Talk:Mike Patton

message: «Faith No More also performed in Portugal in Festival do Sudoeste the 8th of August, where Mike Patton sang one song, Evidence, completely in Portuguese. They had already played the same song completely in Italian on June 14th, 2009, at the Rock in Idro Festival in Milan. »
This is false. Mike Patton acted in Festival do Sudoeste at the 8th of August, with his Mondo Cane project. Faith No More have nothing to do with it. angelofwisdom (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I just noticed that Faith No More actually were in Portugal on the Sudoeste Festival, August 8th... 2009! The year is not explicit. In August 8th 2010, Mike Patton was back to exactly the same venue, with his Mondo Cane project. It was a (huge) coincidence and misunderstanding. angelofwisdom (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudoeste (Portugal) 

message: This is ridiculous. Mike Patton has never been on a jazz, funk or pop album, and he only contributed to a single noise album (Maldoror). Meanwhile, a huge portion of his actual output is being ignored. If we insist on having a list of genres rather than "various", then they should each have sources or justification on the talk page. I suggest we looks through his discography and the genres listed for each band and each album, and list genres based on that. After we agree on a list, we should all agree to revert all further undiscussed edits to the genre list. Pwrong (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This approach is a good start, but most genre information tends to be in the infoboxes of the individual bands and albums. We might as well use these, they're fairly accurate. Pwrong (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not the length of the list I'm worried about. He does play a lot of genres and the list should reflect that as long as there's no rule against lists being too long. I'm worried that the guidelines say aim for generality, so people are including very wide genres that have nothing to do with Patton. For example, he's never been on a funk album that I know of. Bungle and Faith No More were both prominent examples of funk rock or maybe funk metal in their early days, but these aren't subgenres of funk. I think it would be ok to list 'rock, funk rock, and alternative metal', among others. This is as general as we can be without sacrificing accuracy.Pwrong (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If noone has any objections, I'll add these six genres in a few days. Pwrong (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres

message: First of all, acting irreverently towards the music industry and expressing distaste for the lifestyles of rock stars isn't unconventional. Second, wouldn't he have to be famous before he could have a reaction to fame? Seriously, if you asked a thousand random people who Mike Patton was I'd be shocked if you could find even two who knew who he is. 99.999% of people surveyed would either have no idea who he is or think you were talking about the WWII general George Patton.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.65.60 (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me, and it is all cited. How would propose we improved it? And yes, Mike Patton is famous. The general public probably does not know who John Bonham is (were) either, unless you are a Led Zeppelin fan. That does not make him "not famous", though. Nymf talk to me 19:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction to Fame? 

message: This article fails to mention anywhere in it Patton's work with John Kaada. They made a collaborative album together called Romances. What's rather ironic is that Patton is indeed mentioned on the article for Kaada.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyde937 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaada Collab(s) 

message: Under the heading "Style and influences", it states "A list published by the Chicago-based music website Consequence of Sound (CoS), acknowledged Mike Patton as 'the greatest singer of all time'."  Setting aside that rather overblown claim, there is also the disturbing use of the term "acknowledged".  To acknowledge a thing is to objectively recognize its qualities or characteristics.  That's not what said website is doing; it's stating an opinion, not a fact.  I think that "...acknowledged Mike Patton as..." should be changed to something like "...opined that Mike Patton is..." or "...claimed that Mike Patton is..."  Any other opinions? Bricology (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "acknowledged"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Patton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://negele.org/db/index.php3?band=2&year=1990&month=11&day=30&id=1531
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928133503/http://www.cv.org/2006/02/03/patton-in-italy-in-may/ to http://www.cv.org/2006/02/03/patton-in-italy-in-may/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestoolpigeon.co.uk/features/faith-no-more-mike-patton-interview-mondo-cane.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: this paragraph bothers me
"A list published by the Chicago-based music website Consequence of Sound, acknowledged Mike Patton as "the greatest singer of all time."[57] The May 2014 article referenced VVN Music's (Vintage Vinyl News) analysis of various rock & pop singers, ranking them in order of their respective octave ranges.[6] The article served as a retraction to a previous article,[58] which originally awarded the number one position to Axl Rose. Both articles praised Patton's impressive 6 octaves, 1/2 note range (Eb1 to E7), versus Axl's admirable 5 octaves, 2-1/2 notes (while mentioning, for transparency, that world record holder Tim Storms has a range of 10 octaves)."
I suspect the original articles started some kind of urban myth for all these folks having incredible vocal ranges. Something feels wrong. What do you guys think?
FYI here is someone with a six octave range https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc3Xg2o26IE
I urge you to watch because when you get to the really high registered you sound a bit like a bat lol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmcq (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  vocal range 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fennesz + Patton. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fennesz + Patton listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There is a dispute over whether the following content belongs on the page:
:He told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1995, "It's hard to see as much as you'd like with our schedule on the road, but it's harder to do coke and fuck whores every night. Now that's a full time job."
:In the mid-2000s, Patton stopped to continually act irreverently offstage and to claim strange things to interviewers; by the last years of the next decade he had entirely ceased to do so. In 2019, he explained: "I'm already giving a thousand percent to the music ... and I realize what's important and what's not. ... There's an art to [talking to the press] ... And [on the other hand] fucking with [it] and being a dick it's not really worth it. ... and I learned that from an early age, ... there was a while when I was a total asshole and I didn't say anything and all I would do was give you a sarcastic answer, and spread out crazy lies and rumors just because it was funny [laughs] ... [but] I grew up ... And I think, I hope I've gotten a little better at that". The frontman concluded: "It's much easier to just be, what did I say to you before: the easiest thing in the world is just to be yourself."
I believe that this content has no value for the encyclopedia and does not belong on the page. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it unencyclopaedic though, this just seems a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than any actual reason sourced content that he has said, should be removed. NZFC(talk)(cont) 07:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it belongs here. See WP:TMI. And your noticeboard post is ridiculous. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I think it would help if the quote was rewritten in a way that doesn't read like broken English. That might make the decision on inclusion or exclusion easier for everyone to make. Additionally, the right step here (other than an edit war, which is always a good decision for everyone!) is to post an RfC template and solicit some outside opinions. Nathan  T   13:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: "Noted for his vocal proficiency [...] Patton has earned critical praise" is unsourced and not really correct. Mike is noted for inter alia his versatility, range and experimentalism, but not for his "vocal proficiency" (and none of the used sources says that). Mike is actually known for having not really been formally trained.
Mike is not frequently analysed by experts (vocal coaches or voice teachers), but those who did analyse his technique did not call it "proficient" at all, they actually say that you can tell by his technique that he lacks formal training.
I'll e.g. quote this vocal coach (with a Master's degree in vocal pedagogy here):
"From  a technical standpoint he does almost everything wrong. If you took him to a jury at a college, he would fail. But that's not the point with Mike Patton."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ08hNWFOnU&t=4m29s
Mike is great, he's amazing, he's cult, but he's not vocally proficient. And he's not noted for "vocal proficiency" at all. Mike is noted for being that badass, versatile, experimentalistic lunatic who simply doesn't care about vocal technique and about doing things correctly. But no one who thinks of Mike says "Oh, yes, that is this vocally so immensely proficient singer!!" 
I'm really sorry and I really don't mean to be cynic, but I guess you know very well what I mean.
Also the used sources neither say that he is vocally proficient nor that he's noted for vocal proficicency. (Which would need to be evaluated by someone with education in that field anyway btw, and no one of the listed people has any education in that field).
And as far as the "critical praise" is concerned: There's only one critic mentioned. And that critic is not a vocal critic, he's a journalist without any education in that field, and he's not even a singer. All the other people mentioned are his friends and bandmates who basically say they dig his singing. And one other journalist is mentioned with no education in that field and who collabs with Mike too. I assume you see my point? Best wishes, Stimmbildung (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 2 

message: Does someone have a list of all languages Mike has ever sung in? I would like to add him to the List of multilingual bands and artists.
Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: Just ran across this
https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/performer/MR%20BUNGLE
In which Patton's middle name is consistently spelled as 'Allen'. Is there a source for the spelling of the name?Robbmonster (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Patton's middle name 

message: The article seems like a massive joke. Is this supposed to be serious? Greatest musician of all time is a one-hit wonder? Yet he is so great, he has become a God? lol 120.29.108.201 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree 67.170.213.208 (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious? 

message: Looks like a few producers were added to the lede after this tag was posted last summer. Is there something else User:Thumperward was looking for that would make it long enough? Kire1975 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a 200k article. Two paragraphs and half a dozen sentences is still woefully inadequate. Every section of the article should be adequately summarised in the lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minus all 318 sources, the article length is just over 62K characters according to my calculations. Unfortunately, MOS:LEADLENGTH doesn't give any guidelines as to pages with more than 30K characters.  Though it points to WP:SUMMARY which says "Very long articles should be split. Any ideas on what sections should be split off? It's a good question, but seems a bit technical. Patton has always had trouble fitting into definable categories. More than 4 paragraphs in the lead of any biographical page of any length would be overlong and very dificcult to avoid redundancies, imo. I just turned it into three paragraphs. Hope it helps. Kire1975 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too short tag? 

message: I am having difficulty finding sources for Patton hatred for/prejudice against/abuse of autistic people, most are weasel-worded with other terms like troglodytes or goobers to hide Patton's bigotry. Can anyone help? I think it is important to the article that Patton's sadism and cruelty and hideousness as a human being are documented. He has personally made me cry on several occasions and since becoming famous he has used his fans to abuse autistic people, myself included.Lynchenberg (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a major WP:BLP violation even if you could find a verifiable source. Kire1975 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Tell me then, does including Jimmy Urine's sexual assault allegations constitute a major WP:BLP violation as well, or is it okay to bully him because he is autistic? Or do you just have a problem with autistic people yourself and want to see them in pain?Lynchenberg (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're having problems finding sources to support your accusations because they don't seem to exist. Once again, it's you attempting to shoehorn autism and prejudice against autism into an article where it has no basis in reality. You attempted to do so in the Mr. Bungle, Mindless Self Indulgence, and Jimmy Urine articles and now you're attempting it here. The difference between the information about Jimmy Urine's sexual assault allegations and your accusations against Patton is that one is reporting about an accusation made against somebody for sexual assault and the other is an accusation of a group of people for which you can find no source whatsoever that supports it. Adding such a thing to the biography of a living person can certainly be a violation of WP:BLP. In fact, if I were to guess, even making the accusation on this talk page, as you have, seems like a blatant a violation of it just the same. NJZombie (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read through that and there is nothing in WP:BLP that says bringing up a possible controversy (even if one is mistaken about the veracity of that controversy) on a talk page is in violation of anything. You have to guess it is, which as a fan of Mike Patton and Mr. Bungle, I am guessing is a situation you're most happy with, given the fact you are a Patton/Bungle fan must suggest about the way you must feel about me personally as an autist, eh? You may want me to commit suicide, but all I can say is, looks like your hero is finally getting a taste of what he puts others through, and hopefully he'll be the one who decides to end it all: https://music.mxdwn.com/2021/09/14/news/faith-no-more-and-mr-bungle-cancel-upcoming-tour-dates-due-to-covid-19-exacerbated-mental-health-reasons-for-mike-patton/?fbclid=IwAR2VaCvlI0NiSJH2rXu5r1q_4ipMxS0CM6GQYpv5uN5mVKTGYB7DbW5gGM8 Lynchenberg (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatred for autistic people 

message: Hi - I have never done this before - left feedback on a wiki article. But I have rarely read such an obvious PR publicist leaning article on Wikipedia. Wow. It is fawning and formulaic to make this dude Mike Patton sound like a demigod. This tone and content belongs on MikePatton.com. Not Wikipedia 2407:7000:9878:9B00:155D:EA01:1003:A2DF (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to check out Talk, too, since I was stunned at the length of the article. I'm not sure that I would call it PR, but it's definitely overboard, obsessing over every micro-detail of Patton. Is he really such a major figure in music? David Bowie has barely 4,000 words more than Patton does. I always tend to think "More is better" with Wikipedia, but this one really challenges my belief. Mitch and Murray (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree.  too long 67.170.213.208 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of article 

message: User:Bohemian Baltimore recently made this edit adding this page to "Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent". The article is massive. I've searched by a number of key words, and have read the Early years and Personal life section a few times. I fail to see any sources about him being or claiming to be of Native American descent? I'm not saying it's not there, but considering how massive the page is, can somebody point us all in the right direction? Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kire1975 He was originally categorized as being "of Native American descent", but I saw no reference to it and moved it to the self-identify category. Which I see is now gone, which is probably what I should have done from the start. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American claims 

message: I've removed sources for claims of Patton's vocal range for now. If there are other, recent sources that do claim he has a six-or-higher vocal range, I'd be weary of them as possible circular reporting due to these articles and the fan forums they cited being re-cited/claimed.
Both the Consequence of Sound and Vintage Vinyl cite unreliable sources for their claims.
A lot of the information comes down to a forum called "The Range Place" (now dead link, but url was http://therangeplace.forummotions.com/). It was a forum hosted by Forummotion. I believe it has now become or is related to "The Range Planet". The Range Planet has registered users creating threads and giving their analysis of potential notes a singer hits and their explanations why. 
Consequence of Sound article:
For their purposes, VVN expanded on the original criteria established by Concert Hotels, which drew its sample from Rolling Stones’ list of the 100 Greatest Singers ... and those singers who’d been analyzed by The Range Place.
Vintage Vinyl draws heavily from The Range Place forum:
Many thanks to the users at The Range Place who have been such a great help in correcting, adding and explaining their findings ... If a singer had been analyzed on The Range Place's site ... You can find that information along with a LOT more over at The Range Place. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to further that per the podcast interview provided, he claims it's all B.S and doesn't believe he has the "biggest vocal range" or whatever moniker is being used. Again, the VVN Music source is not reliable whatsoever and uses a now defunct fan forum called "Range Place". Though perhaps we can mention that he has garnered reports on his supposed wide vocal range. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocal range