Talk:Negativland

2002

Hm, how should we set up the "related topics" section? I don't like how I've just done it. --KQ — Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 12 October 2002 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like "related topics" or "see alsos" unless, maybe, the article is very long. I always try to weave them into the article text, which should be possible here given some editing ("sound collage", for instance, is already mentioned in the first line). Until that weaving is done (I'll do it later tonight if nobody else does), it looks fine to me. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 12 October 2002 (UTC)

You're right, woven in would be better. I'd do it myself but have to leave now. I'll check up on it later.  :-) --KQ — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 October 2002 (UTC)

I've done it, though it could probably be done better. I'll most likely work on this article and the related bands some time over the next few weeks (I'm a bit of a Negativland fan), but right now, I really need to go to bed :) --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 13 October 2002 (UTC)

That's fine. THanks for working on it. I guess I put "Christianity is Stupid" as an album instead of a single? Huh. I don't have any of their albums, though I have several of their mp3s. God knows how that happened.  ;-) --KQ — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 13 October 2002 (UTC)

Sampling digression

Jgm,

Re: "Moving sampling digression to appropriate page; merged key points"

Which page did you move it to? I though the "appropriate" page might be sampling (music) but it's not there. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 15:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it to sampling (music) but wound up reworking it pretty completely as the start of a "legal issues" section. Jgm 15:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to commit this: "I see you just moved it there, thanks.", but you beat me to it with an edit conflict. Thanks again. --Lexor|Talk 15:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SST and touring

A small bone of contention: I believe that bands signed to SST were expected to tour as a condition of their contract. (I know someone who was in a band that was considering signing with SST, but the band didn't because it would have had to tour with Painted Willie, who weren't very likable.) It was pretty common at that time for SST to sponsor package tours where different bands on the label would tour together. It would have been interesting to see Negativland with Black Flag or even Sylvia Juncosa! -Two Halves in a mellow mood — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 15 March 2004 (UTC)

U2

"Negativland's Mark Hosler pointed at the irony of U2 infringing copyrights on a massive scale during their Zoo TV tour by broadcasting live satellite images on stage, and getting away with it."

Were these by any chance NASA public domain images? :) - Fredrik (talk) 22:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, the article is misphrasing; they were images pulled from random satellite feeds. --64.242.52.23 19:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Early history (NPOV)

I removed and/or revised a fair amount of NPOV material in the Early History section. While the "Christianity is Stupid" incident did cast doubt on the veracity of mass media (especially TV news, etc), I think that using phrases like "mass media reptiles" is somewhat POV. Any comments? --68.22.206.232 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

thank you brave spartan citizen, you have preformed a praiseworthy deed in the name of sophic knowlege - we don't want to paint anybody in a bad light now do we? ;^) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.172.212 (talk • contribs) .

U2 2

Hey everyone, I came across this article today, and I feel like a good portion of the section on the U2 incident is very POV. For example, this sentence:

Publicists from U2 had contacted him regarding the possibility of interviewing Dave Evans (aka "The Edge") - probably hoping to build up some avant-garde "street cred" for U2's impending multi-million dollar "Zoo TV" tour product, which featured what U2 probably considered "cutting edge" innovations, like found sounds and live sampling from mass media outlets (something Negativland had already been doing for 10 years).

especially what I have bolded, is under protest. Whether U2's publicists wanted "street cred" or not is not for Wikipedia to speculate on, nor should we be speculating on whether U2 thought ZooTV was "cutting edge." Also, after reading the entire interview, I didn't feel that the Edge was being "flippant" in his responses, in fact before the Negativland guys' identities were revealed, they only asked him 2 questions about the legality of the sampling, and he gave rather lengthy reponses (if not lengthy, then enough to answer the question). Also, the block in question makes the assertion a few times that U2 the band was suing Negativland, when in fact only Island Records sued them. (Both the members of Negativland and the Edge acknowledge this in the interview.) One more thing, I don't think we should put the Edge in quotes whenever it's used. Even though it's not his legal name, it's his stage name and it's how he's credited on all the records; it'd be like writing "Madonna" whenever she was mentioned. :)
Basically, the interview was a lot more civil than the article led me to believe it was going to be, the Edge and the two guys from Negativland seemed to be getting on OK, they even talked about how they didn't want to do something like make "Kill Bono" t-shirts or anything. I will confess that I'm a U2 fan, but I'm also a big supporter of fair use and I totally agree that using samples should be legal. Here's how I think it should go:

In June, 1992, R.U. Sirius, publisher of the magazine Mondo 2000 came up with an interesting idea. Publicists from U2 had contacted him regarding the possibility of interviewing Dave Evans (aka "The Edge") hoping to promote U2's impending multi-million dollar "Zoo TV" tour, which featured found sounds and live sampling from mass media outlets (which Negativland had been known for for some time). Sirius, unbeknownst to the Edge, decided to have his friends Joyce and Hosler of Negativland conduct the interview. Joyce and Hosler, fresh from Island's lawsuit, peppered the Edge with questions regarding his ideas about the use of sampling in their new tour, and the legality of using copyrighted material without permission. Midway through the interview, Joyce and Hosler revealed their identities as members of Negativland. An embarrassed the Edge reported that U2 were bothered by the sledgehammer legal approach Island Records took in their lawsuit, and furthermore that much of the legal wrangling took place without U2's knowledge: "by the time we (U2) realized what was going on it was kinda too late, and we actually did approach the record company on your (Negativland's) behalf and said, 'Look, c'mon, this is just, this is very heavy...'" Island Reconds reported to Negativland that U2 never authorised samples of their material; Evans response was, "that's complete bollocks, there's like, there's at least six records out there that are direct samples from our stuff." I'm open for suggestions. FilthMasterFlex 01:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Near the end of the interview, the two members of Negativland asked the Edge for a loan; he then proceded to have them contact him through U2's management company in Dublin, Ireland! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.67.35 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The WELL's copy of the interview referenced above, MONDO 2000 - U2's The Edge Meets Negativland --121.44.65.116 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

U2 3

I feel this part of the "u2 incident" section of the article has a NPOV problem as well as innacurate information:

Negativland's Mark Hosler pointed at the irony of U2 infringing copyrights on a massive scale during their Zoo TV tour by broadcasting live satellite images on stage, and getting away with it, while almost simultaneously suing Negativland, who had been doing it for a long time before it ever dawned on U2.

U2 did not use Negativeland. U2's record company, Island Records, sued Negativland.--71.242.17.62 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be more accurate to say that Island Records sued Negativland, but as this is attibuted to Mark Hosler it would be necessary to look up the original reference. Then the quote could either be corrected or a correction to the quote appended, depending on what Hosler actually said. --Craig Stuntz 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

POV (David Brom)

I feel this article has a Neutral Point of View problem because it refers to the "venality" of the mass media in connection with the David Brom murder case. Venality is defined in my dictionary as "Prostitution of talents or offices or services for reward." Its synonyms include "corruption" and "dishonesty." I'm not a member of the news media so this isn't a sacred cow of mine, but perhaps something a little less opinionated is more appropriate.
Little or fact-checking is inexcusable behavior for a legitimate news media outlet, but only indicates negligence or laziness, but not dishonesty or venality. If a news media outlet did a "little" fact-checking and confirmed to its satisfaction that "Christianity Sucks" was, in fact, the song that Brom told authorities was the album involved in the dispute with his father (Brom did say his father's reticence to a music album), reporting that "fact," despite its subsequent refutation, doesn't rise to the level of venality.
In addition, the word "humorously" doesn't match with Mark Hosler's comment that the release was made as "a simplistic narrative that [would] suck the media in." If anything, the band's purpose was to get publicity for itself. That, it would be fair to say, is venality.
How about "the fabricated release resulted widespread media coverage of the band's claim, and offered often untested hypotheses of the relationship between music and violence. The story that offered a combination of murder, religion, and "rock" music was heavily reported on TV news shows, newspapers and magazines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.152.68 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Little or fact-checking is inexcusable behavior for a legitimate news media outlet" -> not according to wikipedia

maybe you are completely missing the point when you say "the band's purpose was to get publicity for itself" i think the point is that the mainstream media are trusted as gospel when it is more often than not just rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.49 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it actually "heavily reported on TV news shows, newspapers and magazines"? It was featured on a local (Bay Area) news program, mentioned (skeptically, I recall) in BAM magazine and in the SF Chronicle) and...that seems to be about it.

I think the real "hoax" was giving many people the impression

that the half-hearted hoax was "heavily reported on TV news shows, newspapers and magazines." LimaMonk (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Disco

just changed to disco to be more in line with their official disco [1]

Grouped Over the Edge cd comps together as they are not considered "albums" on their website.

for the "next album" "past album" all of the over the edges could be linked together.

JohnRussell 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

# 2.2 The U2 record incident rewrite

This section could really use a rewrite citing the documents from FAIR USE (the story of the letter U and the numeral 2). It is confusing and seems to leave out major things and go into detail over minor points. For example it doesn't mention negativland's trouble with their label (SST) and negativland getting sued by SST (for the original publication THE LETTER U AND THE NUMERAL 2) JohnRussell 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest creating an artcle on U2 (EP). It's certainly notable enough. Just64helpin 21:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So what finally happened with Island Records?

OK, either I can't read or this is still in the courts but what finally happened with Island Records and the suit? I don't see any metion of what the outcome was. --Drmike 15:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Members

The Members list currently includes Tim Maloney, Tom Koch, and Stukke and Stakke. I know Maloney has collaborated with the group, but is he actually considered a member? A web search reveals that Koch was the band's "sound man" on the True/False tour. Again, does this make him an actual member? And I was under the impression that Stukke & Stakke were fictitious characters. Finally, who is/was Joan? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Helter Stupid

Note: In the bit about the record album cover for Helter Stupid, that isn't Hal Eisner on the cover, it's KPIX-TV's Dave McElhatton. Eisner is seen in the clip (which appeared on "No Other Possibility" and "My Favorite Things" and he has a moustache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.59.170 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

"The current core of the band consists of..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.33.76 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Negativland. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://open.salon.com/blog/coryfrye/2009/12/20/negativlands_helter_stupid_20_years_later

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Negativland. 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:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20130507101748/http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0803.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20100703001229/http://diymedia.net/archive/0803.htm on http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0803.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable? or Just another locally popular band?

The article has not given a single reason why this band is more notable than a zillion other no-hit mostly self-published buddy bands.

And circularly, same w the band members who are "notable" for —get this,— being in this band. See also: MOS:LEDE and WP:NOTE "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia"
"Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band."

Please bring up to specs, or remove this and the related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:4EE:A8F6:B9AF:67BE (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)