Talk:Concert T-shirt

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep and move, February 22 2008, see discussion.
no consensus, provide reliable sources, December 6 2006, see discussion.

Verification

Is anyone going to verify any of this?

Oops, I hadn't noticed that edit (dated October 17th). Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. In the future, if you see something as obviously biased as "it is generally considered lame", you can go ahead and remove it yourself. Cheers, IronC hris | (talk)

Found a news article that references black concert t-shirts in relation to tour dates listings. --Mattarata 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noone can verify that it is cool to wear a band's tshirt to their own concert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Bell (talk • contribs)

It might be more possible to verify that is it not cool. Verification for matters like this would be using quotes from credible writers. — edgarde 18:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this merit an article?

T-shirt sales are a big part of the concert biz, but as titled, I don't think the article describes something worth treatment separate from Event T-shirt concessions (or something similar), or List of teenage dirtbag fashion statements. Actually, this entire article could be pasted into T-shirt.

Yes black was a popular color for "rock" tees, but I don't think the color was linked to live music as a cultural phenomenon or anything — my black band tee (Jimi Hendrix, circa '78) was purchased in a record store, and had no appearance dates. White shirts were sold even then at some concerts, and today concert tees come in a range of colors for some artists.

I'd {{merge}} tag this, but would like to hear others' opinions about why this article exists, at least as titled. — edgarde 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the original Black Concert T-shirt article, my opinion is that the black concert t-shirt is more of a trend/fad or phenomenon than any other type of concert merchandise. It is also more than just a teenage fashion statement. It has become a standard of dress, a uniform of sorts, for concert goers worldwide. When one plans to attend a concert, they think..."hmmm what should I wear, how about this black concert t and some jeans, yeah that is probably good." Granted they are not only worn to concerts, but at concerts they are choice attire. I am sure there are more references in news articles, mentions in books, mentions in song lyrics or stories about the black concert t-shirt, I just havn't been able to find them. The article could easily be beefed up some if more material can be pulled from other sources.

As for mentioning in the T-shirt article, my opinion is that the black concert t-shirt really only deserves brief mention there rather than a full section, especially if Black Concert T-shirt can be significantly beefed up. --Mattarata 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it deserves more than a brief mention anywhere, c.f. WP:N.

Let's say I felt Fuzzy dice and bongos were a distinct fashion statement. Would that merit an article? — edgarde 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would if it was a documented and established fad or trend. WP:N is established in a very small way by the one news reference and the image. I am asking that others help to provide more references rather than delete or merge to a place where it doesn't really belong. I guess I am off to find some more sources.--Mattarata 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you, Edgarde, seem to think that this is not notable, which is obvious from some of your statements ("teenage dirtbag fashion statements", etc.). However, it is a widespread trend, and a lot of non-teens wear concert T-shirts. I myself wear nothing else, and I'm 21. This is a notable clothing article, like New Rock boots, leather jackets (see also rocker jacket), Kutten, and spike bands.

I agree however that the title is a bit strange, and it would probably be a good thing to move it to something like "Concert T-shirt", as there are concert T-shirts that aren't black.

As Mattarata points out, merging this into T-shirt, though a tempting idea, would condemn this material to remain as a small section and never be expanded. There is surely stuff to add, like a history of these clothing articles, their economic significance for bands and organisers of tours, etc. There are plenty of articles about fashion, and there is nothing wrong with that, provided that it is a sufficiantly widespread trend (which is the case) and that there are reliable sources.

If this article was to remain in its present state, then it should be merged. But as I say, it could be expanded, and would then be worthy of its own space. So for the moment I oppose a merge, but if nothing has changed in a couple of months, then it should be merged (it is a fairly young article after all, let's give it some time). IronC hris | (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've ticked someone off again. I should work on giving more neutral examples.

Would a rename to Concert T-shirt be acceptable? Might Band T-shirt (or something similar) be even better by virtue of being more inclusive? Plenty of band T-shirts (even black ones) aren't purchased at concert venues. I feel like my Monster Magnet "School Free Drug Zone" T is in the spirit of the article you want. — edgarde 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that initiating the AfD process wasn't my idea. For what it's worth, if this article is deleted, but as a section of T-shirt it grows in a healthy fashion, you'll have a case for forking it off into a new article like this one. There's no reason good, verifiable information would be confined to a small, insufficient space. — edgarde 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the idea of a band T-shirt article. I mean, it's surely as notable as some of the clothing items mentionned above, right? Anyway, thanks for your input, edgarde. IronC hris | (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no consensus was reached on the merge with T-shirt I am removing the merge tag. --Mattarata 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirts signifying membership in a clique

"You're a punk rock kid; you're a Madonna wannabe; you're a headbanger."

Without really mentioning the rock concert T, does this kinda encompass the "Black concert T-shirt" concept?

When I wear my Nico denim jacket, my Abba baseball cap, or my Lords Of Acid buttplug, aren't I just showing other music enthusiasts how cool I am? This is all one behavior, right? — edgarde 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that those wearing a Black concert T-shirt are trying to fit into a clique or otherwise following a fashion trend or style. It is a documented behavior as other fads or trends are. As such, the shirt, when used in the capacity of summing up a specific style or view, can be its own article. --Mattarata 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search turned up this material

-I believe all of these links to be better than a an obscure blog reference, and I think they can help add material to the article.

A site called Grumble Magazine has an article titled "My Heavy Metal Band Can Kick Your Heavy Metal Band's Ass" [1] wherein it mentions "Dozens of people vanished during the show, reappearing in their regulation black concert t-shirts." The term "regulation black" here gives evidence that a Black concert T-shirt is the fashion that stands out amount all concert t-shirts.
A site [2] that compiles a general review of all of the Lollapalloza's maintained by Sillicon Valley's Metroactive newspaper says "If you ever wanted to see skinheads dressed in beat-up black concert T-shirts yelling "Fuck yeah, Monks!" Lollapalooza No. 6 was the place for you."
A Centerstage Chicago article [3] by Kat Daly mentions "Everyone has on black concert T-shirts, and they're listening to heavy metal…"
A Cincinnati City Beat article [4] by John M. James "I still miss those clandestine black-market entrepreneurs hanging out in the concert parking lots of 1970's, slinging newsboy shoulder bags filled with gaudy, black concert t-shirts at $5 a piece..."
Central Iowa's Independent Weekly, Cityview Online, references[5] "you might want to check the back of the closet for those frayed black concert T-shirts sporting images of big-hair metal bands from the '80s." in their summer concert preview for 2006, by Michael Swanger.
Spin says "If she sports a mullet and prefers ratty black concert t-shirts, she's likely..." in an article[6] about a band called Tsar on June 30, 2005.
The Northern Iowan talks about[7] a defendant's black concert t-shirts being used as evidence in a trial.

--Mattarata 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I admit I'm impressed by Mattarata's references. I think the way to go would be a rename to Band T-shirt, with a section on Black concert T-shirts. If someone can't fashion a reasonably encyclopedic entry on that sub-topic, just a list of terse quotes from Mattarata's references with in-line citations would certainly stand up. Then put a {{main}} "Main article" link on T-shirt.

Can we get some agreement on this? I don't want to act alone, or try and steamroll this through. I just think this is a good way to keep this information up to Wikipedia standards. — edgarde 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm all for keeping this page, but a rename would be nice. while most people are pushing for a more generalized name in terms of colour, i'm voting for dropping the 'concert' bit. black t-shirts have become a generic term for concert goers in some places... in india for one. unfortunately, i wouldn't have any references for this. i speak purely from experience. it's on the lines of calling people longhairs. in a sentence, 'oi, black t-shirts, shift your moshing away from the stage. you're stepping on my pedals.' --Yufeeko 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be onto something, but "purely from experience" is a tough sell around here. — edgarde 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i know.. which is why i said 'i wouldn't have any references'... but i'm still against deletion... but i'm with you on improving the standard of the article... --Yufeeko 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with another article?

Instead of generalizing the article, perhaps it could be added as a section of Heavy Metal Fashion. The details of the article would be able to be kept whole. Ultimate77 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, rename?

This will never get out of stubbliness as it is - why not rename to Concert T-shirt, which will leave "Black concert T-shirt" as a redirect there, and then have a nice fat portion of that article devoted to the fact that most concert T-shirts are black. I'd be curious to know when concert T-shirts came into use at all. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. IronChris | (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsuitable" reference

This reference was removed as "unsuitable". Why is it?

Graham, Paul (2003) [2004]. "Why Nerds are Unpopular". [[Hackers & Painters]]. O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN 978-0596006624. Retrieved 2007-07-09. Teenage kids, even rebels, don't like to be alone, so when kids opt out of the system, they tend to do it as a group. At the schools I went to, the focus of rebellion was drug use, specifically marijuana. The kids in this tribe wore black concert t-shirts and were called 'freaks.' {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |origmonth= ignored (help)

Edit summary: one guy saying that black concert t-shirt wearers are "freaks" is not a reliable source; it's just someone's POV. However, every sourced statement this article is collected opinion about the significance of the title subject, so no one editor's argument of "I disagree" with any notable source is by itself enough reason to remove a sourced statement. Remove this, and the article is increasing original research. / edg ☺ ★ 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This source is an essay by a certain Paul Graham, "essayist, programmer, and programming language designer". Definitely not a "trustworthy and authoritative" source on the subject. It's kinda like if I publish something on my blog, that wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? It's an essay, not a study, poll, or any other publication "with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". It's just Mr Graham's memories from when he was in school, and doesn't represent "a majority" or even a "significant minority" view.

From WP:V:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

I believe this is at the very least a "contentious claim", which is clearly backed by no other source, definitely no reliable source.

Still from WP:V:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

According to this policy, Mr Graham's personal website cannot be used as a source, since he is not an established expert on the subject, and this information has not been published elsewhere in a reliable source. This source does not increase the reliability of this article, quite on the contrary.

Lastly, without looking the policies, it is completely inappropriate to describe black concert T-shirt wearers as "freaks", which is a POV term (and an insult) in itself. Not mentioning that it doesn't mean anything, since there is no widely accepted definition of "freak", and definitely no scholarly definition of it. A bit like saying "all metalheads are dorks", which is obviously not acceptable.

I will wait for a response before removing the sentence again, but it appears to be clearly against Wikipedia's policies of verifiability, not to mention offending to people who wear these T-shirts, such as myself (I am neither a "stoner" or a self-identified "freak"). IronChris | (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, and it is not a blog, it is a published book made freely available online, from a memoir that I've not seen disputed (until now). If you can replace it with something from a scholarly journal, I would be happy to defer. But as it stands, this article is almost entirely original research, and you are insisting on removing the one sourced passage. It is not reasonable for you to attack only the part that is sourced, however-vulnerably, on grounds of WP:V.

The offense you anticipate notwithstanding, neither the sentence in question nor the article describe black concert T-shirt wearers as "freaks", and the term is not offensive to people who identify as such. Attempts to defensively dissociate this fashion from "freaks" and "stoners" should be considered bias against freaks and stoners. / edg ☺ ★ 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of freak from Wiktionary:

freak (plural freaks)

1. A sudden causeless change or turn of the mind; a whim of fancy; a capricious prank; a vagary or caprice.

2. (of a person) An oddball, especially in physiology; unique in a displeasing way.

3. (bodybuilding) A person whose physique has grown far beyond the normal limits of muscular development; often a bodybuilder weighing more than 120 kilos (260 pounds).

4. A person who has an obsession or extreme knowledge of a something.

5. A very sexually perverse individual, usually used affectionately or in another good willed context.

I persist in thinking that describing any members of a subculture is offending and at the very least unencyclopedic. Note that I do not have a bias against stoners, being myself a cannabis user, and I know several people who would self-identify as freaks (none of which wear black concert t-shirts).

The source remains Mr Graham's personal experience, whether he published his essay or not. WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources make it clear that this is not a proper source to use in a Wikipedia article. However, I don't intend to spend anymore time discussing this issue since neither of us are ready to yield, and I have a life to live. It would be good to get other people's input to get us out of this stalemate, though. Regards, IronChris | (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary aside, the term "freak" has been adopted by various generations to describe similar subcultures of highly alienated, typically young people who identify with very aggressive non-conformity (participation optional). Ten years ago the typical kid in a Marilyn Manson tee might self-identify as a "freak". When describing such a group, the term is not considered offensive by the members.

At least, not more offensive that calling someone a "jock" or a "young Republican" with the derision those terms might deserve. A speaker's contempt does not make the term itself insulting.

Usually band tees are not specificly endorsements of quality music as much as endorsement of an implied attitude, community, or lifestyle. The artist's entire catalog becomes an aesthetic/ideological bumpersticker. Thus the entry-level freak in the band tee. And I've met a few, so I'm pretty confident Graham's article is not horseshit.

Glad to see you are dope-affirmative. We need to get you up to speed on freaks. / edg ☺ ★ 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite into a better article?

I think this article should be rewritten into an article about band shirts in general, or even better: band merchandise. Most band shirts aren't concert shirts, not all of them are black and many are longsleeves or hoodies. For example: I have about 20 band shirts of which four are hoodies, four are longsleeves, three aren't black and only three or four are concert tees.

The point of this article is not concert merchandise. That would be an entirely seperate article. This article was suppose to document the fad/trend of the Black Concert T-shirt, as emphasized by the multiple references in literature. --Mattarata (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Black Concert T-shirt

I just noticed that this article got nominated for deletion and then moved. As the original author of the page, I was notified, but didn't get a chance to comment before the process was closed. I do object to moving the article. The idea of the article is to document the fad/trend/phenomenon that is the Black Concert t-shirt, not concert t-shirts in general. Concert t-shirts have become a small part of the larger merchandising efforts by bands and groups, but the idea of the black concert t-shirt is much different. The black t-shirt is a cultural identifier, a uniform of sorts, that different groups of people have used and continue to use to identify themselves. Yes there are many other colors now, but the traditional idea of a black concert t-shirt needs to be emphasized. At the very least, the article now needs to be more extensive to cover concert t-shirts in general with a specific section on the idea of the black concert t-shirt. As it is, someone is going to come in and remove all references to black, which will lose the original idea of the article. Then the article will have even more cause to be deleted or to be merged with concert merchandising or something. --Mattarata (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move was an alternative to deletion. Black concert T-shirts, being a subset of concert T-shirts, should properly have a section in the article as a whole. But there are a lot of questions that should be answered first, in any event. When were concert T-shirts first sold? Were they at Woodstock? Before that? Or not until later? Did a particular band or promoter pioneer the practice? Was black the most popular color from the beginning (I would bet not, but find a source)? bd2412 T 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this smells less than neutral to me

"Such shirts are everyday wear in some teen subcultures, especially stoners and freaks.[4]" isn't that just the editors opinion? eeew eew look out those weirdoes in black shirts, i bet they smoke pot. 67.176.22.6 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "stoners and freaks" was meant to be complimentary there. Nevertheless, point taken. bd2412 T 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]