Talk:Animal Collective

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture not FDL-licensed[edit]

The picture is from the official Website. It is definately not FDL-Licensed even though the band would probably not mind it being in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.59.190 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 November 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

New Band Picture[edit]

i added a new band image after corresponding with fat cat records and getting permission (see the image page for email correspondence). so that's up, and it looks better. now will someone just make it look pretty within the entire page? -sparsefarce 12 Jan 2005

We need to make page pretty again. Main pic is lame pic. Izoanefts (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

ok seriously...."Folk Mind Dance"? "Freak Psych Dance"? someones making things up71.137.254.163 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this entire page reads like it was written by one or all of the band members... Isn't there a wikipedia rule about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.83.42 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


what the hell is the obsession with changing from danca genres? have you ever even heard animal collective? they make dance music. what is freak folk? in an interview avey tare said i dont know what freak folk is, i dont know why people associate us with that. just because sung tongs has acoustic instruments doesnt make them freak folks. they make songs to dance to and they make punk music in that they pretty much have no influences. if anything they make freak dance music because of the convulsions people tend to fall into while attending the shows. who edits this wikipedia. leave the dance music tag alone and quit putting freak folk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.29.254 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dance music??? animal collective??? hahaha id like to see u dance to "#1". they are in no way a dance band....i cant even see how u can label them that...oh and just because they are 'different' doesnt make them punk. who said they have no influences? where is your source of information? even if they didnt that doesnt make them automatically punk. they experiment with sounds and have strong DIY ethics....but how can you compare animal collective with black flag or the dead kennedys? show links, then we'll talk...until then leave the genres alone71.137.246.81 (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh right because the dead kennedys and black flag are the full extent of punk music. DIY is the whole essence of punk. i dont see what other qualification you need. you cant prove that they dont have influences but if you think they do then i'd love to see some of them. and who are you to make the ultimate decision to constantly have these four dumbass labels attached to them. if you watch any of the shows or go to them youll find everyone dancing. i think that constitutes "dance music" more than any other academic article referencing pyramid scheme you want to run here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.116.37 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by all means change it...i dont know why i changed it in the first place. im just going to listen to them and enjoy them and not debate whether u can dance to it or not. if people dance to it, great. if not then who cares? "and who are you to make the ultimate decision to constantly have these four dumbass labels attached to them?" "i think that constitutes "dance music" more than any other academic article referencing pyramid scheme you want to run here". hahaha you sound pathetic. animal collective makes beautiful music...and ur worried about if u can dance to it or not? sleep tight at night knowing u won a wikipedia debate. im sure ur mom will be soo proud of u. get a life.71.137.246.81 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about New Primative? Can we add that their genre list? Strictly Business (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

umm...the genres are fine71.137.242.12 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

umm...just indie rock doesnt even begin to describe their sound71.137.246.52 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about Experimental Rock, that maybe can describe their sound isn't it? Special:Contributions/Arbies92 arbie (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's hard to call their music at all rock anymore. they've given up guitars and the drums are minimal setup. there aren't any rock elements in the music they're making now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.68.13 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that they have been playing experimental pop music since day one. They certainly aren't a rock band or a dance music band, not that their sound hasn't been influenced by those type of groups. They sing songs and use bizarre sounds to skew the pop angle, but their focus on pop songs has never been completely absent from any release. An argument could be made that they play "folk" music, however all music is folk intrinsically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.247.6 (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Band Members[edit]

Why does Avey Tare redirect here? He and Panda Bear are in need of their own pages. I made a page for each of Panda Bear's albums and some of his singles, but I don't know enough about him to do a page. Zeichman 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I erased the text accompanying the band member names; they were surely way to subjective, maybe even put there by the band members themselves (?). mabonuob 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mabonuob, the origin of the band member names are widely documented. it's not mythical folklore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.68.13 (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

laramie colorado?[edit]

laramie is in wyoming.. i dont know anything about animal collective, but I know Laramie is in wyoming. just near the border


Dance?[edit]

"Dance" is listed in the genres...but I don't think I've ever really heard any dancy elements in any of their songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.34.181 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The music they are playing now (ie the songs they will be recording for their next album) has some dance influence, I would say...it's not prominent (in my opinion) but it is there For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iSG6U2YcQ0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.159.230 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you just wired backwards so youve hear brother sport, house, peacebone, fireworks, #1, bat you'll fly, leaf house, slippi, winter wonderland, bearhug, pan flute jam, bros, carrots/good girl, comfy in nautica, water curses, safer and you dont think they make dance music? have you ever read a panda bear interview, he says hes trying to make dance music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.29.254 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Is it appropriate to refer to the band members by their stage names? It reads very poorly, especially when shortening Panda Bear to just "Panda". --Colin Barrett (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that since the solo discographies and liner notes refer to them this way, it makes comprehension easier across media. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-garde?[edit]

Really? They're a pop/rock band. Tell me when they've invented a new way of looking at music. I like AC but this is only slightly less criminal than calling Britney Spears avant-garde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.36.225 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriweather Post Pavillion is one of the decade's many albums to introduce new American music of this century. Many critics agree.67.236.93.168 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question Animal Collective is making original strides in music. If you could name artists they're ripping off then you might have a case but I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find any influences they prominently steal from. Maybe the term avant-garde is strange since their music is enjoyable to listen to but please listen to STGSTV, HCTI, Danse Manatee, Safer, ... and then think about Britney Spears. There's no comparison. Maybe that they're both dance-able but come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.68.13 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you could name artists they're ripping off then you might have a case but I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find any influences they prominently steal from."

The Beach Boys. SuperTramp. I'm drawing a blank right now but there are many, many other bands. Plus, a band is not avant-garde just because they don't sound like they're ripping anybody off. I like AC, but it's a pretty big stretch to refer to them as avant-garde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore[edit]

Why do this page and all the album pages consistently and thoroughly refer to Animal Collective as a "Baltimore-based" band? That's like saying Frank Zappa was a "Baltimore-based artist." --69.139.238.240 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. I remember reading some article from an actual Baltimore based artist someone from Wham City, saying that they dislike bands calling themselves from Baltimore when they aren't. The article basically said "cough cough, Animal Collective and Yeasayer". Anco members grew up in Balto COUNTY, met at COUNTY private school and formed as a band after they had moved. However, the media has made it seem like they are some music group straight outta urban Baltimore city. Maybe wikipedia could be the place this is changed instead of articles about them, just a thought. /end rant Izoanefts (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Removed from article per WP:EL:

but could be used as references to improve the article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Band name abbreviation[edit]

I deleted the "AnCo" abbreviation note as the source was hipsterrunoff, a mostly-satirical music blog, and as far as I know this abbreviation has only been used for the past year or two by only some fans. The band themselves have never used this abbreviation but have definitely used "AC" on releases such as Prospect Hummer. I can't really use the physical cover of an EP as a source but I thought I'd at least get rid of this unnecessary addition. 121.98.208.32 (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Let's leave it off unless a there is strong support with good references. --Travis Thurston+ 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's been changed again for no good reason. I would not count tumblr tags as "strong support with good references". I'm happy to compromise though. "AC" has always been the official abbreviation of Animal Collective but I'll include a note saying "AnCo" has become a popular nickname recently as well.118.92.42.207 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Years active[edit]

Surely if Spirit They're Gone, Spirit They've Vanished is regarded as Animal Collective's first album and said album was recorded in 1999, then the band was first active in 1999? - Mr. November (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to discuss the same thing. I'll change it to 1999 for now, anyone who disagrees is free to change it back. Blåmes (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transverse Temporal Gyrus[edit]

I'm taking this out from under the "discography" subheading for now since this hasn't been confirmed as offically an "album" yet (though, for example, ODDSAC is directly referred to as a visual album). It's only available for Record Store Day, I haven't seen it referred to as an album anywhere yet, and also the length could be under 20 minutes for all we know so far.130.216.69.49 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting ODDSAC back in though, for the reason above and also the fact that the music was recorded in the studio.122.57.187.1 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollinndagain and Here Comes the Indian[edit]

Has Hollinndagain ever actually been marketed as a live album? I'm asking because it's often labeled as a live album, where Here Comes the Indian (Ark) isn't, despite the fact that both were recorded live. Instead of Here Comes the Indian being labeled as a live album like Hollinndagain is, it is widely considered to be their 3rd studio album. Why is this? I understand that Hollinndagain was recorded entirely live, where Here Comes the Indian was only partially recorded live (more specifically, the early version of it, Ark, was recorded live), but shouldn't Here Comes the Indian be placed as a live album as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertWesker411 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way they are labelled at the moment is correct. Hollinndagain is a live album, Here Comes the Indian is a studio album. "Live albums" are not defined simply by how many takes it took to record them. If that were so, Campfire Songs could also be called a "live" album. "Live albums" really refer to albums recorded during concerts. Hollinndagain was made from recordings of AC concerts with an audience. Here Comes the Indian was recorded in the studio by the band on their own with the engineer, that's why it's called a studio album. Hope that makes sense. The key difference is whether the songs from the album were recorded from a live show or not. It doesn't matter if the album was recorded "live" (ie in one take). A lot of the vocals for Here Comes the Indian weren't recorded until later either, as you probably know. And 'Ark' was never intended to be released as it was.118.92.42.207 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.99.66 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

A few broken links in the references, I am replacing some with archived urls and beefing them up. If anyone takes issue with my edits please discuss here to help me. I'm very new to this but eager to fix references cus broken links anger me! >:| Plus, by checking other references, I have found a few older interviews by them I wouldn't have looked for otherwise. :) Izoanefts (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just messed up hard on citation 15 and I have no clue what to do. If you find this please tell me what I did wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izoanefts (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 fixed - I saw your post at the help desk. As I said there, you just named the cite incorrectly. You should have named it "veyesor post", which also applies to cite 14. So the error was caused because you gave the cite a name that didn't exist elsewhere, and didn't include a URL. When editing cites in the future, click on the Edit link at the top of the article, make your edits, then click the "Show preview" button to make sure there are no errors. Once you're sure everything is fine, then click the "Save page" button to save your changes. Hope this helps. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video Appearances?[edit]

is the video appearances section of their discography really necessary? I've never seen anything like that in a band's wikipedia article and the single video appearance listed seems like a strangely insignificant video to include in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverjgw (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members in each release[edit]

Why does the article say that Panda and Avey have appeared on every release even though Panda was absent on Transverse Temporal Gyrus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.214.243 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some points about formation date (1999 vs. 2003)[edit]

  • There was no band or collective to speak of prior to the invention of "Animal Collective" in 2003. To suggest that the band was formed or established in 1999 is definitively nonfactual.
  • Ignoring that, if Animal Collective was formed in 1999, then Dibb and Weitz can no longer be considered co-founders.
    • If we were to consider that "Animal Collective" constitutes anything where two or more members are playing together, then the real formation date would be somewhere circa 1994, when Weitz and Portner began playing music together. Weitz and Portner would then be considered the collective's official founding members.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were asked in 2003 to assign one overarching name to their group as Avey Tare, Panda Bear, and Geologist was a mouthful and record companies weren't having it. They then stated that animal collective would be the name attached to all records featuring any two of the four artists, which would include Spirit, Danse, and HCTI. That being said it wouldn't hurt to specify this instead of just saying AC was formed in '99 it should say Avey Tare and Panda Bear was formed in '99 and later would add Weitz and Portner to become AC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.37.61 (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation is already contained in the second paragraph. I think it would add more confusion if Weitz and Dibb weren't considered founding members.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animal Collective. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, nitpicking details in lead[edit]

This sentence is so babbley and pointless that, initially, I had no idea what it was supposed to be saying.

  • Prior collaborations between two or more members, previously attributed to whichever members made musical contributions (except for Campfire Songs), were then retroactively classified under Animal Collective's discography.

In other words, "the albums before Campfire Songs were credited to individuals'." OK, I get it now - that is supported by the source. But is this factoid really that important? No, and it's not worth overwhelming the reader with minutiae. The situation with "retroactive classifications" is already confusing enough for most people. Whatever your opinion is on the actual music, Campfire Songs has no real historical significance - it's just another album by the band - and it's absurd that we'd be mentioning it among Spirit, Indian, and Merriweather but not Sung Tongs, Feels, or Strawberry Jam.

WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
MOS:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ... Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article.

This says the same thing without going into uber-detail

Most prior collaborations between two or more members were then retroactively classified under Animal Collective's discography.

One can simplify it even further

Most prior collaborations were then retroactively classified under Animal Collective's discography.

Bottom line: nobody except diehard fans care about how the earlier albums were inconsistently formatted. The specific naming conventions can be elaborated in the body. It's too inconsequential for the lead--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: I can see the fact being noted after the lead has been expanded a bit to include more history and background about the band.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre cut-down[edit]

User:Ilovetopaint you are right that consensus should be established, but I decided to act boldly and implement the change that I would propose, since the infobox has been flooded with genres for some time. As per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre, infobox genres should 1) aim for generality and 2) be limited to 2–4. I chose the four genres I retained (experimental pop, psychedelic, indie rock, electronic) to summarize those that are currently sourced, while moving avant-pop to the lead as by far the most broadly defined (any popular music which pushes existing boundaries as per its article). Of those removed, freak folk, neo-psychedelia, and psychedelic pop are forms of psychedelia while noise pop is considered a form of indie rock and is closely related to experimental pop. What do you think?--MASHAUNIX 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2-4 is ideal but it's not a standard that can be held to every act. AC is frequently labelled with exp-pop, indie rock, noise pop, psych, electronic, etc.. And we can't just ignore the period when they were constantly being referred to as "freak folk". I think if we want to cut down the genres, then the first tags to go are the ones with <2 cites (art rock, psych-pop, neo-psych). After that, maybe we can set the bar higher to 3 cites, which will cut down a few more. But I don't think there's any problem with having 7 genres listed for a band like this (my personal preference would be to have just one: pop). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about including only avant-pop in the infobox and lead, and discussing details in the text?--MASHAUNIX 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the last half-decade or so, "avant-pop" and "experimental pop" have been the most frequent labels for the band, so either one would work. The only reason it reads "experimental pop" in the first sentence is because that's the most general "layman" term to use. I don't think we need to confuse the average person with a non-term like "avant-pop", which is really just a more fancy way of saying "popular music that is experimental". As for the infobox, it would be a mistake to retcon the band's noise/folk phase or their psychedelic roots.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO infobox info should never pertain to "phases" but give an overview of the band's entire career. Since freak folk and noise pop are subgenres of the more general genres included which cover the commonalities of the band's shifting sound, I am opposed to including them. However, the change I would like to see is the removal of avant-pop from the infobox, since it has zero informational value next to experimental pop, as you yourself suggest. I don't believe there is any evidence that experimental pop is a more "layman" term to use than avant-pop, but whichever we choose to include (experimental pop, if you wish), the other should be excluded.--MASHAUNIX 18:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_Collective&oldid=1195539243"