Talk:Brand New (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBrand New (band) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 27, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Beastie Boys?[edit]

According to a trivia section on Aglio e Olio (EP) (a beastie boys album) it says this band got their name from a name of the first track on this album. Now I don't think this true, I think it's just pure vandalism, but I want to make sure before removing it, did the Band Get their name from the beastie boys song "Brand New?" KMFDM FAN (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but not confirmed. Delete and we can add it again if sourced. Maxwells.plum (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Stereo/Alex Dunne interview reference[edit]

I'm not sure how to edit the reference list. Can someone fix this? Reference 18 -- Brian Shultz clearly conducted the interview with Alex Dunne, not Rob Ortenzi..not sure where or how that name could have came from. Shultz's name is at the top under the headline and in the paragraph SAYING he talked with Dunne. http://www.altpress.com/features/240.htm

Fixed. Probably someone who didn't know how to use a reference template properly added it, and they only changed the title and url. Thanks. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brand New/GA1

Lead sentence genre[edit]

In response to Gunmetal Angel's edit summary: The first sentence should use the term alternative rock, since the term encompasses all of the subgenres that the band spans. To just say that they are a rock band is not as specific, and therefore less accurate. Alternative rock includes emo and pop punk and post-punk and whatever else you want to call the band - it isn't meant to be their "only genre". —Akrabbimtalk 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors on Wikipedia are rather annoyed by the number of daily edits regarding genre. Some believe that by listing just the genre (rock, jazz, blues) and not the specific style of music (indie rock, chamber jazz, delta blues) it should end any debate. Since rock includes indie and alternative, just listing rock as the genre is correct. I personally feel that most bands can not be lumped into just a single style of music, and articles on musical groups should have a section for the style of music they play. Especially if the lead is intentionally vague. See Metallica#Style and lyrical themes and Radiohead#Style and songwriting. Gunmetal's edit also alters the capitalization of Brand New's website and removes two external links. Should we be discussing these too? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Brand New can be lumped completely into alternative rock. They cover a range of subgenres, but they are all subsets of alternative rock, which is the intentionally vague term that we should be using. There is nothing that applies to the band that "rock" includes but "alternative rock" doesn't. I agree with your reasoning, but I don't believe that it applies in this case. —Akrabbimtalk 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mention emo and pop punk, which are stylistically derived from punk, not alternative rock. Fezmar9 (talk)
I have always been under the impression that punk was included under the alternative rock umbrella, but now that you bring it up maybe that is a misconception. Perhaps it is because I wasn't born until after alternative rock has already arisen from it's punk origins (1989), but the way I have always used the term is like the 4th sentence of the alternative rock article (like how iTunes has an "Alternative & Punk" genre, apart from "Rock"): "At times alternative rock has been used as a catch-all phrase for rock music from underground artists in the 1980s, and all music descended from punk rock (including punk itself, New Wave, and post-punk)." Is it encyclopedially (probably not a word) inaccurate to describe alternative rock as encompassing punk and it's derivatives, even though both movements have now been coexisting and co-influencing each other for so long? —Akrabbimtalk 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history of punk rock easily pre-dates the rise of alternative rock. While several punk styles, such as post-punk and post-hardcore, may incorporate alternative influences, I would not by any means say that alt rock encompasses punk. If anything, punk rock encompasses alt rock. From punk rock, "Musicians identifying with or inspired by punk also pursued a broad range of other variations, giving rise to post-punk and the alternative rock movement." Fezmar9 (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of discussing the use of one word in the lead, who wants to help write a style and influences section? :D kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind contributing, though I have never really worked on a style section for a band, only albums. I am currently struggling to write one for Axe to Fall. Should we go album by album? To me, each Brand New album is kind of its own beast. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken my time to reply here, sorry! I would think that would be the best way to go about it, we could begin by extracting the more specific style discussion in the current sections. I usually then go to each album page and look at the reviews, they're analysing the band's style straight up so that's a good place to start I think. Their noteworthy progression gives us something to base the section off, so I think it shouldn't be too hard. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

They simply are not post-hardcore... Please provide an example of their music that could be classified as such. 166.248.98.106 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)MH, 03/16/12 = GunMetal Angel 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly are not post-hardcore. Why is that still listed? Ptaylo16 (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 108.23.225.253[edit]

Regarding genre: Go look up gothic rock. Brand New does not fit in this subgenre. Alternative rock is, in my opinion, a much better descriptor of their style than gothic rock is.

Regarding purevolume: 1) This needs a citation. 2) The noteworthiness of this item is questionable at best. ---

If you feel strongly about these issues, please address them here, as your views seem to have little if any support from other frequent contributors from this article (i.e. it seems to me that you are just changing/adding these two things over and over again and having them continually reverted).

24.126.155.250 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) M[reply]

They are not in any way Gothic rock. Not even close. It is ridiculous and needs to be changed. Alternative Rock is appropriate. 24.63.46.64 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are continuing to be made, now by 71.165.86.21, who (I assume it is the same user) has yet to address these issues here. 70.193.134.186 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Brand New (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Brand New which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brand New (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Brand New (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brand New (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Big Day out goes to a splashpage. Replaced. Karst (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brand New (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New break up vandalism[edit]

Just to clear this up because there appears to be considerable edit warring over whether the band has in fact broken up. Here is the current situation as I understand it:

  • In 2017 Brand New announced their intent to break up in 2018, with Jesse Lacey at a live show “We’re gonna be a band for about 14 more months, so thank you so much for being here tonight.”.
  • The band also started selling T-shirts with "2000- 2018" printed on them.
  • In late 2017 sexual misconduct allegations we're publicly made surrounding lead singer Jesse Lacey (which I won't get into here as it has been covered in the media).
  • Since Lacey's statement following the allegations the band have been radio silent ever since although a new song has appeared to of been leaked in December 2018.

So here is my reasoning as to why we shouldn't state the band finished in 2018:

  • No official announcement from the band.
  • No official announcement from the band's management team.
  • No source to say the band have broken up other than in 2017 saying that they "intended" to which doesn't constitute an official announcement.
  • The band staying silent since the 2017 allegations they could well continue in the future if the allegations are ever refuted or challenged, to which as 2019 no criminal charges or civil lawsuits have been brought against Lacey.

In summary we cannot truly state this band has broken up, we just don't know and won't know for the foreseeable future until official word from the band/management. The whole point of an entry for anything in this online encyclopaedia is to provide factual and accurate information to everyone on a subject. In this case its not factual or accurate to say Brand New finished in 2018. EL Foz87 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no recorded activity from this band since then (approaching two years), and it is not reasonable to believe they will. I don't believe you can call a song that was recorded before these events proof that there's been any real "activity" from this band.
The way it is currently worded: "they have remained publicly inactive". If this is sourced (I haven't looked, but it appears to be), "publicly inactive" = inactive for all fan and informational intents and purposes = unofficially broken up. There are ways to note that an official breakup hasn't been announced. Your argument saying "they could well continue in the future if the allegations are ever refuted or challenged" doesn't make a lot of sense to the band's situation as they wanted to break up anyway. dannymusiceditor oops 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it's encroaching into WP:OR territory to say they are 'broken up', I'd agree with some sort of "the band was publicly inactive after the allegations; though no official announcement has been made regarding their breakup". Surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly) there are almost no articles written about the band post-allegations (save for the two or three articles putting Science Fiction on year-end best of lists and a few op eds like this one about how to handle the band's legacy). The only thing even referencing the band's inactivity post-allegations I could find other than the tour cancellation articles was the one about the song that leaked last year, although it's difficult to search for articles for a band with a name such as Brand New. RF23 (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so we won't use the words 'broken up'. Your suggestion of action course is exactly what I was asking for, but in addition, it would only make sense to say that the band isn't active in the 'years active' parameter, correct? That parameter doesn't necessarily mean a band's 'broken up' per se, but if we agree they're inactive, there's an end to the years they were active. dannymusiceditor oops 21:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Brand New (band)(redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brand New (band)(redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Brand New (band)(redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brand_New_(band)&oldid=1195538322"