 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Piglet is considered an essential band of the 2nd wave of math rock. As math rock is strictly an underground scene, I can't get an article documenting their influence or anything like that, so the only thing I can do is to point to internet-commentary.
http://mu-essentials.blogspot.com/2010/04/essential-math-rock.html http://www.reddit.com/r/MusicEssentials/comments/ctdjq/math_rock/ http://musicianforums.com/list.php?memberid=239764&listid=15555 (user comments) http://musicianforums.com/list.php?memberid=300327&listid=54020
etc.
Unfortunately, there aren't much info on anything about them, anywhere (that I can find). Their importance are also debated, and they are said to have influenced Maps & Atlases. But heck, they released their debut in 2005, if they are influential, it's only natural that influence hasn't surfaced just yet. (Especially considering how much of an underground phenomenon the math rock-scene still is).
- Unfortunately forums, blogs and reddit are not considered reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- It does prove a general view that Piglet is considered an essential math rock-band, which means that they deserve a Wikipedia-page. Ragasmurf (talk)
- No; our guideline on what gets included can be found at WP:MUSIC, which specifies reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen people citing Rolling Stone. I don't see them being taken down... What is sufficient then? What do I need to provide to keep this up? I can't say I support the notion of needing 'reliable' sources when it comes to important underground-bands, as its importance will then be defined by the underground's common opinion. How about this? http://www.punknews.org/review/4774 Or a staff-review on a large music-site? http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/27368/Piglet-lava-land/ Ragasmurf (talk)
- That's because Rolling Stone is a published and major magazine. Sputnikmusic is certainly a reliable source; now that some claim to notability is here, I'll remove the deletion tag. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- It was meant satirical (though it is a fact that anyone well-versed in music sees Rolling Stone as a joke). Also, cool. Ragasmurf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
- That's because Rolling Stone is a published and major magazine. Sputnikmusic is certainly a reliable source; now that some claim to notability is here, I'll remove the deletion tag. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen people citing Rolling Stone. I don't see them being taken down... What is sufficient then? What do I need to provide to keep this up? I can't say I support the notion of needing 'reliable' sources when it comes to important underground-bands, as its importance will then be defined by the underground's common opinion. How about this? http://www.punknews.org/review/4774 Or a staff-review on a large music-site? http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/27368/Piglet-lava-land/ Ragasmurf (talk)
- No; our guideline on what gets included can be found at WP:MUSIC, which specifies reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- It does prove a general view that Piglet is considered an essential math rock-band, which means that they deserve a Wikipedia-page. Ragasmurf (talk)