Talk:Gnarls Barkley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Amateur Reviews[edit]

Since when was wikipedia a site for amateur reviews. I'm taking it out. --Gantlord 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing your an adolescent, why else would you make thoughtless comments rather than placing your own oppinion. Unless you have come here to cause an arguement, which i will need to report you if so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.163.82 (talkcontribs) .

What Gantlord did was absolutely correct. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If he hadn't removed it, I had. --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Fritz, I'm glad you've stepped in here. I don't understand why this could be interpreted as "starting an argument". There is no emotion nor even opinion in my original post. The only thing anyone could rightly complain about is the fact that I carelessly omitted a question mark in my original post. I chose to explain what I had done when I could just have edited it out without comment. I do not appreciate being threatened with the wikiPolice for choosing to uphold the most central of tenets of wikipedia, namely that material appearing in it should be derived from reputable sources exterior to wikipedia. The thought has just occurred to me that it is only my posting etiquette and not my actions in editing the original article to which you object. If that is the case then I only wish you could have pointed out this minor slip in wikipedia etiquette is a more reasonable manner. To start threatening to report me on the strength of this seems excessive. I am not an adolescent, I am a professional who really should be working right now. As you have threatened me in your post, I'll make a little threat of my own, made to no-one in particular. The next time I feel I have to take 20 minutes out of my working day to defend myself over a 30 second edit will be the last time I ever participate in this little project. One more imperfect editor with the best of intentions will have fled wikipedia's growing cabal of self-serving pedants. --Gantlord 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fritz i will be more explicit, the message i wrote was meant to be a view that Gnarls Barkley will become the biggest selling artist of 2006. Im sorry if my message had the wrong connotations, but my comment was not meant to be judged as a "original thought" but rather stating what i feel is becomming obvious (4 weeks atop UK charts). Best intentions intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.152.203 (talkcontribs) .

This actually had nothing to do with your comment here on the talk page (I assume it was you who added the comment at the top), but with this edit to the article by 81.97.40.195, which Gantlord removed. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i guess we all make mistakes just i thought he aimed the "amatuer review" comment at me. Apologies all round.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.152.203 (talkcontribs) .

Yeah, I'll sit down now too... :-) --Gantlord 11:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Barkley[edit]

Not a reference to Charles Barkley? Seems highly unlikely. --Richy 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

of course it is, but there's no meaning behind it... they don't sing about dogs who play basketball, for example. -209.174.140.100 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


I've heard that the name is pronounced "Charles Barkley," exactly like the basketball player's name. If that can be confirmed as true, a small footnote indicating that would be helpful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.68.237 (talkcontribs) .

Nope, that's wrong. It's more like "Narls" or even "Niles". --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the bands name has nothing to do with the basketball player and may be a reference to a tree, or something of the like - Gnarls as in gnarls/knots on a tree and Barkly as in the bark. --58.178.80.57 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Added it in, as confirmed on MTV news (was a verbal offline reference, though). Drdr1989 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again, as the band denied it being conected to Charles Barkley both in the Observer Music Monthly interview quoted in the article, and in the New York Times interview.[1][2] --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that the band didn't deny it. I just stated that it was a pun on Charles' name - which, duh, it is. The band can deny all they want, but a normal mind can read through the fine (or in this case, very conspicuous) print. Even Charles is already flattered with the use [3]. Nonetheless, I didn't put the pun deal back on, since leaving it off won't change the pun issue. Drdr1989 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed it as I felt it contradicted the part in the Career section (and because Trivia sections should be avoided)... How about we put the whole name thing in a seperate section, along with a note about its origin (from the NY Times) and Barkley's reaction? --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a great idea, especially since alot of fans inquire about Charles-Gnarls thing. Drdr1989 19:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

it is a pun, in the article they refer to prince gnarls, and bob gnarly. prince charles, bob marley. end of discussion. they are not connected in any way to charles barkley.

I can't image how that POSSIBLY implies no connection with Charles Barkley. All it implies is that they ALMOST had a connection to Prince Charles or Bob Marley. If it's a pun, that's a freaking connection. Dabizi 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"The similarities between their name directly references to Hall of Fame basketball player Charles Barkley as stated by the band."

Regardless of its veracity, this is a bad sentence. The subject (similarities) doesn't match the verb (references). Also, if you are going to say "between their name" you need to say between their name and what, like "and that of Charles Barkley". Also, it wouldn't really be the similarities that reference the name Charles Barkley, but the name Gnarls Barkley which references it. The similarities are the way by which the reference is made. The "to" is also redundant when using "reference" as a verb. I'm not going to edit this since I'm not in on this argument and will probably never come back to this page. But if it does belong, I would just say something simple like "As stated by the band, their name directly references Charles Barkley."--Lf1033 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are credible resources that confirm the fact that the name "Gnarls Barkley" has nothing to do with the basketball player Charles Barkley. CeeLo and Danger Mouse did an interview with Esquire Magazine (I have inserted it as a citation in the article), that states that the band name has nothing to do with Charles, or anything for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slappadabass (talkcontribs) 19:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If it makes 7 weeks[edit]

If Gnarls Barkley make Number 1 for a 7th week they make chart history as only 39 other artists have ever made 7 consecutive weeks running.(Within England) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.163.114 (talkcontribs) .

Coming up page[edit]

my space has a list of their upcoming appearances - Conan show! any one want to list them here? Extremeweb 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid having too much information about upcoming appearances. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
An offical announcement (and considering how closely they work with Myspace, it's official enough) that something will happen is not speculation or divination, the crystal ball rule doesn't apply. Whether it's info too trivial to put on the page is another matter, they're bound to do a ton of more performance in the future and advertising tour dates doesn't seem encyclopedic. hateless 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblot test[edit]

I'm not really a big fan of R&B, but when I saw the video for "Crazy", I was amazed by the Rorschach inkblot test effects that were in the video. I'm dissappointed that eMpTyV never listed who produced or directed the video. Who is responsible for creating such an astounding video? --Bushido Hacks 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Hales. See Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song). --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Hooray. Could someone revert it to the previous version?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.57.42.230 (talkcontribs) .</small

seriously, im pissed!

Costume Gimmick[edit]

I think that costume thing they do should be mentioned on here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.122.86 (talkcontribs) .

Picture[edit]

I dont think a pic of them dressed up as Clockwork Orange peeps should be at the top. Its not reprasentative of them, in general. -- 130.216.191.184 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the most spread publicity shot of them and as such is the image with the best fair use claim. So unless we find a free image I think we should stick with this one. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Crazy" and UK singles chart[edit]

All that stuff about "Crazy" being deleted, dropping off the chart from number five, the UK singles chart rules, etc., etc...... very interesting reading indeed but I'm wondering if it should instead be moved to the "Crazy" article and/or the "UK singles chart" article? Seems like most of the article that is supposed to be about this band is instead discussing intricate UK singles chart rules. Any opinions? -- eo 12:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The bit about why the regulations were changed should definitely be moved to the UK Singles Chart article (and sourced by the way), as it is not really about the band or the song. Much of "Crazy"'s charts performance is already included in the "Crazy" article, so I think that bit could be tweaked in this article as well. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As the writer of "all that stuff about "Crazy" being deleted, dropping off the chart from number five etc." although I think there is a valid point to be made about how "Crazy" gained from one chart rule change and later suffered from another, I agree that the article was becoming a bit top-heavy with it and that it should be condensed or moved. Am working on it. (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so please bear with me!)

Although this is not really the right forum for discussing it, there is a wider issue here. As the chart becomes subject to more and more tweaks in the rules about what can and can't be included, so it becomes an increasingly inaccurate reflection of how songs are really selling, which must surely diminish the chart's integrity. As someone who has followed the charts, pored over statistics and tried to be fairly well informed about the music scene for nearly four decades, regarding it as a labour of love for most of the time, I view the current manipulation of the chart with mounting dismay. After years of critics trying to tell us what we should and shouldn't like, now we have industry bigwigs and retailers dictating to the chart compilers what discs to include and omit, regardless of sales. And there have been one or two spectacular shootings in the foot - at the time of the eighteen Elvis re-issues early last year, the first one came in a presentation box designed to hold all the others as well, which made it ineligible for the chart (WHY?) So when industry figures publicly speculated "will Elvis have eighteen number ones this year?" were they aware that chart rules had already prevented that from happening, even before the first discs hit the shops? Any comments (friendly ones please!)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.211.169 (talkcontribs) .

Charts[edit]

Crazy was also number 1 in Switzerland and New Zealand Bobo6balde66 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put it in the article. Ras Billy I 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Excessive chart table[edit]

Any objections to cutting down the chart positions table in the discography? It is getting really large and all the information can be found in the single articles. I think we should just keep a few (I'd suggest U.S., UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada) and add something like "For detailed chart listings, see single articles". Wikipedia:Featured Music Project also suggests that "if the performers have charted in many countries, consider splitting off more detailed information to an appropriate subarticle;" --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We don't need so much info for each single here.... So far the two songs have their own articles, there's nothing wrong with moving all the chart info/countries. As they release more singles, that table's gonna get a bit overwhelming. -- eo 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy sounds incredibly like Moby[edit]

Is there any connection?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgr94 (talkcontribs) .

No, not as far as I know. -- eo 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


what is this song really about??? what is the meaning?? --216.189.182.64 06:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

well. read the lyrics, you'll understand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.164.227.242 (talkcontribs) .
Songs don't have meanings, there just a bunch of words put together and stuff. Canderra 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Canderra, that's like saying your sentence has no meaning because it's just a bunch of words put together and stuff. Jowan2005
In all seriousness, Green has stated in an interview along with Danger Mouse that much of what they've produced in fact has no meaning, or at least no formula, that supports any kind of deeper connections than what is literally stated in the song. Blackwallswhite 22:13, 31 March 2016

Gnarls Barkley is not a Hip Hop group[edit]

Stop putting it in this category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.164.227.242 (talkcontribs) .

actually they are, experimental Hip Hop, just like Outkast and Gorillaz—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.19.182 (talkcontribs) .

Wouldn't Gnarls/Gorillaz collaboration be something else? --194.125.54.25 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah probably, but I was thinking about a Gnarls/Andre 3000 collaboration.... In a way, Andre 3000 preceded Gnarls when he started doing vaguely-hip-hop-related-but-not-at-all-hip-hop-still songs like Hey Ya as well as some other more 'experimental' work. And a collaboration would be interesting. --A-ixemy 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they should do a collaboration with Hot Chip, their like an indie/electro group with a little Hip-Hop feel. Andre 3000 and Gorillaz would be cool too.

Actually, aside from Crazy, none of their stuff is really "hip hop" or even experimental hip hop. I don't have a source, but there was a Virginia music newsletter than did an article on them, and they quoted Cee-Lo as saying something alongs the lines that he didn't like the image of hip hop and considered that their music wasn't hip hop and didnt want to be lumped into that category. They're stuff is actually more alt. rock. They have a backing band and everything, not the typical hip hop instrumentals. Sunshine 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Too many dates?[edit]

I just unwikified many links of the form: Month XX, 2006. It made it hard to read, and there isn't really any relevant information about the particular days. While the year is relevant, only the first 2006 needs to be linked to, surely?

If there's any reason to keep them, please say so here.  :) --Starwed 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Damn it, and I even searched the Wikipedia domain for "dates" and "dates style" in case something like this existed. ^_^ I now see that I neglected to uncheck the MediaWiki/Template talk domains, resulting in enough noise that I missed the policy. In any case, the page Wikipedia:Date_debate explains the situation nicely. It's a pity that, becuase of a technical issue, the Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context policy has to be excepted. --Starwed 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New singles?[edit]

  • According to the band's myspace blog, they're currently working on videos for Go Go Gadget Gospel and Who Cares. Does this mean it's safe to assume they're going to be released as singles? --[kazikame] 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pull out your titties"[edit]

Why are you removing it? i think it was controversial, since it falls under the lines of sexual horassment. Why do you keep removing it? Karrmann 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore?[edit]

Danger Mouse was born in Baltimore, but he hasn't lived there in decades. He's lived in Los Angeles for the past three years. Can someone change this? Infamous30 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vinyl Record"[edit]

Is a tautology. Reccomend shortening it to just "Vinyl". Pedantics aside, the similar term "Compact Disc" is not directly comparable. "Vinyl Record" is more like "Compact CD" 59.167.109.4 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do they come from? Where do they live?[edit]

Hi Everyone, I am maisey21286 and this is my first time posting anything, so please forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to make my posts. I'm not trying to edit anything, I just have a question for anyone out there. I am confused here. Can anyone who really knows what they're talking about, please shed some light on where Gnarls Barkley members, Cee-Lo and Danger Mouse live or originate? I've read many different places and now I see that they live in Maryland and that they are listed as Maryland musicians. Is that accurate? Thanks, --Maisey21286 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have articles on Danger Mouse and Cee-Lo Green. Go there for things like that. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Live Show[edit]

I know this is POV so I didn't put it in the article, but I wanted to say it anyway: I saw them open for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in D.C. two days ago, and they were HORRIBLE. An acquaintance of mine saw them the next night in Charlottesville, VA, and he said the same thing. WHY IS THEIR LIVE SHOW SO BAD? From what I've heard to St. Elsewhere, its not that bad, especially Crazy, so what's up with their live show?Sunshine 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw them play as well for the Chili Peppers in Dallas. I didn't think they put on a bad show, I dont believe they had access to the same speakers as RHCP so they didn't sound very loud or clear. (70.232.71.234 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Link Farm?[edit]

Anyone else think that's an excessive amount of links? I doubt they are all needed... --These7enthprophet 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially for such a shitty band. Change it, if you want. You've got my support.Sunshine 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Costumes[edit]

They dressed up like santa claus on Jimmy Kemmel's show I think one time.--Playstationdude 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Can someone PLEASE tell me how these guys are alternative rock?! Titan50 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Three of their songs charted on the Billboard Modern Rock (Alternative) Chart. That's how. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and they won the Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

His Age??[edit]

What type of Wikipedia article does not tell the man's age and birthday?? Somebody out there better get it or I will!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.0.168 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to provide us his birthday. Addition: The birthday for both of these guys are inside their own articles. See Danger Mouse (Brian Burton) and Cee-Lo Green EliAS 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If you took a second to look at the article, you would have seen that Gnarls Barkley is a duo, not a person. --Soetermans (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Barkley Namesake[edit]

The last line from the end of the introduction to the page doesn't seem right to me. "Despite the obvious similarity, the duo's name was not taken from that of former NBA player, Charles Barkley."

Then the fourth paragraph of the Career section states, with a reference: "Burton explains the collaboration's name came from friends, "making up fictional celebrity names like Prince Gnarls and Bob Gnarley." When Heavens' Josiah Steinbrick came up with Gnarls Barkley, Burton wrote it down."

It sounds to me like their name was definitely inspired by Charles Barkley. --24.145.0.210 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)MC Iky

Thanks fantasic! Absolutely wonderful! Splendid, even! Superb one might say. Sheer brilliance. Outstanding! Great. Nice. Pretty! Well done!
Oh no wait! Your opinion alone doesn't matter... --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cee-Lo and Danger Mouse First Meet[edit]

Just posting this to say that according to the Cee-Lo page, they met in 1998, but the Gnarls Barkley pages says they met in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.29.147 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre(s)[edit]

Please provide reliable sources when adding genres, otherwise you are carrying out original research. Please develop consensus for any additions and/or changes to genres, on any Wikipedia articles. I have removed genres from the lead pending consensus here. Adabow (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Ki Ki"?[edit]

So, an article about Gnarls Barkley begins by talking about "Ki Ki" without any connection presented to the subject matter. I'm confused. What is Ki Ki, why is it called that and what does it have to do with Gnarls Barkley? -- 84.248.218.89 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)