Jump to content

Talk:Dave Matthews Band

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

John or James?

[edit]

The "History" section says "David John Matthews", but the article on Dave says "David James Matthews"?? Manscher (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it should be John, per this source. The article appears to have been vandalized a little over a week ago. I've reverted it. Good job catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History is too long (but too short)

[edit]

The history section contains individual subsections for 2006, 2007, and 2008, which makes it unnecessarily long. This should be combined into a smaller section dubbed 'Recent Activity' or something like that, as it doesn't make sense to have this much information about the recent years and not as much about the earlier years. Metsfanmax (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to grab an axe and start chopping the sections down, go right ahead. There seems to be a lot of superfluous information about concerts and such that doesn't really need to be there. If people really want to know that the band played for the Bob Harris show in the UK, and that Bob asked Dave questions, they can go to any of the fansites; I'm sure they have this information. As for us, it's not encyclopedic, and last time I checked, that's what we're trying to make here. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're exactly right. Any objections to this? Metsfanmax (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped off about 5k kb from the history section, feel free to go over it yourself and make additional changes. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Whoever cut the history section down,did a good job. But I think someone has added a lot of useless and unverified information back into the article. It is too long.--72.150.117.55 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A piece written for the existing DMB community

[edit]

The article, while admirably researched, offers no higher-level information that would help explain this bands' immense popularity to someone who is not already a fan. To do so it would have to acknowledge a diversity of critical opinion -- not simply about the music itself, but about the social/cultural phenomenon embodied by the DMB. As it is, this article assumes that the reader has already taken out membership papers in the DMB gemeinschaft. It would help if the article were to characterize the music in terms of theme and point of view, and comment on the advent of big Vegas-style production values that have come to typify its tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazierdp (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vegas-style production values"? Odd... I've never heard it referred to as that. You are free to edit this article just as much as we are, so go right ahead and dive in. Make sure all critical opinions are well cited from reputable sources. Qb | your 2 cents 19:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV (revert)

[edit]

An IP:71.122.67.169 keeps adding a fact tag to the lead's first sentence in which we state that DMB is rock. Its obvious POV, can someone revert it, as I'm at 2 rvts now. Qb | your 2 cents 20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is ridiculous... can someone else please put their input. Qb | your 2 cents 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This fact tag is not POV or personal analysis, it's just a fact tag. Cite a source and be done with it. This isn't unusual at all. MANY band articles have sources that justify their genre. 71.122.67.169 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qb - there's no problem with a fact tag sitting on an article for a few days. no sense in reverting it.
71.122.67.169 - I don't get it... are you disputing that DMB is a Rock band, or something else? this is not the kind of thing you normally tag with a 'fact' tag; instead, just change it to what you prefer (fusion, maybe?) and if there are any objections then take the time on the talk page to discuss what the proper label for DMB's kind of music is. this kind of thing is usually resolved very quickly and easily through a few minutes of haggling. --Ludwigs2 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing anything, I am just asking for a source to clarify their genre. Apparently Queerbubbles is unable to differentiate a request for sources from "personal commentary" "analysis" or "POV". If I were to "just change it to what [I] prefer", that WOULD be personal commentary, so I'm not going to do that. Come on, now. It's not that hard. Just put in a source and be done with it. Christ. 71.122.67.169 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'71.122.67.169' - please... this is a matter of conventional labeling, not a matter of concrete fact. don't make things more aggravating than they need to be. if you don't like 'rock band', say what you prefer, or just say that you'd prefer a generic term like 'band'. I don't think anyone is really hung up on the terminology, and if you offer something reasonable it will be resolved quickly.
let me point out that no one needs to defend a particular perspective with evidence unless there's a reason to defend it. if you are not offering another option than 'rock band', but are just throwing in that fact tag to make other people do unnecessary work, then you're being disruptive. if you think the term needs a fact find it yourself, and if you think the term is wrong give a different term, but please don't waste everyone's time quibbling about something without making a constructive suggestion.--Ludwigs2 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP, what would it be besides rock? Country? Folk? Why do we need to give a source for common sense? Have you added fact tags to Britney Spears, Big and Rich, or Ricky Scaggs? If not, then you are simply disrupting this specific article with your POV. Stop. Qb | your 2 cents 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "martell21" :
    • Nevin Martell, ''Dave Matthews Band: Music for the people,'' (New York: Pocket Books, 2004) 21
    • They were also playing a regular Tuesday night show at the popular Charlottesville club [[Trax (nightclub)|Trax]]. Tapings of shows at Trax are some of the most widely shared among DMB fans. After Newman, [[Coran Capshaw]], owner of the Flood Zone where the band often played, took the helm of The Dave Matthews Band.<ref>Capshaw notes in Nevin Martell, ''Dave Matthews Band: Music for the people,'' (New York: Pocket Books, 2004) 22 that, "I'd never thought about managing until Dave Matthews started playing at Trax, but I noticed there were a lot of people there for the first time and the word was kind of getting around about the band. The second night, I looked up and saw there was something special going on and I just got drawn into it as a fan."

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Template

[edit]

Try {{User:Thedjatclubrock/RIP}} if you'd like to show your feelings for LeRoi. Thank you. TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible article

[edit]

I'm pretty surprised this is not in better shape. This needs a major cleanup (the talk page could be archived as well - 2k6 topics don't do much good here). 71.56.118.64 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archived and started to fix but it gave me a headache so i stopped 71.56.118.64 (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were you going to make specific suggestions for improvements, or just leave that as an exercise for the reader editor? --WaldoJ (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's in such bad shape i don't even know where to begin. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no intention of fixing any errors, or even naming any errors, just complaining about...nothing in particular?--WaldoJ (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article needs to be reworked...it fails every standard established by WP:GACR. I cannot imagine that i am the only person who notices. Just read the article. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, then. Good talk. --WaldoJ (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and Tim

[edit]

I created an article for the act Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds. I am going to put a link in the associated acts section of the infobox. I see no reason not to have an article on this particular act; there is substantial information to write about, and a discography of more than one album. --Son (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lillywhite Sessions

[edit]

The Lillywhite Sessions is not a studio album, so it should not be included in that list. They are songs from a studio session that was leaked. There are studio sessions all the time, there is no need to add this one. You can't go out and buy the Lillywhite Sessions, this would confuse readers. If it is kept in the article (which it should not be), it would need to be placed above Everyday because it was leaked before Everyday was released. --OneSweet (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a studio album in that it was recorded in a studio. It very clearly has "leaked unreleased album", which should allay any concerns over potential confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was recorded in a studio but it was not released and was never intended to be circulated. The band does not aknowledge it as an album. There are a handful of other studio demos that were not officially released by the band, but are still circulated by fans. If the Lillywhite Sessions are included, then the Quad Studios Demo and Ardent Studio Demo should also be included. --OneSweet (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lillywhite Sessions are surely more notable than the other unreleased material; afterall, it has its own article, whereas the others do not. Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has its own article, does not make it a studio album. It has an article because of the controversy surrounding the sessions and the leak, and the subsequent release of Everyday. --OneSweet (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a studio album, where praytell was it recorded? It's an unreleased studio album, which is explicitly stated in its entry. I don't see what your issue with it being in the article is. Parsecboy (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, keep being a smartass. Where do you the Ardent Demo was recorded? And that one was actually going to be released. LWS is not an album. --OneSweet (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the Ardent Demo was also recorded in a studio, who's the smart ass now? The difference is that the Lillywhite Sessions received a great deal of independent media coverage, and is therefore far more notable than any of the other unreleased works. You still have not explained why you object to "The Lillywhite Sessions (Leaked unreleased album) (2001)" (emphasis mine) in the list. Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read below about what I wrote about The Beatle's Get Back Sessions. It is a very similar case. --OneSweet (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of y'all know about a similar instance of a band that recorded an album, it leaked, and they ended up not releasing it? It might be useful to see how that was handled on such artists' entries. FWIW, I think it does make sense to list it among the other studio albums, with the attached disclaimer, both because of the literal parsing of the phrase "studio album" (it is an album that was recorded in a studio), but also because it was so widely discussed and reviewed in the media, from the New York Times to Entertainment Weekly (who gave it an A-, as I recall). Though it may not have been in stores, there's really nothing else that makes it any different from any other band's album. A casual fan may not know that the Lillywhite Sessions were never released, and would likely be confused by its omission. But, again, let's see how this was handled on other artists' entries. --WaldoJ (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are unfinished songs from a studio session. It is not an album. It is a bootleg. The songs were then finished and released as Busted Stuff. And why do you keep putting in below Everyday? It shouldn't be on the list at all, but not only was it recorded before Everyday, but it was also leaked before Everyday was released. --OneSweet (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Everyday was released in February 2001, and the Lillywhite Sessions leaked in March 2001. dancheatham (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the similar instances question, there are tons of bootlegged studio demos of The Beatles. Most notably is probably the Kum Back bootleg. This is very similar to DMB's situation. The Beatle's 1969 studio sessions were shelved. The Kum Back bootleg was leaked, which contained rough tracks from those session. The Beatle's went back and re-did those sessions with Phil Spector in 1970 and released it as Let It Be. The entire Let It Be Sessions, also known as The Get Back Sessions, are widely circulated. Neither Kum Back or The Get Back Sessions are included under The Beatle's studio albums. --OneSweet (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OneSweet, you'll probably want to stop removing "The Lillywhite Sessions" from the entry until this is resolved. People are going to keep adding it, and you'll bump up against the three-revert limit, at which point your account is going to be locked down automatically by Wikipedia admins.
I note that Rolling Stone calls it an "album", as does Entertainment Weekly. OneSweet, you might should find some WP:SOURCES that pointedly do not call it an "album," to support your argument. --WaldoJ (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The media may consider it an album, but nowhere does that band say that. It is a bootleg album. Not a studio album (yeah I know it was recorded in a studio). --OneSweet (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with the standards established by the subjects of its articles when covering said subjects. What is important is, again, WP:SOURCES. --WaldoJ (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Lillywhite Sessions shouldn't be in the Studio Albums section. It has a whole Wikipedia article on it in addition to a long section on it under "Early 2000." People don't need any more information on it than that. Here's my rationale for not including it: It was not a complete album. Bands record songs in studios all the time but they are not considered albums until they have been fully recorded, edited, mixed, and put out for sale as an actual "album." Until all these things are done, anything recorded in a studio cannot officially be called a studio album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damaband (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coffin

[edit]

While Jeff Coffin's website does state that he "will be joining Dave Matthews Band starting in 2009," I think it's too early to list him as a "member" for a few reasons: he's not listed as a member on the official website; he's not in a recent publicity photo of the band; the post on his website is titled "JC on tour with Dave Matthews Band - 2009," implying that he will be a "touring member" like Butch Taylor was; and Butch Taylor is not listed as a "former member," even though the announcement of his departure said that he "decided to leave Dave Matthews Band." Whatever the case, we'll know for sure when the album's liner notes come out. dancheatham (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, since the 2009 summer tour image on the official site also doesn't include Coffin - he must be touring only. Nexxia (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as touring member, also for the future. Inter\Echo 14:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway Park

[edit]

Is it really newsworthy that the band "may" be playing at Fenway Park this summer? Who cares (besides Bostonians)?

No, it's not. It was added two other times in the past couple of days, and those had both been reverted. Apparently it sneaked in a third time, but I removed it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far More Documentation Needed

[edit]

I just went through and audited every claim made in the article, flagging any unsupported claim with "fact," "weasel," "says who," etc. tags. Honestly, the article is a bit tough to read now, it's so littered with "citation needed" and "by whom" superscripts. But that's not my fault—this whole entry is thick with claims that just aren't supported by the facts as documented. Some of these claims should be pretty straightforward to document:

  • "Or, as Matthews was quoted as saying, he was in a depressive state and BMG kept asking him for happy music."
  • "The February 27, 2001, release of Everyday was a huge commercial success."
  • "On September 12, 2004, DMB played their second benefit show in less than a year, with a free show at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco."

I've certainly put in my time finding citations to support claims for this entry, so I don't think it's unreasonable that I point out these problems and suggest that others find citations for a few of these facts.

FWIW, after a complete reading, the repeated references to what "fans" think is a bit exhausting. Without a newspaper article or other solid form of documentation that describes the collective opinion of "fans"—as if fans speak with a unified voice—it's time to knock off the harping on what fans do and don't think, and the supposed behavior of the band in response to said opinion.--WaldoJ (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would be kind enough to help polish this?

[edit]

I added the NAACP award listed in the intro, and later in 2003, the "free" Central Park concert that brought "millions" of dollars to New York school children. The information is on the DMB MySpace, but I don't use MySpace, and so couldn't find it. (I saw a video of the NAACP award ceremony, which someone lifted and posted it on You Tube.) Thus, I listed two sources, just the general DMB MySpace, and the You Tube posted video I saw. I'm hoping someone will find the video source on the band's My Space, or the information elsewhere. I realize that You Tube is usually a poor source, since people often remove videos, so, I just listed the main DMB MySpace and the You Tube video site. They look like this: [1][2]

If someone can fix these as references, I think they are important. In particular, what was said about their humanitarian work hasn't really been addressed in the article, which is a shame. Please listen to what is in the video, it's got a lot of good points. Without more than it, I'm strapped for time. Please, listen, and use the info, or at least follow up on the sources).. I'll try to return and help. Thanks.--leahtwosaints (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable

[edit]

This article is almost unreadable. Whomever decided to put a "needs citation" or "who" after every sentence probably should have just left a general note for people to work on it. Annoying and not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.223.231 (talk) 16:09, 12 April, 2009 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's standards (WP:BLP), most of these "facts" should have been deleted long ago. There's been discussion here on the talk page for months about the ways in which this entry is just beastly, and many of these sections have long been flagged as lacking citations. I've put a lot of time into trying to improve it, including the extensive addition of citations and cleaning-up of the text. If you find the article "almost unreadable" because of the uncited claims, that's the fault of those who have provided those claims (and, in fact, you, since I see no evidence that you've provided any citations for them), not those (like me) who have gone to the effort of flagging facts as needing citations.
But, hey, you’ve inspired me—I just added a refimprove banner to the top of the entry. If we don't see significant improvements made in the next month or so, I intend to go through and hack out most of the claims in question.--WaldoJ (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations in the Groogrux King area, I will continue to add more throughout the article as I find the different sources. I must agree with many people, the article has become clogged with citation needed, but everyone needs to work on fixing it, not just pointing it out.Cmodrummer13 (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help! --WaldoJ (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some citations will be hard to find. Such as the claim that the Big League Chew show is the most well known show from the early days. It probably is, due to the excellent recording we have of it, but proving that will be difficult at best. Inter\Echo 07:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any time an entry claims that X is particularly popular, it's going to have citation problems. Perhaps it would be better to peg this to something measurable. For instance, Matias (DMB Almanac) or Jake (Ants Marching) could give us data regarding the shows from prior to, say, 1998 that have the largest number of views on their websites. Then our claim is pegged to a reasonable source of data that would support that claim. --WaldoJ (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, although it would depend upon that they actually have this information. I think perhaps it would be better to ask Brian over at dt.org for some downloading stats on this show, compared to other 1993-1994 shows. Just a thought. Inter\Echo 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way to long and has too many problems.

[edit]

I have removed things like-The negative reaction to Everyday among fans and the middling success of Busted Stuff created a sense of eagerness, if not urgency, to create a stellar album.

I am sorry but that does not sound encyclopedic at all. It sounds like it was written by fans. Plus there are no sources for the claim.--72.150.117.55 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't doubt it's written by fans. :) But those things need to go, agreed. Inter\Echo 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't forget such prize-winning writing like: "By 1997, DMB reached unparalleled levels of popularity across the United States and, to some degree, the world." 135.134.38.70 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a jam band

[edit]

DMB is not only a jam band. DMB does tend to jam often but they do not only jam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.68.147 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly have a tendency to extend a lot of their repertoire through creative "jamming", however this does not make them a jam band. They are primarily a rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.49.240 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a comment

[edit]

Someone not familiar with Wikipedia format left a long reminiscence here. I removed it, b/c although it was interesting, it had no bearing on the band itself, (in factual referencing). --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early Years Citations

[edit]

After I added Yet Another Citation Needed to this article, I realized that isn't very wikish of me. So I researched a few things to find some references. I can't find anything other than one note on a fansite to support that the name "Big League Chew" for the March 23, 1993, concert at Trax came from a sponsorship by the Wrigley's gum company, so I removed it. Nor can I find anything stating that the show was well known. Griesar himself doesn't even remember it that well and it may have been his last time he ever played with the band[3]. I also removed the uncited statement that they've made 10 billion US dollars in the last ten years. I seriously doubt that they--or any musician--made $10 billion since 1999 and it has no place in the 'Early Years' section. Ok, now I'm sick of DMB. Time for someone else to help. Jeff d kirby (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ DMB (2004). "DMB MySpace Website". Video receiving award. Dave Matthews Band. Retrieved 2009-03-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Dave Matthews Band (2004). "Dave Matthews Band - Why Oh Why/Crush". Video of NAACP Award. You Tube. Retrieved 2009-03-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Delancey, Morgan, Dave Matthews Band: Step Into The Light, page 104, ECW Press, 2001

The DMB itself views the articles as poor- C level at best

[edit]

I went to add reference to one of the smaller sections, "Philanthropy" (??!???) How ANYONE can bypass a band that invests so hugely into philanthropic concerns, as in supporting two concerts to give the money to NYC to help their crappy schools, to supporting villages in far away places, to much more makes me really wonder how much any of the editors know about this band! But really, I just had to say there are multiple references, and a zillion dead links. It doesn't take much to remove or fix just ONE as you move along! Also, a friend of mine in Brazil, whose website is one of the DMB website's "links" says they really feel the DMB articles are poor. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Clips

[edit]

I would suggest sound clips of their biggest songs so people can understand what their music are like, espically other band articles have sound clips with in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Articles (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are song samples included on some of the songs individual articles including Satellite, Crash Into Me and Two Step. I don't know the process or procedure of creating new song samples but it would be nice to have the samples on some of the newer songs. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 23:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping Sentences

[edit]

Near the bottom, there is a box in which two sentences (with different texts) are overlapping. I am not sure what they are spelling out (from what I can see, they are talking about Moore's death), but I would like someone to separate them or delete them to solve the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.212.50 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 19:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?

[edit]

I noticed that at various points in time "Jazz Fusion" or "Jazz Rock" was listed as a genre but was removed with little or no explanation. I went ahead and put it back in to keep consistent with the fact that DMB is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jazz_fusion_artists. I feel like this categorization should be justified (if not obvious) considering that several of the founding and touring members have roots in jazz.

On another note, I can't help but feel the list of genres is kind of misleading here. Soft Rock and Jam Band I can understand, but I have doubts about the appropriateness of categorizing the band as "Pop Music". According to the wiki page on Pop Music, Pop Music "usually [consists] of relatively short, simple love songs utilizing technological innovations to produce new variations on existing themes". From my own biased point of view, I don't feel like this accurately sums up DMB. It is true (in recent years especially) that many DMB songs structurally are pop tunes but the definition given by Wikipedia of the genre doesn't seem to fit the band. For instance the wiki article lays out theses characteristics for pop music:

  • an aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology[1]
  • an emphasis on craftsmanship rather than formal "artistic" qualities[1]
  • an emphasis on recording, production, and technology, over live performance[2]
  • a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments[2]
  • much pop music is intended to encourage dancing, or it uses dance-oriented beats or rhythms[2]

To me, this seems to indicate that according the Wikipedia definition of Pop Music, DMB really wouldn't be considered a pop group. I'm not arguing that they aren't a band that produces popular music, but as popular music points out, "although popular music sometimes is known as "pop music", the two terms are not interchangeable". This is just my opinion, though, so I didn't make any changes.

I did, however move "Pop Music" down the list since the first sentence of the article refers to Dave Matthews Band as a rock band. I felt in that case "Soft Rock" should be at the top of the list.

Feel free to disagree, of course. I appreciate anyone's input. Panzertök (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WaldoJ, if you could remove all off the annotations you've made to the article, it would be appreciated. It's great that you want to have a more accurate entry, but the notice on the top of the article should be sufficient - you've really made the article less readable than it has to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.12.137 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Firth2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Warner2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Comprehensive multi-media fansite

[edit]

Yes, fansites aren't acceptable, but still this multi-media fansite from Brazil has quite a bit of information traceable to the right sources. (One of the perks of editing other language Wikipedias).. [1] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live Trax articles

[edit]

I figured this page is probably the most active, so I'll start here. All but one of the albums in the Live Trax album series appear to fail WP:MUSIC, because none of them received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The one exception appears to be the compilation album, since it was distributed at Starbucks and thus received coverage for that. The series as a whole is likely notable, though; I note, for example, a paragraph worth of discussion in Rolling Stone. All of these articles need to be redirected somewhere. Ideally, they should be redirected to a summary article describing the Live Trax series; unfortunately, that doesn't currently exist; the next best redirect target is Dave Matthews Band discography. While I could just redirect immediately, I figured I'd check here first to see if anyone might be interested in writing such an article. Alternatively, if I'm wrong, and there is actually notable coverage for one or more of those albums, people could go about adding that to the relevant articles instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to anyone watching this page but not the album pages: I've nominated all of the Live Trax albums save one for deletion; you can comment if interested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Trax Vol. 1. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago bus story?

[edit]

Why doesn't this article contain info on the "poop bus" scandal...? 98.225.6.67 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Dave Matthews 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dave Matthews 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Matthews should redirect here.

[edit]

This is RIDICULOUS. Nobody calls DMB "Dave Matthews Band", they call them "Dave Matthews." I can't believe this hasn't been discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.58.104.26 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Dave Matthews weren't a person with his own page, that would be a valid reason. As it is, the Dave Matthews page has a prominent link to this one, though, so there's no issue.dancheatham (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dave Matthews 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Members

[edit]

How can we objectively determine when Boyd, Butch, Tim, Jeff, and Rashawn are members for the purposes of the member graph? If we include every individual show they've ever played on, we'd end up with a bunch of small slivers of line like we currently have for Butch's single 2017 show. Tim played on dozens of random shows in the 1990s but has consistently played every show with the band since 2008. Rashawn played on a handful of shows in 2005 and has consistently played every show with the band since 2006. Butch played on a few small runs of shows in 1998 and 1999, most of the shows in 2000, and on every show from mid-May 2001 to April 2008. Jeff played on a handful of random shows from 1997 to 2006, and on every show since July 2008. Boyd played on most of the known shows in 1991 and 1992 but did not become an official "member" until mid-1992.

I had deleted the 2017 tick on Butch's line, but someone reverted it. To me, he did not "rejoin" the band for that single 2017 gig any more than Tim quit and rejoined dozens of times in the 1990s.

If the goal of the graph is to give readers a general idea of when each of these people was in the band, I think it's mostly fine as-is, but the single tick for Butch in 2017 needs to go, and Boyd's line should extend back to April 1991 (earliest known DMB show with him).

If the goal of the graph is to give readers an exact representation of each of the members' involvement with the band, I think we need to go through and represent each show or period of shows that each of them has played for the entirety of the band's history. We would probably also need to add the "Lovely Ladies" back to the graph. To me, this option goes overboard and makes the lines messy and less meaningful/useful.dancheatham (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

[edit]

I have tagged the article for the following issues:

This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: lacks encyclopedic tone, is disjointed, and needs a proofread. SunCrow (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Matthews_Band&oldid=1208861529"