# Talk:Maroon 5

I think that they are not a rock band at all. I mean just put any of their song of the last 5 years on radio and it is clearly not any kind of rock. 
Clarifications:
● Pop Rock-They are not pop rock clearly. As for the case pop rock pioneers like Paul mccartney. Do you think what paul mccartney made is the same as what Maroon 5 make? No way. So its false to call them pop rock.
●Funk Rock-Similarly funk rock pioneers like Jimi Hendrix never made a music whose trace may seem like Maroon 5s. Also modern funk rock like what Red hot chilli Peppers, Rage against the machine, incubus,etc. made, clearly differs from maroon 5 music. Moreover the most basic funk rock element is Drums which is really hard to find in Maroon 5.
●Soft Rock-Directly coming on to the point this time. Soft rock like Billy Joel, Bee gees, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles and modern day soft rockers like Jack Johnson and John mayer make music which solely different from Maroon 5 music.
PROPOSED CHANGE-The genres should be edited removing soft rock, converting funk rock to funk and removing pop rock. You can add hip-hop as there new music are collaborations with Hip hop artists like Cardi B, Camilla Cabello etc.
I am going to do the edit with a proper citation i have got. Any problem should be first reported here rather than consistently reverting it which is infringement of Wikipedia policies. References to be demanded on course.
Rearviewmirror33 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The past songs of Maroon 5 in the early stages were definitely rock. Like Harder To Breathe. Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Also Jimi Hendrix was psychedelic rock not funk rock Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
And they do have drums, and the new funk rock bands you mentioned are funk metal Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there was a recent fight over this so I don't want to go make changes unilaterally, but, when reading the article it is just jarringly out-of-place. Not only is the English atrocious, but also the placement. Is this sentiment important? If it is, is a separate section for one short paragraph necessary? MarkAQuinn (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there wasn't one paragraph. There were two of them. The other was considered unsourced so it was removed. But i have a solution for that, it would be renamed Controversy rather In modern culture. And a separate section of that won't cause any problems as Maroon 5 has been a controversial band throughout and will be the same. I have also managed to figure out the errors in the section so as soon as the block expires, i would correct it myself. No need to worry for that.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Completely out of place, synthesis/original research with a long random quote from a band member and some unsourced assertions and hype, plus it's poorly written. It needs to be removed - this is a GA classed article! --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Maroon 5 is a band which is getting involved in many controversies these days due to their frontman. So its better to update this article or add updated content to the page so that its GA class remains intact. A likewise situation appeared in front of the band when adam levine disrespected Rock and Roll and also suggested that they never tried to make rock music but only Hip hop. This should surely be added in this page in order to correct those peoples who think that Maroon 5 is a rock band. This needs to be stopped and so please give your suggestions about the proposed change.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

When something considered by the community to be notable, happens and has third party reporting, it will probably be included.  - FlightTime (open channel) 16:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Would be best to integrate any controversy. ...stand alone sections of this nature are discouraged.--Moxy (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI.  I mention this article at these three places:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#Commercialism_of_major_bands
User_talk:DGG#Maroon_5
User_talk:Binksternet#Maroon_5
--David Tornheim (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC) [add 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)]
It's my belief that the Youtube videos should not be used as references, since they are not secondary, independent sources constituting WP:RS.  Unless there is disagreement, I plan to remove them.  Perhaps, they should be added as external links?  I have not seen how this is done for other bands.  And just because it is done that way for other bands, does not mean it should have been done that way for them either.  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that primary sources such as YouTube videos fail to show the importance of the information. Rather, WP:SECONDARY sources are the foundation of Wikipedia. Secondary sources show that the information has been observed and analyzed by third parties.
And the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER represents music topic consensus about cover versions of songs, about which ones are important enough to list for the reader. It sets a high bar... Most non-single album tracks are not important enough, and most performances aren't, either.
I don't think there's any longterm fix except for interested editors to stay vigilant. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the information in the Ryan Dusick article should be merged into this article. With the possible exception of this, the sources in that article appear to be more about Maroon 5 as a whole than Dusick himself (and starpulse.com is dead). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Blow it up-How about we instead blow the article up? Even though many of the sources are dead, there are many others that seem very reliable. With the info I have gathered from sources, and the info already written in the article, it seems like Dusick just couldn't violate the notability guidelines on Wikipedia. For now, I support this, but only to restructure the article once sufficient sources are gathered. - Somewhere over the rainbow, the Airplane Master (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) flies...
If you agree, why did you revert in the first place? That whole fiasco could have been avoided. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

115.132.163.41 Wikipedia is neutral and not personal. So, what is the problem having "Songs About Jane" in on sub-section and then "Dusick's departure and It Won't Be Soon Before Long" in the next section. Please do not undo my edits without giving a meaningful explanation. 68.195.141.2 (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheRedundancy125: At Special:Diff/967167637, you reverted two access-dates that I had changed to July 11, 2020. I did so after working on the cited material and verifying it against the source, per Template:Citation/doc#URL (bullet 1.1): access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article ... Note that access-date is the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited.
In the fourth paragraph at Maroon 5#2019–present: Super Bowl LIII halftime show and upcoming seventh studio album, I added a citation needed tag for the first sentence because both sources were actually from before the performance, and technically shouldn't be used to cite that they actually performed (and with whom). This may seem like a nit, but I've seen a fair amount of it in entertainment articles and, in the current environment where everything is getting rescheduled, I think it's good to be more rigorous about it.
Regarding Dobkin's documentary, I was on the fence about whether to remove it entirely after reading the source. It makes it sound like he's just been gathering footage with the intent to someday turn it into something and is maybe thinking about getting it done in the next year or so. I guess the "principal photography" guideline can't really be applied to music documentaries that seem to usually be put together in this way, but this doesn't seem like it qualifies at the heart of WP:CRYSTAL.
Thanks for your work. I wasn't feeling particularly eloquent –  just trying to fix the broken grammar.  —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Maroon 5 has frequently had genres such as 'Funk' 'Funk Pop' 'Disco' 'Electro' 'Funk Rock' and so on, listed in their songs and discographies.'The article on them frequently brings up Funk and Funk musicians in their influences and style. Could we all please come to the general consensus to add Funk to their list of genres? Thank you.Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Dark Lord Thomas Pie

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maroon 5's Third Studio album. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Maroon 5's Third Studio album until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  HĐ (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The source is visible instead of the box. Alpaca Dries (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TartarTorte 00:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This section has little acknowledgement of the band's stylistic evolution since the first three albums. It uses an Adam Levine quote from 2010 (in an interview for Hands All Over) saying "Everything... pretty much comes from us... we're a self-contained unit. We're a band that does our own thing", but the section then admits that "at least some of the band's songs, such as 'Moves Like Jagger'," have professional songwriters and producers. This is clearly out of date given that every song on every album since V (and most of the songs on Overexposed) has been written solely by Adam Levine together with songwriters from outside the band. 
It also says that Maroon 5's songs "tend to be very guitar-heavy, often accompanied by piano or synthesizer", a statement that is questionable even for their second and third albums, let alone anything they've done since. There is no direct mention of any albums or songs after Overexposed, and there is very little acknowledgement of the band's huge stylistic evolution since Hands All Over. The section reads like it was written around the time of "Moves Like Jagger", and then a sentence about Overexposed was tacked onto the end of it around the time that album came out.
The section needs to have a much stronger distinction between Maroon 5's earlier style and their post-Hands All Over style. Most of it is really only describing the former. Jon1901 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There is one line in the Philanthropy section which is unsourced. I marked it with a citation needed tag. Should this be not resolved in two weeks, I’d have to put it under reassessment. Brachy08 (Talk) 03:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help me decipher the first paragraph of the History section?  It's written like a logic puzzle...
Adam Levine was introduced to Ryan Dusick by a mutual friend and guitarist, Adam Salzman. Levine was 15 years old, and Dusick was 16. Three of the five members of the band started playing together at age 12. The four original members of the band met while attending Brentwood School in Los Angeles. While attending Brentwood School, Levine and Jesse Carmichael joined with Mickey Madden and Dusick to form Kara's Flowers, a grunge band.
I think, if all these statements are true, this must mean that Carmichael, Madden, and one of Levine and Dusick started to play together at age 12, then the other of Levine and Dusick joined them aged 15/16? But it's extremely obscurely-written. The final sentence is written as if there were originally two pairs - Levine and Carmichael, and Madden and Dusick - who joined together? Can we specify which three members are referred to in sentence three? And who are "the five members of the band" - the band had four members originally, and now has six; which five are referred to? I'd like to make this clearer but currently I'm a little uncertain on the facts. TSP (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)