User talk:PloKoon13

HI. I reverted your edit to AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes. You probably didn't realize, but the entries on the list -- who said what, and to whom -- were determined by AFI, not Wikipedia. So in this case, AFI decided that the particular memorable quote "May the Force be with you" was the one by Han Solo. If you look at the bottom of the page, there is a link to the 400 nominees, and the 100 winning quotes. Cheers! --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he did in fact say it, to Luke, before the latter went off to blow up the Death Star. No matter. If the entry is indeed in error, footnote the entry on the page, and please cite it. Again, the article is about what AFI counts as the top 100 lines, and we cannot change that; best we can do is pass (sourced) commentary. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Han Solo did say it, but Obi-Wan has always been more recognised for doing so... 18:17, 16 February 2007

License tagging for Image:Grandslampic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandslampic.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Peruzzi.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Peruzzi.GIF. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Grandslampic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandslampic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Grandslamlivein1984.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandslamlivein1984.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Grandslampic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandslampic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:G3rockinginthefreeworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:G3rockinginthefreeworld.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Best Player in the World"

A page you created, Best Player in the World, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Best Player in the World. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muse genres

There was no agreement to change progressve rock to pop rock reached on the Muse talkpage. Don't refer me to the talkpage when I change it back. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muse

You have displayed a complete lack of understanding of them, and it is clear that their music went right over your head. Every single point of yours I have seen on them is factually incorrect. I strongly suggest that you do not edit their article; you are clearly not fit to do so, and most likely I will simply roll back your edits. After all, if they're as ridiculously inaccurate as your comments are, you'll be labelled as a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muse 2

Yet your ignorant comments clearly show a complete lack of understanding. You are evidently quite biased against them (which is strange enough, considering the high quality of their music), and so you shouldn't be editing their article, especially as you labelled them as "pop rock" lol. You clearly haven't listened to them, and if you have, you're clearly insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muse 3

Ignorance and stating opinions as fact are not the same thing. Please, learn to use the English language.

Don't be a hypocrite - you are also stating your opinions as fact.

lol, now here's where your ignorance comes in. Firstly, the vocal chords are not repetitive; at least, no more repetetive than any of the other greats, eg. Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and so on. Secondly, LOL, this is proof that you know nothing about music - the fact that you believe that Muse's guitar riffs and solos are simple is beyond funny. Fact is, their solos are unique, original, and difficult to play. Muse's guitar riffs happen to frequent almost every "top rock guitar riffs" list written in the last 10 or so years. Bellamy's sound is original, and has not been heard before or since. Total Guitar has rated the riff for Plug In Baby as the 8th greatest riff of all time; the same publication also rated Bellamy as the 29th greatest guitarist of all time; Virgin Media has rated Bellamy as the 7th greatest guitarist of all time (WAY too high, but his talent cannot be denied); Henry Yates recognised him as "the 21st century's first guitar genius"; the BBC documentary "The History Of The Guitar" also recognised Bellamy as the 21st century's first guitar "hero", referring to him as "a modern rock god" (the documentary had input by Tony Iommi, Eric Clapton, and Pete Townshend among others, and all commented on Bellamy's original sound, style and excellent quality).

So, let's rephrase your question - do excellent vocals, original and unique sound, fantastic riffs, excellent technical skill and top-notch flair for guitar, emotionally moving and powerful songs, originality, a drive to create something different and push boundaries (something which has, to a degree, been achieved), fantastic showmanship, and brilliant skill on the piano make for high quality music? Of COURSE it does. You are a fool for saying otherwise.

Oh look, more ignorance. It is far more sensible to list them as progressive than pop rock, I mean LOL, have you ever even listened to them? Obviously not. Are they a progressive band? No. Have they written progressive songs? Undeniably.

Pop rock band? Sorry, we're talking about Muse here. Bellamy doesn't have a pop rock bone in his entire body; the music is often dark and gritty, usually original, occasionally progressive (or "new prog") - and always powerful. Not one single song Muse has written - not one - can possibly be classified as pop rock. It is not an opinion, but a fact that they are NOT a pop rock band, not in any shape or form. They are, in fact, a brilliant, highly rated, well respected, original, unique, powerful band, who are usually alternative and occasionally progressive.

And lol, I love the way you say "rather than what Matt Bellamy thinks they are" as if he's another arrogant rock-star, like Noel Gallagher or Johnny Borrel. He's actually incredibly modest, despite the fact that his band are brilliant, original, highly rated etc. etc., and the fact that he is supremely talented with the guitar, a virtuoso on the piano and has one of the greatest voices rock music has ever seen.

Seriously, your ignorance and bias is plain as day. Only if you listened to obscure experimental-progressive music would your ridiculous opinion be understandable, let alone acceptable, and you can totally forget respectable lol. In all honesty, as you are so ignorant and biased, I would strongly recommend that you never edit another music article again - you are simply too biased to edit to wiki's standards (hence why I don't edit the Muse article, as my adoration for such a brilliant band would only get in the way). Best stick to Star Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muse 4

Again, you prove your total ignorance and downright stupidity. Your pathetic attempts to refute my undeniable logic and try to back up your own unfounded, ridiculous point of view is downright hilarious.

Muse's riffs and solos are not simple by any stretch of the imagination. Catchy riffs are one thing and are apparent in certain songs, but you once again display your lack of knowledge when it comes to Muse; most of their riffs are complex and difficult to play, especially when compared to the majority of rock. Bellamy's solos are particularly impressive, and, as my numerous sources show, the industry as a whole tends to agree.

Matt Bellamy's solos are impressive to just about anyone into music. Clearly you're too biased (and, let's be honest, stupid) to see it, but his solos are no less complex than what you see with many of the old classic bands. He is not restricted to tapping, far from it - he is far more talented than that, as you can see in just about any solo he performs live. His solos are certainly more complex than what you see for the vast majority of rock.

Here's a fact - YOUR CLAIM ABOUT BELLAMY RIPPING OFF TOM MORRELLO IS TOTALLY UNFOUNDED AND WRONG. For a start, he improvises his solos, so already we can see that you're incorrect. There's also the fact that there is absolutely no proof of this, not even a brief mention on a music forum. Not only that, but he hasn't actually stolen anything from Morello; not one of his solos or riffs bear any real resemblance to any of Rage Against The Machine's work. Muse's riffs and recorded solos are unique, they are totally their own, and they don't even sound remotely like RATM's riffs, let alone being direct rip-offs of them. Seriously, have you ever listened to either band? There is only ONE song in Muse's ENTIRE back catalogue which bares any sort of resemblance to RATM, and that was a terrible song leaked onto the internet, never intended for release, that purposely tried to mimic them - and was a massive departure from their own superior brand of music. None of their other riffs sound even remotely like RATM's, and the biggest difference of all is that Bellamy is actually capable of writing high-quality riffs, unlike Morello. Unlike RATM, who's songs are repetetive and who's riffs are extremely simple by comparison, Muse shows a genuine flair and originality. It is hilarious that you criticise Muse so heavily, but then compare them to a very average and totally inferior band.

Here's another fact - Matt Bellamy, on top of writing better riffs, better music and being in a better band than Morello, he also is considerably more technically skilled.

Here's another fact - Muse's riffs are unique, Bellamy gives each his own unique sound and all are completely different to each other; RATM, on the other hand, writes riffs that are often very similar to those written bands that have gone before, and their songs are incredibly repetetive. While Muse pushes the band's boundaries and music's boundaries, experiments with numerous different genres and gives each song a completely different sound from each other, RATM's songs all sound remarkably the same, and the band relies on the appeal of their anti-establishment lyrics.

Here's another fact - Morello is not half as technically proficient as Bellamy. Not only that, but Bellamy, unlike Morello, has his own unique sound.

Here's yet another fact - Morello is a Bellamy fan. He has stated this in numerous interviews and it is mentioned on his official website. He looks up to Bellamy, and considers him a great guitarist.

Rage Against The Machine? Good choice in comparison lol. The fact that most of the criticisms you aim at Muse apply to RATM strengthens my argument considerably. You are clearly a fool.

If you are genuinely denying that Muse's solos and riffs are impressive then you are clearly insane. Are they the most complex or difficult, is he the greatest guitarist of all time? Far from it. Are they complex and difficult, and is he a brilliant guitarist? Undeniably. Sorry, but anyone who thinks Muse is pop rock and who doesn't understand what the term "progressive" means cannot call anyone else ignorant lol. Your statements are the definition of ignorance.

Again, more retardation on your part - none of Bellamy's riffs sound anything alike to one another. They are all very different to each other, and you must be deaf to believe otherwise. Seriously, music really isn't for you.

Kurt Kobain is overhyped; Matt Bellamy does not receive half the attention he deserves. There's a huge difference, if Muse received half the attention they deserve they would have outsold Nirvana in record sales by now. Also, Kurt Kobain is far from a non-talent. His music may be overhyped, but he was a good songwriter, and at the very least he was original and tried something new.

No, your question does not still stand, I have already answered it. do excellent vocals, original and unique sound, fantastic riffs, excellent technical skill and top-notch flair for guitar, emotionally moving and powerful songs, originality, a drive to create something different and push boundaries (something which has, to a degree, been achieved), fantastic showmanship, and brilliant skill on the piano make for high quality music? Of COURSE it does. You are a fool for saying otherwise.

The only statement that you have made in this entire discussion that has even an ELEMENT of truth to it is the Radiohead comparison, and the biggest similarity really is the voice (and, while Radiohead is a far superior band, Bellamy has the better voice). The RATM comparison though? Hilarious, and a little insulting.

Sorry, but you're totally wrong once more. Muse are not a pop rock band in the slightest, and only an incredibly ignorant fool would even consider such a hilarious notion. Bellamy has indeed experimented with progressive rock, and numerous Muse songs are, of course, classed as progressive.

I have never claimed that "dark and gritty" means "new and progressive"; when I said dark and gritty I meant dark and gritty, you idiot. Muse are dark and gritty at times, and also are original and occasionally progressive. One does not equal the other, but all are present.

If you know of McFly, and you have heard what pop rock actually is, then how the hell can you still call Muse a pop rock band? Such statements are ridiculous in the extreme.

So you're saying that, if my description matches the likes of Abba and A-Ha, you're saying that those bands are dark, gritty, occasionally progressive but usually alternative or hard rock? Don't be daft, my description matches none of those bands, only your ignorant description does.

Those songs you have listed are not pop rock - try again. The closest of those is Starlight, but even then, it is still classed as rock, and cannot classified as pop rock.

Also, notice how that certain Muse albums are songs are listed as "progressive". Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so; in fact, anyone with any sort of sense would recognise that they can be progressive at times.

In reality, that really isn't a particularly arrogant statement. You will find him saying no worse than that - that's about as arrogant as he gets - and comments like that are few and far between. However, he's not as arrogant as, say, John Lennon, who famously said "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus now". The vast majority of rockers are more arrogant than bellamy, who is, for the most part, quite modest. And before you twist my words, no I am not comparing Muse's music to that written by The Beatles. I think we can both agree that The Beatles are infinitely better...

The only fools are the ones who are not impressed with Bellamy's fantastic talent.

Sorry, but he truly is supremely talented with both the guitar and his voice. Soaring falsettos and excellent voice control equals talent. He is also excellently talented with piano; maybe virtuoso was a bit much, but your definition of virtuoso certainly matches his guitar playing abilities.

Hendrix also claimed he wasn't very good with guitar; so did Eric Clapton, and so did Jimmy Page. Yet all three are hailed as some of the greatest guitarists of all time, and rightfully so. Bellamy is not as good as these, but he is close - but more importantly he is recognised as one of the greatest guitarists of the last 20 years, the 21st century's new Jimi Hendrix and the 21st century's greatest guitarist. At the very least, we haven't seen talent on this level since the 80s.

Oh, and I didn't give you just one source, now did I. Do you really think that the BBC, Pete Townshend, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Brian May etc. are notorious for bolstering the credibility of new rock talent? Of course they aren't. They're just smart enough to recognise talent when they see it, that's all.

You continue to display no respect for genuine talent, an incredible level of bias, a total lack of understanding and appreciation of music in general, and to top it off, you back up your foolish, idiotic and entirely unfounded claims and opinions with shamelessly piss-poor logic.

Your idiotic comments have now resulted in you having absolutely no credibility whatsoever on the subject of music. You fail to understand even the simplest conventions - you cannot even classify music genres properly, and don't even understand the term pop rock! Honestly, it is like arguing with a child. Seriously, wikipedia is not for you; hell, any website or even real-life conversation pertaining to the subject of music is not for you. I strongly recommend that, if the subject of music crops up once again, you simply duck away from the conversation. After all, considering that you are hilariously declaring that Muse is "pop rock", I wouldn't put it past someone of your low intelligence to declare that Led Zeppelin is a soft rock band, or Slipknot makes folk music.

You are not intelligent enough to debate about music. I strongly recommend you stay silent if the topic ever comes up again, lest you make a tit of yourself once more.

Oh, by the way - why on earth would I restrain from making "random insults on your person"? Let's look at the facts: you make hilarious claims such as erroneously stating that Bellamy's unique riffs are stolen from other artists; you compare him to less technically profficient artists such as Tom Morello when discussing technical skill; you refuse to accept Muse's undeniable technical talent, their flair for music and their incredibly moving songs; you HILAROUSLY believe that Muse is a pop-rock band, despite the relatively heavy sound of most of their songs and despite the fact that they often dabble in progressive rock (and, of course, the fact that not a single song Muse has ever written falls into the category of pop rock); the fact that you deny that they have experimented in progressive rock, even though they undeniably have... need I go on?

Let's face facts here - you are a bonafide, grade-A dunce of epic proportions. You wouldn't know quality if it hit you in the face, you fail to comprehend even the simplest of musical conventions, you hilariously misinterpret alternative rock/hard rock/progressive rock as pop rock (which is easily the most idiotic thing I've heard in a good few years), and you trot out wholly unfounded and factually incorrect statements such as "Muse ripped off all their riffs" even though they obviously haven't. You are an ignorant fool, you know absolutely nothing on the subject at hand, you have next to no knowledge on the topic of music and the more you attempt to ignore these undeniable facts, the more idiotic you will look. You already look like an absolute tit as it is; best to quit before you appear even worse.

Seriously, get back to editing your Star Wars articles, and let intelligent, knowledgeable people like me discuss music. You are an embarrassment and an insult to anyone who calls themselves a fan of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mike Riley (referee), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Beve (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muse 5

Are you joking? Honestly, this is idiocy of the highest order coming from you now. Bellamy is quite clearly far beyond an “average guitarist”; you only have to look at his mesmerising live solos to appreciate his true brilliance. It’s a brilliance that far exceeds even what is present on the albums – have a look for yourself on youtube.

No, Invincible’s solo is not simple; if you knew anything about playing guitar then you would know that it’s quite a tricky thing to play. Not only that, but it’s a wholly original sound – even if they style at which he plays it (tapping and so on) is not original, the sound he extracts from it is anything but.

Ahaha, so you would not consider the BBC a respectable source? Total Guitar is a credible source in itself, but BBC is obviously far more credible. In a recent documentary of the history of the guitar they have labelled Bellamy as “one of the first true guitar hero of the 21st century”. Unlike guitarists that you mention like Tom Morello, he combines phenomenal technical skill with great flair and originality. This is more that can be said for Morello – simple riffs and solos, inferior technical ability, limited flair, no originality (in fact he is considered a copycat of many greater guitarists) and repetitive sounds. At the very least, Muse’s originality and variation in their music shows your argument up to be nothing more than bias and shameful retardation. Don’t believe me on the documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QcxArY5Kpo

Not only that, but I genuinely don’t understand how you can’t perceive that to be good music within the conext of alternative rock. In terms of alternative rock, and compared to all others in the genre (bar the almighty Radiohead), they truly are phenomenal. Regardless of what you may think, they are undeniably capable of writing good songs and good riffs; it’s just that you have a different opinion. How can you be so ignorant AND self-righteous? You cannot complain about me being arrogant when all you do is try and force your own shitty, cynical opinion on me.

Not only that, but you would’ve had some credit if you had mentioned a decent band which ACTUALLY exceeds their technical ability, quality, flair etc. eg. Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Instead, you have mentioned one of the most notoriously repetitive bands of our times, and a guitarist with less flair and less technical skill.

Lmao, MY claims are laughable? Look at the idiotic comments you’ve been making. Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, and you have repeatedly made one ridiculous and totally unfounded claim after another.

Unresearched? How many times must I mention the BBC documentary to you? Honestly, what is wrong with you? I am making totally valid, logical and intelligent points. You are doing the exact opposite, and have the audacity of accusing ME of your own failings! It truly is pathetic.

His solos are only bog-standard when you compare them to the old greats of the 60s and the 70s, but by today’s standards, he is nothing short of a guitar god. Your alternative, Tom Morello, is laughable.

Influenced? Yes. Heavily influenced? No, he is not. If you had any sort of understanding of music you could see that there are vast differences between their styles and sound. Still, at least you didn’t moronically try and tell me that Muse’s music is totally ripped off; that was quite easily the most stupid thing you have said thus far, and that is saying something.

Perhaps it is natural for that to happen, so we can only speculate why Bellamy’s guitar playing does not sound anything like Morello’s playing the vast majority of the time. There is only one song where the two styles are even remotely similar, a deliberate copy of Morello’s style and that was in a track that wasn’t even released, but instead leaked. When you hear it, the differences between this deliberately (and temporarily) imitated style and Bellamy’s usual style are so massively different that you wouldn’t even be able to recognise that it is Muse if it weren’t for Bellamy’s soaring and excellent vocals that are so distinct to him.

LOL, now that is where you are wrong. They are not even nearly as compelling as Muse is, and it is factually incorrect to say that they are more original. Their style is extracted heavily from bands that have gone before and their songs are excruciatingly and notoriously repetitive. Muse, on the other hand, has a sound that is wholly their own, and manages to innovate and reinvent the alternative music genre. Not only that, but RATM is merely about anger directed at the system. Muse is far deeper and more intelligent than that, and this has enabled them to become more original, exciting and all the better for it.

LMAO, more idiocy from you. Muse is not a pop-rock band at all; this really is a factually incorrect and desperately moronic thing to say. Music genres are objective, not subjective, and they have solid and factual boundaries. The official definition of pop-rock and the criteria given does not match Muse in any way, shape or form.

Not only that, but Muse has gone beyond the norm and transformed themselves and the genre within which they reside – alternative rock (and occasionally new-progressive rock).

Muse has created a sound that is unique. RATM does not push the boundaries like Muse does. Not only that, but the repetitive vocals (much like their music) detracts from them heavily, and cannot match the powerful, soaring and arcing brilliance displayed in Bellamy’s vocals.

Bellamy actually has his own sound in the guitar. Honestly, if you can listen to his solos on their latest album, both live and recorded, and HONESTLY not see that that is a sound that unique, then you know absolutely nothing about music or the guitar. But we already knew that, didn’t we. Listen to Knights Of Cydonia, and find me a band which utilises a similar sound. All you’ve done is point me towards an inferior and unoriginal band which bears little resemblance to Muse’s excellence.

LOL, no, his techniques differ considerably from Morello’s. There is far more to both of them than tapping and messing around with the whammy bar, and neither of them were the first to do either. There is more to both of their styles, but neither style is unique at all. What is unique, however, is the sound Bellamy gets out of his guitar, a sound that is undeniably NOT present in any of RATM’s songs. Just try and find a the sound from Invinicble’s solo or Knights Of Cydonia’s main riff in any RATM song, and link it to me. If you can’t do that, then at least have the decency to admit that you’re wrong. If you knew anything about music and playing the guitar, you would be agreeing with me right now. Bellamy’s excellent technical ability only adds to his undeniable flair, so please stop trying to deny this.

I was offended that you likened them to RATM because you criticised Muse for being repetitive – annoying enough in itself as they are certainly not – and then mentioned RATM as being better, despite them a very repetitive band. If you had not incorrectly called Muse repetitive, then I would not have reacted as I did. I still disagree about RATM and Morello coming anywhere close to Muse in terms of quality, but it is offensive that you call Muse repetitive when they are not and then instantly recommend a repetitive band. In terms of quality, you would have had a better shot at comparing them to Radiohead. While Bellamy’s vocals and guitar-skills are superior, the quality of Radiohead’s music by-and-large blows Muse away. I can’t think of a better band than them in the last 20 years.

Kurt Kobain is not a non-talent. While he wasn’t that great on guitar, he did at least pioneer a whole new sub-genre and created an entirely new sound. He is vastly overrated, that is true, and the songs are indeed very repetitive - but you must at least credit him for forming the grunge movement. That fact earns him some respect, even if he is nowhere near as talented as Bellamy or Morello, or many other rock musicians of the 90’s. Come on, you can’t ever call anyone in this business a no-talent. Hate them all you want but the term “no-talent” is incorrect for even the most dire of musicians, as they are at least writing their own songs and playing their own instruments.

I see where your criticisms against Kobain are coming from, but it irks me to hear anyone being called a “no-talent”. Especially if they actually managed to create a new genre, which earns them at least a bit of respect.

No, your question does NOT still stand, because all YOU have done is the exact same thing you criticise me of. You’re stating your own opinions as fact, and then you can’t even place this band in the correct genre! So no, your question does not still stand.

And in MY opinion, great showmanship and excellent-sounding riffs and solos are brilliant (even if you don’t think they’re hard to perform, the riffs and songs are at least wholly original work ie. not ripping off any other songs, and very good at working up the audience). As for the falsetto voice, it DOES NOT MATTER if someone has mastered it before as that does not detract from the music or the performance. It is still good fun, and remember that those artists are not around anymore – Bellamy is obviously not as good as the all-time great guitarists like Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix, Ritchie Blackmore, Brian May etc. and may not be the technically best singer, but that does not mean he is bad by any means. He’s damn good in fact, and it’s only when compared to such greats does his talent and flair come undone. Whether or not you like Bellamy’s voice is your own opinion (which you stated as fact earlier, but is opinion nonetheless). It is a fact, however, that he has a much wider ranger than Hendrix and, in actual fact, almost any other rock singer. Whether or not you like what he is doing, he has a better range than almost any other singer in rock and a better control over his voice.

You may not like that he uses such tones so much – he does not overuse them, but he does use them a fair bit – but there are many people out there who love it. If you can stop stating your opinions as fact then I shall do so as well. And at least it is a recognisable voice; a large part of the lead singer’s job is giving the band personality and this is best done through voice. His voice is very distinctive even if there are many other falsettos out there, and you could never mistake his voice for anyone else’s. This is at least a commendable quality which is not shared by many other acts out there.

No, Bellamy is nothing special compared to the all-time greats. To what has been around in the last 20 years however, he is very special. I am not comparing Muse or Bellamy to the greats of the 60s and 70s. I personally believe those decades to be the clear golden years of music. He would be classed as average against the greats that I mentioned and many more. But when you look and music of the 90’s, 00’s and even the 80’s - both Muse and Bellamy shine quite brightly, whether you like their music or not.

New-prog rock at least, yes. It’s simple compared to what we see from a real prog-rock band, but yes, new-prog is a fair term to describe a few of their songs. There’s a slight element of truth behind people labellingLed Zeppelin as prog, even if they are not ACTUALLY a progressive band by any means. A few of their songs do progress and change considerably as they go on.

As for what your sister says, no, Take That is NOT rock. That is factually wrong, as is saying that Muse is a pop band. Seriously, you can’t listen to Stockholm Syndrome and tell me that that is Jonas Brothers-esque pop-rock.

They’re not electronic rock either, and while there are sheep out there who would accept what they said, that does not make it so. There is still a factual definition for each and every music genre and subgenre out there – just as Take That is not pop, Muse is not pop-rock. You can check out the definitions for these genres.

Look, there are one or two borderline pop-rock songs (eg. Starlight) just as there are one or two new-progressive songs (eg. Citizen Erased). So if Muse can be listed as pop, then they can also clearly be listed as prog. They’re far more prog than they are pop, remember. Progressive rock has clearly defined boundaries and criteria, and many of their songs match this. Hence why wikipedia STILL lists one of their genres as progressive, and rightfully so.

Are you kidding? No novice could do those solos, not even close. They wouldn’t be able to get anywhere near the same level of quality.

Again, I have never heard anyone call Bellamy arrogant. Please show me the interview where he acts arrogant please, as I have yet to hear anything arrogant from him. He’s hardly Liam or Noel Gallagher, is he?

You don’t need to break new ground to be a virtuoso. Look at the definition here on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso “A virtuoso is an individual who possesses outstanding technical ability at singing or playing a musical instrument.” “The defining element of virtuosity is the performance ability of the musician in question, who is capable of displaying feats of skill well above the average performer.”

This is something that he manages in terms of his guitar playing skills and his voice. The fact that he’s a great showman and an excellent pianist adds to that and gives the claim some ground.

No, you cannot play his solos on first go. Clearly you haven’t seen his solo performances on youtube – have a look. Some of the riffs maybe – they not supposed to be hard, they’re just supposed to sound good – but there’s no way you could play his solos. I didn’t think he was anything brilliant either, till I saw him live.

I wouldn’t have been nearly so belligerent and arrogant if you hadn’t been so in your wikipedia discussion post. I would have been pretty nice if your post hadn’t been so strong-worded. If you attack something so aggressively, it’s only fair that someone defends it just as aggressively. If you want me to be more reasonable, then be more reasonable in your next post, if you choose to make one.

It’s hardly just a dry decade, it’s merely that we’re no longer in the golden age of music. Compared to everything in the 90s and 00s (barring the superior Radiohead), and compared to most bands in the 80s, Muse is excellent. It’s not just that everyone else isn’t that great though; Muse is a great band in their own right and would be regarded as decent regardless of which decade they appeared in, but appearing now does indeed elevate them.

Avril Lavigne… holy shit, I can’t believe you mentioned her in this conversation. Sorry, but she is absolutely nothing, and isn’t anything great at all, even by pop/pop-rock standards. She’s not even worth comparing to the likes of McFly. Come on, from what I hear she doesn’t even write her own songs, nor doe she have any talent at all in terms of guitar playing etc.

Couple of points – how can you bitch about Muse only appealing to teenage girls (which they don’t at all), and then mention Avril Lavigne, who ACTUALLY only appeals to teenage/pre-teen girls? And how the hell can you have the audacity to call Kurt Kobain a no-talent and then purport that Lavigne is talented? He may be vastly overrated but he is far more talented than she is, as he can actually write a good song on occasion.

If you were to mention the excellent song-writing abilities of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, U2 or Radiohead, I would have agreed with you on their quality. But Lavigne? Come on, even the likes of MCR has more talent than that bint, as does Amy Winehouse and pretty much every indie band I can think of. I get more pleasure from listening to the local bands, to be honest. And most of them suck on guitar, and the acoustics are always bad, and I only go to see them play because my friends are in them, but I still much prefer listening to them.

Sorry, I just… cannot get how you can dislike Muse, one of the greatest band of our times, so heavily and then mention Avril Lavigne of all people as a viable alternative. I really can’t think of a more bland artist. I doubt you explaining it will help either, I genuinely cannot comprehend how you can think this way…

I doubt you know more about music than me… you do regard Muse as pop-rock, after all. That’s factually incorrect, you know.

I have taken offence to it because they are not actually a pop rock band. Take a look at the factual description (yes, it IS set in stone) of pop-rock, rock and take a look at the criteria. It is a fact that Muse is alternative rock, and not pop rock. Also, look at your post in the discussion for Muse. You DID very heavily suggest that being in a pop-rock band is a shameful thing, which was offensive because 1. It is not and 2. they are not a pop-rock band. It’s as offensive as if you tried to call them punk, and then go on to say how you know everything you need to know about them before talking about how shit you think they are, as if your opinion is fact. That is how stupid you sounded to me; everything in that post was offensive because everything in it was either your opinion or factually wrong.

He’s not arrogant, if he is then SHOW me where he is.

He’s NOT a progressive rocker, but he’s a rocker alright. He just has done some pseudo-progressive (or new-progressive) songs every once in a while.

My argument is either logical sense or subjective. You have failed to prove me wrong as well, you know.

Yes, it has been you making yourself look like a tit. I mean, come on, you thought Muse only appealed to twelve-year-old girls for fucks sake, and you thought they were pop-rock. These statements do indeed make you look like a tit, more than any strongly-worded paragraph or repetition from me could do.

I have played the guitar and I AM a musically knowledgeable person. At the very least, I know the factual boundaries of genres and can correctly allocate bands into each of these, which is more than I can say for you.

I am not a music snob. I actually like pop-rock. It’s just offensive that someone can be so arrogant as you and so ignorant at the same time. Seriously, at least get the genres right.

One more thing - I genuinely cannot fathom how stupid you are if you deny that Bellamy is talented. You do not know a single thing about music if you think he doesn’t have talent in songwriting skills, vocals, performance, flair and technical skills. Like it or not, Muse is one of the more revolutionary bands of our times, and if you cannot see that it has progressed the alternative rock genre along and has differed greatly from what is out there currently then you honestly, truly do not know anything about music whatsoever. Look, it is your opinion that he is not the best in any of these regards – I do not think he is the best either, I am merely intelligent enough to recognise talent when I see it. Morello is talented of course, and while I do not agree whatsoever that he is more talented than Bellamy (and I can assure you that I am far from alone on this), I am at least intelligent and knowledgeable enough to recognise that he has considerable talent. Even if Morello is actually more talented (something that is subjective anyway; I much prefer Muse’s songs as they move me more and so I deem him as the superior songwriter, plus Bellamy can sing as well as play lead and he sings damn well, even if you do not like his style), then Bellamy is hardly far worse. At the very least they are worthy of comparison to each other as they are close, regardless of who is in front. Can you at least agree on that?

If you want me to take anything you say seriously, first you will have to have the intelligence and good grace to at least accept that Bellamy is talented. I’m not saying you need to admit that he’s the best or anywhere near the best, but if you want even a SHRED of credibility you will have to accept that he is good at what he does, regardless of who may be better than him. Your argument is wholly worthless and can be totally disregarded otherwise, as it shows that you are too biased to even be considered worth anyone’s time.

I just want to see if you can admit that.

PS.

Forgot to say this in the main post, but it's important enough to get its own section.

Bellamy's skills with the guitar may be exagerated a fair bit thanks to favourable comparisons with the largely lacklustre music of today, but the same cannot be said of the quality of the music itself.

Take Origin Of Symmetry for example. It may not break new ground as such, but it is far from a direct copy in style or sound of previous attempts, and to most peoples' ears it is damn good. Hence why it gets excellent reviews across the board from all credible music sources and is rated by Q Magazine, a very highly regarded magazine (far moreso than Total Guitar I might add), rates it as the 74th best album of all time.

I'm not the only one who thinks they're great. They're FAR from the greatest, but they are still one of the greats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello PloKoon13! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 691 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Mark Stanway - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been posting as an unregistered user?

Have you been posting as an unregistered user? I suspect you have been!

I'm sure you'll know exactly what I'm talking about, and you should know that I have since corrected you.

If you have no clue what I'm on about then as you were, but if my suspicions are correct then I'll be waiting for my apology. WiseNinja1 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm AntiCompositeNumber. I noticed that in this edit to Campbeltown, you removed all the content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"White boy music" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect White boy music. Since you had some involvement with the White boy music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu 57 13:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bearbeastnotpussy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bearbeastnotpussy. Since you had some involvement with the Bearbeastnotpussy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu 57 15:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Real Ronaldo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Real Ronaldo. Since you had some involvement with the The Real Ronaldo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu 57 15:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor Hoofenstein" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Professor Hoofenstein. Since you had some involvement with the Professor Hoofenstein redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Robbie D" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Robbie D. Since you had some involvement with the Robbie D redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hopeton Brown" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hopeton Brown. Since you had some involvement with the Hopeton Brown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Here's my biggest gun, darlin" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Here's my biggest gun, darlin. Since you had some involvement with the Here's my biggest gun, darlin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"ATWAS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ATWAS. Since you had some involvement with the ATWAS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Studio Sessions (Grand Slam album)

The article Studio Sessions (Grand Slam album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]