Talk:The Mountain Goats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. | ||
How notable is this band? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd say notable enough - being signed to 4AD [1], a notable indie label, and having a fair amount of listeners(traditional googling turns up pages about mountain goats(the animals), but "john darnielle" "mountain goats" has 5,950 hits [2] and Mountain Goats are #695 in the Audioscrobbler artist charts [3], for what that's worth) should surely be enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry? "They" also make great music, but that is probably beside the point. -- Svk 18:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, yes, sadly it is. =D Believe me, if simply making great music was enough to justify a Wikipedia article, I'd have created Blue Vinyl Lounge, George Kahn, The Phoenix Trap, Joy Machine, Kim Justice and a whole lot of others long ago. But it's important that there be some standard of notability; I just have no idea how that standard can be fairly assessed in independent music (despite having some favorite independent musicians, I don't know which indie labels are big and which are the-band-itself-in-a-funny-hat -- and even the latter does not automatically mean they're not notable, it just makes it harder to assess.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Glad to see that my amateur starting page has evolved into something greater :).
Regarding the relative "notableness" or "importance" of this band, you can say that a lot of bands with Wikipedia articles were not notable or influential at all. For example, you could ask "How is Keane notable? How have they changed music?", yet there exists a Wikipedia page about Keane at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keane. I'm not justifying having a page for every single band that exists, even if they're still practicing in their grandparents' basement, but any band with a somewhat prolonged career and an established fanbase that has released music should not be denied a page on Wikipedia. Here, I would be adamantly against any hard-and-fast rules saying which bands can and cannot be on Wikipedia. If it bothers you that, for example, Belle and Sebastian has a page on Wikipedia, put yourself in the shoes of a fan and ask yourself "Is Belle and Sebastian significant enough in music to have a small nook of an Internet encyclopedia about them?" Pizzahunks 18:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
in re: "Glad to see that my amateur starting page has evolved into something greater :)" Yeah I found the page on some random search in wikipedia and was thrilled to see a page, but then again was disappointed at it's lack of information and completeness. So I took it unpon myself to begin transforming it into something better. So I've kinda adopted this page into making it a constantly evolving entity that can show off what the mountain goats really are. I can't describe how thrilled I was when I saw that you took it upon yourself to create that page for The Coroner's Gambit, seems that my dreams for this page are starting to reach fruition already :). Argnoth 21:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my capacity to integrate the Mountain Goats into Wikipedia is limited, because I only have The Coroner's Gambit and Protein Source of the Future...Now! (Don't worry about Protein Source, I'm working on a page for that too.)
Let there be a day when all of the reddies on the Mountain Goats page become blue! :) Pizzahunks 00:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I played around with the first paragraph a bit: what do you think? Lemuria 07:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not logged in know, but i do think this band has big enough fanbase for a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an easy source were people look up what ever they want to know and the more obscure bands there is the better easier to find info on them. This band is not even that obscure , they (he) is actually quite big. I also removed the POV tag because the article is not biased in anyways and the disscusion page had no discusion on how it could be biased
The TV show "Weeds" features at least one song, so I reckon they must be pretty notable. Also, who cares if they are notable? If they aren't, noone will read the article. I don't think wikipedia are short on disk space... 121.72.4.29 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This requires major cleanup - it looks like a large chunk came from another source, and the whole thing is much too hagiographic. Phil Sandifer 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the history different? I liked the way it was divided in three chapters.
I'm going to be rewriting a large chunk of this article, fashioning the structure after the Bright Eyes article. They're a similar band, in that there's one central singer-songwriter and a rotating band (although the Mountain Goats is more permanant). I think this will work well to clean the artcle up. If Anyone has a problem with this or thoughts, comment soon.--sethbdoe 00:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
how about a better (non-grainy) picture?
I really think there should be more talk of the quotes that he puts into every release, as well as a list of other people he's worked with. (Matthall 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC))
- Those are simple enough to work on. I'll attempt it. Jellypuzzle | Talk 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If no-one objects, I might add a bit to the introduction. I'll avoid repeating anything that is said later in the article. Cheers, PunkOn 07:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
