Jump to content

Talk:Muse (band): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
JAK2112 (talk | contribs)
Line 175: Line 175:


"Their idiosyncratic style is a blend of indie rock, electronica, progressive rock, metal and classical music" Very well put whoever did it! [[User:89.240.138.44|89.240.138.44]] 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"Their idiosyncratic style is a blend of indie rock, electronica, progressive rock, metal and classical music" Very well put whoever did it! [[User:89.240.138.44|89.240.138.44]] 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether or not Muse should be considered "Metal". I would think maybe hard rock is a more accurate description. [[User:JAK2112|JAK2112]] 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


==Cleanup==
==Cleanup==

Revision as of 01:48, 10 November 2006

WikiProject iconAlternative music Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Style section?

Could some of the info on Muse's musical style be lifted out of the history section and placed in it's own section? And expanded? Could include info on such things as Matt's guitar playing style (and custom guitars), Chris' bass sound etc. It'd also be nice to acknowledge the discussion(s)/arguments over how to describe their music. A cursory look at any articles written about Muse would provide some good research material.

I've neatened up the External Links section. It had become a bit of a mess, with sites being added and deleted all the time. Perhaps it could do with more Official Sites, e.g. record labels, but I'm not sure. 86.135.177.189 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY was my information on Morgan Nicols deleted? - Me

qua@aol.com - who said this is no longer active? It is definitely used; either by Matthew Bellamy or by a very very good imitator. -crafty bison

Isn't there way to much text clumped together? Can't this article be neatened up some?

Yeah I've wondered about this before. Perhaps we can divide it in a few sections.--Biekko 21:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Way too much text clumped together"? Are you kidding? It's not a very long article and, as such, the addition of subheadings would probably only succeed in making it less neat! I think Gdr has the right idea regarding layout if you'd care to read. Anyway, don't you think the correction of any discrepancies in my original article (as a number of wonderful people have, thankfully) and the addition of important new material are far more important things for people to consider than upsetting the lovingly sculpted narrative flow I created?.. Ok, now I’m kidding! But seriously, I think you have your priorities wrong. --Drunkston 00:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think it reads well. As an aside, I am wondering about an addition to the discography; I have an Australian Live Bonus CD containing a collection of 6 live tracks recorded at The Big Day Out, January 23 2004. It's an official release, included with Absolution, but I imagine there's probably other variants of these collections from other countries and am wondering if you'd like me to add it to the Collections portion of the discography? --Adam J 02:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are several versions of Absolution Album. I'm from Argentina and I bought it in a local store, and in this edition track number 7 is Hysteria and track number 8 is Interlude. There are lots of small differences like this. I've also found CD covers with Matt and DVD covers with the guy from the video Hysteria doing google searches, although those may be photoshopped or sthg. Tharos 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Collections has been replaced by a Compliations section. Fair enough - I think that's reason enough to leave out the live stuff. --Adam J 09:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Eh? The names "Fixed Penalty" and "Rocket Baby Dolls" are lugubrious (I'd consider myself fairly well read but had to look that one up!). I'd describe the former as quite mundane (as in a Fixed Penalty Notice) and the latter as quite chirpy really! Jezze 22:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MUSE ARE ACE In my opinion i think muse are ace , i have got two of their first ever albums , from a friend called Matt that they have been playing for only a few years , in other words they are young the track citizen erased and screenager are two of my favourite songs. the guitar solo at the beginning of citizen erased (BRILLIANT) and the long good voice in between the song screenager (ACE)

FROM Chris

Kenji Kawai

What is Kenji Kawai's relation to Muse? I have heard we was the original 4th member of the band but the article doesn't mention a thing The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) .

I did a bit of googling and it appears that there was a Japanese fusion rock band called Muse of which Kawai was a member. It is so obscure and non-notable that it isn't worth a mention. BigBlueFish 12:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up the Fansites section of links. In the process I removed the following links:

Could someone confirm whether or not it is Wikipedia policy to link to sites with bootleg media, which is probably of dubious copyright status? BigBlueFish 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muse allows bootlegs, I believe. Legally, you may make and distribute a bootleg if you have a band's permission, but you cannot sell the audio. Also, the band has rights to take that bootleg, copyright it and distribute it for money if they like it. At least, that's what I've heard. Iffer 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more cleanup of the list, inluding sorting them alphabetically for NPOV. I added the above links back but haven't mentioned the bootlegs except for muselive who confirm that they have permission to distribute them. If this is the case with others we can label accordingly. Also removed some rather funny POV descriptions left by an anonymous user, and the lyrics link which only actually has lyrics to Showbiz, so not the most useful of pages. BigBlueFish 11:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming Shrinking Universe (fansite) has been authorised by Tom Kirk (Muse manager) to distribute bootlegs. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychoticmonkey (talk • contribs) .

An unsigned comment from a newly-registered user doesn't count. Per WP:CITE the onus is on you to cite your source, which more or less has to be either on the Muse site or on Shrinking Universe to be verifiable. If a source isn't cited soon I'll remove it again. BigBlueFish 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK - sorry. I'll sort it out next month, but infuriatingly our bandwidth limit has been exceeded this month thanks to hotlinking. (I'm the admin by the way!) If it helps, Shrinking Universe is on the same server as Muselive (as is Muse Syndrome, in fact), so the whole server is already cleared for bootleg hosting. Psychoticmonkey 23:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I removed the tag for now since it's not currently accessible, but look forward to seeing it back! BigBlueFish 11:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of muselive.com and the bootlegs are only permitted for authorised distribution on muselive.com. Just because your sites are hosted on our server, this does not give you permission to distribute them legally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.46.132 (talkcontribs)

I thought this may be the case, if you really are the owner of muselive. You might want to get yourself a username ;). As it is, muselive is currently the only one with bootlegs mentioned, and it'll stay that way unless another website comes forward with similar claims. BigBlueFish 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New album

The speculation section about the new album is currently a bit disorganised. Has anyone got any sources they could link to explaining what we know? BigBlueFish 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Muse posted information on their website, www.muse.mu, on 2/23/06 and saying that they were just mixing the album. They also report that they will have a release date and tour plans will be anounced in a few weeks. Half the message was very cryptic. Most likely a puzzle from Bellamy for his fans to decode. Joe McFugal 21:19, 24 February 2006

I have put in a breif paragraph in the new recordings section about that 2/23/06 letter on their website. It has some new and exciting information. Chickenofbristol 16:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice to put that cryptic stuff back in the article, I think, since it does actually describe each track in the new album, in order! Mr8131127126 08:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

The recording of album passed like that: the band recorded in Studio Miraval, southern France, from August to October. They left the studio on 20 October to return home for a week before they left for New York (27 October) to continue their studio sessions. Thereafter they recored till Christmas and after Christmas break, they returned January in their London-based studio for mixing. The material still is in mixing stage, meaning that they have spent as much time in mixing as recording. "We already have 20 finished songs, but nothing is definite. We are going to mix them before choosing what will appear or won't appear in the album.", said recently Chris Wolstenholme.

^The grammar in that paragraph is apalling —This unsigned comment was added by 84.68.144.132 (talkcontribs) .

It is indeed - I saw that edit and forgot to do something about it. It looks like a bad translation from French, might even be from the French article. I'll try to clean it up now - don't forget that you can edit too! BigBlueFish 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? BigBlueFish 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order

Maybe the article would look a bit better if the "cryptic messages" and "trivia" sections were before the discography. It does look a little unneat right now. Also, some bands (like for instance Iron Maiden) have a box at the end of the article showing the members, discography and dvds as a quicker access (so you don't have to read the whole article if you're lloking for something in particular). Wouldn't it be good to add that here too? Tharos 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Well I just removed the whole of the trivia section. After an anon IP posted a link to a midi of the Top Gear theme, I listened to it and essentially the only similarity to Bliss is the arpeggiated riff at the beginning and under the rest of the track. Everything else is different - the key, the chord sequence, the inversion and everything apart from the arpeggiated riff. Not really notable. As for George Bellamy being in the Tornados... this isn't relevant trivia to the group really, it's either a personal thing about Matt (his article already says so) or a musical influence on the group, which it isn't really. BigBlueFish 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tornados is a bit of influences now, I found! On the MuseWiki, Matt admits to looking to his dad's music for inspiration for Black Holes and Revelations, if I remember correctly! I think it's on the Matt Bellamy page on there! Mr8131127126 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

Rachmaninoff is mentioned as an influence already, but might it be an idea to elaborate upon this point, given that at least three Muse songs quote his music? I only suggest this because all three quotes that come to mind come from the first movement of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto no. 2, which is decidedly unusual. Also, does anyone else think there are too many internal links on this page? I noticed a few irrelevant ones ("Christmas," a number of the location names, etc.) that could probably be safely done away with. Any thoughts?--Macabre Deified 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Macabre Deified! I was wondering whether to put it here or not aswell, since there's already a large amounth that I wrote about in the Matthew Bellamy section on it. Does anyone else reckon it should be put here too? Maybe the two passages could be switched to make it more balanced? Mr8131127126 08:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"etc etc. loads more influences to be mentioned here e.g. supposed use of human bones during percussion recordings for Origin of Symmetry (copied from T. Waits)."

I removed this section from the article, as it is highly speculative and very incomplete. Third 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say its fairly obvious Pink floyd are an influence

Songs?

Where's "Thoughts of a Dying Atheist"? Didn't they do that song. I didn't see this song anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.40.20 (talkcontribs)

"Thoughts of a Dying Atheist" is a song on the album Absolution. It's listed on there. Every track on every album would be an unnecessary addition. Incidentally, if you search for "thoughts of a dying atheist" in the search box, the album's article comes up third in the list. Second is the live dvd of the album as well. BigBlueFish 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""New Born" (from the previous album) make reference to a hypothetical future where technology has a detrimental effect on society." What the hell? I see no link between that song and the future whatsoever. I'm sorry but soulless is everywhere can be applied at anytime, so can someone tell me where this detrimental stuff was found?

History header

I was trying to think of a better header for the Black Holes And Revelations section of the history, but can't think of anything effective. I was thinking something alluding to the fact that they're now experimenting with other genres in this album, now that they feel they have "made it" (headlining Glastonbury, etc.). It'll have to change when it's not a future album any more. Any ideas? BigBlueFish 20:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Bigbluefish! Maybe something to do with their new move towards this electro genre? Something along the lines of 'The electro-rock shift' if you see my trail of thought! Mr8131127126 08:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure naming a specific genre is a good idea only because I don't think this means Muse have actually moved towards a different style. It's more them experimenting mixing other things into their established formula (in my opinion anyway). We'll only see when they release their next material (if it's a cover of Prince's latest hits I will have second thoughts). Of course saying this doesn't bring us any closer to a heading that does work. Hmm... BigBlueFish 10:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference seems a bit, erm, unfactual, and not entirely relevant in my opinion :/ Just seems to be a student slandering their album back in 1999, and doesn't seem to actually state anything on what Radiohead have said about Muse. Shall we change it? Mr8131127126 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the current mentions of Radiohead are fine. The first bit says they are experimental like Radiohead and the Verve... a couple of people have removed Radiohead but leaving the Verve which is just stupid... but it's a fair point. If we were to remove that, we would have to remove all their influences. I think it would be better to find a source which identifies what the band does say they are influenced by. Then the only other mention concerns Showbiz, and links a perfectly valid example of the press panning it as a Bends clone. It also says Thom Yorke criticised it, though that bit doesn't have a source to back it up. But neither does a lot of stuff in this article, that's something that needs work. BigBlueFish 10:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labels

What's the relationship between Mushroom, Taste Media and A&E? I was wondering whether labelling all their releases as Mushroom was correct (thought they all link to Mushroom right now, which certainly ISN'T correct!). And where does Warner come into the equation? BigBlueFish 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bigbuefish. I think they're the various publishers that Muse use. Warner do the american publishings, I think, but I could be wrong. Mr8131127126 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the intention of using them as sources to cite to help back up quotes, etc, I just wanted to add these two interviews I found on a Vancouver, Canada music journal;

  1. [1]
  2. [2]

-- Xinit 23:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next (next) recordings

Bellamy has stated in three interviews now that the next album will be a Dark Side of the Moon style progressive rock album[3]. I'm not sure how to put this though (without it sounding like an afterthought), perhaps someone else can have a go. --Tene 22:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the other two interviews? As a lone comment, it's not all that notable, but with three (or even maybe two) you could begin a new paragraph in the new album section with something like "Muse are already speculating about their next album after Black Holes and Revelations...". It should probably also stress that this won't be for ages though, as I've heard them say this album sets them up for "years of touring". BigBlueFish 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[4] There's one, the other's don't haven't been transcribed, only summarised or mentioned on MuseLive. Another one is in The Times, could be helpful if you buy it / read it. --Tene 15:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[5]Here's an interview of Bellamy saying he "has vague plans for Muse to write and perform an extended classical-inspired instrumental piece." Although it's very early to speculate, everything now points towards a much more progressive Muse. - MuseZep

Starlight

Now its been named as the next single, is it time to "undelete" Starlight and rename it? --Tene 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you could give the lineup of singles in the UK 3 mobile has given us(Supermassive Black Hole, Starlight, Map of the Problematique, Knights of Cydonia). Muselive also now says Starlight will be released as a single Sept. 4 - MuseZep

Britpop? WTF?

"While some describe them as a post-Britpop band..."

Yeah, no one would ever say that. --Macarion 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the Twelve Monkeys artwork didn't work for me. Delete?

man this is POV

whats up with the last section about hidden messages?. Muse did not pioneered in doing so, its as old as 70s prog-rock and even older if we go back to the beatles or bob dylan. That section makes either no sense or makes very little importance as it is greatly exagerated in its importance. All in all, this page has been written by fanboys, and it shows. Im a fan of Muse, but this is one of the worst wikipedia articles ive seen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.167.137 (talkcontribs) .

I agree, what with the new album various additions of news-cruft have dragged it into somewhat disarray. I've made a start with a good cleanout of the latest biography section, but the cryptic messages section still needs addressing. Don't forget that you can help too! BigBlueFish 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


GENRE dispute

Should Muse really be put as hyper rock? i am unsure of the real definition of it :S would someone be able to help me? i think alt. rock should be 1st, then prog or neo-prog, but i don't think they are britpop!Gingwaffler

They're not prog. The only real progressive rock song they've done is Citizen Erased (as in, proper, full on "classic" progressive rock). Most of their material is neo-prog, of which the boundry isn't exactly well drawn. They're definately not brit pop. Whether alt rock or neo prog should be first is a pretty controvertial thing, personally I think neo-prog should be first. I've never even heard of Hyper rock, I certainly can't find any articles on the Wikipedia about it. --Tene 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmmm, yea good point they aren't full on prog, though i feel they are prog-gy enough to warrant the neo-prog badge... you've convinced me that neo-prog should be first as i feel that alternative rock is just a term used for rock bands that are hard to categorize, also because i feeel most of their songs have some prog elements to them... someone has added space rock, again im not sure what that is!!! Gingwaffler20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the introductory text now describes it as "an British band who blend many different genres of music together, their most recent album combining classical, modern and even Latin themes into songs."
This is not particularly helpful for someone who haven't heard Muse, so I think that we should instead say that it's a "rock" band (in the "not Britney Spears" sense) and then mention that there's no agreement what genre does the band belong to. --asqueella 19:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added neo-classical to the genre-list because uhm, I think it's neo-classical. the definition of neo-classical is classical inspired rock music so erm, looks like this comes pretty damn close! NJlo 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-prog"? Muse are many things but neo-prog they are not, neo-prog refers to a movement that occurred in the 1980s. I think the term that best fits Muse is "new prog", a term used to refer to alt rock bands like Mew who draw influences from prog.

"Their idiosyncratic style is a blend of indie rock, electronica, progressive rock, metal and classical music" Very well put whoever did it! 89.240.138.44 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about whether or not Muse should be considered "Metal". I would think maybe hard rock is a more accurate description. JAK2112 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Parts of this article require cleanup as some of this information needs to be updated. Lordofchaosiori 23:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Nichols

What do we think of including Morgan Nichols in the 'Members' section of the infobox? I don't think he should be included without qualification of his actual roll in the band. As I understand it, he is only being used as a live member for some of the more complecated live tracks. He is/was not present for the studio recording of any of the albums. Diddy Didds 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As he wasnt present, i don't believe he should be mentioned under band members, though i think a mention in the first paragraph is neccessary User: Gingwaffler19.18 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We could put him in the info box as a touring member...


Cryptic Messages?

should it be moved? i don't like where it is, i think it should be below the discography 89.241.52.22 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


<<::Voice of the Beyond::>>

First, this band rocks for all time and beyond! Their style is so extreme, it's so desperate to catch the next breath of fresh air before returning to the burning lake of fire!!! .....you get it!! Alot of their 'greatness' has to do with the singer. His delivery and vocal skill and strong mood that he generates, is truly one of a kind. Actually, I, would have to give 90% of the succes of this band to the singer. I can hypothesize that the reason why The Muse hasn't 'blown up' to an extreme level let's say of (enter british band that has become mainstream in U.S. (and has a unique style)), the reason, I'm going to be the devils advocate here, the reason is because the rest of the elements of the band (guitar, drums, bass, etc.) are not on the same 'greatness' level as the vocals! (a lot like Radiohead. in fact, Muse is kinda like a second rate clone of Radiohead) This is my humble yet obvious opinion. So guys, mix it up!! Sing on, keep bringing the afterlife to life!!! Keep reaching for more than you can handle!!! Keep up the high quality of the high!!!!! Bring The Eternal Vibe of GOD through this expression of drawing forth the organized sounds of creation itself, from the endless unfathomable abyss.... of chaos!!!!!!!!!!! Dre.velation2012 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Can anyone clear up the grammar for me? There have been a lot of changes and reverts concerning 'Muse' being plural or singular. I more or less agree with how it looks now, but I'm not a native speaker. anyone know?NJlo 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, 'Muse' should be considered plural, although it does depend on context. This is because, when you refer to Muse, you are referring to a band consisting of 3 people. Makron1n 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Is there any reason why this article's image seems to change every few days? Battle Ape 06:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo?

Erm... I don't know where you guys get your information from but since when were Muse an emo band? They're not connected in any way with that genre. The offending word has been removed. - Liquidus219

Emo is a stupid name for a genre anyway. ALL music is emotional. Battle Ape 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although emo (music) 'officially' refers to a "subgenre of hardcore punk", so definitely not applicable for Muse. Trebor 18:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]