Talk:924 Gilman Street
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Bringing the mosh?" Is this encyclopedic language to make a violent sadist government thug and his Nazi six-on-one-what-a-man friends sound hip or something? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Official business name of the all-ages, non-profit, collectively organized music club usually referred to by its fans as simply "Gilman".
This sounds pretty POV. Is there another way we could say this? Newguineafan 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- It does sound a little "marketing brochure," but if it's true, which I believe it is, then it's NPOV enough for my tastes. --Andy M. 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
how about Jello Biafra getting both his legs broken when appearing there?
- The anonymous one speaks the truth: Jello Biafra did get jumped there. Matt Gies 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No LA Bands?
Just reading their calendar you can see that they do often book LA groups.
- Yeah I saw Mika Miko there two months ago and Child Pornography and Erebrus Nix n Stix (who are from Riverside and Los Angeles are playing there in May. This article seems really POV to me and needs a lot of grammar/syntax cleanup.
hotdiggitydogs 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Riverside is not Los Angeles, and inhabitants of both would admit clear and substantial differences. Both are in Southern California, however. Considering Riverside and Los Angeles to be the same would be like saying that Sacramento and San Francisco are the same.
- I would agree (I grew up in Riverside and have spent a lot of time in Los Angeles), but my comment was directed at the article's claim that Gilman doesn't book bands from LA/Southern California in general. Also if you want to discuss the difference btwn Riverside and LA I'd say if anything Riverside is a thousand times worse for propogating culture which goes against Gilman's intents (i.e. nonracist, non homophobic, etc) hotdiggitydogs 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- I just removed the bit about not booking L.A. bands since it's not cited and their calender lists quite a few groups from L.A. The Ungovernable Force 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Jello was NOT attacked, at gilman. He has addmited since that the whole thing was blown out of proportion. I have talked to Spider, one of the guys involved and he had said at the time it was an accedent.
Removing category for anarchist organizations. As far as I know they are merely DIY, and although anarchists probably play some role in both maintaining and playing there, I don't think Gilman can be considered and anarchist organization. Any objections? The Ungovernable Force 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
my band played there and we loved it everyone is so friendly everyone there has so much talent
i have a few camera phone pictures i took (i am willing to put them under creative commons) of the interior with a crowd. I can arrange to take a proper picture of the front later if desired. Barakplasma 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Gilman was torn down.
I've heard that the 924 Gilman Street Project was torn down, but I don't know why. Maybe, since it was/is non-profit and run on donations and volunteers, maybe they couldn't get enough people to volunteer to help out and people weren't giving donations. The building was already pretty old and run down when a bunch of kids restored it, and after they started booking bands and getting crowds, it got even more run down. Those kids restored and turned it into Gilman way back in the day, anyway, and probably the only way they could keep it running without the police stopping them was to keep it safe, and maybe things got out of hand or dsomething and they were forced to stop using it as a club. Maybe something else was built on the exact same spot where Gilman was, but I don't know.I've never been there, but I have seen pictures of it and read things about it in books and on the Internet. Nothing I said about what the reasons for tearing down the Gilman might have been are for sure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) .
- Um, I doubt it. They're website doesn't say anything about that. The Ungovernable Force 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, don't think so. I live in the bay area and I just called their phone number two days ago. What makes you think that is the case? It is definitely NOT true. hotdiggitydogs 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it was their idea of a joke. The Ungovernable Force 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was there last night (20 Jan 2007) so I'd say it's safe to say it has not been torn down.
it says that bands like rancid and NOFX are banned, but since when have they been part of a major label? unless you consider epitaph a major label...Itachi1452 14:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
the mentioning of NoFX has been removed, and Rancid indeed are on Warner Brothers now.
This page is horrible. There's a much better history, and as far as I can see, pretty accurate, of Gilman st on this page: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=924%20Gilman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GEICOCaveMan (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Green Day in 2003?
I highly doubt that Green Day was allowed to play in 2003. It goes against all their ideology and becuase their is no cited evidence I am removing this from the page.
I heard they did too...
They did play there..I put it in the article with a link to a DVD of the performance. It was in 2001 though.
In an interview for the Green Day biography Nobody Likes You by Marc Spitz, somebody said that Billie used to see shows at Gilman after Green Day was "exiled", if you will, from Gilman, disguised with a beard because he was so ashamed and he didn't want anybody bugging him and calling him a sell-out.
--Punkbassist 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)punkbassist
- I used to go to Gilman in 90-91 and people didn't like Green Day even before they got signed. They had attitude problems and their music was more like pop than any other band that played there. Technically they weren't sellouts because they played the same exact kind of music even before they got signed.Crescentia 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
924 Gilman: The Story So Far, Review
As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and if an editor wishes to post a link to ir, or just quote it as a source on the book section of the page, please do. I appreciate your time. 2008
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The three rules
Although this is actually four rules, in the punk rock scene "three" is used interchangeably with "four," with four only substituting for three in cases of extreme emergency.
I'm not from the punk scene, so I don't know much about this. The sentence is extremely unclear for me. Which one does not exist in the set of "three" and what types of emergencies are we talking about? Situtations of crowd chaos, dealing with authority, etc? I would remove this sentence, unless it can link to another wikipedia article for clarification. jlam (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"Influential bands" section
I removed an unwieldy section of the article that listed band names:
Mainly since it was collecting a ton of non-notable cruft and Wikipedia is not a directory. If anyone wants to work some of the more notable bands back into the article with sources, go for it. In general, this article is really hurting for sources to verify its claims. czar · · 00:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I've heard that even Anal Cunt has performed there I do not know if they have. Even Crossed Out, Dropdead, etc, have.