Talk:Muse (band)

Bellamy personal section

Shouldn't the following bit be in a personal page-- "Muse are best known for .. .. and frontman Matthew Bellamy's eccentric interests in global conspiracy, extraterrestrial life, paranoia, theology and the apocalypse as well as his use of falsetto singing and vibrato"

seemd a bit unfiar on Dom and Chris that Muse are best known for Matts religious beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simona1919 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Doesn't really make sense having that in the opening paragraph. 30December (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

so quit discussing it and change it...

Classical influence

can we please rewrite the statement regarding muse's classical influence? it's unfair to say that they blend the style, mainly because classical music covers a rather broad range of music. it's unfair, for example, to compare Handel's repertoire to that of Debussy or Burgmuller. muse draws very little influence from the actual classical or baroque era, but more from the modern romantic era, drawing influence from composers such as Rachmaninoff and Grieg. Itachi1452 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Classical is a very broad word, and Muse have drawn from different styles of classical music, from pianists such as Rachmaninoff (Butterflies and Hurricanes), to using entire orchestras in their compositions (Exogenesis: Symphony). Keytar Shredder (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre, yet again

I would like to take issue with Bornfury's removal of "rock" as a genre describing Muse Music. Please see 5 references stating that Muse are a 'Rock band' (a small sample of endless references). My favourite reference is the 5th one - it has been taken from the opening line of Muse's wiki entry!

I will add 'Rock' to the list of Muse genres. BornFury, please do not change back as I have now supplied references, if you do it is a direct violation of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4780985.stm http://famous.y2u.co.uk/F_Muse_Alternative_Rock_Band.htm http://www.topix.com/who/muse/2008/01/muse-are-an-english-rock-band-formed-in-teignmouth-devon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse_%28band%29

I also take issue with stating that Muse mixed different musical styles "TO HELP FORM THE NEW SUB GENRE OF NEW PROG". It cannot be proved that this was their intention and there is no citation stating that they intended to create a new genre. Unless you can provide a citation showing that Muse INTENDED to create a new genre called 'New Prog' I think it should be left out. I will remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaypriests1984 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting Signed to Maverick

Just found this article in Ticket master website: http://www.ticketmaster.ie/artist/944747 Some interesting new info there about getting signed, I think it says that the CMJ festival in New York was where Maverick discovered band. Probably worth a mention? I added the line, can someone put a citation in?

Morgan

I also just noticed that 'guitar' has been removed as an instrument played by Morgan. He actually continues to play bass when the band perform Hoodoo and at the Royal Albert Hall he played the Ukelele during Megalomania... In case anyone wants to add these details.30December (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any reason why my addition about Morgan playing the Ukelele was removed?30December (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Intro

Hi, I'm new to all this so I haven't edited the article, but I'd like to suggest some changes to the intro. First up, what is the relevance of the comment about the band forgoing University? This seems quite a subjective piece of information to me. I tracked down the article on nme.com that is cited (http://www.nme.com/news/muse/29016) and it makes no reference to this, it's all about the Wembley shows.30December (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As no one has responded I guess I'll just go ahead and make the edit to the article. 30December (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see my edit has been reverted by Bornfury. Even though the citation may refer to the magazine article, I still think it's an irrelevant and subjective piece of information. I may be misunderstanding what Wiki articles are supposed to be about, but I thought they were supposed to be relevant and concise. The information about University appears later on in the article in a place where it makes more sense. Does anyone else agree? Can we discuss it?30December (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Comparisons

This line appears in the article in the Origin of Symmetry section:

Muse have been compared with Queen, although this is partially due to their way of working the stage, with Bellamy's style reminiscent of that of Queen's Brian May.[11]

In my opinion, the comparison goes deeper. The place I hear Queen the most in the music is in the background vocals, Bellamy's falsetto vocal delivery, and in Bellamy's fleet-fingered piano playing. Not to mention that the back cover of the booklet to the Black Holes and Revelations CD bears some resemblance to the Queen II album art/Bohemian Rhapsody video. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, check out the repeated line "There's no justice in the world" near the end of "Soldier's Poem." This is done in the style of "vintage Freddie Mercury" harmony vocals, ala "You Take My Breath Away" from the Queen album Day At The Races. It is also reminicent of the intro to "Bohemian Rhapsody," where Freddie Mercury is harmonizing with himself. Also, in the Muse song "Assassin," the background vocals are reminicent of the Queen song "Somebody to Love," or even the more chaotic Queen song "Ogre Battle." The vocals are similar, not in choice of notes, but in timbre, phrasing, and style. The "No one's gonna take me alive" section of "Knights of Cydonia" is also very Queen-like in the harmony vocals, at least.65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me. Andrea (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No one said it wasn't. If I could cite it, it would be in the article. :P 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you were discussing it here because you wanted it included. Andrea (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not trying to make trouble. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Muse Logo?

Why is he logo taken out and replaced only with the letters "Muse"?

Probably because there was noe fair use rationale used. 80.202.211.236 13:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Studio

Is "Sawmill's in-house Dangerous label" in the converted water-mill studio? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The label is just a company basically, but that's where they were based as far as I know. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Knights of Cydonia Trivia

In my opinion, the KoC trivia that's being placed in this article should not be placed here, but rather in the Knights of Cydonia article. I've removed the trivia on 3 separate occasions (Which is why I'm now discussing it, as I do not want to get into an edit war).

I pasted the info on the KoC Talk page for somebody to incorporate into that article.

Thoughts? -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Italics and quotation marks

It seems to be quite random whether a title of a song or an album is written in italics or within quotation marks. I think this article needs to have it either way. Also, the Black Holes and Revelations section needs to be cleaned. There's no need to enumerate the prizes they've won in the article itself and in the table. See Quotation mark#Emphasis (incorrect). --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article obeys (As far as I can see) the WikiProject Music Manual of Style - Album names are in italics, song names are in quotation marks -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Every single time I view this article the genre's been changed. Can't you people agree on it? I'd say they were "Hard Rock" too. Songs like Stockholm Syndrome and Deadstar aren't Alternative rock, are they? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Muse heavy metal? I'd say Metallica is heavy metal and Muse is hard rock. Maybe we should vote on it or something. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Muse is new progress, a band is not rated by the sound of their music but how many people and What they PLay mostly but its not Focused ON the music, Thats just partly it, The band is New progress,Thats their Genre, Its a not so popular genre right now though, Thoguh muse is popular. and muse is "Hard rock" in a way but they are also 'Alternative" In a way, They arent like slipknot who consistently PLay Hard music, They have some hard and not so hard songs, thats why people have so much trouble interpretting what Genre the band is, but as I said it, They are new progress. Hoped this answered your Question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-lock

Why isn't this article semi-protected? Vandalism it quite high here. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there's approximately one vandalism a day. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think there's enough vandalism to warrant it. It gets reverted pretty quickly anyway. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It does get reverted but why bother? Semi-protecting it can't harm. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It prevents legitimate edits from anonymous editors. That's harm. --Bjarki 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen many legitimate edits lately from anonymous users. And now I have to revert another edit. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalising this article seems to be a sport for IPs. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this page really need to be semiprotected? There's a few IP vandals but it's not that bad... -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I counted 7 or 8 vandalisms just yesterday! So my answer is "yes" I think so. The protection will only last till 17 Oct. If the page gets vandalised many times a day after it's unprotected I will request for a permanent semi-protection. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 04:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Single

I don't quite understand this line: "Knights of Cydonia" was released in the U.S. as a radio-only single on 13 June 2006 and...
What is a radio-only single? Is it a version of a song, on a single, only sold to radio stations? Or perhaps a radio version, but sold to the public? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) It means it only gets airplay, you can't actually buy the single.ScrabbitTheRabbit 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review - Failed

I count at least four {{fact}} tags at a quick glance. Much of the entire article is poorly referenced and in pretty bad shape. It needs a pretty significant rewrite for tone, and grammatical errors. A lot of work needs to be done before bringing it back to GAC. NSR77 ^T_C 23:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

This article is getting flooded with POV and other untrue information (comparing the band to the Spice Girls, for instance) from 195.92.206.243 I've reverted as much as I can, but since POV pushing isn't classified as vandalism, I can't revert anymore because of the three-revert rule, but I wanted to at least let you guys know to take a look at the article to make sure something doesn't sneak in and stay there. --spazure (contribs) (review) 08:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address these issues. --John 03:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! spazure (contribs) (review) 07:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done mate. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But I was wondering why you removed that thing about Bellamy being influenced by Rachmaninoff and the romantic era? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the image might have to take one for the team. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Hi. I would question whether the small England flag adds anything to this article. See my comments at Talk:Arctic Monkeys#Flag as I think the arguments are very similar here. --John 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I agree with the arguments there - it's standard practice (WP:FLAG is an essay, right?), and it can add some meaning. — Giggy 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What meaning can it add? Where is the extra meaning in England over England? I don't see it myself. What I do see is a violation of WP:NOR in assigning bands a flag which they have not verifiably identified with. --John 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question for the pro-flaggers; which flag or flags should we have on Snow Patrol's entry? , , or some other answer or combination of answers? --John 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be either. See flags for non-sovereign states (it basically states, seperatism or nationalism has no place on WP). If one is absolutely necessary, it should be the Union Jack. --Tene (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fanbase and gigs

At the start of the section First EPs and Showbiz it says: "After a few years building a fan base in London, Muse played their first gigs in London and Manchester." It makes no sense, how did they build a fanbase without playing gigs? --Bjarki 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One can build a fanbase just by promoting CDs, although it's also possible that the sentence lost its original meaning during copyediting at some point. When in doubt, I'd generally say to check the sources -- since there aren't any for this statement specifically, I suggest rewriting from the available sources. spazure (contribs) (review) 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Muse's school

Teignmouth Community College was mentioned in the article but then replaced with "local school". I don't see any reason why it's unrelevant to the article what school they attended since they did have a hard time in that town and place. They are mentioned in the article Teignmouth Community College. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and replaced the info as I agree. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image doesn't have any information with it about its copyright status, see. Shouldn't we change it prior the next GA review? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 01:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Discography

Can Hullabaloo be included in the Discography section? I was surprised that it wasn't there and wondered why. It's in the main article Muse Discography so I don't see why it shouldn't be here...--Nick90210 00:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It should not be there since it's not a Studio Albums. All their stuff is in the article you mentioned Nick but it's not under Studio Albums there either. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 18:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines discography as a "List of all of the releases of a certain musical act, usually with release dates, and often with other information about the releases". The Muse discography article also lists Hullabaloo, but separates it from the studio albums -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So now we're going to dump all the albumes, singles etc on the article? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is more complicated than I first thought. Maybe there needs to be more discussion over the definition of "Discography", as the one that M2Ys4U mentioned clearly encapsulates EPs and singles and other releases - which is far too in depth for a small table such as this one. I don't feel like I'm enough of an authority on what should be included as I'm relatively new to this. We should get a consensus on this issue as it affects not only this article but the article of every artist - ever. My thoughts are that it should obviously only include albums - although I'm not sure as to what the term "studio released" covers (maybe someone can enlighten me?). As the Muse Discography article covers all the releases in great detail, the section in the Muse article need not include less notable releases. A good indicator of what should be included in the table is what appears in the discography on the official Muse website - which does include Hullabaloo. The soundtrack also appears in the Albums section in the discography article at Musewiki. I think those two examples are enough backing for keeping Hullabaloo in the discography table on this page. Thoughts?--Nick90210 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. We shouldn't list the whole discography on this article because it's already included in the discography article, but I think that Hullabaloo is notable enough to warrant a mention here. Anyone other than us 3 have an opinion? -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Hullabaloo is added to the discography section. One of the two included CD's contained mostly B-sides and unreleased songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.115.238 (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Notable" covers of Muse songs

I think we should establish come criteria for the notability of the covers. Some band playing it once at some gig, in my opinion, does not qualify as "notable". For example:

• Publication of a covered song on a notable album or as a single
• Where covering the song has made the covering artist notable

I'm not sure what other criteria would be suitable, anyone have any ideas? -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: (Adapted from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Songs#Songs):

A cover is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards:

1. ...has been reported in sufficient independent works.
2. ...has been performed by a notable artist, band or group.
3. ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
4. ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire.
5. ...has won a significant award or honour.

-- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And if there's references. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 18:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Staircase - "Sunburn" live in melbourne" should be removed 'cause they only seem to have played it once, according to the text there, and who's "Staircase" anyways? I've played Muse songs with my band but I haven't added myself there, yet. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I went bold and removed those from bands that do not have coverage on Wikipedia one way or an other. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Or Not?

I was just wondering, are they religous or not? The article says that Matthew Bellamy is interested in theocracy, but it doesn't say whether he is religous or not. If someone finds out, it would make a good addition to the article.Darkcraft 09:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's really important. Muse have produced a few songs about atheism, including one where Bellamy played a church pipe organ. He described the playing of that song (and I'm paraphrasing here) as a dark moment in his life. (source: musewiki somewhere). I'd draw conflicting conclusions about that personally. In any case, if you can't WP:VERIFY it, leave it out. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to some interview I watch he's not religious but doesn't despise religion. But that's information for another article. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bellamy has described himself as an atheist before. 86.137.116.61 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I heard he believed in some higher power, but has issues with orginized religion.

So he's an agnostic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.229.11 (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 

No, that's not how it works. Agnosticism is a type of philosophical uncertainty. If he said doesn't believe in a god, but accepts that he might be wrong - he'd be an agnostic atheist (and vice verse for agnostic theism.)

Distrusting organized religion has nothing to do with a belief in god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.33.127 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to awards

Hi, just thought id mention that Muse won best live act at the Q awards again this year, see http://www2.qawards.co.uk/2007/10/best_live_act_1.html

I'd add it myself except im blocked as a new user :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idcamron (talk • contribs) 06:10, October 10, 2007

Okay mate, I'll add if for you. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Prog

For goodness sake, what makes Muse a progressive rock band? The only progressive song they've ever done is Citizen Erased, really. 86.137.116.61 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly know what prog is. I didn't add it but I see no difference between Citizen Erased and other Muse songs, that is, how their usual sound is. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Muse_(band)/Archive_1#GENRE_dispute for a previous discussion about their genre. In a recent documentary about OoS, there was definite mention of prog by Matt in the interviews. I can't remember what the actual quotes were so my comment will have to remain vague. Their next album, however, is apparently going to be very prog-y so... meh. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know, they are new prog not prog --  61x62x61 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the same Matt Bellamy who thinks that playing Hendrix riffs makes you a good guitarist... Let's face it, he's an ignorant teenybopper who is appealing to the 14-year-old girls. Muse don't have a progressive bone in their bodies. They are pop rock at best. Having just listened to Citizen Erased, all I heard was the same vocal scale he uses in every other song, and he even used a riff used in at least one other song. And the solo was just awful... Just because a song is seven minutes long doesn't mean it's progressive... PloKoon13 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Plokoon, EVERYTHING you have said is wrong. He's a good guitarist because he's original, innovative, blisteringly fast and good at improvisation. He's not ignorant, he is as far removed from a tennybopper as you can get (you clearly don't know what the term means), and the target audience is not 14 year old girls, but his appeal goes deeper into society. If you think Muse aren't progressive you obviously haven't heard their second album. They are not pop rock in the slightest; you have described McFly PERFECTLY, and got everything about Muse totally wrong.

Having just listened to CE myself, you've made another mistake; he uses a different vocal scale from other songs, and different riffs. The solo is actually brilliant, so you're wrong AGAIN.

It's 7 minutes, and it's a progressive song. More importantly, EVERY single thing you have said is completely wrong - so I strongly suggest you do not edit an article on a brilliant band that is too complex for you to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Plokoon either, but I still think that "progressive rock" isn't a fitting genre for Muse. It strongly depends on how you interpret the term "progressive": If you see it as a quality you may be right, but "progressive rock" as a genre is usually seen more narrow by its fans and identified with more "traditional" 70s bands such as Pink Floyd, Rush, Yes, King Crimson etc., and those that more or less follow in their footsteps (and are mostly underground nowadays). And Muse clearly doesn't fall into that category, being a contemporary "alternative mainstream" band. That doesn't make them a bad band, it just means that they don't fit into the genre. I'd see them primarily as a contemporary "alternative rock" band with some "progressive" qualities. I think the term for that is "new prog" or "nu prog". 83.65.213.82 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be accurate to say that Muse is a hard rock band with progressive tendencies. They are not a prog rock band in the definite sense, that they don't put out 15-20 minute musical suites like Yes, Floyd, Jethro Tull used to do in the 70s. At least not yet. There are rumours of a "symphonic monster in 3 parts" coming for the 5th album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.150.3 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard rock? Hardly, in my opinion. If anything, they're an Alternative Rock band with Progressive influences. You could even call them, just simply, rock, because while they have a unique sound, they're really just Rock/Alt Rock with a Prog sound. 70.67.147.88 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Movies section

The line about the song New Born previously said the song was included in the film Switchblade Romance, which is an alternate title of the film Haute Tension. I understand that the movie was released as Switchblade Romance in some countries, but it was also released as High Tension in others. So, I would think referring to the film by the original title (Haute Tension) would be the most accurate thing to do. 134.29.6.7 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I added the movies for new born and I chose to put switchblade romance because thats the UK title and Muse are UK band, but I don't really mind. I don't really think there should be a movies section, but if there is going to be one, it should be complete and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.176.128 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed The bit about Hysteria being in The Matrix, don't know where somebody got that idea from. Hysteria was written in 2002 and The Matrix was released in 1999.

Influence

I think Muse has been influence more by the romantic era rather than the classical era. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Greatest hits...

There isn't going to be a greatest hits album, so it shouldn't be in the article. http://muselive.com/index.php?m=single&id=3436 -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre... again...

Is the any need for including "Rock", in the template, as one of the genres, since Alternative and New Pro are both sub-genres of Rock? Also, Alternative rock is mostly know as Indie in the UK and since the band is UK-ish, and the article as well, should it be changed into Indie? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Muse aren't Indie. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Indie and Alternative the same thing? At least the article Alternative rock says that this genre is known as Indie in the UK. But what about removing rock from the template? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always known then to be seperate, with Indie being attributed to such bands as The Kooks, Razorlight, Kaiser Chiefs etc, and Alt Rock to be stuff like Muse and Foo Fighters. I guess one could say that Indie is a subgenre of Alternative, which is also explored in that article. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Rock is the 'mother genre', so to speak. Muse are still rock IMO. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Muse are still rock, so should the genre rock be added to every template for a band which plays some sub-genre of rock? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know, and as far as this article goes, I don't really mind if Rock is included or not (However, I do object to the label 'indie'). -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I finally got that part about Indie rock, after reading the whole article. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Muse is New prog, Read the first post I made up there In the Genre..... The one before this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New Prog is already listed in the infobox :) -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excactly which proves my point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Muse aren't progressive. Their music (as is even more evident with the most recent album) is directed more at a teenage crowd and a chart-loving crowd. Thus, it is pop rock. Calling Muse progressive is like calling The Foo Fighters progressive. Show me any progressive, or new grounds they have covered with their music and then they will be progressive. All I have heard is your bog-standard six-minute-at-most pop rock songs. PloKoon13 (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In Other Media

A lot of the information in the In Other Media section seems to be WP:TRIVIAl and attracting mention every single time a muse track is featured anywhere in other media. I suggest converting some the items into prose in the main sections of the article and removing the rest, unless they are distinctly notable. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion? If not I'll remove the section after the weekend. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 09:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Book as nobody has asserted notability. Indeed, there was a significant edit that included weasel words so I thought it was best to delete it.-- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And the same for the TV entry. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 20:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Are the entries about the Dior commercial and Gran Turismo notable? I certainly think not... -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the non-notable crap, and merged the rest into the main article prose. The section was just a magnet for NN cruft. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 13:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vocals

The intro says that Dom does backing vocals. He can't sing, can he? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dom sings live during 'Supermassive Black Hole', and he also sang the "ba-da" bits of 'can't take my eyes off you'. Apart from that he never sings because he can't sing in tune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.254.114 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that really counts. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking into a microphone technically counts as vocals. Mind you, I didn't say "good vocals." 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Dom not sing in Blackout too?--Domooo (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal?!?

How are Muse heavy metal? Examples of heavy metal bands, taken from the article itself, are Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Motörhead, Metallica, Ozzy Osbourne, DIO and Kiss. There is no resemblance between Muse and the bands I mentioned. Have Muse ever said they were heavy metal? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal often includes "Guitarists use sweep picking, tapping, and other advanced techniques for rapid playing, and many styles of metal emphasize virtuosic displays." do Muse ever sweep pick, no they don't. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweep pick no, but Matthew Bellamy does do two hand tapping in "Invincible." When I heard the CD first, I assumed the effect on the solo was some sort of sequencer or other trickery...but on the HAARP DVD, it is clearly shown to be two hand tapping. Also, the lead up to the solo in "Invincible" features a metalesque section reminicient of the music from the "Burly Brawl" scene in the Matrix Reloaded. Additionally, the song "Assassin," as well as the riffs in "Exo-politics" and the last 1/3 of "Take a Bow" are very much heavy metal, IMO. Also, "Knights of Cydonia" is done in a very old-school Iron Maiden heavy metal vein, with the galloping guitars and bass, as well as the Nikko McBrain-esque drumming. Matt Bellamy works the whammy bar in a very metal way in that song as well. Let's put it this way: many bands that are called heavy metal (Ratt, Whitesnake, Warrant, for example), are not half as heavy as these examples I have cited. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing to add...when the intro section of "Knights of Cydonia" is repeated about halfway through the song, I can almost hear Bruce Dickinson saying, "Scream for me Long Beach, SCREAM for me Long Beach!!" That alone makes it Maiden-esque to me, as well as the galloping rhythm. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock?!?

How are Muse hard rock? Examples of hard rock bands, taken from the article itself, are White Zombie, The Darkness, Velvet Revolver and Guns N' Roses. There is little or no resemblance between Muse and the bands I mentioned. Have Muse ever said they were hard rock? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but how many Muse songs have you listened to? Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, and Funk Rock abound. I wouldn't call White Zombie hard rock, I would call it metal, due to the lyrical content and dark presentation. Anyways, the Muse album Black Holes and Revelations is chock-full of Hard Rock, Metal, and Funk Rock, as well as a little bit of dance/techno, hawaiian jazz, and classical piano. Like one of their biggest influences, Queen, Muse will use a genre like metal sparingly...to make a point in a song. So, no, perhaps not all of a song will be in one genre. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is it?

The article says Muse play Progessive rock but the template says New Progressive rock, which is it? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Length? Unnecessary detail

This article seems a bit long and there are too many unnecessary details,

e.g. "In 2006, Muse announced that they were to release a new album (produced again by Rich Costey) titled Black Holes and Revelations. The album leaked onto the Internet on June 7. The album was released officially in Europe on July 3, 2006 and in North America on July 11, 2006. It was released to the Japanese market on June 28, 2006. The Japanese edition included an extra track, "Glorious", which is only available globally as the b-side to the "Invincible" vinyl."

Is it really essential information to know that the album leaked on June 7 and that the japanese edition included a bonus track. This information can be included on the album/discography page; the band page should include only important information. Stanlavisbad (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think whoever wrote that wanted to extend the article but didn't have much to say. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of how recentism spoils an article. The content in this paragraph was added when all that fans knew was that there would be an album and then that it had been leaked, and so on. It's starting to look a little neater now but it still has a way to go. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph can be shortened, but the information about the track 'Glorious' should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.115.238 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold

• rock band - I'm sure you can be more specific (eg. new prog band)

The lead genre reference has been a constant source of debate which is why the generic "rock" is there, but more specific detail is listed in the infobox. Besides, the lead goes on to explain what genres they fuse together to form new prog... -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine then. I should probably read the talk page first :S Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• You should reference either everything or nothing in the lead - not a mixture.
• "Formation and early years (1992-1997)" - first paragraph unsourced. Also, the past members noted there should be listed in the infobox (using the past_members parameter, I think)
• "Interestingly, Bellamy's father, George, was the rhythm guitarist in The Tornados, who were the first English band to have a U.S. number one, with "Telstar"." - What's that got to do with Muse?

 Done.

• "The band had a significant meeting with Dennis Smith, the owner of Sawmills, a recording studio in a converted water mill in Cornwall." - ref needed
• First 3 paras of "First EPs and Showbiz (1998-2000)" unsourced
• Same with the last para of that section
• "Their second album was Origin of Symmetry, again produced by Leckie." -merge this into a paragraph

 Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 6 has two external links, you only need one

 Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 10:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "This album was described by Neha Nimmagudda" - change "this" to "the". And who is Neha Nimmagudda??

 Done. Couldn't find a source anywhere so I axed the quote.-- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 7 and 8 need publisher info etc.

 Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The album might have led to Muse" - this needs numerous citations (for the "might have")
• "Muse decided to release a live CD and DVD" - Ref?
• "while maintaining a sense of the band as a three-piece. - possible POV statements like this need refs
• "The song "Ruled By Secrecy", for example, takes its title from the Jim Marrs book Rule By Secrecy about the secrets behind the way major governments are run." - another ref needed
• "The band played at the Glastonbury festival in June 2004..." - quotes in this paragraph need refs
• "Muse continued their tour..." - refs needed for awards and stuff in this paragraph
• "did not endorse the release." - ref needed
• Ref 13; is MuseWiki a reliable source? [1] contains some other sources which you could use instead...

I found this but the gallery might well require a login - will try later Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Absolution eventually went gold in the US." - ref?

 Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• First 2 paras of "Black Holes and Revelations (2006-2007)" section unsourced

 Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 11:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Starlight (song) is a GA (my work! :D), you might find some more sources/useful info there
• "the latest installment to the increasingly popular Guitar Hero series of rock music simulation video games." - NPOV statement, not really needed

 Done.

• "in August 2006[16]. " - ref after full stop

 Done. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Make sure all refs have publisher info

 Done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fix redlinks in "Awards" section, and source all awards

Redlinks  Done, sourcing  Not done -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talk page when you're done. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, sourcing still not done. I'll fail it for now, bug me when you get around to it :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Interview

Just a contribution. I'm not going to go and edit the entry myself, but some of you Wiki gurus can go ahead:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a85297/muse-new-lp-may-be-50-minute-symphony.html

It's not exactly hard evidence of anything new, but it is pertinent to the "Next studio sessions" section of the entry, and in my mind should at least be mentioned.

Triple J award

Unless there is a biography of Muse which cites the Triple J award as a significant milestone for Muse, please don't readd it. It is an award for one of their songs, with an article where that award belongs - the band as a whole have far too many accolades for this to be relevant. The fact that it is their most recent award makes no difference to its importance. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, and if anyone's interested, here's a cite: [2]. How goes the GA stuff? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there is a lot of useless information in the "Black Holes and Revelations (2006-2007)" section. There's no need to enumerate the datas of every video that came out or CD, that's for the Muse discography article. There isn't really anything valuable in that section. Nothing really notable. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Members

When live they usually use an extra member, on keyboards, anyone know who this is, or if it's the same guy all the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.190.102 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's Morgan Nicholls, he's pretty much a permanent temporary member -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

What is it that needs to be sourced? Do we have to source all the awards? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, along with the other stuff that was picked up in the GA review -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds hard. I tried looking for some sources on the awards. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I sourced most of the ones that have refs at the moment :P -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 13:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of founding

It was 1994, not 1997. The band were named "Rocket Baby Dolls" as a concept for one battle of the bands inside the Broadmeadow Sports Centre. They named themselves Muse sometime before the end of March, in which they played at Dawlish Sports centre accompanying a roller-disco. Matthew Bellamy once said that they renamed "about" a year afterwards, but that was a misrecollection as it contrasts with all the other recollections by the band's members.

Any objections? --Tene (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We want proof, and lots of citations. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, call me an idiot, but I believe you. And so I changed this on every single Wikipedia, hehehe. MuseWiki says 1994 so it's gotta be true. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New album

Sorry im no Wikipedia editor, but new info has come to light on the new album and muses 2008 plans. http://www.xfm.co.uk/muse-talk-supermassive-ufos

Triple J Award -Reply

The Triple J Hottest 100 is the worlds largest "best song" countdown listing that is voted on entirely by the listening public. As such, the number one song award for 2007 for Knights of Cydonia (awarded Jan 08) should be listed in the Awards section. Although not a recording industry award like a Grammy, the Hottest 100 is a bigger and better reflection of the bands status in Australia than Australia's grammy equivalent - the ARIA.

203.1.21.12 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Chris Lamb, Australia 13/03/08

H.A.A.R.P

Can someone tell me why its called HAARP please? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.122.143 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

     Check out the HAARP page on wikipedia ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.128 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

Well, there is a picture of the HAARP complex in Alaska on the inside of the booklet to Black Holes and Revelations, beside the lyrics to "Exo-politics," I believe. A mock-up of the HAARP antennas are seen onstage with the band in the HAARP DVD as well. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Members and instruments

I think it's best to only enumerate the instruments the members play in studio, in the intro of the article and leave the details to the members section. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris does the backing vocals in the studio and I think Matt only do the piano not the keyboards on studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.242.192 (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to a song with Chris's vocals? Why wouldn't Matt do the piano on the albums? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Supermassive black hole, sing for absolution, map of the problematique, plug in baby and I'm sure there are more. Matt plays the piano on the albums, but he doesn't play the keyboards on the albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.242.192 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you're messing with me. I can't hear anything on "Sing For Absolution" and in "Plug In Baby", there's just one voice, no backing vocals, so where does Chris fit into the picture? I don't know about "Supermassive Black Hole". It's possible that he does the electronic voice or something. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, just checked MuseWiki, it's Dom. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, chris does this line on supermassive:

Glaciers melting in the dead of night
And the superstar's sucked into the supermassive

and the repeating line of 'supermassive black hole' at the end of the song. I was wrong about sing for absolution & plug in baby, it was matt who sing the song entirely. 69.118.242.192 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Style

Having a style section is great but isn't the current one quite poorly written? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that it sounded like it was written by a member of the Church of Bellamy... :/ Seriously, there are two other people in the band who aren't Matthew Bellamy, and they make big contributions to the overall sound of Muse too. 68.221.217.141 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it's folly to assume that "style" refers to only the sound and timbre of the band - compositional style is a massive part of the music, and it'd be a little shortsighted to miss that out when they sound like, as one reviewer put it brilliantly once, "Rachmaninoff against the Machine." C'mon, The Small Print's melody is Liszt's Liebesträume No. 3 in A Flat Major, for the love of Beethoven. 86.8.76.216 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Newton Abbot Demo?

Recently, an old muse demo from 1997 was sold on ebay to members of muselive.com, it featured many previously unheard songs and older versions of songs appearing on later albums. This is indeed significant, but do we place it in the early years section, or the Black holes and revelations section since this is when it was uncovered? JAK2112 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fifth Muse album PROD

I've PROD'd Fifth Muse album for the following reason:

• Work has only just started on this album, as of yet it's not notable. Even the band don't know what it's going to be yet,[1] so Wikipedia shouldn't either

Posting here for wider discussion. Place discussion @ Talk:Fifth Muse album. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

A few of the external links - Last.fm, Open Directory Project, MusicBrainz - to Muse's user pages were removed. Was that in some way offically approved or a one man's decision? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Album Art

It is also a very notable point that the artwork for the albums, "Absolution," and, "Black Holes and Revelations," and the single, "Butterflies and Hurricanes," was done by Storm Thorgerson. Thorgerson is the visionary graphic designer who concieved the album cover for Pink Floyd's, "Dark Side of the Moon," (arguably one of the greatest album covers of all time), amoung countless other works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.208.248 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Vocal style

I've removed the thing that says Matt sounds like Zack de la Rocha because, well, frankly, it was really stupid. They sound nothing like each other; I've yet to hear Zack sing or Matt rap. I've replaced it with "Jeff Buckley", who Matt ACTUALLY sounds like. Charlycrash (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Plurality of Muse

Why is this article written as if Muse is plural? Actually, I notice that some band articles on Wikipedia (e.g., Linkin Park, Metallica, Megadeth, Shinedown) treat the band name as singular (e.g., using "is") and other band articles (e.g., Muse, The Who, Smashing Pumpkins) treat the band name as plural (e.g., using "are"). Personally, I think a band name is singular, but I may be wrong, so I would like to find out what the English language says about such things before I get the idea of changing anything. Rktur (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is written in British English, which treats band names as plural, as opposed to American English, which treats them as singular. In the case of The Smashing Pumpkins, it's probably because of "pumpkins" being plural. Jamesr66a (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out already, surely the opening line (commented with < !-- DO NOT CHANGE "are" to "is" without discussing first on the talk page, or it will be reverted back quickly.-- >) should be 'is' as Muse is a band, one band, one idea, one collective, singular, therefore 'Muse is an English rock band...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlydavewilliams (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 05:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

i totally agree on that.. a band is singular...shouldnt it be Muse is???talk

i just have to say, i am usually fine with british english and all, but a singular name being treated as a plural really makes me twitch. its almost as bad as using "an" instead of "a" before h words like history. the h is not silent, and muse is a singular entity made up of three people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.12.119 (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

'Muse' is a collective noun, so referring to it as plural is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.129.58 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Genres

There have been a few edits recently on the genres of the band. As I write this, currently there are rock, alternative rock and progressive rock. Pop rock is one that has been there a few times. Now for my opinion...

Rock should obviously stay; it's a general umbrella classification like pop, country or jazz. Alternative rock should stay, as should progressive rock. Muse have been described as new prog so that could come in somewhere possibly. Pop rock, I don't think should be there. Anymore for anymore? Andre666 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the three you've highlighted should stay, although the argument is over prog rock. I don't see anything wrong with this, NME (don't know if this counts as a reliable source) has described some of Muse's songs as prog. Can a reliable source be found saying Muse aren't progressive? Without sources, PloKoon13's arguments are POV which has no place in the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One always has to be careful with genres on Wikipedia. Personally, (our personal opinions count for nothing, by the way) Muse really aren't Pop rock. The genres Andre highlighted above are great; Rock, alternative rock, and progressive rock. NME is a reliable source so that's okay. All music guide is not a reliable source, so we can't trust that one. Neither their Myspace or official site offer us anything (that I can see) about their genres. Generally, if we can decide on the above 3 genres here then we're okay via consensus. But if there is no consensus on their genres then 'Rock' would take precedent and be the only genre in the field. Per this, we should aim for generality. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The band's official MySpace page actually lists alternative, progressive and rock as their genres. The skin hides it but you can see the proof on your browser window. "MySpace.com - MUSE - UK - Alternative / Progressive / Rock - www.myspace.com/muse"... proof enough I think. Andre666 (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Definitely. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So just because an egocentric band say they're progressive means they're progressive? :S If they told you they were Japanese Rap or the Pope would you believe them? PloKoon13 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It helps, yes, but it's not definitive. What is are the third party reliable sources that have been provided supporting their claim. Can you point us in the direction of some saying they aren't? Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First party takes precedence over 3rd party. !st party comes straight from the item in question, 3rd party is accountable to POV, the MCR genre is a great example. They say they are not emo, and that overrules what others say. We can probably skip the progressive part though.--Jakezing (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go for what Muse say. Since I don't remember anybody notable challenging Muse's genres. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't listing Muse under new prog kind of make the inclusion of progressive rock in the genre box redundant? Obviously if they're new prog they're also going to be progressive rock. Also, it seems that metal has somehow come to be listed, which is of course ludicrous as I don't think anyone would argue Muse as being metal...bob rulz (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They have a lot of uses of Electronic elements.(just like radio hed)I thought maybe the genre should contain Electronic music as does Radiohead's.And I agree they are not much a pop rock band but some of their songs(for example many songs in Black Holes and Revelations retail ) does sound very pop rock and even Dance Electronic Music.Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support your assertion? Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes.I have a source for electronica.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't the picture in the infobox at the top of the page have the whole band in it? Or have I been asleep for a week and missed the news that Bellamy left? Cadan ap Tomos 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was the one who changed it. I changed it because the previous image was a terrible, dark, grainy thing that only actually showed two of the band members (the drummer being obscured by the drumkit) and even then they were only just visible. I think a good image of two of them is better than a really crap image that is of two band members + 1 instrument. Just my $0.02. Please feel free to suggest a better alternative. naerii 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aight, I'm working on making an image like the one in Radiohead instead. naerii 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead influences

Radiohead has not influenced Muse. It's just something people used to say about most new bands in those days. If you played rock, you'd be copying Radiohead. [3]. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Muse sound and always have sounded exactly like Radiohead during their OK Computer period. It's a shame Radiohead couldn't have made more albums in this style, rather than the off-the-wall stuff that followed this great album.

Semi-protection

This page really should be semi-protected. When you can look at the revision history and 4/5 of it are vandals and reversions to vandalism, it's time to lock the article. Anyone disagree? KhalfaniKhaldun 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have had this article protected round 4 times, personally. It's completely intolerable. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've recently requested page protection again, since the last one was only a couple weeks, and clearly it didn't take long for the vandalism to start up again. If anyone would like to second this nomination, or maybe suggest it be upgraded to an indefinite semi-protection, please feel free to add a comment on the requests for protection page. KhalfaniKhaldun 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Twilight movie

I think reference needs to be made to how much Muse's songs have influenced Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series, and the fact that the song Supermassive Black Hole is going to be included on the first movie's soundtrack and in the movie as well. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 10:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this because if we list one movie which has a muse song in it shouldn't we list them all? There actually was a section with all the movies/tv shows which included muse music but it got removed a while ago. Wouldn't it be better if this was on the twilight page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.188.197 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that Stephenie constantly mentions Muse and how she thanks them. :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.143.48 (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely that would be more relevant to her article than to the Muse article? Beve (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference

Reference 5 has been vandalised: "^ a b "Muse", nme!, twats" While I wholeheartedly agree that the NME are twats, it probably should be changed back. 93.97.113.147 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it's now been corrected. Unfortunately that vandalism has been there since early September. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Progressive metal...

I believe that muse draw quite a bit of influence from the progressive metal genre; if we look at prog metal bands such as Dream Theater, we can tell that they have been influenced, and vice-versa. I think progressive metal is certainly a genre which muse incorporate: there are certainly songs which i'd class as metal (stockholm syndrome for example), and such songs also have very progressive tendancies. What do you all think? I reckon it should certainly be listed as a genre on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craggus (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to understand where you're coming from, since progressive metal has a good bit of its roots in progressive rock, but I don't think occasionally adding a little bit of metal to one or two songs is reason enough to consider Muse a progressive metal band. I say leave it off the genre list. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Video Game Appearances

Should this section be deleted? There has already been discussion on leaving out mention of a song in the film Twilight. Why should mention of their songs in games be any different? Dark verdant (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably. BEVE (talk)  14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the section on video game appearances. I do not think it is encyclopaedic or adds to the article. I was waiting in hope of getting more people discussion this item but no one else has replied. Sorry if I should not have done this but if we cannot list appearances of Muse songs in films like Twilight then we shouldn't on games either. Please note I am not asking for mention of Twilight to be added to the article, I don't think this information adds anything to the article. Dark verdant (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find most editors in agreement with you. I didn't reply to your original comment because frankly I had nothing to add. It shouldn't be in the article. The end. =/ KhalfaniKhaldun 16:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Track Listing

I have noticed the track listing coming and going for the upcoming album. Thought it best to bring it up here before an edit war starts. Should this information be there, I don't see a track list for the other albums.Dark verdant (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article states that on the Muse website, 'United States of Eurasia' despite having all six parts unlocked, is still incomplete as the track lasting describes the song as over 5 minutes long. This however is only due to the addition of 'Collateral Damage' on the album. --BlackandWhiteBoxedShirt (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

honorary degrees

I hope nobody minds but i inserted a note about their degrees which were awarded to them for their contribution to music. I'm sure its mentioned alos in the BBC site so if anyone wants to add further references.Oliviateacher (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I reworked your contribution a bit and added an extra source with the correct date they received their degrees and I removed the unnecessary header. Hans (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifics on their formation

In the recent Q Music Magazine interview with Muse, it told that Dom first formed the band called 'Gothic Plague'. Differing from what's been written in their formation section, it also quoted from Dom that "My band was cooler and so Matt left his to join me" (Matt's band at the time being called Carnage Mayhem). Whether this was just Dom boasting or not I don't know, but there was no mention of auditions for Matt's placement in the band. Plus the source given in that article saying so is broken. Anyway, the interview in Q then goes on to say that when Matt suggested Gothic Plague wrote their own songs, the other band members left. Somewhere along the line Chris then joined, but it doesn't state how. Anyway, hope there's maybe a way you can use this, afterall, when I read an article on a band, I want to know everything! And this is from the horses mouths ;D -- SamuelEllmer (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Muse: A Seaside Rendezvous

Muse: A Seaside Rendezvous is a BBC TV programme about their recent concerts in their home town. Official page Open4D (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible move?

I believe this article should be moved to Muse, and the article currently there could be moved to Muse (mythology), with a note at the top of the page linking to it. I think more people look for this article than t'other, and such a thing has been done before (Iron Maiden, Iron maiden (torture)). Andre666 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Muse are clearly a famous band, but the Muses are also very well known. I think you may be underestimating how many people are looking for the goddesses, although there are no straightforward stats. In June 2009, Muse received ~125,000 views, and in August 2009 it got ~175,000, an increase of about 40%. In June 2009 the Muse (band) article got ~235,000 views and in August 2009 it got ~375,000, an increase of about 60%. While it's clear that many people expect the band to be at Muse, but since the increase was not actually as big as for the band's article, I think there's a significant number of people looking for the goddesses. Perhaps keep Muse (band) in the same place and move Muse to Muse (mythology) with Muse (disambiguation) filling in the vacant Muse slot? Nev1 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)