Jump to content

Talk:Matt Bellamy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Matthew Bellamy)

Band Names in the Past

[edit]

According to a video I was watching they were Also Called "The Black Plague" am I wrong? Im not sure But the Guy in the video(he was a talk show person) Had said they used to be called "The black plague" -i think its "Gothic Plague"- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.82.173 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.musewiki.org should answer any questions you have about Muse User:Stephen MUFC 23:32 21/01/10 —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Football team

[edit]

can anyone tell me his favourite football team please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.230.207 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i need to know his football likes and dislikes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.252.243 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitars

[edit]

Why does this article cite that Bellamy has 9000 Manson guitars? Manson is a custom luthier, I very much doubt he has made 9000 guitars in his career. Is there any way that this claim can be substantiated or a more accurate figure obtained? I was under the impression that he had maybe 15 Manson guitars at the most.

That is an outrageous statement that even someone would suggest that prety much Insults matthew, matt probably has about 15 at the most, Give me a break people.


dont know how to make a new statement thing, so i'll reply here. i believe matt has had maybe 8 or 9 manson guitars, some of which are out of use/smashed. I'm pretty sure he only has one of each manson guitar he's used as i'm pretty sure Hugh won't replicate past models. Also, It states on Matt's wiki that one of his silver guitars was his first custom manson. It wasn't, it was actually his seven string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.7.190 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Position

[edit]

Does anyone have anymore information regarding Matthew and his political positions? xcuref1endx 03:07, Nov 25 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is totally uncited, but I would say, based on the lyrics to "Take A Bow," "Exo-politics," and "Knights of Cydonia," that he is at the very least against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC

2012~Please answer ME this, has it ever been nown for the group to,should I say,sing so WONDERFUL in Manchester N.H. because I'm in a wheel chair & would be able to get there if they were to play THEIR VERY OWN STYLE OF MUSIC THAT I LOVE!(Unless they would play at my beach house on Emerald Lake in Hillsboro, N.H.) 2012; I JUST SAW MUCE~THEY DON'T NEED A BACK UP VOCAL W/ Matthew! I'll check back. Thx. Joyc Luisa Valencia (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Matthew is a left-libertarian means hes cool. Haven't you heard "Exo-politics" "Uprising" "Assasin" "Take a bow" and "Animals"?[reply]

Russian Claims Intriguing?

[edit]

The following seems slightly strange. "Demigod" seems a bit subjective and what source would that be from? Also, "single-handedly took down the Soviet Union"? I think there needs to be some shred of evidence to keep that here. 213.168.233.251 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a brief stint spent in Russia in 1994, he is considered a demi-god in rural regions of the country. While the cause for this is largely unknown, common belief suggests that he single-handedly took down the Soviet Union.

Signature Keyboard?

[edit]

Does Matthew Bellamy have a signatuyre keyboard? Sabrebattletank 03:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean The Dalek? It has lights activated by each key. If I wasn't strapped for time, i'd put it in, it's worthy of a mention. Karma Llama 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that The Dalek is, and a google search came up with it being some sort of TV show. Maybe i need to rephrase the question, so here goes: Does Matthew Bellamy play on a signature piano keyboard, much like he plays on custum guitars? The guitars and parts are listed but not nothing is mentioned along the lines of a piano/keyboard.Sabrebattletank 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to an interview, Dalek is just a nickname. http://musegear.fobbedoff.net/ has pictures and a model name of a couple of his keyboards, but to be honest I think keyboards are far more dispensible to him. There's nothing specialist you can say about them really; he doesn't seem to have any particular manufacturer ties or anything. BigBlueFish 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, and this deviates slightly from the topic of the original question, but i feel there was some confusion about the name "Dalek." The keyboard is affectionately termed the "Dalek" because of the flashing lights on the front, which give the keyboard a vague resemblance to the "Dalek" characters from the Doctor Who series from the BBC. Hope that helps... Joshy116 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

falsetto up to g#6

[edit]

isn't anything past c6 whistle register/superhead voice?

No its E6 or higher. but if he hit G#6 then thats whistle. Superhead is a biased term. It can be a synonym for head or falsetto above E6 or whistle; or a totally different register.Myke 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there's any doubt, he reaches the 7th octave in the backing vocals of Knights Of Cydonia "No one's going to ..." --Tene 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's not a product of the vocoder? It sounded very false to me, and quite irritating. I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen in the live version either. BigBlueFish 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds the same in live version, but he often uses vocal effects live as well, so it's pretty much impossible to tell. It does sound false, but it may just be distorted rather than pitch-shifted. What octave is he in Micro Cuts? That's very high and definately natural. — mæstro t/c, 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Micro Cuts hits G#6. But I believe in the song's context it's an A7 chord so really it's Ab7, so there we go, he's hit 7th octave! BigBlueFish 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"isn't anything past c6 whistle register/superhead voice?" There can be no absolute value to define such terms - it depends on the singer. Most critically, gender determins the 'breakpoint', but we can only ever give an average pitch at which men's / women's voices 'tend' to move between ranges. Whether the, say, man, is a contrabass, bass, baritone, tenor etc is also of high relevance. "No its E6 or higher. but if he hit G#6 then thats whistle." I presume the source for this "E6" comes from the Wiki article on vocal registers...? Their source is highly questionable. Having worked all my life with singers, and having studyied at the Royal Academy of Music, London, what I have to say is still not definitive (the only way would be a large study taking an average of all vocal ranges measured), but I would say from experience the following: men with low voices (using the word 'low' deliberately vaguely, as more precision is useless without an extensive study) tend to use falsetto to around B4, or, equally commonly, not at all (ie are not able to at all); men with averagely pitched voices tend to produce good falsetto to E5; high male voices (tenors) to A5, though some go a little further (very rarely more than a couple of semitones higher). All of this depends enormously on the individual and such generalisations are of very limited value. The competing theories of vocal production effect our verdicts here: terms such as 'superhead' and 'whistle' are considered non-existent by some singing teachers who interpret (owing to a lack of empirical evidence) the production of sound as coming from different vocal fold combinations / different cavity resonances etc. Another observation regarding where whistle voice starts: singers 'tend' to employ different singing techniques for particular registers, but the dynamics, mood etc influence the choice. Falsetto is most often used for very soft and high passages, BUT falsetto can also be achieved much lower (though never very loud) in the register which would almost always be reserved for chest voice. Similarly, the question of 'where' whistle voice starts is blurry. Anyway, the conclusion about Matthew Bellamy is that if he is indeed hitting G#6 (and I've never heard it, though 'hearing' it on a recording is far from proof!), then it is most likely whistle voice. Another observation: 'whistle' voice is only ONE way to produce such high pitches. There is a common alternative where the singer 'sucks in' rather than 'breathing out' (most common in male voices), tending to achieve notes about an octave above the top of the falsetto range. The adjective for this technique, though rarely cited by the academic community in the context of singing, is known as 'pulmonic ingressive'. The term is more common in phonetics. It constrasts with 'pulmonic egressive' - the 'normal' / common way of producing sounds by breathing out. (Cf 'velaric ingressive' for the click sounds of some African languages.) Are we sure that Matthew ain't a 'ingressive whistle vocaliser'?  :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.55.211 (talkcontribs) .

Wow, you seem to know your stuff on the issue. Could you possibly confirm what voice he is using in this selection of samples? In order, they are:
  • "Micro Cuts" - A flat 7
  • "Citizen Erased" - D6 (but a headier tone of voice)
  • "Knights of Cydonia" - G6
  • "Knights of Cydonia" - the "no-one's going to take me" line as mentioned above. The main melody where you can hear Matt's signature voice sounds much like an E5 to me, but there's definitely an E6 line which may well be multi-tracked on rather than vocodered. There could also be an E7 but unless Matt's gone Bohemian Rhapsody on us I'm sure that's vocoder.
Would be useful for reference. BigBlueFish 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Cuts: a flat 5

Loads of FX here. Extreme tremelo which is probably not done with his own voice. a flat 5 is not particularly high though. Pretty much all tenors who can muster falsetto at all achieve this note (though it’s likely to be around the limits of their abilities).

Citizen Erased: d 5

For clarity, in this extract, the phrase with the highest note runs thus: d 5 c 5 c 5 a flat 4 g 4 The g at the end of that phrase is the 2nd line up from the bottom of the treble cleff stave. (Which in Scientific Pitch Notation is notated as g 4.) The highest note in that phrase – d 5 – is not at all high for a man. Note that I said in my last post that a man with an average range (say, high baritone) tends to be able to sing e 5 with little trouble. That’s a tone HIGHER than the unremarkable Citizen Erased top note. As for the “headier tone of voice” you mention, it’s simply falsetto again but more softly produced.

Knights of Cydonia 1: g 5 / g 6 There’s so much processing on this track that if you hadn’t told me it was a voice, I would probably have presumed it to be a synth. I trust you have a good reason to suspect that it is in fact his voice in the 6 octave? I’m not saying it’s not – but the lower octave doubling by what I’m guessing is a guitar certainly makes it hard to be sure. I own several synths / sound libraries perfectly capable of producing exactly that sound. Also, the effects of the 6th octave are drowned out by the 5th in the mix. (The 5th is undoubtedly a voice). Interestingly, after the top g in the melody just before the end of the excerpt, there is a b flat which is arguably three semitones higher than the g (though, again, the FX make it impossible to discern the octave with certainty). Overall conclusion: it really doesn’t matter what anyone claims... this track is too processed to stand as evidence for the ability to sing a g 6 in an encycolpedic article. If he could sing it (impressively), he’d presumably want to show it off by leaving it more exposed. As you rightly point out, a vocoder may have been used. Any tuning software however – no matter how out-of-date – would do the trick too, given how disguised the timbre is by the FX’s and the mix.

Knights of Cydonia 2: e 5 “there's definitely an E6 line” – don’t think so: if you perceive it, it’s just an auditory illusion owing to strong harmonics from the octave below. If you think you’re hearing an e7, I’d attribute it to harmonics again, though I certianly hear nothing of the sort.

General comments: With the exception of the highly disputable 6th octave in Knights of Cydonia excerpt 1 (which would be a whistle voice), all the high notes in all the excerpts could be safely labelled simply ‘falsetto’. They lack the volume to be interpreted as any sort of ‘mixed voice’. (No traces of ingressive techniques by the way!)  :-)

With the exception of Micro Cuts where you placed the octave as 2 above my own assessment, you’ve been almost consistently labelling the octaves one number higher than I have. Is it possible that we’re not in agreement because we’re using different numbering systems? I’ve been using Scientific Pitch Notation throughout. I refer you to this article which ought to clear a few things up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pitch_notation (Ignore the controversies mentioned on the page and in its discussion page about alternative systems – they’re rare anomalies.)

Hope this helps.

Sorry for not signing my name before, by the way. Wfructose 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on "Micro Cuts hits G#6. But I believe in the song's context it's an A7 chord so really it's Ab7, so there we go, he's hit 7th octave!" It doesn't work that way. The level changes from C, Cis or Ces. So it's C2,D2,E2,F2,G2,A2,B2,C3 not C2,D2,E2,F2,G2,A3,B3,C3. So it's either a G#6 or a Ab7 (the note being hit in 2:53). Also your conclusion that because the context is A7, it should be Ab7 doesn't make sense to me. And actually it's not A7 at all, The bass is playing a G2, while the guitarist is playing a Ab4, and Matthew also an Ab only an octave higher. So you could describe it as a Gadd(9-) without a 3rd or 5th, but that makes it hardly a chord. It's definitely his voice, that's for sure (even with all the effects and all). Manolito Mystiq --Manolito Mystiq 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigBlueFish: Yeah, I thought that the very high vocal in "Cydonia" sounded rather artificial...I really miss the old days of bands like Queen or Boston, where Roger Taylor or Brad Delp would naturally hit super-high notes...but that is no reason to trash Matt Bellamy. The artificial nature of the vocal is very much in keeping with Muse's electronic/rock sound. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for refference, Matt goes a bit higher in a few live songs (early versions of Showbiz and most Butterflies and Hurricanes performances) - up to A5 at the end of both in falsetto. He's also hit a slight flat Bb5 in the Radio 1 "performance" of Muscle Museum, though it was more of a scream and was back around 2000 where Matt's voice was also a bit younger. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if he could still hit a Bb5 on a good day. His chest voice also spans from A2 (Spiral Static) up to Bb4 (Futurism, Feeling Good), though I haven't heard him go lower than a Bb2 live (Blackout, Wembley stadium 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.141.8 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"His chest voice also spans from A2 (Spiral Static) up to Bb4 (Futurism, Feeling Good), though I haven't heard him go lower than a Bb2 live (Blackout, Wembley stadium 2007)"

I think actually that it must be a combination of pure chest voice and middle or "mixed" voice. I'm pretty sure I can hear differences in tone between when he's singing pure chest voice (First verse of Butterflies and Hurricanes) and middle voice (Chorus of Starlight for example). I think his pure chest voice (Based on what I've heard in recordings) can't go much higher than a D or an E above middle C.

hmm

[edit]

is matthew bellamy any relation to tom bellamy from the cooper temple clause?

Not that i know of, though he is son of George Bellamy from the Tornados. Bellamy is a fairly popular last name, especially in britain, so i would tend to think that there is no relation.


Matt Bellamy is English? I thought he was from Glasgow...could someone cite this either way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhuir (talkcontribs) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 members of the band are from Teignmouth, England, aren't they? Morstar (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(well, dont know how it works exactly) Matt was born in Cambridge, Dom in Stockport and Chris in Rotherham, but they all went to Teignmouth as kids, as far as I know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JewelWhite (talkcontribs) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano mid section

[edit]

The piano section in Butterflies & Hurricanes does not contain part of Sergei Rachmaninovs Opus 18 part 3, despite sounding similar. It is an original composition. --Tene 21:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


One of the main themes of the third movement is quoted exactly in the beginning strings, and the harmonic structure continues underneath, disguised by the altered melodic line of the strings, quite distinct if you listen for it Mr8131127126 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compare 3:20 of Butterflies and Hurricanes to this listening to the violin part as the melody! I'm gonna re-add the comparison; hope you don't mind! Mr8131127126 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that soundbite I'm reverting it. The melody is not exactly the same except for a few notes, the harmony is different except for the same few notes which have the same chord progression. Rhythmically and texturally it is completely different. You need much more than this to make a direct comparison to a single musical work. Consider the 12-bar blues you don't see this family of hideously formulaic songs attributed to any one influence. BigBlueFish 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But its a direct quote!!!! Of the main theme melody!!!!! Every note is there, delayed in a free-time cadenza style, the piano arpeggios replacing the background syncopation, and a few extra improvised melody notes inbetween!! It's so blatantly from it considering his love for the concerto, for the fact that it's practically a concerto cadenza and that that entire section is so incredibly the same!! The harmonic sync with the melody is out, since the melody has been augmented somewhat overlapping, and some of the chords have been rephrased somewhat, so ya get diminished 7th chords instead of the originals that would have started with the same note. Texturally, it's obviously gonna be different, since it's being played by 1 piano and a few violins, rather than an entire romantic symphony orchestra and professional classical pianist! Infact in the last repeat, there's even a basic outline of notes in the piano part leading upto that cadenza that played by the piano part, then orchestra, with elements of various piano sections in Butterflies and Hurricanes, before the final repeat of the theme! Maybe I need a more precise soundclip, 'cause I can't believe people are questioning it! :S Also, I don't see how it's in need of so much more, to be compared. We aren't comparing it, just stating that it shows his influence, supported by the other quotes used in his songs!Mr8131127126 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check that the link you posted is correct? What I'm hearing isn't a cadenza. And it's definitely not note-for-note. BigBlueFish 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made a more expansive MP3, containing the Muse quote first, followed by the exposition of the theme, at about 2 minutes into the concerto, followed by the piano repeating the theme at about 2:20, then onto about 6 minutes through, where the theme comes back, first time in the orchestra, then about 20 seconds later again, by the piano, and finally returning in piano chords (note the chords are the same interval etc to that of the piano part in B&H) and full orchestra, playing in the free-time style of the cadenza in B&F, at about 8 minutes, as the finale before the final climax! If this doesn't show it, I must be going insane! :P Link(P.s. I'm referring to B&H when calling it the cadenza) Mr8131127126 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it is digging a bit deep to say that they sound the same. I can see where you see the similarities, but the theme that is repeated in the concerto is not a theme in B&H, and only the first part of it is a part of the cadenza in B&H. Essentially it's only the first chord triplet in the piano interlude that follows the beginning of that theme. I am sure you can find similar tonal matches elsewhere in Romantic music, and they all influenced each other. You certainly cannot call it a quote and so it's not really significant to the article. BigBlueFish 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's true but the song is a short song, and to cram any more of the concerto in would dominate it, especially as it's already part of the key point in the song. It shows yet another significantly Rachmaninov influenced section of music, and the whole piece is practically an ode to the piano concerto, and the style is practically spewing Rachmaninov anyway! There are Romantics that sound almost similar, but Rachmaninov really is that significantly stylistic that no other composers sound like the style in the Muse songs. There are even micro-elements earlier, in mood, falling syncopation, etc. that strongly suggest the ossai cadenza of the 3rd concerto aswell if you dig really deep, and considering Rachmaninov has appeared so often, and since we're only stating works that have shown strong elements of this influence, and since it's also such a significant example of this, I really feel we should leave it in, and would feel at rest if we did! Mr8131127126 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it another way: the cadenza is a short cadenza, so if it was really such a significant influence then the whole thing would be more like an excerpt. For its length it is simply far too much original work to be called a quote. Yes it was influenced, yes it contains elements, but the article already says that. The paragraph is already a little on the lengthy side, so we shouldn't be aiming to list every little bit of Rachmaninoff that we hear in Muse songs. BigBlueFish 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point about the size, and yes that way it makes sense in the over-listing, but what I'm thinking about is how it's the most prominent example of this influence, and shows that it's this composer that has influenced his songs so much. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression when using 'quote' in my previous comments; rather an adapted section or phrase. As I said it's prominent, and I think missing it out would be removing an important one from the list, so if I cut the paragraph down a bit, could I leave it in? :D :P Mr8131127126 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Is my last revision ok? I think it gets in the mention, accurately, without making a meal of it. BigBlueFish 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yup, that's awesome! *Thumbs up* Mr8131127126 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have the same sort of problem again, someone's written that the first few chords of the piece can be heard in Hoodoo. Firstly, the chords aren't in the same order. Secondly, not all of the chords are the same as some of those in Rachmaninov's piece. Thirdly, hundreds (if not thousands) of musical works could therefore be stated as referring to this piece. --Tene 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I think ya misread it, it's comparing the Tchaikovsky one with Hoodoo. Mr8131127126

Photo

[edit]

We need a free photo to stick on the page. The old one was removed because of fair use stuff. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of Muse fans have taken their own pictures. Er, but not me. I'm sure they'll donate a good one. Same with the Chris Wolstenholme picture. Makron1n 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new picture...

[edit]

It needs to be resized. It leaps all over the beginning of the article. Litis 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crop it a bit, maybe... 81.229.240.155 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I scaled it down to 300px. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 09:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks way better now. Litis 12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live

[edit]

is the part about him being able to play plug in baby (which is NOT a hard riff by ANY means, thats why you hear it in EVERY guitar shop by even beginners) whilst jumping around? many guitarists can do this. this part just smacks of fanboy writing to me, something that wiki is meant to avoid. anybody else feel this?

- I couldn't agree with you more. I've added a Weasel Word Status to this page, hopefully we can get it cleaned up.

No such statement existed on the version of the page to which the tag was added. The tag has been removed. Adzz 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, you must really hate Matt or something - I didn't interpret that statement to suggest that hew as super awesome for it - it's just a trademark that he employs invariably in Plug In Baby. He doesn't jump around as much in other songs so it warrants note for that song. Taking it as a "fanboy" remark would require you to be a bit paranoid and/or spiteful. 24.6.105.44 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BIAS

[edit]

There is some definate bias in this article. If you don't see that, you must hold Muse higher in your priorities than a well written entry.


Is bias liek a term for bs?

No, 'bias' is not a term for 'bs'(if you intend to mean' bull sh*t'). Bias is showing favor or holding a tinted view of a subject or topic, coloring your description of it with your subjective views, rather than reporting the information objectively.

This is the main criticism of the news media. Their purpose is to provide information without bias, letting the viewer make the decision about how to feel about the information presented to them. This is rarely the case now, as the news medias' continue to have inability to report the news without inserting their own viewpoint Bcreel83 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "you must hold Muse higher in your priorities" doesn't make a lot of sense. "Muse",being a "priority", is far too vague when compared to its counter, "a well written entry", which is more specific. What about Muse could have been more important than "a well written article"? Did you mean that someone's fondness for the band changes the purpose of the article, which is to inform, and turns it into a fan's praise of the musical group? That would make more sense. Then, you could write it as, "There is some definate bias in this article. If you don't see that, you must hold any opportunity to praise Muse on a much viewed platform higher on your list of priorities than an opportunity to write an informative article. "

You could also end it with something like , "by tainting this article with so much praise of Muse, someone might start to ask if the reason that someone did this was because they were worried that a merely informative article might show some flaws that you see. If you're worried enough about it that you feel like you have to change what should be purely a source of information into your own FanGirl page, you might accidentally draw the opposite kind of attention.

Bcreel83 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Why is the name of this article Matthew Bellamy but not Matthew James Bellamy? --S.Örvarr.S 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because articles don't use the middle name unless it's needed for differentiation or is commonly used, which wouldn't be the case here. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 05:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Range

[edit]

Why doesn't this article make any mention of Matt's high vocals? SouperAwesome 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

[edit]

I removed the section on Matt's pregnancy (!) M2Ys4U 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kate Hudson and Matt are expecting a baby. Someone keen on editing the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.228.6 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truth Movement

[edit]

I have removed the section regarding the 9/11 truth movement. Wearing a T-shirt once during a performance hardly makes anyone a part of anything, and certainly not a part of an encylopedia article. As it was not discussed here before being added I did not ask about it's removal. 68.88.140.152 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've put it back. He didn't just wear the shirt at Reading--he's made numerous comments about it, and these comments are included, and cited, in the article. I don't see why they aren't appropriate in an encyclopedia article about Matthew Bellamy. Now, the Religion part of the article--there's a section that really needs some fixing up (& citations). In fact, I clipped out two quotes because they were in jest (more or less) and didn't fit the section (if anyone does think they deserve to be somewhere in the article, cite http://www.rocketbabydolls.com/mmjune32000.html). — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 12:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does not just wear a message that spits in the face of 9/11 victims by accident. The 9/11 section should be added, as interviews with Bellamy clearly show that he does in fact promote 9/11 conspiracy theories. — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do agree and it looks like someone has gone and deleted the section again. The truth of what happened on 9/11 should be brought out, so those that died on that day may have the real TRUTH, let's be honest it's not the first nor the last time these wacko, extremist governments have committed a false flag operation for political, economic gain, see Israel's Lavon Affair.

    - Don't make this about your beliefs, please Sevey13 (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say goodbye to the 9/11 stuff because it lacks any sort of relevance here. I mean frankly if this stays I'd like to see something about the government and the white dog poop conspiracy. Maybe it belongs on the 9/11 conspiracy page (or the white dog poop page) but it's just not applicable to the narrative of a musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.189.234 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about Matthew Bellamy. How are Matthew Bellamy's beliefs irrelevant to Matthew Bellamy? I'm not sure that it really matters what his favourite football team is (unless he has been particularly vocal about it, but the article does not indicate this), but he has voiced a strong and clear opinion on 9/11. The accuracy of his opinion may be irrelevant (this isn't an article about 9/11), but the fact that he holds the opinion seems entirely germane (as this is an article about him). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to right errors of my wrong and revert it. However since this article is about him I would then move to add further sections about what he had for dinner as of last Tuesday, that he goes to watch opera, and that he cites "I'm not a big fiction reader at all"-the last two things he has been vocal about via interviews. Where do we draw the line on trivialities? His feelings for 9/11 may be connected and about him but when it comes down to it, they are just not important. For example when the man leads a rally and marches through the streets of D.C. creating a cultural or historical significance then perhaps this topic may hold more credence. Until then this section is clearly marginal and the odd section out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.189.234 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, because he is most notable as a musician, his article should give the greatest emphasis to his music. But I would not call politics a "triviality" when it comes to music (and, regarding the opera comment, I would not exactly call music a "triviality" when it comes to music, either). Music and politics have long (maybe always) been intertwined; music, after all, is a way to communicate to the masses, to the polis. And if there's anyone who can deliver politics to the metropolis, it's Matthew Bellamy. In fact, 9/11 skepticism might very well be among the most important features of a lyricist whose lines include, "And endless red tape to keep the truth confined", "It's time the fat cats had a heart attack",[1] and "And do you think you deserve your freedom? / No, I don't think you do."[2] If Matthew Bellamy is not a political musician, then I don't know who is. If political rebellion and agitation are not relevant qualities of his, then the sun might as well be deemed irrelevant to daytime. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment below, at the bottom of this page, under the header "Questionable Sources", questioning the sources of the 9/11 conspiracy statements made by Bellamy. I am unaware that second-hand sources are a sufficient form of attribution, but I could be wrong. Both references citing his statements about his beliefs referred back to a source that was not present on the link in one of the articles. Moreover, in a recent interview in a Rolling Stone article, he has said that he does not, in fact, believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, even though there is a lot of information out there on the internet about it. The issue here, in my mind, is not how relevant the topic is, but what is true, and do we have the sources to back it up. I do not believe the previous sources met the threshold of acceptability, and thus agree with removal of the statements in question.74.240.44.218 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is odd. It appears that the most reliable source does, indeed, state precisely the opposite of what the other two sources say. You're perfectly correct that the less reliable sources don't belong; the Rolling Stone piece probably should be cited instead, noting that he has an interest in conspiracy theories but doesn't quite go that far. Anyway, again, you're absolutely right. Thanks for noticing that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, Daniel Sunjata’s page contains an entire section on his involvement in the 9/11 “Truth” movement, and Jenny McCarthy’s page contains a section about her far-fetched ideas on vaccines and autism. I think Bellamy’s involvement in conspiracy theory circles at least merits mention. — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic, I reverted earlier deletions of 9/11 views. Why delete it when he is open about his views, believes in them and his music is very, very inspired by them. Have none of you deniers listened to the last two albums, the lyrics? Half his songs bash governments and the New World Order agenda. If Bellamy was to come on this page himself you'd probably censor him from his own beliefs, there are words for that type of behaviour, I'll just use one, pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are letting your emotions getting the best of you. The two sources currently provided are rather questionable. Both are blurbs and fairly random sites, one is written by a guy who has churned out 945 articles in his name and other appears to not even have a listed author. Try finding something semi-scholarly. I mean how do I know you didn't write the female first snippet. Until something worthwhile comes along I'm deleting this section as it was determined back in Nov 2009. Also I would be convinced if Bellamy came on here himself but I think all the wiki-zealots would claim that to be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.189.234 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Needed

[edit]

You need to cite sources for the information under "Religion." In fact there's quite a number of places in this article that needs backing up. --216.165.32.148 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true but for some reason people don't listen. Some things on wikipedia are hopeless, PLEASE CITE SOURCES otherwise certain things should not be written!--75.93.214.228 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences Section Deleted?

[edit]

Why was the influences section deleted? I found it by accident on Answers.com. If it needed some cleaning up and sources just add a note, but don't take out the whole section! Inko9nito 09:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Muse fans do not like the suggestion that Muse was 'influenced' by Radiohead. 155.198.13.234 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Mathew Bellamy was influnced by the greatest of all time Jimi Hendrix, I think fans deserve to know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showalter,mike (talkcontribs) 04:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self-plugging.

[edit]

hi there - i couldn't help noticing that some bloke has shamelessly plugged himself and his myspace page in the 'fan base' section, proclaiming himself their biggest fan ever, and such. just thought i'd let you know. cheers!

Lol Give me his Myspace, Ive only knoown them for abotu a year and Already I know every song Theyve made, also where mat was born along with Dom and Chris, Also when the band was made, what their old name used to be, the lyrics to almost every sog, by heart, Though ive never been to a live concert *sadly* Because they rarley ever play in Sandiego :{


Yeah well, not to brag, but I've seen them 6 times.. Does that make me their BIGGEST fan?? Mr Sandiego- we all know everything you know aswell, its on their wikipedia page LOL!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.204.191 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References, validation?

[edit]

The information from IMDB and the associated reference is fine but a lot of material is still unreferenced. Some of it can be found on the single external link, MuseWiki, a page which makes a seriously large number of dubious claims about Matthew Belamy and Muse with references that point almost solely to other MuseWiki articles. This needs to be addressed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.160.243 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

The religion section says that he says that he would like to meet "Jesus Christ" whereas the quote only says "Jesus". Christ is not a surname and is a title only used in reference to Jesus by Christians. He never says (and Wikipedia surely isn't Christian) and so it does not belong. I'm removing it for now. If anyone has any objections as to why it should remain the way that it currently is, please say so. 66.153.236.8 (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I heard that he was a pastafarian.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.204.191 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that he's an Atheist, and, i don't know, what's a pastafarian?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JewelWhite (talkcontribs) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bellamy has shown signs of atheism: "Being an atheist means you have to realise that when you die, that really is it. You've got to make the most of what you've got here and spread as much influence as you can. I believe that you only live through the influence that you spread, whether that means having a kid or making music".[1] In 2000 Bellamy stated that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was "extremely cool" to have been able to deceive people into believing she remained a virgin after conceiving.[10] Bellamy has also stated that God will never be cool due to Satan introducing rock 'n' roll first. He said that "all those cloaks and everything" is "not a good look".[10] In a session where Matt and Dom answered questions from fans, Bellamy stated that the celebrity alive or dead he'd most like to meet is Jesus Christ (Dom answered Jimi Hendrix for this question). Matt: I'd like to meet Jesus Christ. Eh just because I'd be interested to know how he did it all. You know what I mean? You know...making fish out of bushes and stuff. Walking on water. I'd like to meet someone who can do that. I think that'd be uh, certainly one of the most interesting people to meet I'd say.[1] However, more recently Bellamy has shown signs of being an Agnostic or a Deist. In an interview with a Rock Music channel in France (2006), Bellamy states, "I believe in the God of the universe, definitely." In addition, he revealed in a 2007 video inverview that, "I don't believe in heaven or hell, I don't really believe in that version" (watch)." http://www.musewiki.org/Matthew_Bellamy#Religion User:Stephen MUFC 23:42 21/01/10 —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Who cares? Why is there even a religion section there at all if he hasn't identified himself as being a member of one. Are we going to have a section for everything he's not a follower or member of? If someone's an atheist, then you don't say "his beliefs are atheist", you simply say he doesn't have a belief, or don't say anything at all. I say remove the entire religion section from anybody's wiki entry unless they explicitly express that they follow a particular religion. Only then does it become noteworthy. 188.174.83.187 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC) DD[reply]

Honoury Doctorate

[edit]

I am pretty sure that receiving these doesn't mean that you can use the tite 'doctor' and feel that this title should be removed from each of the band members' names Eurydice09 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "The recipient of an honorary degree may add the degree title postnominally, but it should always be made clear that the degree is honorary by adding "honorary" or "honoris causa" or "h.c." in parenthesis after the degree title. In many countries, one who holds an honorary doctorate may use the title "doctor" prenominally, abbreviated Dr.h.c. or Dr.(h.c.). Sometimes, they use "Hon" before the degree letters, for example, Hon DMus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.243.79 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A doctorate is a doctorate, honorary or not. In order to academically obtain one in the normal way, you have to study, pass exams, provide a doctoral thesis, have it reviewed etc. When a university bestows a doctorate on somebody who didn't do all of that, they're not just giving them out willy nilly. They consider that the body of work the recipient has produced proves them worthy of that doctorate. 188.174.83.187 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC) DD[reply]

Signature Guitar

[edit]

Should we include an article that matt now has has his own line of signature manson guitars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.145.218 (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is the article as reference : [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.145.218 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

piano

[edit]

i think i read that bellamy is self taught. is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.125.91 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The International

[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that Matt contributed to the end credits of this film. Up until today I'd seen plenty of discussions on forums & youtube saying that it was the same Matthew Bellamy that is credited but today I've finally found a source saying it was actually him (interview with Dom by the BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8257767.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.248.191 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly likely I'd say. It's way more common for pop/rock stars to be self taught than it is for classical musicians. It's not exclusively self taught, it's just more typical. Maybe it's because most pop/rock stars are rebelling from the normal work and/or academic route in life. 188.174.83.187 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC) DD[reply]

Article is worse than it used to be

[edit]

This is the first time I've checked it in a while, and the article is now VERY lacking. I'm not saying that the fact that it is smaller makes any difference (it doesn't), I'm saying that it is of a lesser quality. Genuine (and well documented) facts have been removed. Matt is a conspiracy theorist. He has spoken on it many, many times. It is of interest, and so should be documented. He has a life of interest beyond "Early Life". A fiance. Lots of shenanigans. None of that either isn't here or it's been removed. FinalDeity (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'd also like to add that the article currently states Matt's height to be 57". That's four feet, nine inches, really titchy. http://www.musewiki.org/Matthew_Bellamy#Trivia reckons on 5'7", which is infinitely more plausible, and in line with what I had previously presumed. Edit anyone? :) 87.113.172.46 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Ems[reply]

Questionable Sources

[edit]

Under Matthew Bellamy's political views there is reference to his opinion that 9/11 was an inside job. Two references are provided, #13 and #14. However, these references are not first hand. They are second hand, citing a particular CMU story. Well, reference #13 links to the CMU website, but there is no direct reference to Mr. Bellamy's views on 9/11 being an inside job there.

Furthermore, in a recent edition of Rolling Stone Magazine (Issue #1089 - October 15th, 2009), Matthew Bellamy is quoted: "There is loads of stuff on the Internet suggesting 9/11 was an inside job. But that is not my belief." (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/30287011/global_superstars_muse_explode_in_america/2).

I do not know if Mr. Bellamy changed his views, is covering tracks in front of an American audience, or if he even said what this wiki attributes to him......given the indirect nature of the current sources (#13, #14) and the direct firsthand quoute in RS #1089, I do believe this issue needs to be resolved. 74.240.45.247 (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, you're absolutely right. Rolling Stone is a reliable source, while the other two sources (in contrast, and in light of the standards for this type of article) look like little more than questionable hearsay. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiancé?

[edit]

According to the page for the song Undisclosed Desires, Matt himself said the song was "quite a personal song about me and my girlfriend." If the two are engaged (and they've been reportedly engaged since '07, so this is dubious), wouldn't Matt refer to her as "my fiancé", not "my girlfriend"? Also, I don't know if this is appropriate to add, but Gaia is also a goddess in Greek mythology, as are the nine muses. Perhaps a fun coincidence to mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, they've broken up in mid-December 2009. --91.58.120.156 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they were engaged, doesn't mean he *did* describe her as his fiancé. It's what he said that matters, not what he should have said. 188.174.83.187 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC) DD[reply]

Doctor Who

[edit]

Matthew looks incredibly like Doctor Who. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.37.55 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Doctor Who has been played by eleven (or so) different actors, you'll have to qualify that statement. 188.174.83.187 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC) DD[reply]

Satanist?

[edit]

What's with the hand gestures at 1:40?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkFfGJxdvVs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.252.53 (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.......... i found a minor mistake: he hits a A5 in Micro Cuts as well, it is close to the end riff where he only sings "AHH" there he hits a A5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.215.71 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Doesn't Matt have a tenor voice, not baritone? 94.0.203.213 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Matthews voice goes all tones, listen and you will hear all the notes he can hold, the man is wonderful!Joyce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.81.69 (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgism

[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}} Under political views we learn that Matthew has expressed passionate views about Georgism. The citation is ambiguous as to whether he supports or doubts those ideas; so it doesn't seem as though we are learning much at all. Also, I don't regard this as presenting a neutral point of view. Please remove the text 'Bellamy has expressed passionate views on the ideas of Geoism (or Georgism).[13]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyroad (talkcontribs)

Done This has been in the article for a long time diff, but I find the argument made by User:Stanleyroad compelling. To me, since the source for the content does not state whether Bellamy supports of opposes Georgism passionately (or whether he is neutral, but somehow passionate), it is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy to allow it to remain in the article, even though it is sourced. -Atmoz (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bellamy's birthday

[edit]

It's today, and he's still listed as 32, could an administrator change it to 33?202.45.119.42 (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aricle says 33 (9 June 1978 (1978-06-09) (age 33)). ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just libertarian, but geo-libertarian

[edit]

This article proves that he is interested in Geoism and the ideas of Henry George

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6802083.ece

Someone who likes geoism and libertarianism is called a geo-libertarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.103.78 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: looks like this might have been discussed above, assuming it is the same article. If so, I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.103.78 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Step-son?

[edit]

Perhaps splitting a few WP:BLP hairs here, but just reverted an edit which mentioned Kate Hudson's previous son as Bellamy's step-son. It seems that would only be relevant to this article if Hudson kept custody and became part of Bellamy's family. The step-son mention could be restored if another ref clarifies that detail. Dl2000 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 19

[edit]

Citation number 19 which is supposed to link to a Rolling Stone interview does not work as the author has deleted their blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.30.128 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style and lyrics section

[edit]

This section could do with being rewritten. Lacking in grammar/syntax and contains several unnecessary phrases that are overly speculative concerning Bellamy's pronunciation and lyrical motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.173.7 (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs Section

[edit]

Shouldn't this section be reduced or just deleted. Most of the titbits are off the cuff remarks or from online chats. Matt is more than likely just atheist, why can't this just be simply stated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.54.40 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be stated unless he has directly identified as such. Religion is a very finnicky subject and many people would rather their beliefs (which are often anything but concrete) be fit into the definition of a specific label. That being said, I take issue with the portion of the current Wiki article which states:

According to his religious views, Bellamy is an atheist explaining that: “Being an atheist means you have to realise that when you die, that really is it. You've got to make the most of what you've got here and spread as much influence as you can. I believe that you only live through the influence that you spread, whether that means having a kid or making music...I don't believe in heaven or hell, I don't really believe in that version.”[29]

The problem I have with this is that Bellamy did not directly identify as an atheist, and the quote that is cited has no additional context other than as a quote, which is a terrible way of gathering information on a person. In fact, I recall hearing this quote, once, in regards to the song, "Dying Thoughts of an Atheist." Bellamy was explaining the meaning of the song. He could have been speaking from some personal experience, but he could have just as well been speaking in a more abstract, empathetic sense, just as an author who has written a fictional character might. Therefore, I do not think it is sufficient evidence as to Bellamy's personal beliefs. Unless we have something concrete, it would be better not to speculate on it in this article, at all. 2601:543:8000:119A:7874:B719:52EC:CE55 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life / learning guitar

[edit]

One sentence in the early life section claims Bellamy began learning the guitar at 13. Two sentences later it's stated he started learning at 14. One of these needs a citation, the other needs to be dropped. 99.71.129.113 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Octave range contradicts itself.

[edit]

.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.5.68 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Matthew BellamyMatt Bellamy – Google results show 515,000 results for "Matthew Bellamy" and around double for "Matt Bellamy". Unreal7 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Matt Bellamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Matt Bellamy. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AL BUNDY ROTTEN teeth rock star ?

[edit]

he is a millionaire and still has rotten teeth ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:BC0A:2DE9:F4EA:A46B (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Dr. Pepper's Jaded Hearts Club Band be merged into Matt Bellamy, Miles Kane, Chris Cester, Ilan Rubin, Sean Payne, Dominic Howard and Paul McCartney. This is not a "band" with its own established presence, and is not notable independently. There is little to no independent coverage of this "band." The article linked simply describes this as a name used to promote an event where members of various notable bands played a Beatles cover with Paul McCartney one time. Merge into the existing articles about the notable people who contributed to this performance. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the consolidated discussion at Talk:Dr. Pepper's Jaded Hearts Club Band. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

[edit]

Most earlier Muse songs lyrically dealt with introspective themes, including relationships, social alienation, and difficulties they had encountered while trying to establish themselves in their hometown. However, with the band's progress, their song concepts have become more ambitious, addressing issues such as the fear of the evolution of technology in their Origin of Symmetry (2001) album. They deal mainly with the apocalypse in Absolution (2003) and with catastrophic war in Black Holes and Revelations (2006). The Resistance (2009) focused on themes of government oppression, uprising, love, and panspermia. The album itself was mainly inspired by Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. Their sixth studio album, The 2nd Law (2012) relates to economics, thermodynamics, and apocalyptic themes. Their 2015 album Drones, is a concept album that uses autonomous killing drones as a metaphor for brainwashing and loss of empathy.[1].

Books that have influenced Muse's lyrical themes include Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell,Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins,Hyperspace by Michio Kaku,The 12th Planet by Zecharia Sitchin,Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs and Trance Formation of America by Cathy O'Brien.[2].

You were repeatedly told your sources are unreliable: here, here, here, here, here and here to name a few. At no point did you ever make any effort to engage and as such the page has now been protected to stop you from adding your poorly sourced information. If you really want to add that info you'll need to read this before you try again. Robvanvee 07:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "muse lyrics". Retrieved 6 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  2. ^ "muse lyrics". Retrieved 6 February 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)