Talk:The Pillows

message: Suzuki Jun is not a member of the band, he is merely the current bassist.  The only "members" are the other three.  Suzuki is not considered a member out of respect for the original member.  Pirouzu mentions this I'm sure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.62.65 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band Members 

message: It says in the Early Beginnings section that the band was formed in 1989, but then it says "1987-1992" for Kenji Ueda under Members. What's goin' on here? --Spiffyxd 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pillows toured under the name "The Coinlocker Babies" starting from 1987 for 2 years before picking up the name "The Pillows". That's probably where the discrepancy came from. -- Unregistered person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.225.120 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of band formation 

message: Any of you notice that the song "I think I can" sounds like The Pixies' Wave of Mutilation?
----
Well, I wouldn't be suprised.
Listen to Back seat Dog; specifically the bass line during the chorus. Then listen to "Here comes your man" by the pixies. There are other pixie links at pirouzu; under stuff -> Homages, you might enjoy looking at --69.247.164.232 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Songs?

message: Great entry but, man, did the original author like Living Field?  One couldn't tell from the article. /snark    A few edits to tone down the enthusiasm.  I love the pillows just as much as the next dude, but the gushing is out of place for Wikipedia.  163.191.194.235 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor POV edits 

message: Should the fact that some of the their music appears in Beck and the fact that they appear in the last episode be noted on the main page? --torpy 12:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beck Anime 

message: I think we should go back to the last picture, it's a lot more recent. I'm not going to do it because I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this... anyone else agree with me? --Itamae 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture? 

message: This article bleeds POV..... I've no idea how to clean it up, but it could certainly use a rewrite.  It even blatantly refers to certain tracks as "excellent (yet often overlooked)".  It reminds me strongly of a "behind the music" type article.  Help?Secunda1 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's a lot of POV in it. I can try fixing it up this weekend, I should have some free time then. -- febtalk  01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The History section also has major verifiability issues. I've looked around a bit on the web but so far, I can't seem to find any sources that would qualify as reliable. Someone with advanced Japanese skills might be more lucky, but as it stands, I see this article on a fast road towards stubification (or a plethora of [citation needed] tags). - Cyrus XIII 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it if you think that you can clean it up... as for the lack of info... you'd think there'd be more english fansites given that they made the FLCL soundtrack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Secunda1 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fansites are generally not considered reliable sources. - Cyrus XIII 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, I'm still quite new to Wikipedia.  In any case, you'd think the record company might be a reliable source, wouldn't it?  Or do they not have an English version of the site?Secunda1 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is certainly reliable for neutral stuff like basic biographical data, release dates, announcements and such. If a record company told as though, a certain band was great, inspiring or influential, we should probably dismiss it as an obvious conflict of interest. Sorry for the late reply. - Cyrus XIII 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: this isn't in the discography section. should it be under albums (since it is a rerelease of 90s my life) or complilations? - josifer
:I see the problem. It's a little all-over the place, in terms of the release type, since it's a re-release of an EP, with additional tracks (= compilation?) which give it album length. I've just filed it under albums for now, without putting too much thought into it. - Cyrus XIII 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  90s My Life Returns 

message: Someone added reggae, which they clearly aren't. They may have been jazz once (haven't heard their old stuff) but they haven't been for fifteen years so there's no reason to have it there, and punk seemed like a stretch too (my understanding is that punk should never have more than three chords, while The Pillows are quite complicated musically.)
If you can make a case for putting any of those back, by all means explain; I've never had the musical vocabulary to describe their sound at all. Doceirias 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, Reggae is Nine Miles and Heart is there. They definitely had some sort of lounge sound early on, but they're practically a different band now (and with the swapping of members, a case could be made for that). Punk depends on your definition of punk -_ Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that's why Reggae got on there, but a solo album for one of the band's members doesn't really change the definition of the band itself. Doceirias 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I, like I said, the only reggae they've done is Heart is There, a cover of a Nine Miles song. You'd have an easier time classifying them as metal with Advice and Smile -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Pillows before 1997...not notable. No reason to classify the genre. Doceirias 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre Cleanse 

message: I just recieved my imported copy of LITTLE BUSTERS and it has what seems to be a secret track; LITTLE BUSTERS transitions into this mellow, atmospheric a capella version of itself. I am positive they are seperate tracks, it is called "LITTLE BUSTERS (Reply)", but it is not listed on Wikipedia, the pillows website, the Japanese Wikipedia, the album itself, or any other web sites with the pillows discography for that matter. So, should this track be included on the track listing, or does anyone else have something to say about the track? By the way, when you put in the CD their name comes up as "the pillows" not "The Pillows". I'm tired of the capatalization thing, their name is the pillows. Wonderwallmusic 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "the pillows" in Japanese, and "The Pillows" in English. Japanese are allowed to be funky with capitalization (and lack thereof) of English words in their language because it flows completely differently along kanji and kana. I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.--SeizureDog 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you're right, but they are a Japanese band, so shouldn't their name be in it's original format? But who cares, that's just a rhetoric question. My real topic was the hidden track. Wonderwallmusic 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, even if they were an American group, we would not emulate the lowercase capitalization (beside mentioning it), see WP:MOS-TM and WP:MUSTARD. - Cyrus XIII 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And "the pillows" probably is not trademarked, right? I mean they are just a band. Anyway, I am sorry if I came across mad or frustrated with the "I'm tired of the..." line, I do not really care if the name cannot just be simply changed, so keep it whatever way is correct I guess. I do not mind. Wonderwallmusic 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LITTLE BUSTERS hidden track...? 

message: I really liked the old article, what happened? it had a lot more information... for example the history of the band, the explanation of the band name... i don't really like the new article, please improve it... i don¡t want to sound so rude but i don't understand the change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.160.62 (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old article contained no sources, and nobody ever found any sources for it. It also contained a great deal of opinion on the part of whoever wrote it. It became obvious after a while that it was never going to be trimmed down to something acceptable, so it was decided that it would be much easier to cut it down to the sourced statements and build up from there. If you have sources for any of that information, feel free to add it back in. Doceirias 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY A NEW ARTICLE? 

message: I'm kinda working on this article in a possible attempt to bring it up to GA class. Just bringing it up in case anyone else wants to help out.--SeizureDog (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[White Summer and Green Bicycle, Red Hair with Black Guitar.]] 

message: There has been some back-and-forth on the logo issue, and I'll admit it's mostly coming from my end. I'll explain my reasoning here. There's been a heckuva long and rather contentious discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist#Logos about the inclusion of logos in articles about musical acts, and though there is still a lot of divisiveness on the issue there are certain valid points, and even some consensus, that has come out of it. What I'm concerned with here is mainly the fact that logos don't belong in infoboxes of articles about musicians. The purpose of the "name" field of the infobox is for a free or fair use picture of the artist, not their logo. In fact, Template:Infobox Musical artist#Img states that the purpose of the field is for "an image of the act (my emphasis), sufficiently clear for display at 220 pixels' width." If a comprehensive, free photo of the band is unavailable, then you can make the case for a fair-use photo in its place. That's one of the reasons that fair-use policies exist, for those situations.
Further to that, there is the question of what exactly constitutes a "logo" in terms of a musical act, and to what degree a logo may or may not be notable. The general consensus seems to be that if the logo is notable, and verifiable, then the proper place for it is in the article body alongside a referenced discussion of its significance. This allows the image to add some meaningful informational content to the article, rather than just serving as decoration. Without critical commentary then it is likely that the use of the image fails WP:NONFREE and that the logo probably isn't notable. Note that it is at best unclear whether the provisions of WP:LOGOS (which allows logos to be used in most cases strictly for identification) applies to the logos of musical acts. WP:NONFREE (of which WP:LOGOS is a subset) only specifies that "Team and corporate (my emphasis) logos [may be used] for identification." In an article about a musical act, a logo is at best a secondary form of identification because we already have the name of the act in plain text and a field for a free or fair-use image of the act.
Basically what I'm saying is that if the Pillows logo is in fact notable, then it should be in the article body with some type of referenced discussion of its significance (ie. Who designed it? In what context is it used? Does it have some symbolic meaning? Does it have any cultural, historical, or artistic significance?). Obviously this is too much to cram into the infobox. If there is nothing to say about it other than "it's their logo," then it's probably non-notable and therefore fails fair-use criteria. As a temporary compromise I've moved it into the article body, where hopefully some meaningful commentary can develop around it. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: Why no article for Sato? (Momus (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you haven't written it yet? See WP:Who writes Wikipedia for details. Especially if you're that Momus: he can definitely write... ;) -- Quiddity 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinichirou Sato 

message: I wanted to update this article to include other locations for the US 2005 tour (I know they were in Seattle, I was there :)), but I can't find any sources to cite other than a forum post from around that time: http://www.hongfire.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-18371.html. Not wanting to replace sourced info with unsourced, I thought I'd add this note in case anyone is able to find a good source for this.
Pruwyben (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 US Tour 

message: 1989 not listed as single, collab with puffy amiyumi instrumental segment on honeycreeper for song sayonara summer, sawao's 2010 solo album, and 2012 tour?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagasuki (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos & 1989, etc 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion