Talk:They Might Be Giants
I vote to move this page to They Might Be Giants. ZERO actual pages link here (see What links here). Instead, three redirects do (They Might Be Giants, TMBG, and Who Are They Might Be Giants). Also, it's kinda sorry to have the page with the band's name be a redirect. -badqueso 01:46, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
I second that! -magbatz
- You know, that's always bugged me as well. So, i agree, and i moved it for you. Also, the page itself is a bit sparse, for anyone that is interested in adding some more details.--Duke33 10:31, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
Maybe this page should have the history of the band, since I don't think there's already a place for that on the wiki. Magbatz 21:28, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
(oops... scratch that, just noticed that it does point to the Wikipedia article) --Nehushtan 09:49, 20 Mar 2006 (CST)
The New Info-Laden TMBG Page[edit | edit source]
Tonight I drew up a set of final titles for each section of the new, big edit of this page:
- When in Lincoln... 1959-82 - Regarding the history of the John's relationship before they began TMBG
- Then, Them, and no us 1982-85 - The band before any fanbase devloped (title up for grabs, and can probably be merged with third section)
- Clubs, Pubs, and Run Down Apartments 1985-86 - The Johns begin performing, yay. This section covers everything (including the demo tapes) up until...
- The technical term is "comercial artists"â€¦ 1986-89 - This covers their first album and Lincoln and such, including their movement into the national scene.
- And the course will see you through... 1990-94 - Regarding the time with Flood and Apollo 18. The 92 tour (and the fall of the tape concerts) would be a great segway to...
- But the band plays on 1994-96 - Another full band venture: John Henry! and the turmoil all this created.
- I don't know why you say Hello... 1990-99 - (A Beatles quote was gonna happen) This section covers the 90's (poosible back tracking to cover it all), the solo-projects, Hello Club, Albums, etc.
- Post-Cambrian Explosion 2000-06 - Mink Car to now, plus their recent altruistic side.
- It's the little ones that I'm worried about... - The Kid's stuffs!
They're divided into chronological order/importance and dated (relatively) with a short deletable description whgere they article should go. Once we can get a mandate on these, I'll add them to the page and people can tear into this! Now, instead of the daunting task of writing the whole freaking page, you can write for or just add to the period of time you know best (or know at all, we're desperate ;-) Be sure to check the TMBW To-Do List to sign up and let everyone know you're planning on helping. It'll raise the spirits some. --Luke 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Genre?[edit | edit source]
So, what is TMBG's genre? I'm gonna say Experimental New Wave or maybe nowadays you could call them Experimental Alternative. So I guess It's An Experimental Alternative to New Wave or Experimental Alternative Wave.
What do you guys think?
- I think "alternative" is fitting, with avant-garde ties in the early years. "Pop" might work as well. ~ magbatz 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't say Pop would be good. Alternative is good. Avant-Garde, I don't know, I guess.
They call themselves "Alternative Rock"
Thank you and congrats![edit | edit source]
I want to congratulate and thank everyone who put hard work into this article. You've done a great job TMBW users. Keep up the good work. :D --Lemita 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh dang! This is awesome. --Valerie 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Luke! It was truly a team effort...i was just the last person in the relay with the baton. --Duke33 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm so happy to see this go up. Even though I only worked on the first section, I still kinda consider it my baby. Thanks everyone! --MichelleMaBelle 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Update[edit | edit source]
Here Comes Science has already come out, this thing needs updating but i don't feel that i'm experienced enought to do it.
Plural? Singular!?[edit | edit source]
Will we ever know? I mean, is it correct to say "They Might Be Giants is" or "They Might Be Giants are?" I think the first is probably right, but not even they know. As long as that isn't a typo, that is. -Apollo (oh no!) (you can find my talk page if you look hard enough) 01:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
TMBG Research Paper[edit | edit source]
Here's another good TMBG research paper: .
If people want to incorporate any of the info from it, feel free. --Duke33 13:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Chronology question[edit | edit source]
The history says:
In a fantastic turn of events the tape was reviewed by Michael Small in People magazine, giving them the attention they would need to score a record deal. This gave the Johns their first national exposure and garnered the interest of Bar/None Records.
In the fall of 1985, the group was approached by Glenn Morrow and Tom Prendergast at Bar/None Records.
The review of the 1985 demo tape appeared in the June 30, 1986 issue of People (page image from magazine archive). So Bar/None must have been interested in the band before the review came out, right? --Octoflange 09:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- well, honestly, i think there must be a mistake somewhere, and i'm guessing it's that bar/none contacted them in 1985. i would think that it was probably (early) fall 1986... it seems odd that it would take bar/none over a year to put out a record...
and i think the label may have not even existed in 1985. wikipedia says 1986, so i'm pretty sure it was fall of that year. -- 19:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- well, some of the tracks were virtually unchanged from their versions on the 85 tape... and they'd probably done at least a good portion of the other recordings already. the pink album was not the kind of record it takes a whole lot of rehearsal time by the band to get down. -- 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, that line is straight from the band's Apollo 18 Press Release. That's not to say it wasn't embellished though... --Duke33 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The press release doesn't specify when Bar/None contacted Them, but the "quick succession" supports the idea of everything falling into place in the fall of '86. I'll go ahead and change "the fall of 1985" in the chronology since there's no corroboration for it. --Octoflange 03:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Some great quotes if anyone wants to work them in[edit | edit source]
We're going to need a rewrite soon with Join Us coming out in two weeks, and this interview just came out with some great quotes about the band itself from Flansburgh:
We have a very unusual career. We’re making music that we’re pretty confident most people won’t like! We’re not doing something that’s widely beloved. We’re doing something off to the side, making a lot of people shake their heads. It’s a little grim, but we’re in this for the long haul, and we’re doing it for reasons far beyond the economics of it. People who make the music have to figure out how to make it through this world. I’m cool with that.
We tried very hard to make all of our work come up to the same bar or exceed the bar we’ve set previously. What we do is an evolution, and we take it very seriously. We don’t want to move into what they call in art history a “mannerist period,” where we’re just doing a diminished version of our original stuff. A lot of times, people say, “You guys have been a band for 30 years. No bands make records for 30 years. How do you keep on going?” The truth of it is, it’s still a really interesting challenge on a creative level, and that’s enough. There are a lot of other things we could be doing that would probably be less stressful and maybe more lucrative. But this is an interesting project for us, and we were lucky the way it got set up in the beginning. We’re very open-ended. We didn’t get trapped by being a one-hit wonder. We didn’t get trapped by some weird legacy of success. We found a pretty pleasant place for ourselves in the world.
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame[edit | edit source]
I've been told to "take this up on the talk page," so, does anyone agree with me that it isn't necessary at all for the fact that TMBG became eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2011 to be on this page? The line that was added even explicitly said there's basically no chance it will happen, so I see no reason for something that won't happen and is therefore irrelevant to be on the page. Thoughts? --Self Called Nowhere (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
- I could see it as an interesting trivia thing? Like, if there's a date that they became eligible (though -- I think it'd just be from the date of their first LP, so just Pink's release day in 2011?), that might be good for a This Day In TMBG History blurb. Actually, I think I would be for that -- it IS a neat bit of trivia. But I don't know how relevant it is on the main TMBG page... just because, well, it's very rare ANYONE good gets into the Hall.... and when they do, it's usually way later than they should have. So I figure I have a little bit of a "fuck those Jann Wenner lovin' dinosaurs" thing goin' on too. - Rev. Syung Myung Me (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
- I think it's a very interesting bit of trivia and I was happy to read it since I hadn't considered the issue. I am concerned that it's a little negative since it won't happen, but it's pretty cool and it shows the band's longevity in well known but rarely considered terms. Sonderling (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
- I think I would be all right with it being listed as a This Day in TMBG History item as suggested. Those are often more minor things and I think something that's perhaps somewhat interesting but not really important enough to be on the actual TMBG page could be reasonably appropriate there. --Self Called Nowhere (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
- yeah i know we're not Wikipedia but this is like, not a particularly sound convention. it's silly to list all the things TMBG has not done, awards they haven't won, etc...bands constantly become "eligible" to enter the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame...all it says is that their first album came out 25 years ago. this is essentially meaningless. why bother Apollo (colloquia!) 21:56, 28 April 2015 (EDT)
By the way, Pittsburghmuggle please check out WP:BRD, which is generally considered good wikimanners and marginally applies here. i realize this isn't exactly controversial, but back-and-forth reverting is, of course, the first step toward an edit war! if you make a change and it gets reverted, the best thing to do is make no further change until there is some consensus. this works off the assumption that what exists presently is there by tacit consensus, so it doesn't make sense to forgo that consensus if a change has been contested. Apollo (colloquia!) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (EDT)