Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Genre

Seeing as this is a major debate among various contributors, I believe we should all come to a solid conclusion as to what the Red Hot Chili Peppers are, and what the "Genre" section of the Info-box will read. In my opinion, the band was never pop, but rather mellowed out considerably during By the Way. Really, it is my belief that many people draw their conclusions that it is pop from the calm nature of the album. This is an open debate, so please, voice your opinion. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


i've already say in past, for me By the way is a typical pop rock album..pop rock as the word say is a mix of pop and rock..i'm not talk abou ballads (tear,dosed..) but in general By the way apart the titletrack,cantstop,throw away (more funk) and don't forget (very particular) is full of tracks that mix mainly rock and pop. maybe a lot of you thing pop=britney spears,christina aguilera ecc...that is "Teen Pop" only a small part of "Pop". is not only a fact of mellowed and calm..the "rock" sound difference, more energic,agressive or particular. i was write somewhere here in wiki a list of review of BTW and Stadium arcadium where critics describe albums or song as pop rock. pop rock could be describe also "mainstream rock" as "popular rock", what is that make difference between the typical (and always described) "pop rock" band like U2 or REM and post '00 chili peppers? i think nothing..obviously any band have a personal sound (more epic and '80 for U2, more eclectic and acoustic for REM or more funky oriented for RHCP).

for Genre in general i think that must write: - Funk Metal, is not a genre but a movement,a scene with a lot of different band (who more punk, who more metal (example Extrema) oriented) that mixing Funk with Rock (hard,metal,punk) in late '80.RHCP was maybe the biggest band of that scene, so i think it must write. - Alternative Rock, maybe..yes they was "alternative"..but i think that the alternative is dead now..alternative lived well in '80 and in '90...and i think chili peppers post' 00 aren't alternative...but we could leave it write. - Rock...is a bit general,i think we could delete it. - Funkcore, for me shoud be write...they was on Funk metal scene but their sound never be "metal", they never played metal so the genre "funcore" is more precise,becouse they mainly mix Funk,Punk,Rock and rap and in their early interview or critcs reviews they always be described as a mix of Funk and Hardcore...but i think that "funkcore" is good only for '80 rhcp. - Funk Rock..this is the best descripition of chili peppers music from '90 to now, i think we leave it write. - rapcore...yes Anthony use "rap" or pseudorap in a lot of his melodies (above all in old recording) and he say a lot of times that he use rap because he haven't a talented voice and he have a lot influences from Kurtis Blow and other rappers. more rhcp with other bands have influenced a big part of '90 and '00 rapcore bands like limp bizkit & co...so IMHO we should write also Rapcore..


thats all, waiting for other comments Zagozagozago

Zagozagozago, made a good point. People are associating "pop" with Britney, etc. But being "pop" also puts a band in the company of acclaimed acts like The Beatles, Steely Dan, and the Beach Boys maxcap 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the RHCP are "pop". They are a good band, but I don't know if you can compare them to the Beatles. Even people that don't usually listen to music have at least heard of the Beatles, but I don't think you can say the same thing about the RHCP. Not that they're bad or anything, though. I think their genre is funk rock. I remember Anthony saying something about their genre in an interview...if anyone else knows it please put it up here. Jedi_feline | Talk 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Trust me, I wasn't compairing them to The Beatles. I was trying help illustrate the distinction between bubblegum teen pop, and general purpose pop because people get their panties in a bunch over the word for no good reason. The last two Belle and Sebastian album are pop albums for example...they're not exactly hit machines (in the US at least). It's not 100% dependent on mass appeal. It has a lot to do with a focus on songwriting and crafting a song as whole. maxcap 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RHCP is a rock band; we can all agree on that. Beyond that? Their primary genre is alternative rock. In fact, they were partly responsible for its breakthrough, with the success of BloodSugarSexMagik and their stint on Lollapalooza in 1992. Funk metal is more specific a nd very accurate given the band's influences, but some sources, most notably Allmusic.com consider it a form of alternative rock anyway. So I would say "Rock, alternative rock, funk metal" are adequate enough genres for the infobox. WesleyDodds 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


ok but if we write only Alt rock,Rock,funk metal we miss all rap vines (rapcore), all punk (funkcore) vibes...more we continue to not describe the post '00 rhcp that couldn't described as Alt rock (they aren't alternative now), funk metal (funk metal die a lot of years a go and chili stop to play it a lot of years ago)..and miss al the pop sound of last albums.. so for me we can delete Rock (too generic and similar at alternative rock) and modify Alternative rock in Alternative Pop Rock for describe post '00 chili peppers, for the rest i'm for write funk rock (their mainly sound in '90),funk metal (their music scene in '80) for sure, and adding funkcore (describe better their sound in '80) and rapcore (for dont forget that the 80% of vocal lines before middle '90 was simil rap and dont forget all the influences for late '90 rapmetal bands..)Zagozagozago

Alt-rock is derived from punk, plus the funk and hip-hop influences are detailed in th the musical style section. And while you may not feel so, their music still fits under the alternative rock genre (true it really doesn't fit under funk metal anymore). WesleyDodds 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Rock? Yes. Alternative rock? Yes. Remember, "Alternative rock" here has nothing to do with popularity. It's more about the use of different instruments than it is about airplay. Pop rock? Eh. Here's how it breaks down for me: I'm not too fond of having really specific genres; it just brings more debate. Pop rock (really) only refers to about 10 songs on one album. Though By the Way was subdued ("Midnight", "Dosed") there are still some pretty funky tunes on there, like "Can't Stop" and "Throw Away Your Television", not to mention "By the Way". So, I'm against pop rock, if only because it's been a vast minority of their sound overall. Have they at any time been pop-rock? I think. I don't think they're in the same group of pop rock as, say, The Fray or something, but they've definitely had some songs in that sort of category... But they've done it so very little. So, to get to my point (finally) I would say this: Rock, Alternative Rock, and Funk Rock. Funk Metal connotes some sort of power-chord structure (typical of metal), but Frusciante has guitar parts waaaay too intricate for that. Though they're not nearly as funky now as they were for BloodSugar, songs like "I'll Be Your Domino" and "Storm in a Teacup" are truly funky little numbers. ColbeagleTheEagle 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And while Can't Stop is less funky then it's predecessors, it is quite different in today's music. I would classify the sound Zago is trying to explain as a more modern sort of thing. Even though it is funky, it's modern funk. Too many people jump to the conclusion that they’re pop, too quickly, without realize that they have matured with music itself. The sound quality on BSSM is also quite lacking, therefore it does come across as dryer, in comparison to even OHM. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 23:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Too many people jump to the conclusion that they’re pop, too quickly, without realize that they have matured with music itself"..man..Pop is not a bad word..pop and matured could be mix togheter a lot of time. i think you continue to think that pop is a offensive word..you could listen the difference with rock vibes and pop vibes comparing Around The World and Can't Stop..Around The World was in general a rock track (with rap & funky)instead Can't Stop for me is a pop rock track (with rap & funky)..how could you define the Tell me baby chorus in different way than Pop??Tell me baby chorus is 100% pop, the same at Snow, for me is really hard consider it a Rock track..for me is a pop rock track..last 2 albums are full of pop rock tracks..Zagozagozago
on Pop Rock don't looking only song by song but in general, listen Can't Stop..ok it's funky,ok it's rap,ok it's rock and more but in general try to compare can't stop with one of '80 or also '90 chili peppers funk rock song..is different..you can listen the pop vibes here as you can listen in almost all by the way (and in a lot of Stadium Arcadium, a bit of Californication and in some older song like Aeroplane,falling to grace...)..what i mean for pop rock is not only mellowed song like fray,coldplay or other..but also more energic band like nickelback (post-grunge) for me are also a pop rock band..Franz Ferdinand (retro rock,new post-punk) for me is also a "pop rock" band..on "delete funk metal" for me is an error..they was the biggest and the simbol band of "funk metal" scene..for is wrong don't catalougize them by it..Zagozagozago
I agree with you that "pop rock" is not a negative thing. Many people think that it is, though, which can lead to a problem. I also agree that they have done songs that are, in fact, pop rock like. That said, it's a vast minority compared to the rest of the things they've done. They've released 9 studio albums, totaling 10 discs. I don't know the actual number, but it has to be pushing 200+ songs when you consider things like B-Sides and otherwise unreleased tracks. As such, the pop rock genre is a very small part of their sound. Without sounding too cynical, I find it ironic that in one response you can tell us to "don't go looking only song by song but in general", only to have your previous response single out "Tell Me Baby" and "Snow" as having pop rock choruses. Don't take that as criticism. Honestly, I do think they've been a bit pop rock in the last few years.... But that's only 5 out of 25 years of existence, which is 20% of their time. Even then, not every song in that period has been pop rock. I would say (and I'm being generous here, since I think Stadium Arcadium is more funk than pop) that 1/2 of the songs since that time have been pop rock. So, half of their songs in 1/5 of their existence has been pop rock. That's a very small amount of music.
And don't think that I oppose "Pop Rock" purely because I don't think they've fit that category very well; I oppose it because the genre is simply too specific. Very specific genre classifications only cause debate, as you can see in the System of a Down article. That's why I think "Rock", "Alternative Rock" and "Funk Rock" will suit well, since they're 1) Not very specific and 2) Represent about 90% of their career. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


So, what we Decide?? i'm for

  • Alternative Rock
  • Funk Rock (Their '90 general sound)
  • Funk Metal (Their '80 music scene)
  • Funkcore (their '80 more precisous style)
  • Rapcore (for Anth's "rap" that diffference red hot from a lot of other '80 funk metal band)
  • Pop Rock (for '00 general sound...someone continue to hate the word "pop"..we could change in Mainstream Rock, AOR or also Classic Rock or maybe "Rock Pop")

i know they are 6..but they are always cited as one of the biggest and more rappresentative bands at least of first 5 genre..deleting one of this we don't rappresenting well the sound of peppers. this are my Imho..we can do some "voting"? Zagozagozago

All of those except for pop rock have some merit. Pop rock, however, is more a generic term than a genre one, and I don't see how it can validly be perscribed to the Chili Peppers. Plus I've never seen it affixed to the band. Labeling them pop rock seems like original research to me. WesleyDodds 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
only some of last 2 album reviews where critics talk about pop

"By The Way"

"la band si è adattata al pop-rock odierno" "lavori prettamente pop-rock come Universally Speaking (ultimo singolo estratto), This Is The Place e Dosed" "I Could Die For You e Tear, altra chicca pop-rock" "Il pop-rock inconcepibile nei primi album per una band che della fisicità e del crossover faceva la sua forza"

"With the accomplished, insanely melodic By the Way, the Red Hot Chili Peppers dive headfirst into the pop realm"

"arrangements all distilled through the band's well-traveled funk-pop stylings"

"Stadium Arcadium"

"the Chilis transmute their funk/rap/metal into a mellower, 'popular' pop with deceptive ease"

"the appropriation of classic Cali-pop melodies and harmonies on 2002’s By the Way"

"hard pop ("Snow [Hey Oh]")"

for other reviews..just go on goolge Zagozagozago

That's just noting a pop influence; that does not mean a logical leap to listing pop rock as a genre. That would be original research, and that's a no-no on Wikipedia. Also, it's not best to rely on reviews for genre classification. We can note that critics have noted an increased pop element in their most recent music in this article, with citation; we cannot justifiably place the band under the "pop rock" genre because of those comments. WesleyDodds 10:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
we can analize some songs:
No, we can't. That's the definition of original research. Wiki classifications must be made from reliable sources that are not us. WesleyDodds 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
and what are reliable sources for music genre??music sites??why music sites that define their last album as pop rock aren't a reliable source but other yes?Zagozagozago
Allmusic.com would be a reliable site for genre classification, since part of their purpose is to catalogue music by genre. Books and article that serve to explicitly define the genre of the band are reliable, too. We mainly want to avoid off-hand critical descriptions, because then we get problems like people constantly trying to add "art rock" to the Franz Ferdinand genre box. Alternative rock should cover the "pop rock" phase of the band fine, since it is a rather diverse genre (We're talking about a style that covers everything from Nine Inch Nails to The Smiths) and even though their funk influence has waned over the years, they are still consistently referred to as alt-rock. WesleyDodds 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

in this case pop rock = mix elements typical of pop and rock -BY THE WAY

  • By The Way = Rap,Funk,Rock song
  • Universally Speaking = pop rock song
  • This Is The Place = pop rock song
  • Dosed = Pop rock ballad
  • Don't Forget Me = Rock,particular,slow but not pop
  • The Zephyr Song = 100% pop rock song
  • Can't Stop = rap,funk-pop,rock song
  • I Could Die For You = pop rock song
  • Midnight = pop rock song
  • Throw Away Your Television = funk rock
  • Cabron = Latin pop rock
  • Tear = Pop rock ballad
  • On Mercury = pseudoska, pop rock
  • Minor Thing = rock
  • Warm Tape = pop rock
  • Venice Queen = pop rock

i think that By the way is a personal (some funk,some rap,some other) "Pop Rock" album..in general but little various Stadium Arcadium too.

I know, is only 2 albums but from 2000 to date are 7 years..they played FunkMetal or Funkcore for 7 years (1984-1991) so i think have the same rilevance. i think that from 2000 to now they are in general becomed a pop rock band as U2,as REM or Oasis.. they left almost all funkmetal,funkcore or rapcore sounds presents only sometimes and only in a slight dilution way.Zagozagozago


I Have an other solution : we can leave in main page only Alternative Rock and Funk Rock then modify album by album genre in albums page.

so for example

  • Red Hot Chili Peppers funkmetal,funkcore,rapcore,alternative rock
  • Freaky Styley Funk,rapcore,funkmetal,funkcore,alternative rock
  • Uplift funkmetal,funkcore,rapcore,alternative rock
  • Mother funkmetal,funkcore,rapcore,alternative rock
  • BSSM funkmetal,funk rock,rapcore,alternative rock
  • OHM funkrock,hard rock, psychedelic rock,rapcore,alternative rock
  • Californicatio Alternative Rock,Funk Rock,rapcore
  • BTW : Alternative Rock,Pop Rock
  • Stadium Arcadium : Alternative Rock,Pop Rock,Funk Rock

Zagozagozago


None of those song classifications are anything but your own opinion. Hell, I could easily contradict every single one. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But still, at least it's an idea. Yeah, Im sure you could contradict everything, but there have to be ideas put out or this will stay a sore topic. Joel.labes 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here stems from the idea of genres not being cited. Allmusic cites genres. The article didn't have any problems with this when people just left the cited things alone, but once opinions get involved, we have debates like this. Please read WP:NOR. It will make the world a better place. ColbeagleTheEagle 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of changing it back and forth, we leave it without saying pop until we come to a mutual agreement? And I opted to leaving pop out since there are only a couple of people who think so. MiTfan3

couple of people?? maybe here on wiki, because for chili peppers fan is hard to admit that they now added a lot of pop influences..but if u search on the net (or also on paper news) reviwes about last 2 chili peppers albums they talk about pop elements in a lot of their new song...more, in later years they leave out almost all of "rap" or "hard" (rock or punk) elements..Zagozagozago

OK, how about we meet each other half way, pop just seems like a misinterpretation, I listed it as Easy listening, which I feel defines the more melodic and slow feel the band has made these past albums. - MiTfan3

Zago, you have started an enormous editing war from your ideas on their pop influences. You are the only one who feels this way, and I'm not the only one who believes pop should be removed. Please stop putting it back, because it will be removed again and again and again. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

what an idiot comment..1)i write pop on Introduction page where it talk about ELEMENTS not GENRE,isn't the same thing 2)I don't care if i'm the only one of wikipedian, could be 1000 wikipedian that say no at pop rock but I have listed all the source of reviews and article on internet (have you read it or no??) reviews and article a lot more reliable than your or mine opinion.
wikipedia is usefull if people use it without "personal views" but only using "reliable sources" trying to write the truth..pop is not a my personal view but is a thing that you can find almost in all of their last album reviews (repeat: i spent my time to do a list of review in wich the critic talk about pop...so read it).
the fact that i'm the only one here in wikipedia does not have sense..(u couldn't believe but i'm a chili peppers fan since a lot years ago too), you all that don't want "pop" in article are all red hot chili peppers fans..don't forget it...a rock band fan (especially teenager fans) usually don't want to admit some pop elements in their song or in their music. only because in their mind "pop" word is a bad word..almost offensive.
Funk,punk,rap etc..are reliable on reviews and article about rhcp as pop..so why pop shuld be deleted and the other no??
Zagozagozago
It's apparent we're at some sort of impasse here. First, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia:Civility, where you may find some guidelines as to the proper way of posting in a polite manner, without the use of words like "idiot comment". Secondly, as it was previously noted, reviews cannot be used to cite a genre. They can (and do) note a pop influence, but do not go so far as to classify the band as "Pop Rock". Additionally, since your "sources" are not legitimate for this matter, your actions are against Consensus and only serve to start edit wars. Good people like WereWolf have left Wikipedia over things like this, and it only serves as a detriment to the community. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Reviews are just that: reviews. They are the opinion of various music critics who are hired to write a small prose about an album. They too are biased and judgmental. One can't simply believe that another being's ideas are supreme. As well, this isn't your first time that anger has taken the best of you, Zago. Please remain civil as Wikipedia's standards request. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We're quickly approaching a week without a response from Zago. Can we assume this issue is dead, and a popular Consensus has been reached? ColbeagleTheEagle 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't added rapcore article but for ColbeagleTheEagle..you write "Removing uncited "rapcore". If you have an opinion on the band's genre, please discuss it on the Talk Page. Thank you" ..for real rapcore is cited in a lot of sites..for example allmusic.com. about "Pop" i don't want to try more...is a game loose at the start..i remain with the idea that this article don't explain so well their music evolution into a melodic/radio-friendly sound. User:Zagozagozago

"Pop" in reviews

Stadium Arcadium :

"“Slow Cheatin’”, gioiellino pop con melodia indimenticabile" "divertito funk-pop “Hump de Rump”" "solita stucchevole dose di pop" "Kiedis indeciso tra rap e pop" "che infarcisce di effetti e accordi una melodia pop"

"Dopotutto “Californication” era pieno di belle melodie e ritornelli pop"

"Sottogenere: pop" "sono oggi i RHCP, banda funky-pop e melodica"

"Rimasta costante la deriva Pop" "se il bieco Pop (quel Funk è solo un travestimento, purtroppo) di “Charlie”" "vecchi Red Hot rimangono insostituibili, che suonino Funk, Hardcore, Pop, Rap, Metal"

"questo flagrante outing pop" "validissimo, da un punto di vista pop"

"from their earlier, funnier funk-metal stuff to soul-baring "Under the Bridge"-style balladry to Californicating vocal harmony pop" "Make You Feel Better," a Sixties-influenced pop"

"loro svolta pop si ha con By the Way" "uale strizza l’occhio tanto al passato funky del quartetto, quanto al pop da hit parade"

"askew mid-tempo pop. Fitting examples abound on Stadium Arcadium" "once-renowned rhythm section into slick California contempo-pop"

"alternately spacey and sunny pop, ballads, and the occasional funk"

"spiritual pop epiphanies (Stadium Arcadium)"

"The title track, "Desecration Smile," and "She Looks To Me" finds them venturing further into laid back pop ballad territory

"On Stadium Arcadium, you’ll find a mix of ballads, pop, and the funkalicious music" "Make You Feel Better” has a pop-rock style that I find reminiscent of The Beatles"

"THe hard-pumping funk-punk lunacy of their early days and the stylish pop-rock of their recent discs"!!!! "The former is a little poppier and funkier" "If, She Looks to Me and Snow ((Hey Oh)) renew their pop credentials"

By The Way (i don't have time to search all reviews..) so only one example: http://www.fazed.com/music/bytheway.html "he synthesis of their punk-funk core sound with the intricate, textured pop arrangements and vocal harmonies" "the tender, nostalgic embrace of pop—“Minor Thing,” “The Zephyr,” ‘By the Way”"

Zagozagozago

Love Rollercoaster

Was "Love Rollercoaster" recorded with Dave Navarro? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 75pickup 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was - MiTfan3, 26 March 2007

Unrealeased b-sides

I propose we only list b-sides that have been released or talked about by the band, if the latter, it must be citated. - MiTfan3


Hi, I added a comment to the Quixoticelixer discussion page, could someone who knows what they're doing (unlike myself) please check it out, Thanks.

The introductory paragraph

It's enormous lol, someone added like two extra paragraphs that are already covered in the remainder of the article, the original parah (the short first one) i thought was more than enough.

That's the point of an intro paragraph, it summarizes what the whole article is about/saying. No, its not perfect, it needs work, consider it a rough draft. - MiTfan3

I thought the point of an intro paragraph would be to sum up the Red Hot Chili Peppers as a band, not elaborate on the firings and drug problems of individual members 1337wesm 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree..no drugs problems Zagozagozago

Fixed St. Jimmy 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

someone put it back... great, an angry reverter 1337wesm 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The extra two paragraphs go into way too much detail about the band's lineup for an intro section. It should not remain. --Mattarata 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. An article's lead section should provide a summary of the entire article, usually about three paragraphs long (five if article length merits it). We can fix it up, but there does need to be a suitable amount of detail in an article's lead section. See The Smashing Pumpkins and Pixies for Featured Article examples. WesleyDodds 23:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Even so is there any reason why we should leave it up while its incorrect? We just need a general summary, not an in-depth repitition of what's going to be in the article, Plus, the Smashing Pumpkins article merely references drug use as a reason for a breakup. The drug use in RHCP has nothing to do with break ups, and thus, is not an essential part of the article68.193.87.97 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's incorrect about it. And many lead sections are longer than that. Keep in mind this is an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience, and therefore the topic needs a concise introduction. Hell, I had to add who was in the band to the lead, and that's the kind of thing that's of basic importance. WesleyDodds 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So the various firings, drug addictions, and reactions from the band members, which is detailed in the rest of the article, is of the same basic importance of the name of the bands? It should at least be condensed. 1337wesm 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I know; we really don't need to know Kiedis' reaction to Frusciante's return in the lead section. I plan to get on that once we get the rest of the article more fully sourced, because then it's easier to work things into the lead that are missing. WesleyDodds 04:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering there are over 80 references, I believe the article has a sufficient amount, no? NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Genre on Introduction...ok maybe Pop Rock as a Genre is wrong..but how a lot of you say there are a lot of Pop Rock elements in their last album..so we could write it in introduction..don0t know why NSR77 delete it.. do you really thing that there is more HEAVY METAL elements than Pop rock?? (there are almost 0 heavy metal elements on chili peppers music... so or delete also Heavy Metal or write also pop rock. Zagozagozago

Yes, the band has a heavy metal influence, most notably when Dave Navarro was in the bands (whose main influences are heavy metal and gothic rock). And yes, I'd say there's more of a metal influence than a "pop rock" one, because the sources you listed in the other section say "pop" and not "pop rock". WesleyDodds 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
right..if we consider "elements" they are pop elements..for me is good "pop" too..they in last years added pop elements in their music..for me is right.

yes but only OHM have some heavy metal (more hard rock oriented..) elements,only navarro..only 1 album.. in '80 wasn't metal elements (apart 3-4 guitar riffs) but hardcore punk elements,instead pop elements are in at least 2 albums (last 2) and also in some californication songs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zagozagozago (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC).


people continue to delete "pop" on introduction..what about "pop" elemets on introduction page?? like " punk, funk, heavy metal, rap and in later years pop"..for me is right..the first 4 are the biggest one in their career (heave metal not so much..almost nothing so i'm for sobstitue it with hard rock or also only rock), pop elements only il later years..i'm not talking about latin elements (cabron), ska elements (on mercury) or other..pop elements are big in a lot of peppers last songs..Zagozagozago 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? If not, it's original research. Anyway, what you're doing is against consensus. CloudNine 10:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
there are a lot of reviews of last 2 albums (some are linked in previous post) where they talked about pop elements for a lot of different songs of last 2 albums..Zagozagozago
Added a 3RR report for Zagozagozago. CloudNine 17:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro should be a summary of who and what the Chilis are and nothing more/less St. Jimmy 21:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Ok,so "the band has fused various elements of punk, funk, heavy metal and rap, and in later years with more melodic and accessible sound" is ok for all?? for me is good but i dunno if it is in a good english.comments??

Fixing refs

We ought to change the web references to the cite web format. They currently seem to be in quite a mess at the moment. CloudNine 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Half of the references are derived from Kiedis' Scar Tissue, where a citeweb format can not be used. However, for the references which actually cite websites, it is appropriate. I'll begin working on that shortly. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
the Kiedis references could be fixed, too. All that's really needed is the author's last name and page numbers. See Pixies, The Smashing Pumpkins, and The Cure for examples. WesleyDodds 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PROTECTION

Can someone please protect this article, a user is trolling and reverting every change that is made. I am tired of having my edits deleted. It would save a lot of time and stress just to protect the article.

Giggles Talk 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in the edit history, the reason I keep removing the logo is that it is used merely as decoration, which is hard to justify under fair use, and because it's so large it distorts the infobox. WesleyDodds 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The title does not distort the info box. It flows perfectly. And if you havn't noticed, band logo's are an accepted thing to do: My Chemical Romance R.E.M. Green Day Dire Straits Fall Out Boy etc.

--Giggles Talk 21:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No. They are a violation of fair use as such logos are rarely criticised in the article. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. CloudNine 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

or you could lick my nine.--Giggles Talk 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Gigglestein, please try to remain civil in these matters. It is apparent that there is a conflict here, and it would be more easily resolved if one were not to use phrases like that in an insulting manner. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 15:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we just agree

that the Chili Peppers basic genre is funk-rock and use that in the infobox. Anytime they were influnced by anything else should be mentioned in the body of the article. St. Jimmy 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with St. Jimmy. Jedi_feline | Talk 11:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I could go for that, provided it is mentioned that there have been a lot of variations in their genres over the years.203.184.38.46 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Death of a fan

Should the death of sanji-lee be put in here somewere? He died while lining up for red hot chili pepper tickets in Whangarei, New Zealand by a hit and run driver. Shiny Red Ball 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a source, I might see it in a Trivia section, but those things can get tricky. In my opinion, this was just a freak accident that could've happened at any show, and it doesn't hold much encyclopedic value. It was a tragedy, to be sure, but I don't know if it has a place in Wikipedia. ColbeagleTheEagle 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's tragic, but it has no real value in this article. St. Jimmy 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes although tragic, no value to the band itself. Carrotcrow13 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Halloween Cleveland 2006

Would it be reasonable to include a Halloween article in the main current secton for the band? As an attende I would say it was historical and every band member dressed up. Including many a fan. Also Flea played bass while swinging from the ceiling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carrotcrow13 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Lots of bands do that, like 311. It's nothing historically ground breaking, so it shouldn't be placed on the main article. -MiTfan3

Musical Issue With Techniques

I just read the article, and I noticed a lot of sections are pretty immature. Particularly the technique section, to be specific, I'm talking about the Chad Smith section. I don't think it is necessary to say that he CAN play 'flashy' fills. Everyone in the band seems to be practicing a minimalist style as of late (save John, at present). The maturity level of the article should be raised, as a favor to the fans who aren't fan-boys concerned about what some musically impaired kids think about Chad Smith's playing. Another thing, it's not like Flea has developed the ability to play chords recently, that's just where he is musically at the moment. I really wish Flea would do some sessions with jazz musicians... -Brookman


Hi. I just create an account to say that I was reading the article and discovered what it says about Flea playing chords, and the info is correct but not quite. It is true that Flea has progressed in technique and now plays chords, but not on any of the songs that are mentioned. What he plays in those songs are harmonic intervals and not chords; actual chords require three different notes. What he does are called double stops. So is not the most important thing but I just tought you shoould know. Thank you.

Richirare 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)richirare

I think you're right here. I know that two-note combinations are double-stops on a guitar (I play a bit myself) but I don't know about it being the same for a bass. I mean, there are only 4 strings on a (standard) bass. You got your E-A-D-G combination, which I am pretty sure he plays on. I think Frusciante, too, uses standard tuning on almost all of his songs. But back on the topic, I think that the classification of what a "chord" is for a bass might be different than for a guitar, but I don't know for sure. My idea is this: if there are 4 strings, there aren't that many opportunities to play three of them simultaneously without producing muck. Of course, if you play bass, my opinion on this would defer to you, since you're more experienced with the instrument itself.

Also, I just got the live DVD a few days ago, and I'm pretty sure he plays chords in "Don't Forget Me".. He barres a string and forms a shape with two more, which seems to me like a chord. I don't know about the other songs, but I can testify for the one. ColbeagleTheEagle 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your reply. Music Theory is the same for every instrument, some instruments use chords almost always, like a piano, and some others cannot even play a chord, like a flute. I play chords a lot in my bass and eventhough is more difficult than with a guitar, is possible. An yes, Flea plays Don't Forget Me in a way that seems like he is playing chords, but he is not; (The rest of the fingers are actually mutting the rest of the strings, not pressing them down. The bass line are 4 double stops (A-E, Eb-C, C-G and G-D) I play it that way and thats the way its writen in the Hal Leonard Score. Anyway tomorrow I'll get Stadium Arcadium bass score and I will review it page by page to look for actual bass chords. And I already know one song which uses chords for sure: Animal Bar; the first and main bass line is a D Major 7th chord without 3rd, but instead of struming it, he plays it note by note BUT sustaining them, and because the notes get to sound in the same moment in time the ear gets those 3 notes not as a melodic interval, but as an armonic one, and because there are three different notes, we can call that a chord, and its played by Flea, so I was wrong, he has gotten to the point where he is playing chords. I'm not really the kind of people who likes very much to write stuff, so if anyone wants to update the wikipedia with this info I totally agree with it. Thanks again for your reply.

Richirare 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)richirare

Fair enough, then. It would make sense that he's muting strings, since the riff has a chunky feel to it. I'm willing to edit the article, but what do I change it to? I think I'll just say he's been using double-stops instead of chords.. that good? Oh, and for the future, you don't need to type your name again after you but the 4 ~'s. ColbeagleTheEagle 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the tildes, je. Well I've been scaning the bass score and Flea uses chords in Animal Bar and If (with the same technique I explained for Animal Bar). So I think you could say that Flea has recently incorporated chords to his bass lines in this last record. Also, after checking out some of Flea's basslines I would mention the influence of John's style in Flea, where now you can see Flea playing double stops in the first and fourth string with sustained notes and portamentos (Hard To Concentrate, for example, is basicly this style of playing within bass context). John gave birth to this particular style in his solo records and in some Red Hot songs (Scar Tissue intro is an excellent example). After all this years it was inevitable that they would influence each other. So thanks again. Pleassure.

Richirare 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No more argument please

Everybody should see this video to get a final response from Flea himself

http://bassplayer.tv/index.html?req=1&station=flea&video=bassplayer/flea/flea8

I don't agree with the answer, but he knows what genre his band is doing nowdays

I would say that the Chili Peppers have progressed in time from genre to genre, keeping the Funk-Rock as basis and leaning over a third genre that changes through time with more or less enphasis on this last one. I would say it like this:

'85 to '91: Funk-Punk-Rock '91 to '94: Funk-Rock-Alternative '94 to '99: Alternative-Rock-Funk '99 to '02: Rock-Funk-Alternative '02 to '06: Pop-Funk-Rock Nowdays: Pop-Funk-Rock

I don't know if anyone would agree with me but that's my opinion asnyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richirare (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

No more argument please

Everybody should see this video to get a final response from Flea himself

http://bassplayer.tv/index.html?req=1&station=flea&video=bassplayer/flea/flea8

I don't agree with the answer, but he knows what genre his band is doing nowdays

I would say that the Chili Peppers have progressed in time from genre to genre, keeping the Funk-Rock as basis and leaning over a third genre that changes through time with more or less enphasis on this last one. I would say it like this:

'85 to '91: Funk-Punk-Rock '91 to '94: Funk-Rock-Alternative '94 to '99: Alternative-Rock-Funk '99 to '02: Rock-Funk-Alternative '02 to '06: Pop-Funk-Rock Nowdays: Pop-Funk-Rock

I don't know if anyone would agree with me but that's my opinion asnyways.

Richirare 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)richirare

I agree, as i wrote in other post
* Red Hot Chili Peppers funkmetal,funkcore,rapcore,alternative rock
   * Freaky Styley Funk,rapcore,funkmetal,funkcore,alternative rock
   * Uplift funkmetal,funkcore,rapcore,alternative rock
   * Mother funkmetal,funkcore,rapcore,alternative rock
   * BSSM funkmetal,funk rock,rapcore,alternative rock
   * OHM funkrock,hard rock, psychedelic rock,rapcore,alternative rock
   * Californicatio Alternative Rock,Funk Rock,rapcore
   * BTW : Alternative Rock,Pop Rock
   * Stadium Arcadium : Alternative Rock,Pop Rock,Funk Rock

Zagozagozago

Stadium Arcadium critisism

"However, regardless of the massive success it was coupled with, the album was criticized for its monotonous and overindulgent nature; almost as though it were circuitous in terms of energy; rambling without any true purpose." This sentence is not NPOV, it states as fact that the album was "monotonous and overindulgent," even though this is just the opinion of just one reviewer. Also the album probably revieved more positive reviews than negative, apart from the fact that the cited review for the statement actually gave the album 3.5/5. So for these reasons i am going to remove the afore mentioned sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leakeyjee (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

yes...and By The Way at the time was crtiticized a lot more than Stadium Arcadium...User:Zagozagozago
keep in mind By The Way has been out years longer and has therefore had more time to be criticized. I can imagine Stadium Arcadium will be criticized much more than By The Way is in the future. Contamination 07:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so..the most frequently comment that i read and listen about Stadium arcadium is like "not so great but at least better than "by the way".

Zagozagozago

Chuck Biscuits??

Can someone cite when he played for them? I have NEVER heard of him playing for the Chili's. If he actually did, then its cool. Cdylan13 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He played with them in rehearsals, in the same sense that Jesse Tobias, Blackbird, etc., meaning they didn't accomplish anything musically together. They were just killing time. I think that these types of members, and touring members such as Arik Marshall, should be considered seperately since they never became part of the Peppers the way Jack Irons, Hillel, and Dave Navarro were (In my opinion these are the only three who are truly "former members" of the RHCP).


Ok I get you. But You gotta include Cliff Martinez and Jack Sherman in that "true" list because they were both on a record with them. In fact Cliff was on more RHCP albums than Jack and Dave, not giving him any more credit than the others though. Cdylan13 05:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Music Genre

i've added this section under music style

"Red Hot Chili Peppers started as an Hardcore band that fused many elements of black music as Funk and rap with white rock elements as Punk Rock and Hard Rock.

Their biggest influences was funk stars like Funkadelic and Sly Stone, hardcore punk bands like Black Flag,Bad Brains and Big Boys, post-punk bands like Gang Of Four and Talking Heads, late '60 rock acts like Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and The Stooges and rappers like Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five and Kurtis Blow.

In late '80 they played similar to their contemporaries Fishbone and Faith No More and were considers one of the fathers and kingpins of the Funk Metal scene, in particular of the subgenres Funkcore and Rapcore, all genres commonly associates at the word "Crossover" becoming big influences on nineties bands like 311, Infectious Grooves, Rage Against the Machine, Incubus, Hot Action Cop and in general in a lot of Rap Metal and Nu Metal Bands.

In the early '90 they were considers one of the biggest bands of Alternative Rock scene become huge thanks to the Nirvana, Pearl Jam and themselves successes, in particular throughout the years they became less heavy, crazy and energetic increasing the melodic and smooth side carrying theirs sound more towards an accessible and radio-friendly Funk Rock."

for me is good,complete and shortest as possible, any comment?tnx! Zagozagozago

I think its a good section, nice work. -MiTfan

No. We should be citing whatever the sources say, not conducting our own research (see Wikipedia:Original research) and drawing our own conclusions. Kamryn Matika 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
all cited Zagozagozago
Comes off extremely rushed. Doesn't really seem like a well thought out, well written paragraph. Also, the relevance is somewhat sketchy, seeing as this information is stated elsewhere. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I am adding back the picture I added before. It's a good picture, better than the one now. The one now is dark, and you can't really see John's or Anthony's faces. It's a bad picture, but my picture has better lighting, and you can clearly see all their faces. Why would you revert it back to that old ugly thing? Xihix 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Where Did My Name Go?

What happened? i made a major overhaul of the history of RHCP (Red Hot Chili Peppers) and my name is not registered and the changes aren't mine? i thought i made a serious addition to society....:( --Joechang123

I think the intro needs to be rewritten

Firstly, it's far too long. Secondly, it contains info that needn't be in the intro. St. Jimmy 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything we need to take out the details about Blood Sugar Sex Magik-Stadium Arcadium and the stuff about John. These should be later in the article and if not they could be worked into their respective sections. Cdylan13 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I did this before and it was reverted. St. Jimmy 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No. It's been fine for a long time. Stop changing shit when it doesn't need to be changed, especially when it's been fine for such a long time and nothing is wrong with it. God, people like this on Wikipedia really piss me off. Xihix 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page right? So stop critizing about something we are simply trying to improve please. Cdylan13 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it does need to be shortened. Some of the stuff in the intro is completely rehashed in later sections. Mpete510 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of a lead is to summarise the article. Although I do agree the lead is a little on the long size; perhaps some copyediting will help. CloudNine 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
All that really needs to happen is just like the thing with trivia sections. We need that info, but we need to put it in the main part of the article and not the beginning of it. Cdylan13 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that the intro does need some editing (I think it's an embarrassment). Why then do you (Xihix) keep doing this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARed_Hot_Chili_Peppers%2Fto_do&diff=132528360&oldid=132525614 St. Jimmy 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's NOT embarrassing. It's a perfectly fine intro! It's long? Too fucking bad, it has all the info that is needed for an intro. Why do people keep wanting to change everything when its PERFECTLY FINE!? Xihix 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, calm down. If you can't handle that users wants to change the article, you shouldn't edit here. I think the lead is ok at the moment, there is maybe a sentence or two that we could remove/rewrite, and as CloudNine said, some copyediting might do the trick. Tooga - BØRK! 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes too far into the details e.g. about Frusciante's drug addiction which shouldn't be mentioned until later in the article. St. Jimmy 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Far into details? It talks about his addiction for a sentence, then how Flea told him to go to rehab. Xihix 16:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

genres on intro

now is: "Throughout their career, the band has fused rock with various elements of punk rock, funk, alternative rock and psychedelic rock." imho have no sense say "fused rock with alternative rock" alternative rock was only the no-mainstream rock in late '80 and '90..but is a generic terme, good for a generic genre but not for explain their sound..their sound was rock mixed at funk,rap and punk..all together do a substyle of alternative rock..alternative rock is too big..grunge was alternative rock, indie rock was alternative rock,post-hardcore was alternative rock and the same funk metal was part of alternative rock. for me is better "Throughout their career, the band has fused rock with various elements of punk rock, funk, rap and psychedelic rock." Zagozagozago

This is the Palace - Rivers Of Avalon

The song Rivers Of Avalon from Funky Monks has the same melody as This is the Place from By The Way. Could we put this on this wiki??

"Rivers of Avalon" is from the Zephyr Song single #2. It is a B-side. Although it sounds similar to "This Is the Place", it is not encyclopedic and does not hold any relevance to the article. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Yeah. and Funky Monks was about 1992... and Rivers of Avalon about a decade after it. Contamination 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Improvisation' section

The improvisation section is fairly wrong. RHCP do not improvise, their 'extended jams' and extensions to songs may seem improvised, but are all basically made once and repeated throughout the rest of their touring careers. In their Stadium Arcadium tour, I heard 'improvised' jams they had done in previous tours AND their 2 live DVDs. Should we take away this section?

No. During the same tour, the improvisations are similar, but not the same. When comparing the solos of "Can't Stop" from Slane Castle to Hyde Park, they are similar but indeed different. And the extended jams before "Californication" are, again, similar, but very different. The section should stand. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NSR77. RHCP have been improvising forever, and although some may sound alike, they are not the same. John makes a lot of his solos as he goes... It's amazing, but the section should stay. Xihix 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i was wondering if anyone knew where the asterisk logo came from? i've looked around for ages and never found any satisfactory explanation... anyone able to help?

The band's then manager, Lindy, came to Anthony one day and said that he needed a shirt design quick, and Anthony drew it up for him. There's a meaning behind it, the usual cliche stuff. Xihix 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Anthony meant it to be an "angel's asshole." All serious, but can't remember or cite where I read it. Anthony was probably making it up anyway.

Early years

"regarding the wild, fanatical, and fervent scene that was L.A." Is this POV on Wikipedia's part, or from VH1's Behind the Music? It's not clear, and should be noted. CloudNine 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Could someone go through and clean up the references? They're a mess right now. 36 and 37 are the same thing. So are 53 and 54. And probably others. There are also no retrieval dates for any of the links. ShadowHalo 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through them. I've put in a request at WP:RFP for semi-protection for a week or two. (now protected until 19 June) CloudNine 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Another concern of mine is the article leans too heavily on one source. Scar Tissue is reliable, but it is an autobiography and we could use some third party reference works. CloudNine 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We could use Flea's comments from the booklets that comes with the 2003 remastering of the 80's records to back up some claims. But I don't know how to cite them. Tooga - BØRK! 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. CloudNine 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it out. Tooga - BØRK! 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Music Style section is mostly uncited. Good work on the history though, and speaking of history you may have to fix the History tool at the top as I'm unfamiliar with it. Alientraveller 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's sort of hard to source things that can only be listened to. Just listen to the actual music, and you will see the genres. Xihix 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Genres (early & late)

imho should be good diversificate Ealry materia with later sound..there is too difference! Funkcore,rapcore and funk metal should be under "EARLY" and Funk rock,alternative rock under "LATER", if no seems that they continue to play funkcore,rapcore and funkmetal that is untrue.

Could you produce any references to back up your statement? CloudNine 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
C'mon..everyone with average music culture could listen that is a lot of years the they don't play funk metal (music genre/scene dead in mid '90) or funkcore (was a mix of funk and hardcore..).
sometimes they continue with a less heavier "rapcore" also in more recent years..maybe rapcore could stay also in Later years,but funkcore and funkmetal no.
Zagozagozago
We can't put that in the article without sources, that would be original research, and we can't have that on Wikipedia. Tooga - BØRK! 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo

(Copied from User talk:CloudNine and User talk:Xihix)

How can I criticize the logo in the article? I know how it was made, why, etc... But, where would I? I also have a source. Xihix 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the article include a criticism of the logo? If we're planning to take the article to featured status, it may be seen as a little trivial to have a separate section on the logo. CloudNine 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but the logo is largely recognized as the Red Hot Chili Peppers logo. Even without the wording, many people recognize the red or black asterisk as the band. It's on the drum bass of the band. It's on the official t shirts. I don't think it should have a separate section for it, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Xihix 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I'd integrate it into the Early years section (assuming that's when they created it) and include a thumbnail of the image. At any rate, I wouldn't include it in the infobox. CloudNine 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, many bands have their logo in their info box. Audioslave, Coldplay, Temple of the Dog, The Mars Volta, and many other bands. So, why not Red Hot Chili Peppers? Xihix 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately quite a few band articles include a logo; it doesn't mean it's kosher with regards to fair use. Note that none of the band articles you mentioned have reached GA or FA status; look through WP:FA and WP:GA, and I believe you won't find any in the infobox. (Also, it's hard to read for some logos). CloudNine 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't mention them, but AC/DC, The Sex Pistols, and Slayer, all FEATURED ARTICLES, have their band logo in the userbox. Now, good articles that have their logo: Artic Monkeys, Butthole Surfers, Evanescence, Kiss, Nine Inch Nails, Switchfoot, and Tenacious D. So... All these are godlike articles, Wikipedia-wise, and they all have their logos. So... Why not Red Hot Chili Peppers? Xihix 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting! Go for it then. You are using it under fair use, so you should change the image license. CloudNine 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Nine Inch Nails, the logo is actually discussed in the prose. Not too sure about the other ones. I know the editors working on Radiohead removed the band's bear lgoo because they couldn't find a way to discuss it in the article. Aside from fair use issues, the Chili Peppers logo is, due to its shape, too unwieldly for the infobox. Just type out the name. WesleyDodds 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Don't take it out. If you do, I'm simply adding it back in. Xihix 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh, that's not the appropriate thing to say. Under fair use guidelines if the image isn't being utilized properly, anyone can take it out. Saying "If you do, I'm simply adding it back in" isn't the sensible solution to the issue. WesleyDodds 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, many other bands' logos don't stretch the page as much as the Chili Peppers'. Their's is an asterisk (circular), however many other band's insignia is a variation of their name, which reads horizontal. The current logo stretches the page, and anything smaller will be insufficient. I believe it should be removed. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not making the page look bad, it's completely fine. It should and will stay. Xihix 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether the image stays or not will be based on fair use guidelines and consensus of the editors. Simply adding it back if someone removes it is not an appropriate course of action. If you want to use the logo in the article, find a way to discuss it in the context of the prose with citations. However, it is not appropriate for use in the namespace of the infobox because it it doesn't adhere to fair use, it distorts the infobox, and the band's name circles the design, making it hard to read in the space that is ostensibly supposed to clearly indicate the band's name. WesleyDodds 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(dedenting)) If it's clearly against consensus, don't try to keep adding the logo. That's not how Wikipedia works. CloudNine 06:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Album Sales

Hey guys. I have been looking around, and I've seen a few different sources on the album sales. For example, the RIAA (the official dudes who actually keep record of the sales) say that BSSM has seven platinum, recorded at 04/02/01, which was a while ago. Plus, the link doesn't change, so it would be hard to source it. But, there are other sources that say the album has twelve platinum, which is here at Wikipedia. What should we do? Many places I search on Google also say seven million. Should we change these, or do you guys have a more reliable source than the RIAA? Then again, the number is from about six years ago so sales could have gone up more since, but I really doubt it could sell five million more copies since then. Xihix 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh poo, I just noticed... I was reading US sales only! Hmm... Sorry :(... I'm still looking for sources on the record status! Xihix 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I found one... Ok, really sorry I just spammed all this for no reason.  :( Xihix 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stadium Arcadium revamp

I don't really think it needs to be revamped... Well, if it does, how so? It currently looks pretty nice. Xihix 03:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

References and lead section

We don't need references in the lead section. The current thinking is that the lead is a summary of the article, and therefore any information in there should appear later in the article with references. CloudNine 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, like I said in your talk page, some things that are sourced in the intro aren't in the rest of the article. For example, the BSSM album sales, it said 12 million in the intro, but in the article, it only says over 10 million. The source I had for it in the intro said 12 million, too. Also, many band articles, including featured or good articles, have sources in the intro, some have eight, some have 13, some more. So, all in all, I think we should have the sources in the intro. I had many good ones! Xihix 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the BSSM fact should be corrected with your source then; the article is inconsistent on that point. But the key point is, why source something in the lead that will be sourced again in the main article? (by definition, the lead is a summary of the article) It's redundant. CloudNine 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, most of the things that were sourced in the intro aren't in the main article...
Let's add them to the main article and source them there then. CloudNine 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should take a gander at WP:LEAD for further detail on what CloudNine's saying. Some things will be need to be cited if they appear in the lead (direct quotes, sales figures), but by and large there shouldn't be a need for citations in that section. WesleyDodds 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Xihix, you should refrain from assuming each Featured and Good Article is "law of the land". I can find several instances, one being not a week ago, where you claim this article should mimic many other Featured and Good articles. Currently, we're going to model the article according to the guidelines outlined by Wikipdeia itself (WP:LEAD). Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you shouldn't judge me. Racist. Xihix 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre (new one)

Sorry, but I'm making this new one to just go away from that huge thing up there that seems to have gone nowhere. Now, I think we should just take out the Funk Metal part, and we'll be done with it. Not every RHCP has a "metal" sound to it, very few actually. However, every RHCP song falls either under the "alternative" label or "funk rock" label. Download their entire discography and just listen! Xihix 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

again? nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo please!!
1)Funk Metal isn't a pure genre (a lot of so called genre was more a movement..just see grunge) but a music scene in the late '80 of bands mixing funk/black elements (funk,rap,r&b,soul,reggae,jazz ecc..) with rock elements (punk, metal, hard rock etc..)..chili peppers mixed funk-rap-punk in general in first albums..so maybe is better call them "funkcore" or maybe "rapcore" but at the time (and after) the music scene was called "Funk metal"
2)Don't undersdtand why someone deleted the citation..Allmusic.com citation is the easier to have.
3)Yes they never have a "metal" sound so i'm to delete "Heavy Metal" on introduction page".
4)not ever chili songs falls under that 2 genres..just listen last 2 albums..apart S.A, where 8-9. songs are funk-rock oriented and BTW where only 3 songs could be labelled as funk-rock, the rest are mainstream rock (why alternative?they aren't more alternative..then i think the "alternative rock era" is ended in mid '90) and pop rock ballads.

Zagozagozago

Added the All Music Guide reference (which describes the band as funk metal, among other genres). Zago, most of your comments are original research if you can't back them up with citations. CloudNine 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Time ago i listed here a lot of reviews where the critics label last two album as pop rock etc..but noone cared about that.

Zagozagozago

Because reviews generally don't cover the genre of music a band plays well, and aren't reliable in that respect. Reference works such as AMG are more reliable. CloudNine 08:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but in this way.."Funk Rock" where is from??Allmusic don't talk about funk rock for example..i think is reliable because a lot of review of their albums talk about "funk rock"..but the same "pop rock" or others..

Zagozagozago

"Funk rock" and "funk metal" are pretty much interchangeable. Funk metal is the more clealry defined term, and for awhile in the early 90s it was called "funk 'n roll". Personally I think the funk rock page only exists on the assumption that funk + rock = new genre, which is far from true. WesleyDodds 09:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "rock"? Every song would fall in the definition of rock, so why don't we just do that? And Zago, stop signing your name like that, just do the dashes everyone else does... Xihix 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop what?you talk about the name User:Zagozagozago|Zagozagozago?? i don't know how wikipedia do in automatic the "name hour, day month year (UTC)..what is the button?
just "rock" isn't good imho : not all of their songs fall under definition of rock..some are simply funk, some are simply pop and some are simply punk and writing only "rock" delete from genre the true and biggest characteristic of peppers that was the mix of black music (funk and rap) with white music (Rock and Punk).
"rock" is too generic, the world is full of "generic" rock band but Rhcp aren't one of them.
they make the hystory just for their mix of styles.
Zagozagozago
Add ~~~~ at the end of your comments. CloudNine 09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Zagozagozago 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of fair use images

I've counted eight fair use images in this article, which is a little much under fair use; some of the images aren't criticised (such as the Simpsons capture). Do you think we should use a little less? CloudNine 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons image seems a little suspect anyway. A promotional? It looks more like a screen capture. Kamryn Matika 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I do think we should probably remove or replace a fair bit of the fair use. The vast amount of images is making the article look very cluttered anyway. It needs some merciless trimming of irrelevant info. Kamryn Matika 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed three fair use images that weren't really criticised in the article. (also, the concert DVD capture was a large image) CloudNine 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a promo for Jesus's sake. If you looked at the image, you would have seen Matt Groaning at the bottom, which means it's not a screenie. I added the source too, so I want to add it back. CloudNine here keeps wanting to ruin the article though, so I guess not? The Slane pic and Grammy pic should be there for sure, too. The Slane pic was from a live DVD, it's important enough to be there. Grammys too, since it's the biggest music award you can win, and they won a few there, and playing Snow was enough to be in there. I added the source for the Simpsons pic too, so I think it should be there too. Xihix 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Simpsons picture is irrelevant. It isn't even mentioned in the article and isn't significant in proportion to the band's history. Some pictures could, as well, be removed. I'm leaning towards the Grammy one, as it's somewhat suspicious. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The By the Way one and the one from the Grammys definitely need to go. WesleyDodds 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, please tell me why. Are they not critisised enough? No, the By The Way one is, well, from the By The Way era. The Grammy one? There's a whole damn paragraph on it. The sources and stuff? It's all there. Stop trying to ruin the article. Xihix 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that they're replaceable fair use, meaning that you could get a free or licensed photo that represents the same thing. Furthermore, the BTY pic is just unnecessary (we really don't need to know what the band looked like during this era; there's already a pic showing the new line-up from Californication onwards), as is the Grammy pic. If either of them were free I'd have no problem, but they aren't. WesleyDodds 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed several images (the Simpsons appearance, concert capture, Grammy and 'By the Way'-era photo) per this discussion. That brings the number of fair use images down to four; a more acceptable number. CloudNine 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You guys should actually find free pics before removing them... Stop being so full of yourselves, how the hell do you know there are free pics that could be used? Oh wait, you don't. Good job ruining the article guys, great job. Xihix 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. Nobody is going to listen to you if you persistently attack them. It appears you still haven't read WP:FAIRUSE. I would explain it but I already tried and I'm not going to repeat myself. Read it and understand it and then you can start making claims about fair use. Kamryn Matika 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I know civil and free use, but I'm just saying, you guys are really trying to make the article worse instead of better. Xihix 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't keep non-free material just because we like it. (see: WP:ILIKEIT) Wikipedia is about having free, reusable content for everybody. Keeping nonfree material that doesn't particularly improve the encyclopedia in any way (those images weren't really relevant and made the article cluttered, anyway) goes against our basic principle. Kamryn Matika 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The pictures greatly helped the article. I myself am greatly confused without them currently. I feel like causing physical harm to myself because I'm so confused without the pictures... And, in my final note, I'll blame you three. Have fun. Xihix 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've opened a RFC on Xihix's behaviour; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xihix. CloudNine 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that was pointless, Xihix made a perfectly good point the article is pretty rubish without all the pictures, even though this was along time ago now. Im going to add a logo in because i can and the article would look better with one.(LemonLemonLemons 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Logo or text?

I've uploaded the logo of RHCP and put it on the article, now somebody removed it. So should we use the logo or just use the text? I'd prefer the logo, but I just needa resize it.Pro Game Master87 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Logo section above. Text should be used, as the logo is not criticised in the article. CloudNine 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Red Hot Chili Peppers

The usage of “the” before the title in the introductory text in the article is needed. “The” is a descriptive word and should be used to describe the name of the name of the band. See Eagles and Pixies for similar usage. (SUDUSER)85 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it used to be there, but it was decided that it should be taken out. Xihix 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Freaky Styley cover it has 'The Red Hot Chili Peppers', this is also the case for the Abbey Road EP. However, on albums such as Californication and By The Way, the cover clearly has Red Hot Chili Peppers on it. I think that "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" used to be the name of the band, but it was changed, i dont know when or why, though.Jake.rhcp.utd 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The name was never "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" (also, it was on OHM, to add to your list). But, if they were to introduce themselves, they wouldn't say like "We are Red Hot Chili Peppers!" They'd say, "We are the Red Hot Chili Peppers!" However, I wasn't around for the debate on whether or not "the" should have been on the article, but it was decided for it to not be there. Xihix 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just a given to assume "The" should be in place, but in reality it is not correct. The Smashing Pumpkins are actually titled "THE Smashing Pumpkins". RHCP are titled Red Hot Chili Peppers. NSR77 TC 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the band's name is "Red Hot Chilli Peppers", but why can't the opening sentence say "The Red Hot Chilli Peppers are an American rock band [...]", instead of just Red Hot Chilli Peppers? Sebi [talk] 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In the One Hot Minute section, where is says "however, an relationship between (...)," it should read "however, the relationship between (...)." I would have changed it myself, but I do not seem to be able to make any changes to the article from this computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.204.19 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

template

i am the founder of the u2 wikiproject. i am only new to this so im not that good. i have used the template of your project homepage to get me started. i hope this is ok. you can view what i have done by goin to mu project honepage. if the person/s who made this template are not happy with me using it please tell me and i will change it, dont just delete everything! if it is ok for me 2 use, tell me at my talk page. thank you. smithcool 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

movie

the peppers also played in the 1986 movie tough guys. the club where they play in in the movie is the jigsaw

They also had a cameo in the movie Thrashin' (1986) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Order of former members

Can someone order the former members in the amount of time they were in the band? And like, once it gets to less than a year, in order of who was there earliest? Xihix 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop rock

Can I add Pop rock to the RHCP, I mean they're leaning towards Pop Rock in their newest material (Californication - present).

Please check the Archive for the debate over this topic. We discussed this as an editing populace, and decided against the inclusion of "Pop Rock". Sources explicitly labeling them as a "pop rock" band are not very easy to come by, and most claims (including your own) of them as pop are based on Original Research. Additionally, please sign your posts in the future by adding four ~'s after your post. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

"Musical style" section

The musical style is full of POV statements. Also some of the descriptions are very esoteric, such as the description of Chad Smith's drumming style as "in-the-pocket". What does that mean? And Chad Smith is the only drummer who's style is described. There should be at least a sentence each for Jack Irons and Cliff Martinez. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 75pickup 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I noticed this while doing a copyedit. Everything here needs to be verifiable or there is no place for it. --John 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Why there isn't rapcore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.55.3 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, rapcore should be there. I know that rapping may be generally considered to be part of funk rock/funk metal (as bands like Faith No More and Rage Against the Machine used rap vocals as well), but it cannot be argued that RHCP haven't used rapping mixed with rock music extensively, so it should be there. James25402 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Rap rock is a better name for the genre. The article Rap Rock has more info. Darky65 (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Associated acts

Should Black Eyed Peas really be there?85.225.15.85 16:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Removing. Tooga - BØRK! 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No 64.56.90.137 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre move

I moved funk metal and funk rock to the top, respectively. Anyway, funk metal is the only genre that is sourced, so it should be at the top. Do I have consensus? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Funk metal is the only genre that needs a source. They are obviously alternative rock and funk rock. It's fine the way it is. Grim 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They were obviously also rapcore for most of their career (with the exception of their last couple of albums), but I've seen you argue that rapcore needs a source to be included. Why are alt. rock and funk rock fine to go in without a source, yet rapcore isn't? Rapcore is just as obviously a genre they've used as alt. rock and funk rock. James25402 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo homies!!!

How come rapcore is not listed in the genres? RHCP RULE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.83.22 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...Because the Chili Peppers aren't rapcore? Grim (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
They have done a lot of rap funk songs though. Thundermaster367Thundermaster's Talk
Well, if you read the leading section for rapcore/Rap rock, RHCP does seem to fit the bill. Their older stuff does, at least. Maybe they should be listed as Rapcore or Rap rock. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of first line

Can someone with access plaese change the first line from "The RHCP is..." to "The RHCP are...". Its more grammatically correct. To have the first line of an encyclopedia article have such a basic grammatical error is ridiculousParradudes (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Although "are" may sound grammatically correct, the Chili Peppers are one collective entity. One "item", if you will. They are not referred to individually. Therefore "Red Hot Chili Peppers is.." would be the correct way to write it. NSR77 TC 00:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're wrong NSR. A band is a group of people, and therefore "are" is correct to describe them. Even though they are one collective entity—like the teamsters or the freemasons—they are still a group (i.e. "the freemasons are..."). I believe that saying "my family are kind to me", is correct too, even though saying that is a bit obtuse. Grim (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you would say my family is kind to me. Darky65 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be "The RHCP is" because they are one group composed of four members. For example you don't say "the Parliament are meeting" today. The president's cabinet is meeting today, not are meeting. If you want to use "are" you would need to type, "The members of RHCP are". 74.130.19.106 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the "Stop the pointless edit war" thread further down on this page. We've resolved this issue there. Grim (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal and Rapcore

Does anyone object to these genres being added? ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They are not those genres. Grim (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
They have used rapcore quite a bit actually. But mabye they aren't alt. metal. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
They aren't rapcore. They might've influenced some bands of the genre, but they themselves aren't. Grim 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Their earlier stuff is. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Got any solid references? Grim 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Er... No. However, read rap rock. Do you think that it fits their earlier work. ThundermasterTRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 09:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No reliable references, at all? Then no inclusion in the article. We aren't publishers of your thoughts of the genre of the band, if you are wanting to write your opinion on the band somewhere, write a review on a website somewhere. Spebi 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
But you can't write a review and then cite it here. If you find a reliable source, then we'll put it up there. Sound good? Grim (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Restarting indent – but then again, WP:SPS, a section of Verifiability says that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". I'm not here to dispute that, though. If you think a band is a certain genre, go out and find reliable sources to cite those claims, and then introduce the genre into the article. Spebi 04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In some of their earlier work, they rap. Do I need to provide more information? ThundermasterTRUC 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A reputable website that describes them as being rapcore will do. Grim (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we had a larger discussion about their genres earlier this year, and ruled that Rapcore would not be included into the article regardless. What the article currently lists is sufficient. NSR77 TC 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
if we want to say all, we have the source about rapcore : Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7730 but i think that three genres are already enough..but imho have no sense put funk rock AND funk metal..i think is better write only "funk rock" and then in article write that they was one of the biggest band of the late '80 "Funk Metal" scene. And i think we should re-add "rap" in the article where's write "with various elements of funk, punk rock, and psychedelic rock." Zagozagozago (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. "Funk metal" is a little redundant and they don't even really fit the genre that well. The source provided is a bit on the weak side as well. Is anyone opposed to having this removed? Grim (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I haved always hated the fact that RHCP are classed as it. Funk metal is FNM and RATM. 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry,but who cares if you hate it...they were labbelled as "funk metal" in late '80 also if they haven't nothing of "metal"..look at grunge, a lot of band sounds really different..also Funk metal was more a "music scene" than a pure "music genre" Zagozagozago (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They are clearly not the genre. They some songs have elements of metal but personally it's a crap way to describe the band. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

imho they HAVEN'T elemets of metal (maybe apart something in OHM), but we can't do nothing."Funk Metal" is a term created 20 years ago, is a "term", don't means that a funk metal band have metal elements (but in generale mix funk with hard rock)..just look at Fishbone, also Fishbone haven't elements of metal but with RHCP and FNM was the first "funk metal" band.look at Klaxons..labelled "New Rave", are they really "ravers"? no way, are only dance-punk with "sirens" sometimes like in rave songs.you have to think at "funk metal" as a "term" like "grunge"..in grunge there was a lot of bands with different sound, just think at Pearl Jam and Nirvana, they have nothing in common!Zagozagozago (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the pointless edit war

Both "Red Hot Chili Peppers is" AND "Red Hot Chili Peppers are" are equally correct. Different style guides handle it differently, and it comes down largely to minute difference between British and American usage. The use of "is" or "are" to describe a group are both equally acceptable usages, so please stop fighting over 2-3 letters in the lead, as the difference is moot. Try to find somewhere else in the article that needs fixing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in American and British English, if a proper noun is plural in form, then it takes a plural verb (i.e. "are" rather than "is". See the American versus British English article. CloudNine (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please take some time to consider other proper uses. If you were a member of the band, would you say "we is the Red Hot Chili Peppers" or "we are the Red Hot Chili Peppers"? Would you say "the Red Hot Chili Peppers is going to play a show tonight", or "the Red Hot Chili Peppers is going to play a show tonight"? As I mentioned above, a band is a group of people. Groups of people are referred to with "are". Now consider my last sentence; should I have said "groups of people is..."? I'm going to revert the change one last time so that the people making the changes are aware of this debate. Grim (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the subject in your first two statements is, "We," as opposed to the first line of the article, which is, "Red Hot Chili Peppers." "We," of course, is a plural pronoun, so "are" is the correct verb. Your comparison has no relevance to the statement in dispute. "Red Hot Chili Peppers" is a collective noun (and a proper one, at that), and in American English, if you are talking about a collective noun and you are taking them as one group (i.e., one band), then you should consider it as a singular subject, and it should take a singular verb. Again, your comparison of "groups of people" to the band is irrelevant. When you say, "groups of people," the subject there is, "groups," so, naturally it should take a plural verb. But when you say, "group of people," the subject there is singular, so it should take a singular verb. Merienda (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually not so much. See this link, already postes below: [1]. If the proper noun is a plural word, the verb takes the case of the word, in both American and British English.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Grim generally. "Is" sounds awkward most of the time. However, it's irrelevant here. "are" is the only correct usage, as it is a plural proper noun. CloudNine (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Grim, though I should point out that the argument "Does 'We is' or 'We are' sound better?" is not important here as this is a matter of subject-verb agreement and has nothing to do with the direct object of the sentence. For instance, you can easily say "Trent Reznor is/constitutes Nine Inch Nails," where the verb agrees with the subject and has nothing to do with "Nine Inch Nails." If there is a difference between BE and AE on this issue, we should stick to AE across the entire article since this is an article about an American band. For the record, I am an American and "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band" sounds absurd to me. Throughout my entire childhood watching MTV, I distinctly remember people phrasing it like this: "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are in studio today/on tour right now." JHMM13(Disc) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band", "band" is not a direct object. It renames the noun. "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are in studio today/on tour right now." - That sentence is correct because the noun is not being renamed by a singular predicate noun as is true in "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band." The noun and whatever renames the noun must agree in number. Obviously, both "RHCP" and "band" cannot be plural as it would look like this, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are bands." Therefore, both must be singular, which would make the use of "is" grammatically correct, at least in American English. And this is an American band, so American English must be used. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: On The Smashing Pumpkins we've decided to us the plural, because the name is not a collective noun, but referring to multiple individuals, (or "Pumpkins", so to speak). A band name like No Doubt or Nirvana would of course be singular, but band names that end in "s" and thus imply the plural do sound better when using the plural in prose. For example, you wouldn't say "the New York Yankees is" because multiple individuals are being referred to. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually now that I think about it, I agree with Jayron32. Both would be correct as you could refer to the RHCP as more than one person like saying they ARE a band as in they make it up or are what the band is. You could also interpret "Red Hot Chili Peppers" as a name referring to the band, not the members, and therefore it would be singular as it referring to the band as a whole. So I think this edit war is pointless and it should be left at whatever it was before this all started. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok that settles it. If a band name is presented plurally (ends in an "s") then it's "are", and if it's presented singularly, then it's "is". Grim (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't settle it. You misinterpreted my reply. I said both would be correct. If it ends in an "s", it could be considered either singular OR plural. Just leave it the way it was before all this started. And I have no idea what it said before the edit war started so don't think I'm saying that just because I want it a certain way. I don't really care, so just revert it back to before it kept getting changed. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been monitoring this page for quite a while now, and this issue comes up from time to time. It would be better if we resolved it—which I think we have. For the record, the page said "are" before this particular war started. Grim (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that it said "are". Also I just found this - "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band" on American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. So "are" would be correct for any band with a plural name. "Is" would be correct for any American band with a singular name, and "are" would be correct for any British band with a singular name - just to preclude any later disputes that may be risen on this subject. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
So in short, this article should say "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are . . ." and use the plural throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You would use the plural in referring to the members of the band, but if the word "the" is not in front of the band name, it would be referring to the band as a whole and therefore be singular. I doubt I'm making much sense, but that's what I believe is the correct way to do it. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

However this ends up (hopefully without further edit warring, because it's lame), this needs to be worked in WP:MUSTARD or another relevant guide. Lara❤Love 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's "Are" but only because the noun in the band's name (Peppers) is in the plural. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and congratulations, you've got a WP:LAME listing. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I know this is kinda late, but why not "The Red Hot...are"? Petero9 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers/Archive_6&oldid=1090576896"