Talk:Animal Collective

message: i added a new band image after corresponding with fat cat records and getting permission (see the image page for email correspondence).  so that's up, and it looks better.  now will someone just make it look pretty within the entire page?
-sparsefarce 12 Jan 2005
We need to make page pretty again. Main pic is lame pic. Izoanefts (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Band Picture 

message: ok seriously...."Folk Mind Dance"? "Freak Psych Dance"? someones making things up71.137.254.163 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Why does Avey Tare redirect here?  He and Panda Bear are in need of their own pages. I made a page for each of Panda Bear's albums and some of his singles, but I don't know enough about him to do a page. Zeichman 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band Members 

message: "Dance" is listed in the genres...but I don't think I've ever really heard any dancy elements in any of their songs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.34.181 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dance?

message: Is it appropriate to refer to the band members by their stage names? It reads very poorly, especially when shortening Panda Bear to just "Panda". --Colin Barrett (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that since the solo discographies and liner notes refer to them this way, it makes comprehension easier across media. --Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Really? They're a pop/rock band. Tell me when they've invented a new way of looking at music. I like AC but this is only slightly less criminal than calling Britney Spears avant-garde.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.36.225 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avant-garde? 

message: Why do this page and all the album pages consistently and thoroughly refer to Animal Collective as a "Baltimore-based" band? That's like saying Frank Zappa was a "Baltimore-based artist." --69.139.238.240 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltimore 

message: Removed from article per WP:EL:
*Animal Collective at Domino Records (Record Label)
*Animal Collective at NPR Music
*SPIN Gives AC's 'Merriweather Post Pavilion' 4 Stars!
*Cool AC Art in SPIN's January '09 Issue
*. 
*Interview with Panda Bear, January 2009
*
*Animal Collective cover story September 2007
*BBC interview
*Pitchfork article
*Review of 'My Girls' at Daily Music Guide
*May 2009 Interview with L.A. Record
but could be used as references to improve the article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I deleted the "AnCo" abbreviation note as the source was hipsterrunoff, a mostly-satirical music blog, and as far as I know this abbreviation has only been used for the past year or two by only some fans. The band themselves have never used this abbreviation but have definitely used "AC" on releases such as Prospect Hummer. I can't really use the physical cover of an EP as a source but I thought I'd at least get rid of this unnecessary addition. 121.98.208.32 (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - Let's leave it off unless a there is strong support with good references. --Travis Thurston+ 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's been changed again for no good reason. I would not count tumblr tags as "strong support with good references". I'm happy to compromise though. "AC" has always been the official abbreviation of Animal Collective but I'll include a note saying "AnCo" has become a popular nickname recently as well.118.92.42.207 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band name abbreviation 

message: Surely if Spirit They're Gone, Spirit They've Vanished is regarded as Animal Collective's first album and said album was recorded in 1999, then the band was first active in 1999? - Mr. November (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just about to discuss the same thing. I'll change it to 1999 for now, anyone who disagrees is free to change it back. Blåmes (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years active 

message: I'm taking this out from under the "discography" subheading for now since this hasn't been confirmed as offically an "album" yet (though, for example, ODDSAC is directly referred to as a visual album). It's only available for Record Store Day, I haven't seen it referred to as an album anywhere yet, and also the length could be under 20 minutes for all we know so far.130.216.69.49 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transverse Temporal Gyrus 

message: Has Hollinndagain ever actually been marketed as a live album? I'm asking because it's often labeled as a live album, where Here Comes the Indian (Ark) isn't, despite the fact that both were recorded live. Instead of Here Comes the Indian being labeled as a live album like Hollinndagain is, it is widely considered to be their 3rd studio album. Why is this? I understand that Hollinndagain was recorded entirely live, where Here Comes the Indian was only partially recorded live (more specifically, the early version of it, Ark, was recorded live), but shouldn't Here Comes the Indian be placed as a live album as well?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertWesker411 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The way they are labelled at the moment is correct. Hollinndagain is a live album, Here Comes the Indian is a studio album. "Live albums" are not defined simply by how many takes it took to record them. If that were so, Campfire Songs could also be called a "live" album. "Live albums" really refer to albums recorded during concerts. Hollinndagain was made from recordings of AC concerts with an audience. Here Comes the Indian was recorded in the studio by the band on their own with the engineer, that's why it's called a studio album. Hope that makes sense. The key difference is whether the songs from the album were recorded from a live show or not.  It doesn't matter if the album was recorded "live" (ie in one take). A lot of the vocals for Here Comes the Indian weren't recorded until later either, as you probably know. And 'Ark' was never intended to be released as it was.118.92.42.207 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for the info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.99.66 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollinndagain and Here Comes the Indian 

message: A few broken links in the references, I am replacing some with archived urls and beefing them up. If anyone takes issue with my edits please discuss here to help me. I'm very new to this but eager to fix references cus broken links anger me! >:| Plus, by checking other references, I have found a few older interviews by them I wouldn't have looked for otherwise. :) Izoanefts (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - I saw your post at the help desk. As I said there, you just named the cite incorrectly. You should have named it "veyesor post", which also applies to cite 14. So the error was caused because you gave the cite a name that didn't exist elsewhere, and didn't include a URL. When editing cites in the future, click on the Edit link at the top of the article, make your edits, then click the "Show preview" button to make sure there are no errors. Once you're sure everything is fine, then click the "Save page" button to save your changes. Hope this helps. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: is the video appearances section of their discography really necessary? I've never seen anything like that in a band's wikipedia article and the single video appearance listed seems like a strangely insignificant video to include in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverjgw (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Appearances? 

message: Why does the article say that Panda and Avey have appeared on every release even though Panda was absent on Transverse Temporal Gyrus?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.214.243 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members in each release 

message: * There was no band or collective to speak of prior to the invention of "Animal Collective" in 2003. To suggest that the band was formed or established in 1999 is definitively nonfactual.
* Ignoring that, if Animal Collective was formed in 1999, then Dibb and Weitz can no longer be considered co-founders.
** If we were to consider that "Animal Collective" constitutes anything where two or more members are playing together, then the real formation date would be somewhere circa 1994, when Weitz and Portner began playing music together. Weitz and Portner would then be considered the collective's official founding members.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That explanation is already contained in the second paragraph. I think it would add more confusion if Weitz and Dibb weren't considered founding members.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points about formation date (1999 vs. 2003) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Animal Collective. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222045759/http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/pandabeariw.htm to http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/pandabeariw.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810010426/http://paw-tracks.com/news.html to http://www.paw-tracks.com/news.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222045759/http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/pandabeariw.htm to http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/pandabeariw.htm
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) 06:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This sentence is so babbley and pointless that, initially, I had no idea what it was supposed to be saying.
* 
In other words, "the albums before Campfire Songs were credited to individuals'." OK, I get it now - that is supported by the source. But is this factoid really that important? No, and it's not worth overwhelming the reader with minutiae. The situation with "retroactive classifications" is already confusing enough for most people. Whatever your opinion is on the actual music, Campfire Songs has no real historical significance - it's just another album by the band - and it's absurd that we'd be mentioning it among Spirit, Indian, and Merriweather but not Sung Tongs, Feels, or Strawberry Jam.
:WP:UNDUE: 
:MOS:INTRO: 
This says the same thing without going into uber-detail
:
One can simplify it even further
:
Bottom line: nobody except diehard fans care about how the earlier albums were inconsistently formatted. The specific naming conventions can be elaborated in the body. It's too inconsequential for the lead--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing, nitpicking details in lead 

message: User:Ilovetopaint you are right that consensus should be established, but I decided to act boldly and implement the change that I would propose, since the infobox has been flooded with genres for some time. As per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre, infobox genres should 1) aim for generality and 2) be limited to 2–4. I chose the four genres I retained (experimental pop, psychedelic, indie rock, electronic) to summarize those that are currently sourced, while moving avant-pop to the lead as by far the most broadly defined (any popular music which pushes existing boundaries as per its article). Of those removed, freak folk, neo-psychedelia, and psychedelic pop are forms of psychedelia while noise pop is considered a form of indie rock and is closely related to experimental pop. What do you think?--MASHAUNIX 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 2-4 is ideal but it's not a standard that can be held to every act. AC is frequently labelled with exp-pop, indie rock, noise pop, psych, electronic, etc.. And we can't just ignore the period when they were constantly being referred to as "freak folk". I think if we want to cut down the genres, then the first tags to go are the ones with <2 cites (art rock, psych-pop, neo-psych). After that, maybe we can set the bar higher to 3 cites, which will cut down a few more. But I don't think there's any problem with having 7 genres listed for a band like this (my personal preference would be to have just one: pop). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about including only avant-pop in the infobox and lead, and discussing details in the text?--MASHAUNIX 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the last half-decade or so, "avant-pop" and "experimental pop" have been the most frequent labels for the band, so either one would work. The only reason it reads "experimental pop" in the first sentence is because that's the most general "layman" term to use. I don't think we need to confuse the average person with a non-term like "avant-pop", which is really just a more fancy way of saying "popular music that is experimental". As for the infobox, it would be a mistake to retcon the band's noise/folk phase or their psychedelic roots.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO infobox info should never pertain to "phases" but give an overview of the band's entire career. Since freak folk and noise pop are subgenres of the more general genres included which cover the commonalities of the band's shifting sound, I am opposed to including them. However, the change I would like to see is the removal of avant-pop from the infobox, since it has zero informational value next to experimental pop, as you yourself suggest. I don't believe there is any evidence that experimental pop is a more "layman" term to use than avant-pop, but whichever we choose to include (experimental pop, if you wish), the other should be excluded.--MASHAUNIX 18:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre cut-down