions to Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Sources need to be cited on the "drug addicts" comment, potentially libelous. (see Controversy placement)--68.63.162.93 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rammstein influenced by Laibach?
I'm a huge Rammstein and Laibach fan and I don't hear much influence between the two. Also, this is the only place I've read that Rammstein was influenced by them. Can anyone provide any other reference to this? If not I think I'm going to remove it. - DNewhall
- Disagreed. The influences from Laibach are obvious, from the usage of symbols to the musical approach. Compare Laibach's metal releases to Rammstein's. Compare the symbolism. It is commonly noticed by Laibach[1][2] fans and deserves a place in this article.
- Laibach have even responded to this themselves:
- "D: Laibach can’t seem to get Wat reviewed without silly comparisons to Rammstein. I’ve seen lots of arguments about Rammstein stealing elements from Laibach in the past, mostly concerning vocal style and even logo design. I’m curious of your reaction to this.
- L: Laibach does not believe in originality and we don’t consider ourselves as sole authors and owners of our own ideas. Therefore, Rammstein could not “steal” much from us. They simply let themselves get inspired by our work, which is absolutely a legitimate process. We are glad that they made it. In a way, they have proven once again that a good “copy” can make more money on the market than the “original.” Anyhow, today we share the territory: Rammstein seem to be a kind of Laibach for adolescents and Laibach are Rammstein for “grown-ups.”"[3]
- So, basically, a simple google search would have ended this debate. --:bloodofox: 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miran Mohar
The name of Miran Mohar was recently added to the article as a member. I thought he was a member of the IRWIN collective, not Laibach. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Here http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1479 (and some other sources) is said that he was other founder member with Thomas Hostnik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.23.9.228 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.
[edit] Overlinking
Why link the individual band members' names? Do any of them have fame outside of Laibach? Given Laibach's own opposition to taking individual credit for work, this seems particularly odd. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bertrand Burgalat
I think that you should mention the major influence of Bertrand Burgalat for their work in the eighties. He is really the one who made their classic sound for "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Let it be".
Vberger 11:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article you've linked to simply mentions Laibach in a long list of bands. Do you have something more substantive to suggest as a reference? - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
He made (producing, instruments) for exemple their "let it be" album. He worked with them during 3 years. 85.26.4.148 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Divided States of America
i'm adding an imdb link to the latest documentary on laibach. haven't seen it yet, so any additional info would be appreciated.213.172.254.20 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy and Hitler
The quote where the vocalist says they're as much fascists as Hitler was a painter... Well, Hitler was a painter. I think whatever they're tying to say aught to be better clarified in the article, but I'm not sure how to word it. Leekohlbradley 08:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's not really up to Wikipedia to clarify people's own words, particularly with a group like Laibach, who are generally intentionally ambiguous. Better to let people draw their own conclusions. VoluntarySlave 23:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I thought when I read it. As far as I know Laibach never denied nationalism. They like it to be ambigious. So this part should be changed in the text.--85.0.14.33 (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy placement
Should the controversy section really be the very first thing in this article? I think there is more relevantg information about the band that should come prior to that.Kittynboi 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel the wording of the MEMBERSS section needs a complete re-working, as it really does not match the tone of the rest of the page. Additionally, the "drug addicts" comment sounds very juvenile ("drugs" is a very broad-sweeping term) and--unless reliable sources are cited--might also be considered libelous. Once these items are fixed, I would move that this section be moved above the CONTROVERSY section. (The only real argument against being that I've read articles in which Laibach states that the members of the band are not necessarily static and should not take precedence over the message their music conveys... which leads into controversy, of course.) --68.63.162.93 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't anybody know how old are they, Fras, Novak and the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.175.177 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
