Jump to content

Talk:Misfits (band)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

conservativepunk.com

Is Graves really the conservativepunk guy? I thought it was Bobby Steele. -- Macador 19:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Graves is the conservativepunk guy. He even appeared on the Daily Show talking about his conservative views. - A.D.

Bobby steele is also conservative though. pretty stupid idea if you ask me. ghostbear616 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Bobby Steele runs the sight but Graves is just a big supporter of it.

Where'd Jerry go?

I did a search for Jerry Only and was redirected here. Only was just as influential on the music world as Danzig, and thus deserves his own bio page. I may do a little research and make one of my own, but until then... we are 138. 68.7.91.130 05:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Jerry was indeed an important part of the original Misfits, but to say that he is just as influential on the music world as Glenn Danzig is simply absurd. I'm not saying Jerry doesn't deserve his own bio page, I just strongly disagree with your statement. - A.D.

Especially considering Danzig taught Jerry to play his bass and has only put out 2 studio albums (and a cover album) with the new misfits and with the entire band contributing as opposed to Danzig who released 5 albums while writing all of the material without help.

IMO Danzig has a public persona separate from the Misfits and Jerry really doesn't. What information would go in a Jerry Only page other than his affiliation with the Misfits? That being said, why give him a separate entry? His influence on the music world vs. Danzig's is irrelevant, the bottom line is there are more reasons why Glenn Danzig needs an entry than just the Misfits and the same is not true for Jerry Only. -pjjolly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.90.16 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Was the battle for the rights to the Misfit's name and image with Danzig, or with the record company suits?

It was with Danzig. Danzig had copyrighted The Misfits songs under his name, which was justified since he was the author. - A.D.


Only was on for the ride nothing more - Feen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.168.10 (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sid Vicious reference

What is the point of including that Sid Vicious once offered the rest of the band to back him as a solo artist? Is it saying that he offered it to the Sex Pistols or The Misfits? Even once we've gotten over which band the statement is directed towards, you have to question how necessary it is to even include this reference.Refugee621 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sid Vicious' brief solo career had backing bands composed of punk all-stars. The point of it was to say that a legenday figure in music had asked The Misfits to back him.

Heavy Metal Loves Punk

Has anyone ever realized that all the heavy metal and black metal singers say their favorite band is The Misfits or The Sex Pistols? Any clue as to why? I love The Misfits and I love heavy metal but...does anyone have any clue as to why heavy metal singers love punk? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

FUNNY u should say cuz basically misfits fucking rule and basically everyone was ther when it all came togeher and thats what basically started the "horror"

Punk and/or hardcore has influenced many types of music, especially heavy metal, more so speed and thrash metal; it's where the aggression comes from. Also, ever notice how some hardcore bands start sounding more "metalish" when they start playing more prolifically and receieve better production? It's almost like an evolution.

Yes. It is kind of like an evolution. The Misfits were a BIG influence on many different types of bands come to think of it. Interesting...TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was listening to a mix disc with a lot of Misfits songs today that I hadn't listened to for about a year. I was surprised to hear how metalish some of their songs were. I finally understand why Metallica cites them as one of their major influences.--The Ungovernable Force 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

early metal was based in the more bluesy, histrionic classic rock tradition. punk inspired thrash and post thrash to play faster, more aggressive and sometimes simpler music but still maintaining lyrical integrity.its easy to see how black metal bands got the idea to play rythmically straight tremolo riffs on one string.

Seven?

Just wondering what the deal is with this tidbit:

  • "In January of 1977, after singing in several garage bands that mostly played Black Sabbath songs, twenty one year old Seven decided it was finally time to create something serious and original. As a tribute to Marilyn Monroe, he named his musical project after her final movie, The Misfits. seven was their roadie for several months before he became addicted to crack cocaine!"

Apart from being amateurishly written, it's a somewhat confusing passage, since it seems to indicate--in contradiction to the paragraph that follows it--that some roady named Seven formed the Misfits. Is this just vandalism? I don't know enough about the band's history to fix the problem, myself, but it definitely looks wrong. Anyone want to fix this? Buck 00:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind... it's obviously vandalism, and I've fixed the page, as far as this "Seven" business goes. Buck 01:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck!? I remember reading this article like 7 months ago...and all they did is replace Glenn Danzig(Ex lead singer)with the word seven, then add a bunch of bullshit about being addicted to Crack Cocaine.

Static Age

Static Age was included in the discography section with the 1978 release date, but it wasn't released until 1997 (1978 is the year when the album was supposed to be released, see also the Static Age article). Is there a motivation for having 1978 instead of 1997? CapPixel 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Because this album was recorded in 1978 but the whole complete album (not just the singles) was released in 1995. Hope this clears things up. saintjimmy777

Problematic and Biased Introduction

It is my opinion that a lot of the information given in the introduction actually belongs in the History section. Like the paragraph about lineup changes. Plus, it is pretty clear now that the article tries to make the Misfits seem like a one man band (That man being Glenn Dazing). Jerry Only is only mentiond as if a minor character in the group, and other members of the original band not mentioned at all. This should really be rectified. For the sake of consistency with other band articles in Wikipedia, the members of the original band should be noted at the beginning of the introduction. Since the Misfits were "resurrected" and all that crap, it would also be a good idea to mention who resurrected them, and not just say they "don't have Danzig with them". Ido50 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

the last line of the legacy section is POV and only meant to anger. "these bands are unified by the fact that they all suck" i attempted to remove this but was unable to. can anyone fix this? 69.121.25.212 00:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Battle

Suposedly one of the original misfits.. Does anybody know if he really does he really exist?? I suspect some clever vandalism...

He exists Fache 14:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Battle does indeed exist, he's mentioned in the misfitscentral.com bios section during the practice sessions. He played guitar, but left and was then replaced by Franche coma

Misfits Bios Page

Bias towards Glenn?

Is it just me or does it seem that The author of this article had a strong bias against Jerry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishaddatta (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Semi Protection Needed

This spate of vandalism is atrocious - just check the history section, which hasnt been correct for many revisions. I believe this needs protecting. Desdinova 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 

Wow, the article seems to be missing some sentences/words. Is there a way to fix it?
I adjusted it as best I can - although it should be noticed that it was like that for over 25 changes. Desdinova 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Album Lineup

"It has been loosely confirmed that Michale Graves and Doyle will be returning for the 2007/2008 studio album." - any source on this? I don't find anything else via google that implies these 2 will be returning for the next cd.

they won't be returning. michale graves hates jerry only. doyle is embarrassed to play with the misfits and plus he has his own band now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.83.60 (talk • contribs)

You have to cite sources. As long as you cite someone saying that, its fine. Thanks, Brusegadi 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

cite the sources saying they are coming back. go ahead, do it.

Punk metal?

Do you think the Misfits are punk metal. They are kind of like a heavy metal-hardcore punk fusion. Thundermaster367 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They are in no way a metalcore band. I don't listen to them too much, but I know a lot about music genres, and I'd say that plain punk rock would be appropriate.RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stillborn Monster Babies.gif

Image:Stillborn Monster Babies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

discography/ songs rereleased

it seems many rare Misfits songs are rereleased and its hard to tell how to know to get all the songs, so i'm going to make an effort to note if songs on cds/compilations/box set were previously released/later released on something else or if they are exclusive to the release and the version is exclusive to the release. --AlexOvShaolin 22:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

hmmm think i'm going to make a List of songs by The Misfits to help solve this issue. --AlexOvShaolin 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:From Hell They Came.gif

Image:From Hell They Came.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WalkAmongUS Album Cover.jpg

Image:WalkAmongUS Album Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vh1

Ok, i know what there website says, but the Misfits were not on the 100 greatest artist of hard rock. The site is often contradictory to what the actual program says. If you would actually watch the show, youd see it was Danzig, and not the Misfits. If anyone else has actually seen the show and is not just going off a website itd be pretty damn obvious. Can i get some support here?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

I think this article really needs an image of the band.......somebody please put a fair use image in this article.....it is absolutely NECEESSARY!......and I will try to make this article better...clean it of biased setences or evidences of POV! There is some controversial facts in this band but I will not lean towards one side or other...somewhere in the middle there is the virtue...--Horror Punk Ed22 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does!!! An article this big needs one! All articles all feel lifeless when they don't have an image. YBK

Legacy

Is it just me, or is the Legacy section rambling and disjointed? How many times do we need to mention the Kung Fu Killers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsloth1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

clint boon??

"Rumours of a reunion resurfaced again later that year after Danzig and Doyle attended a Misfits murder mystery weekend. However the gathering was remembered more for a run in between Danzig and notorious Inspiral Carpets keyboardist Clint Boon. Boon, a long time fan of the band, got upset when Danzig refused play the part of the butler. As tensions rose, the event ended in farce with Boon chasing Danzig through the house."

what is this all about?? Boredom Swells (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the logo in the infobox, as I don't know a rule "logos are not allowed in the infobox", and I think it unlikely that there is such a rule. Also, in case of the Misfits, the rationale behind using a logo instead of an image would be that there actually have been two bands of that name rather than one, making any image of the band inserted at the top of the article a rather misleading thing. -- 790 ♫ 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Link Peter Fleet (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I would rather prefer to discuss the rationale why IMHO it would be appropriate to insert the logo into this article. First reason, as mentioned before, is that there are not "the" Misfits, but rather two historically distinctive bands. So, one can not really use an image of one band as the single visual opener in the article about both, and that leaves the article without one, looking rather bland. The logo, on the other hand, has been carried over from one band to the other, and as a matter of fact is rather well known in the punk subculture, and would fit perfectly in the article. Also, being a depiction of the Crimson Ghost, it has a history in popular culture. And last, there shouldn't be any copyright issues, because it has been taken from a photo of some stage installment. -- 790 ♫ 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Why is this added, when this is the official history? (Attention: This page was clearly authored with extreme bias in favor of Danzig's historical portrayal. Read with an open mind) The history of the Misfits can be split into two main eras. The first is marked by Danzig's characteristic singing and song-writing. The second era has seen Only as the sole constant member, with a selection of vocalists, guitarists, and drummers playing a mixture of material from the Danzig era and songs written since the new Misfits formed.--161.38.221.246 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Best

We can all agree that they're the best horror punk band there is though, right. I would just like you to add that they're not emo as most of the idiots in my high school make fun of me for liking them. User:Cancerhands

Not emo, The Mifits are real punk like The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, and Black Flag are. The Mifits rule!--GorillazFan Adam 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, most (modern) fans of the Misfits are poser-punks in my own experience (same with the Ramones). Some of the music is cool, but they're not as good as everyone else seems to think IMO. The Ungovernable Force 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I must inquire: Do these people making the claim of The Misfits as an "Emo" band listen to real Emo bands:IE; Simplan, Good Charlotte, Et cetra, that claim that they are Punk? what kind of school do you go too?

For someone staking a claim against a band being misidentified as part of a genre, you certainly seem to lack knowledge of what "real" emo is. --75.2.11.133 (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Simplan, Good Charlotte" are emo bands? Do some research on emo. Sunny Day Real Estate, Texas is the Reason, The Rites of Spring, are all REAL emo bands. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.252.115 (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Misfits kick ass!

The Misfits were great in their time and i still love their music but the problem with them and many of the other "godly punk bands" (ramones, exploited, misfits, sex pistols, germs, etc) is that they are the most recognized for starting punk so they're the first bands that kids who want to look cool will latch onto, kind of like mike joned dressing like a blood to make people think his music is more "gangster" for lack of a better term. And yes, many emo kids around the country happen to listen to non emo bands that are completely different from emo but its just because they think it makes them more punk or just cool.

Reaperscorp says: Hear hear!!

Typo?

"The band often wore ghoulish makeup when performing, and bassist Jerry Only reputedly invented a hairstyle called the devilock, with the bangs coming to a point in front of the nose or chin, a style still worn by fans today."

The bangs? Is this a typo? It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not confident enough to change it.Desdinova 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote it didn't put a typo, they just misused a term. Technically, the term bangs is applied to a short fringe of hair across the forehead, the person who wrote "...bangs coming to a point in front of the nose or chin..." may have just thought "bangs" are the front section of hair. In all honesty, the best way to describe a devil lock in my opinion is "reverse mullet", long in front, shaved around the sides and back, and short on top.

It's actually not a reverse mullet no shaving is involved. What you do is wet your hair down and let it all hang to the front. Then you start gelling it down from back to front till you get the lock.

The Devilock has many ways to be down. There's the shaved version on which you shave the back and sides (not totally shave them just keep them short) and leave the front part of the hair grown naturally (this is the version I have). There's also the version on which the front part of the hair is as long as your whole face but so are the sides and back, then you just make the "tail" on the front and presto you have Samhain version of it (not including Eerie Von of course).

You can also just let you hair grown and grown longer and make the reversed "tail" when you want. The essence of the Devilock (for now days) is the "reversed ponytail" look. The way you make it depends on you. It is true that the classic way is the "Shaved" version. --Blodnatt13 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased

Is it just me or does this article seem pretty biased. Seems like it puts down Danzig quite a bit and leaves him almost no credit even though he wrote every single song of theirs.

Calling Balzac a band of "Misfits impersonators" is an insult and simply not true. They're inspired by the Misfits, but they're incredibly talented and uniquely original.

Thats not true at all. Balzac is a band of Misfits Impersonators. They are not original at all.The Clydelishes Clyde 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you my friend are sincerely and honestly, and probably, not a horror punk fiend. As the comment says Balzac indeed take some influence from The Misfits, and also from Samhain, but it just goes there. The sound Balzac has evolved and created on their own cant be seen trully as a Misfits-style rip-off.

Yes they have more than one resemblance more Balzac always has put the extra mile to offer something trully original or different. Is not just their music that is different, but also their image and even lyrics are away from campy-horror The Misfits is so well know.

If Balzac were actually rip-off then every other horror punk band would be, and thats is just frankly bananas. --Blodnatt13 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Misfits" vs. "The Misfits"

I used to believe the correct name of the band was "Misfits", without the definite article. But this is apparently not the case. The early releases have "The Misfits" written on the front cover, although the full albums and several other sources seem to use only "Misfits". Can I have a confirmation on this? --Stickler 09:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's Misfits or "The" Misfits (and neither is iTunes), but it may have something to do with how the band is referred to. You're not going to say "I'm going to see Misfits", you'd say "I'm going to see The Misfits". Personally, I think it's "Misfits", but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.91.130 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "The Misfits" is correct. I mean, if he named the band after her last movie, then it would be "The Misfits", with the name being applied to the members of the band, rather than the characters in the film. Similarly, I've noticed a similar informal debate over whether it's "The Sex Pistols" or not, with it generally being agreed upon that "The" is part of the band's name. --Refugee621 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a thing of who was in the band at the time. With Danzig it was The Misfits. After Danzig is was just plain Misfits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheonix91289 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In the newer album covers, there is no "the", so maybe this article should be renamed to "Misfits". --Diamon 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's simply 'Misfits'. Yes, the name was derived from the Monroe film, so it's appropriate to refer to them as 'The Misfits' when referring to their earliest work, but all one needs to do is look closely at the later album covers to realize 'The' was quietly dropped. It may seem unnecessarily complicated, but it all depends on chronology. For sake of accuracy, it's best to say/write 'Misfits'. And yes, I would say, "I'm going to see Misfits," because that would be correct. Of course, you'll never hear me say that because, in my opinion, the band ceased to exist in 1983. ~GEO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.96.220 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this article should be renamed simply Misfits. --MegX 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree too - I will change the title --Desdinova 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cancel that - I can't figure out how... --Desdinova 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This page should be renamed as "Misfits." I think it used to be, but somebody changed it for some reason. They USED to be called "The Misfits." --RdCrestdBreegull 15:08, 13 November 2007
Well all the books I've seen written on them just title it as Misfits (no "The" preceeding). --MegX (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Why hasn't anybody changed the title yet? This ignorance of facts is dumb. --RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have booked them twice and in the contract it says "The band is to billed as The Misfits" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.17.39 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is The Misfits because there named after: The Misfits (film), a 1961 film starring Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.236.94 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The name of the band actually is The Misfits, even if their logo just plain says Misfits, the name and real way to refer to the band is using the "The". --Blodnatt13 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest changing back to "The Misfits", not only because of the film, but also it's on their early albums and just sounds better. --Tim010987 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It's like this, folks: We title the article the way the band writes out their name most frequently (excluding stylizations like, say, backwards lettering or what have you). This band wrote their name out as "The Misfits" on "Cough/Cool", and then a particular stylization was adopted and used on Static Age, "Bullet", "Horror Business", "Night of the Living Dead", Beware, and the box set (3 Hits from Hell also writes it as "The Misfits" but doesn't use the same stylization). Basically they wrote their name as "The Misfits" on all releases from 1977 to 1980, and on the box set and Static Age CD in '96/'97. However, in 1981 they switched to a new stylization that just read "Misfits". It was first used on the cover of "Halloween" and has been used on every new release since: Walk Among Us, Evilive, Earth A.D./Wolfs Blood, "Die, Die My Darling", Legacy of Brutality, Misfits (aka Collection I), Collection II, American Psycho, "Dig Up Her Bones", "I Wanna Be a NY Ranger", Evillive II, Famous Monsters, "Monster Mash", Cuts from the Crypt, "Day the Earth Caught Fire", Project 1950, and Psycho in the Wax Museum. It was also the lettering used on the Mars Attacks demos and the artwork for the cancelled 12 Hits from Hell album. So...
  • Original lettering ("The Misfits"): In use from 1977-1980 (3 years), used on 8 releases.
  • Current lettering ("Misfits"): In use from 1981 to the present (27 years, counting the years the band was inactive because it was still in use on compilation albums that came out during those years), used on 18 releases.
Now, to be grammatically correct, when you're typing or saying the band's name you put the article "the" in front of it. Not to get into the grammar of it (mostly because I don't remember my specific rules of grammar), but the "the" needs to be there. However, it does not appear in the band's name the way they stylize it on their releases, so unless it's the first word in a sentence we don't capitalize it. We also don't make it part of the article title. It works the same way with the Ramones and the Sex Pistols: neither of them ever used a "the" in front of their name, but when saying the name in a sentence it is implied. But we don't capitalize it and we don't make it part of the article title. An example of a band that does use a "the" in their name is The Clash or The Beatles. Both of those bands always used a "the" in front of their names on their releases. We therefore always capitalize the "The" and make it part of the article title, because it's not just implied, it's part of the proper noun. With the Ramones and the Sex Pistols the "the" is not part of the proper noun (the name). With the Misfits it used to be, but it hasn't been since 1983. The Descendents are a similar example. Their very first single said "The Descendents" on the cover, but they dropped the "The" shortly after and it has been simply "Descendents" on all releases since. That doesn't mean we stop using a "the" when we say their name or write it out in a sentence, but we don't capitalize it and we don't put it in the title. Sorry for the long-winded explanation, it's late (or early) and I kind of lost my traing of thought. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up the discography section

Removed bootlegs and combined Resurrected Misfits with Jerry Only Misfits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.167.28 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't has any sense, specially since you put out some of the bands EP. Ok I reverted to the last edition I thought it would make the better one, theres still some Info I would like to add from some revision post that one, I'll try to add the new stuff myself. --Blodnatt13 (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

This article needs some images. There are a number in this category at Commons. Most of them are of Jerry, but there are a few others. We could probably at least one fair-use image of one of the earlier lineups with Danzig in it, since it would be historical. I'd like to get a shot of the whole current lineup (Jerry, Dez, Robo) onstage for the infobox. I'm seeing them on Wednesday, so I'll try to take a pic, but the venue doesn't allow cameras so I'll be limited to trying to get a decent shot using my phone. Of course, if anyone else has decent pictures please upload them to Commons so we can use them in the article :) --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sid Vicious - confusing inconsistency

There's a confusing inconsistency in the Static Age liner notes concerning the band's friendship with Anne Ritchie, the mother of Sid Vicious. The album notes say that Danzig brought her by the studio while the band were mixing the album, saying that "her son Sid Vicious had overdosed and died the previous night at the Chelsea Hotel in New York City." Now, it's decently documented that the band members knew Anne Ritchie, and that Jerry Only hung out with her while they were stuck in London after their aborted tour with the Damned in November '79. However, it's a bit difficult to believe that Sid Vicious had died during the time of the Static Age sessions, as it was recorded in early 1978 and Vicious died on Februrary 2, 1979 (by which time the Misfits had shelved the Static Age tapes and were performing with a new lineup including Joey Image and Bobby Steele, replacing Franché Coma and Mr. Jim who had performed on Static Age). The only possibility I can think of is that they were still working on mixes of the Static Age tapes a year after they were recorded, or maybe that Dave Achelis, the producer/engineer of Static Age who wrote that part of the album notes, was confused or got his dates mixed up. Can anyone help to clear this up? It's relevant to the Static Age article and might also be relevant here in the main article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New picture proposal

Hi all - I suggest this pic as a replacement since you can barely see anything in the current one. Even when the current picture is blown up to its full size, it's still blurry as hell. --Tim010987 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the current pic and I'm sorry it sucks; it was at the House of Blues which doesn't allow cameras (and anyway my camera is broken) so I had to use my camera phone which takes lousy pics, esp. in a dark room against bright stage lights. Anyway...I thought about using the picture shown here, but there are a couple of reasons I chose not to
  1. It only shows Jerry Only, not any other members of the band. The guy on the left isn't a band member (looks like either a roadie or fan), but putting this as the infobox pic would make it seem like he was a member of the band.
  2. It doesn't give any context for what the Misfits are or what they do. For an article about a band, there's really nothing better than a shot of all the band members performing onstage. That shows you right up front: they're a band; this is what they look like; this is what they do. This picture gives you no idea what it is they do. It might work in the article about Jerry Only, but there's already a better shot of him singing and playing his bass.
  3. The current pic is blurry, but it shows all the members, their stage setup, and they are actually in the act of performing, which is what they do. A parallel example is: if this were an article about a professional basketball team, would you prefer A) a low-resolution picture of the team performing a play during a game; or B) a high-resolution picture of one of the team members eating lunch?
If somebody contributes a better shot of the band playing live, I have no hard feelings about replacing my photo with it. But this "Jerry signing autographs with a random dude standing next to him" pic is simply an inadequate substitute, even if it is hi-res. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
After reading your reasons, I have to say I agree. The basketball team analogy got me. --Tim010987 (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre?

someone thinks the misfits are metal, apparently. While they are influental on the metal scene, they are clearly not metal. Also, I think Hardcore punk, Punk rock, and Psychobilly might be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.25.248 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working on rewriting & referencing all of the Misfits-related articles. I plan on doing a "musical style" section in this article that will cover the genres, but I'm still looking for sources. I have, however, come across several sources that describe the Graves-era material as being just as much heavy metal as horror punk. Allmusic, for example, says that American Psycho "relies more on metal than hardcore" and classifies it under both heavy metal and hardcore punk. Likewise for Famous Monsters [1] and Cuts from the Crypt [2], saying that "the latter-day Misfits are much more heavy metal based than in their earlier work — as their punk roots have all but been erased." I'm certain I could come up with other sources on a more thorough search, but Allmusic is rather handy and often is a good indicator of what other reviewers say as well. Punk rock and hardcore punk need not be added because horror punk is a subgenre of both, so it would be redundant. As for psychobilly...the Misfits have never played psychobilly. You might make the case that "American Nightmare" is rockabilly-based, but playing one song in a similar style doesn't make psychobilly one of the band's regular genres. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources IllaZilla. I think we need to get "hardcore punk" back on the page. The problem with wikipedia is that it is often edited by teenage users who recontextualize musical genres. The Misfits were one of the most popular hardcore punk bands in the early '80s, yet this is lost due to contemporary editing POV. Heavy metal should be kept since work they did in the '90s sounds metal, but hardcore punk needs to come back. Tim010987 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have done a decent amount of reading about the Misfits and have not found sufficient sources to describe them as hardcore punk. The only connection I've seen is reviewers saying that Earth A.D. contains elements of hardcore and speed metal, but this is not enough to classify the band as hardcore punk because they never really played hardcore punk strictly as a style. Besides, horror punk is pretty much universally recognized as their genre, and is a subgenre of punk rock parallel to hardcore. Bottom line: it needs to be backed up with sources. We really need to work on a decent "style" section in this article describing their musical style with good references. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The Misfits are the epitome of classic early '80s hardcore punk. People have to think of it considering the band's era, without revisionist history. Look: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifwxqe5ldte. —Tim010987 (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
That's an arguable point. I'm fairly sure that Minor Threat or Black Flag would be much more considered the "epitome of classic early '80s hardcore punk". Rather, the Misfits are much more often considered the progenitors of the horror punk subgenre, which in itself is closely related to hardcore and could even be considered a subgenre of hardcore, or at least a parallel subgenre. Having both just seems to be redundant. A bullet point on the side of an Allmusic bio is revisionist history (it's not like Allmusic existed in the early '80s). In fact, most of what's written about the Misfits has been written in a revisionist mode or from hindsight, as a majority of the band's material was only widely released after they broke up. Walk Among Us was the only full-length album of theirs that was even released during the original band's lifetime. Again, having read a lot of reviews and books covering the Misfits, the term "hardcore" is usually only used in reference to Earth A.D./Wolfs Blood. "Horror punk" is simply more specific. Let's hold off on this until we can get a decent Style section going in the main article. We'll add references etc. to it and then decide from there how to proceed with the infobox genres. Showing sources here is fine, but they'd do much better actually being used in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I just don't want genres rewritten or history lost (years from now Wikipedians may say "if you think about it, the Misfits are psychobilly"). I've seen people do this with Black Sabbath since they don't sound like today's metal, people get in edit wars to redefine them as 'hard rock' (I even saw editors redefine Tom Petty as 'punk', serious). I don't think horror punk is a subgenre of hardcore, or parallel (i.e. Samhain, 45 Grave, Wednesday 13). Allmusic is not really revisionist: that's how people knew the Misfits in the '80s (plus Wikipedia credits Allmusic as a top music articles source). Check it out: The Misfits' last show is definitely hardcore, and they even covered popular hardcore songs of the era like "Rise Above" and NA's "Can't Tell No One" (with Brannon). I've read a lot about the Misfits too and always saw the Misfits mentioned as one of the early hardcore punk bands. Even the punk rock article has the Misfits under the Punk transforms: Hardcore tab. That's how they were known in the early '80s, cause there was no horror punk genre being recognized yet. It's like if one retroactively calls Joy Division 'alternative'--yeah that works, but in their lifetime they were known as post-punk. Lastly, 'rock' is too general for the lead in and a stretch. WHen most people think "the Misfits" they think "punk". --Tim010987 (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points too, but I still think the lead sentence should just say "rock", because the purpose of the lead sentence is to give a very general description of what the subject of the article is. Since the Misfits' styles over the years can be described using various subgenres (horror punk, hardcore, metal-infused punk), it's more appropriate to just lead in with "rock" and explain the more specific genres/styles in the subsequent sentences of the lead. Even the Niravana article begins "Nirvana was a rock band..." even though their genres are universally recongnized as alternative rock/grunge. Think of the opening sentence in very broad, general terms: we need to answer the question "what is this subject?" in the context of an encyclopedia that covers everything. So, "The Misfits are a rock band..", "Wu-Tang Clan is a hip-hop group...", "The Nissan Versa is a compact car...", "An Owl is a bird of prey...", etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, and now I'm starting to wonder whether the leads for other punk bands should be changed to "rock" too. My only hesitance is the awkwardness: "Black Flag is a rock band", etc. However, the Sex Pistols' article says "punk rock band" in the lead. So I'm confused which one should be done for all punk bands.... --Tim010987 (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been my observation that, as articles move towards FA, working on the lead section is part of meeting the "brilliant prose" requirement and one of the things that usually happens is that the wording in the lead sentence becomes more general (ie. "rock", "hip hop") and the subgenres/styles get moved to later sentences. This is particularly true of artists whose repertoire covers multiple subgenres/styles. A case could be made for having punk rock in the lead sentence of Sex Pistols, because they never really played any other styles and were short-lived (the reunions notwithstanding, since they haven't written any new tunes). I rather like the wording in Ramones: "The Ramones were an American rock band often regarded as the first punk rock group". If the Misfits had stayed broken up after '83, then it might be a similar case. But they didn't, and their '90s/'00s material definitely had a different stylistic slant to it than the '77-'83 stuff (with the prominent heavy metal influences etc.). It works for Black Flag, too, as their early stuff is almost universally recognized as hardcore but their later, more experimental stuff incorporated many other elements (heavy metal, free jazz, etc.). It'd be really hard to describe Family Man or The Process of Weeding Out as only hardcore punk. So it'd be better to say "Black Flag was an American rock band often regarded as one of the first hardcore punk groups." This provides more context and description to the reader. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing about genre is quite silly. They're a punk band. Every reliable source describes them as a punk band. Sure they might have had some material that some might consider other genres, but that doesn't mean they're not primarily a punk band. --Oakshade (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla is correct. Common practice on music articles. Go with the parent genre and detail the subs in the main body of the article. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for speaking up, speak politely. I think "punk" is the parent genre and "horror punk" the detail one. "Rock" is way too general and vague. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
??? Punk isn't a parent genre for anything. It is just a sub-genre of Rock. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer to this can be found on today's Wikipedia's Featured Article, Year Zero (album). The lead-in sentence describes Nine Inch Nails as an industrial rock band, not the overly general rock band. Per WP:MOS, it was ready for Featured Article status. If this article would have any chance for a GA status or even featured status, we can't have this over-general "rock band" term in the lead-in sentence. --Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two can play that game, because there are FAs that use both styles. There is no "Wikipedia standard" for how to word these things. Nirvana (band), Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Pixies, Powderfinger, R.E.M., U2, and Wilco, to pick just a few examples, are all FA-class musical artist articles that use "rock" in their opening sentences. Year Zero is not a good comparison, because it is an album article and we are talking about musical artist articles. There is clearly not a consensus for using the more specific "punk rock" here, because the Misfits' catalog encompasses more styles than just punk rock. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
IllaZilla, this is not a "game." This is information that millions of people access and the information needs to be correct and is no place for anything as childish as a "game." Every source refers to this band primarily as a "punk" band and specifically as a "horror punk". Going by sources is not only the Wikipedia standard, but very strongly the standard. The rest of us are trying to build an informative encyclopedia that is helpful to the public. Please play your games elsewhere. --Oakshade (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Calm down, it's only an expression. You based your case for specificity on an FA example, I'm pointing out that my case for generality is also supported by precedence in many FAs. I'm not playing games, I'm trying to make the article informative for all readers. As I've already pointed out, there are sources which describe an era of the band's career as heavy metal, so I am in fact going by sources. Heavy metal is not a subgenre of punk rock, therefore "punk rock" does not adequately describe this band's style as a whole. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps on changing the genre to rock please stop because even the misfits call there genre punk. Its getting stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.69.156 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence should just say rock. Details can go in the box or, better yet, in a referenced musical style section in the main body of the article. But the lead sentence should just say rock as per WP:LEAD. Wether B (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I also support the consensus that the lead sentence for the article should just say rock music. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is not clear on this. --Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I rewrote the lead section last night. I believe the opening sentences now adequately convey why the band is notable in pretty clear terms, following the guidelines of WP:LEAD#Introductory text. I request that, before reverting, you read the new text and comment on what you think of it or how it might be improved. I went back and moved some things around because I think that Oakshade reverted it earlier without noticing that I had rewritten the lead text. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Films which feature Misfits logos

I know that part is quite random but ive added a few movies to it, can someone tell me why it has been deleted and why now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addistheman (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it was unreferenced and wholly irrelevant. Thousands of products with the Misfits logo on them have been licensed over the years, from shirts and posters to action figures and shoes to jewelry and even car seat covers. The logo is not "featured" in any of these films, it merely appears in the background or on some extra's t-shirt or some such thing. Random trivia like this is useless to the article, and the "legacy" section really needs to be cleaned out. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The only reason im angry is cos there are many more random things in legacy. Crap like a guy from a band wore Misfits shoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addistheman (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and like I said the section really needs to be cleaned out to remove stuff that's unsourced and irrelevant. Unfortunately that can't be done at the moment because the article's protected from editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Return "punk" description to lead-in sentence?

Since this article was created in October 2002 [3], the lead-in sentence described this group as a "punk" or "horror punk" band. But in November, 2008, a user removed the word "punk" and inserted "rock". [4]. An edit war over the return of the word "punk" to the lead-in sentence ensued resulting the article being blocked at one point. So this needs to be clarified and settled. Shall the word "punk" be restored to the lead-in sentence?

Important note: the revised lead section did not completely remove mention of "punk": it immediately described the Misfits as "progenitors of the horror punk subgenre".

I'm going to withdraw this RfC per the comments below. Arguments are convincing that the lead-in sentence describes the importance this band played in punk music. We should be diligent to ensure this remains in the lead-in sentence as multiple reliable sources support this. --Oakshade (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments supporting returning "punk" to lead-in sentence

  • Restore "punk" to lean-in - This is an iconic punk band and practically the definition of "horror punk." It is what most of the world identifies this band as, as well as reliable sources, which is the core criteria in Wikipedia in deciding content. While some of their much-later output could be described as "metal" , they are primarily a punk band - even an Allmusicguide source, when describing a specific album as "metal" states this band as "hardcore punk".[5]
Here is only a sampling of book publications that refer to this group primarily as a "punk" or "horror punk" group -
  • The Pot Plan by Thomas Brent Andrews ("The Misfits are another of punk's grandfather bands.") (ISBN 0976705605) [6]
  • Alternative Rock by Dave Thompson (ISBN 0879306076) [7]
  • Sonic Cool by Joe S. Harrington (ISBN 0634028618) [8]
  • Punk by Steven Wells (ISBN 1560255730)
  • Rock Stars on God by Doug Van Pelt ("there are punks in punk bands that look to bands like the Misfits as icons of punk culture.")(ISBN 097292769)[9]
  • The Official Punk Rock Book of Lists by Amy Wallace and Handsome Dick Manitoba (ISBN 0879309199) [10]
Sampling of newspapers and magazines that categorize this band as a "punk" band -
And the Misfits themselves categorizing themselves as "punk" -

Comments against returning "punk" to lead-in sentence

"Punk" is already part of the lead sentence

First of all, "punk" and "horror punk" are already part of the lead sentence. Perhaps you need to actually read it:

  • The Misfits are an American rock band often recognized as the progenitors of the horror punk subgenre, blending punk rock and other musical influences with horror film themes and imagery.

Second, it's time to drop the stick and stop beating this issue's decayed corpse into the ground. I do not wish to rehash all of the evidence & arguments I've already presented in the above "Genre" discussion. It seems to me that, for some reason, Oakshade will not be satisfied until the lead sentence says "punk" and only "punk", although I think that doing so would reduce what is currently a very descriptive sentence that meets all the guidelines of WP:LEAD#First sentence, anwering the questions "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". Nevertheless, I will reiterate my main points:

  1. There are sources, provided in the "Style" section of the article, which describe an entire era of the Misfits' career as being much more heavy metal than punk. Some of these are from the same sources Oakshade presents in support of saying only "punk":
    • Allmusic calling the band "a kitschy goth-punk outfit that relies more on metal than hardcore."
    • Rolling Stone describing their formula as "some old-style punk, a little metal and an occasional all-out thrasher."
    • Allmusic stating that "the latter-day Misfits are much more heavy metal based than in their earlier work — as their punk roots have all but been erased."
  2. In addition, there are other sources which describe both their early and later work as being more than standard "punk":
    • Pichfork Media describing how they were different from punk and calling them "ghoul rock": "New York punk was just punk, simple and static. When Glenn started the Misfits, he mutated the punk sound and image into something darker and more sinister, a punk-metal hybrid that later found bloom in the quiet, boring suburbs of Oslo and the boggy backwaters surrounding Tampa. Punk belonged to the media/celebrity hubs of London and New York. Ghoul rock was for the kids in the suburbs where nothing ever happens."
  3. Nearly all of the sources Oakshade presents above focus only or mainly on the band's early (1977-1983 incarnation) and discuss them primarily in that context (and many of them are only introductions to larger articles which require registration or payment to view in full, ergo we do not know what they say about the later eras of the band's career...this is a source? This one doesn't even mention the Misfits). A different incarnation of the band, led by Jerry Only, has been active for the last 14 years and their sound differs from that of the '77-'83 incarnation (as the sources above support). Their current setlist includes songs from the early era, songs from the later era, and covers of Black Flag and '50s rock & roll songs. You cannot adequately sum up a band's entire repertoire using only one genre/subgenre term when that band's career spans 32 years and has gone through stylistic changes during that time.
  4. There is ample precedent in FA-class musician articles for leading off with general genre descriptors like "rock", then delving into the genre/style details later in the sentence or lead section. Nirvana (band), Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Pixies, Powderfinger, R.E.M., U2, and Wilco are all examples of this. Note that I pulled all of them from Category:FA-Class Alternative music articles, so you'd expect them to all lead off with "alternative rock" (or in cases like Nirvana & Pearl Jam, "grunge" as they are arguably the most definitive grunge bands), but they don't. This indicates that precedent amongst music projects and FA reviewers is to follow the guidance of WP:LEAD#First sentence and not try to confine a group to 1 specific genre/subgenre/style descriptor right off the bat. If we hope to get this article eventually to FA (which of course we should), we should heed the examples of other FAs about similar subjects. For the Misfits, you could describe their earliest material (ie. Static Age) as straight punk rock, subsequent stuff as horror punk and hardcore punk (Walk Among Us, even early thrash for Earth A.D./Wolfs Blood), and their post-1995 material as either a punk/metal hybrid or straight heavy metal (American Psycho, Famous Monsters, Cuts from the Crypt), all supported by sources already provided here and in the "Style" section. Reducing this oeuvre to just one word, "punk", does not seem like the best service to the reader.

This has already been discussed and failed to gain support. In the "Genre?" discussion above, Libs, Wether B, Aussie Ausborn, and myself all supported leading the sentence off with "rock" and delving into more specific terminology afterward. Oakshade's persistent reverting to the contrary, withouth even considering the new, more descriptive wording that I added on Feb 12 ([31], [32]) resulted in the article being full-protected for a week. As I've already noted, the current version of the lead sentence already describes the band's significance to horror punk and punk rock, so I don't see how there is even a problem. Of course, as I've said before, I will respect any consensus established here. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The lead-in sentence describes this band as a "rock band" which it was changed to from "punk rock band" or "horror punk rock band" which is had been for over six years of this article's existence. That designation is what this RfC is about. As for the other numbered points,
1. The All Music Guide sources not only refer to only one album from the late 90s well after their formidable stage, but even they refer to them as a "kitschy goth-punk outfit." That one Rolling Stone reference is a review of the same late 90s album. As stated in the first argument, yes, some of their much later output could be referred to as "metal" as those All Music Guide and Rolling Stone articles are referring to that specific much later output, but generally is a legendary "punk" band and an overwhelming number of sources indicate that.
2. That Pitchfork Media (a reliable source?) even describes their sound as a "punk-metal hybrid."
3. Yes the Buffalo News is a source. And for the source you claim "doesn't even mention the Misfits", in fact the Boston Globe mentions very clearly "Danzig's Misfits, a punk group ...".
4. The bands listed here are properly considered "rock" bands because that's what they are and it's almost impossible to pin down a specific sub-genre. But is absolutely not a "ample precedent" as to the proper lead-in terminology of bands. In fact, many other bands articles, which are Featured Articles have sub-genre descriptions of them in the lead sentence. Here are only a few samples - The Featured Article Nine Inch Nails ("is an American industrial rock music group"), Featured Article Tool ("is an American Grammy Award-winning progressive metal band"), Featured Article Audioslave ("was an American hard rock supergroup"), Featured Article Sex Pistols ("are an English punk rock band"), Featured Article Metallica ("is an American heavy metal band"), Featured Article Megadeth ("is an American heavy metal band"). So the idea that there is some kind of legal "precedent" for the lead-in sentences of bands as simply "rock bands" is completely contradicted by reality.--Oakshade (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Formidable stage"? What does that mean? The AMG sources in fact refer to 3 of their albums (American Psycho, Famous Monsters, and Cuts from the Crypt), and note that they classify all 3 under heavy metal [33] [34] [35] in addition to hardcore punk and "American underground". We cannot categorize the band solely based on their first 6 years and the genres associated with those years. We have to be fair to their entire history.
The bands listed here are properly considered "rock" bands because that's what they are and it's almost impossible to pin down a specific sub-genre. Really? You think it's impossible to pin down a specific subgenre for Nirvana, a band almost universally recognized as alternative rock/grunge? I'm not saying that there are no cases where a specific subgenre shouldn't be used in the first sentence. The Sex Pistols, for example, are not only nearly universally recognized as one of the quintissential first-wave punk bands, but they only ever released one studio album and therefore their entire oeuvre falls under that descriptor (subsequent reunion tours, live and compilation albums being drawn from the same material).
The same cannot be said of the Misfits. There have been at least 3 distinct permutations of this band extending over a 32-year period. The first, led by Glenn Danzig from 1977-1983, recorded 3 albums and is the one most often discussed in the context of hardcore and the emerging horror punk style. The band then broke up and was inactive for 13 years. The next incarnation, led by Jerry Only and Doyle, was in place from 1995-2001, recorded 2 studio albums, and are the ones cited as being as much heavy metal as punk rock. The third incarnation, the current "all star" lineup led by Only, recorded an album of '50s rock & roll covers and their current repertoire draws from all eras of the band.
Trying to sum all of this up with just the word "punk" is inaccurate. Yes, it would be remiss of us not to mention punk at all, because they are unquestionably important to that genre (which of course is why nearly every source at least mentions punk, even the ones which simultaneously describe them as much more heavy metal), but having that as the only descriptor in the lead seems to ignore the later parts of their 32-year history as well as the sources, provided in the "Style" section, which discuss their transition to heavy metal in their later career.
To me this is very much like the case of Pearl Jam. Of course nearly every source discussing Pearl Jam is going to mention grunge, as they are universally recognized as one of the most important grunge/alternative rock acts of the early 1990s. But in the years since then their style has grown and changed, as discussed and sourced in the "Musical style and influences" section of that article. That being the case, "grunge" and "alternative" are no longer the most accurate descriptors of their music, as their sound covers other aspects of rock music as well. Therefore the opening sentence describes them as a rock band, and the rest of the lead section goes on to explain their importance to grunge and alternative rock. The Misfits case is very much like this. Yes, nearly every source is going to mention punk, as the Danzig-era Misfits are universally recognized as being part of the punk/hardcore movement of the late '70s/early '80s. But since the band relaunched in 1995 with different lineups their sound has grown and changed, incorporating other elements of rock music that are not punk (specifically, heavy metal). This is discussed and sourced in the "Style" section of the article. Therefore the opening sentence should describe them as a rock band, then go on to describe their importance to punk and hardcore. I believe the current version of the article lead does this very well, and I would like to know specifically what problems you have with the wording:
  • The Misfits are an American rock band often recognized as the progenitors of the horror punk subgenre, blending punk rock and other musical influences with horror film themes and imagery.
--IllaZilla (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, Pitforkmedia is considered a reliable source, meeting all the criteria of WP:RS, and is frequently cited in musician/album articles. In fact it is listed by the albums project as a good source for music reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The formidable stage of their career is what they are primarily known for and that's why almost all sources refer to them as a punk band, not a "rock band." Nobody is claiming that the source All Music Guide has labeled their late 90s regrouping albums as "metal", but with all due respect to that regrouped Misfits, those albums and that part of their career are not what they are primarily known for. I've listed 23 reliable sources referring to this group as a "punk" group" (including the Misfits themselves!) and you've only given us 2 sources that refer to their later albums as "metal" and even both of those sources still describe this group as a "punk" group. --Oakshade (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
See, that's the whole flaw in your reasoning: you seem to have a desire to place prominence on the early Misfits ('77-'83) and marginalize the rest of their career. This is not very NPOV. That "those albums and that part of their career are not what they are primarily known for" is both A) your opinion, difficult to verify in an encyclopedic manner, and B) not relevant to factual, thorough, and unbiased coverage in an encyclopedia. The "regrouped" Misfits have been around twice as long as the original incarnation was, have toured at least 20x more, been seen by a vastly larger number of people, and released the only 3 albums of the band's catalog that have charted. You cannot pretend that this is insignificant to proper encyclopedic coverage of the band's career as a whole. Have they had as much impact on rock music as the original incarnation? I think we both know the answer to that question ;-), but that doesn't mean we can ignore that part of their career when describing their current sound or their career as a whole. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

After reading the lead-in to this RfC, just before the comments subsections, I was going to definitely say, "Hell yes, keep 'punk' in the lead!" But then I read what was actually changed, and the lead that calls them a "rock band... recognized as the progenitors of the horror punk subgenre" is much better. As IllaZilla suggests, the description that only calls them a punk band ignores their full career. (Additionally, I've made the lead-in a bit more balanced, so it doesn't give the impression that the word punk was completely obliterated from the article.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

this band is horror punk , punk rock influences

ramones where the main reason why they are more punk, horror punk because of the lyrics and punk because of the beat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apunk4ever (talk • contribs) 04:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what your'e trying to say, but please stop changing the genres in the infobox based on your own point of view & please read Misfits (band)#Style. The band's 1990s incarnation (with Michale Graves & Dr. Chud) is cited by several sources as being much more heavy metal-based than punk-based. The infobox summarizes this by listing heavy metal as one of the band's genres. The article covers their entire history & career, not just the punk years. You will notice that when you go to edit the infobox, there is a hidden message asking you to read the Style section first. Please do not change the genres in the infobox again, as they are all supported with references to reliable sources in that section. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
it does not matter what michael graves wanted jerry is the one who stood with the misfits so i think u should like talk to him next time i go to his concert again i will remmeber to tell him whats his band so we can clear this up ok, cause i always listen to the misfits i dont hear no heavy metal, its always been about diy not heavy metal, punk rock horror punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apunk4ever (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
this is wikipedia i can do as i please i can change it u can change it even a baby can edit this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apunk4ever (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, your opinion is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia relies on verifiability through reliable sources, and we have several such sources which describe an entire era of the Misfits' career as being largely heavy metal. Your statement is also pretty much entirely incorrect, as it wasn't Graves who made them sound metal. It was actually Jerry & Doyle coming off of their late-'80s metal project Kryst the Conqueror that brought the metal influences into their '90s sound. Whether you like it or not, that is part of their history, and we value secondary sources like professional music critics & writers muchmore than editor opinions or even the opinions of the artists themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you continue to revert as you have been doing you will be blocked for violation of the 3 Revert Rule. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making any further edits. In your first 2 contributions you have committed copyright violation and started an edit war. You need to pause, learn how Wikipedia works, then decide if you are interested in contributing constructively. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Misfits are an American rock band often recognized as the progenitors of the horror punk subgenre, blending punk rock and other musical influences with horror film themes and imagery. Founded in 1977 in Lodi, New Jersey by singer and songwriter Glenn Danzig, the group had a fluctuating lineup during its first six years with Danzig and bassist Jerry Only as
this says it om the wikepedia i copied it punk rock with horror film themes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apunk4ever (talk • contribs) 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
First, stop creating a new topic every time you comment. You can just reply in the same thread as your previous comment. Second, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Finally, if you'll read beyond the first sentence you'll see where both the lead section and the article body discuss the aspects of heavy metal in the band's sound. It's redundant to have punk rock in the infobox, since we already have both hardcore punk and horror punk which are both subgenres of punk rock. This topic has been discussed several times over already. You can see the discussion just above this one, and also the archived discussions. Please stop changing the genres in the infobox or you will be blocked from editing or the article will be semi-protected. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
first of all i dont know how to reply. second you writers are not even connected to the scene so i dont care if i get blocked i would rather someone block me cause this is bull s^^t so whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apunk4ever (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure you do. You know how you click "edit" at the top of a page to edit it? I assume you do, since you've been commenting here & editing the article. Well you'll notice that at header of this conversation there's a button that says "edit". Look for it. Look at the big black words that say "this band is horror punk , punk rock influences". Now follow the line below those words all the way to the right. See the word [edit]? Click on it. Now you can just reply in the same thread.
Now, I'm not sure what this "scene" is you're speaking of. Do you mean the punk scene, which is 30+ years old, massively popular, & spread worldwide? Yeah, sounds like a real inner circle of learned experts. Oh, and I've been a punk fan for at least 15 years, read at least a dozen books on punk, own hundreds of punk albums including every Misfits album, and am in the middle of writing my masters thesis on punk rock. So yeah, I think I qualify as part of "the scene". Of course anybody's level of punk cred is absolutely irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia, so I don't see how it matters. We could be writing about tsetse flies for all the difference it would make; the important thing is one's willingness to find sources and write what they say, and to write well. Scene cred, whether yours, mine, or anyone else's, means exactly squat to Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

genre??

They are in no way heavy metal .why do punkers worships these guys with danzig they sound like the ramones ,with only they sound like fallout boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.200.168 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the "Style" section of the article for references describing their '90s sound as largely heavy metal-based. Also read the archives of this talk page for past discussions of this issue and the resulting consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be two articles?

I noticed the discussion about whether the band was called 'The Misfits' or 'Misfits' was sort of resolved when someone said that the they were called 'The Misfits' while fronted by Glenn Danzig in the late 70's early 80's but the 90's and onward band was just called 'Misfits'. So my question is this: Seeing as the line-up is different and the name is different aren't they two separate bands and thus shouldn't there be two separate articles. It's a bit like 'Nirvana' and 'The Foo Fighters' sharing the same article when they are different bands with different names and only one band member connects the the two.Addistheman (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several flaws in your reasoning.
  1. Firstly, the original incarnation dropped "The" from their album covers well before the second incarnation came about. Walk Among Us, Evilive, Earth A.D./Wolfs Blood, "Halloween", "Die, Die My Darling", and the post-breakup compilations Legacy of Brutality, Misfits, and Collection II all used "Misifts", and in the exact same stylization that the later incarnations of the band used as well. In fact the only releases that use "The Misfits" are Static Age, Beware, 3 Hits from Hell, "Cough/Cool", "Bullet", "Horror Business", "Night of the Living Dead", and the box set. So the name is not different. They have always been the Misfits; whether or not they actully print "The" on the title or not is entirely semantic.
  2. The comparison to Nirvana/Foo Fighters is completely different. Foo Fighters are a totally different band, with a different lineup, name, and style of music. They do not go by the name Nirvana and do not lay claim to Nirvana's back catalog or legacy. The Misfits are an entirely different situation. Jerry Only not only has legal rights to use and perform under the name Misfits, he also shares merchandising rights with Glenn Danzig. The "new" Misfits use and build on the name, imagery, and history of the old band, and perform the old songs in addition to new material. So much so, in fact, that they are currently on an extended "30th Anniversary" tour. They are not an entirely different band.
  3. You incorrectly state that only 1 member connects the early Misfits to the later incarnations, when in fact there are 2. Both Jerry and Doyle were instrumental in re-forming the band and were members during its '90s incarnation.
  4. There have in fact been several distinct lineups of the Misfits. The current lineup (Only/Dez/Robo) shares only 1 member with the '90s lineup and with the early lineups. Should we therefore also have a separate article for the current lineup? Of course not.
A more apt comparison would be The Vandals, whose lineup since 1991 has been distinct from their early lineup, with only 1 member (Joe Escalante) still in the band from its early days. Yet we don't have separate articles for those either. Bottom line: No, these should not be separate articles. They are not 2 separate bands, they do not have different names, etc. Yes they have a complex history with disctinct lineups or eras, but that doesn't justify separate articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Punk Rock

So I'm sure this has been hashed out on this page before, but I'm adding punk rock to the genre list. They were in fact a "hardcore punk" act by the time they recorded Walk Among Us and especially Earth A.D. But what about during their formative months or years, when they hashed out "cough/cool" and then the Static Age album? "Horror punk" doesn't cut it since that genre just means "bands that sound like or are heavily indebted to the Misfits". The 'Fits could not have been attempting to fit into a genre that didn't exist until their fans started bands. Its like calling the Ramones a "Ramonescore" band. Besides, at least some songs, for example "attitude", do not deal w/ horror themes. Its just a straight ahead Buzzcocks/Ramones type tune. They were punk rock just as those contemporaries, as well as the Damned, Dead Boys, Cramps, Adverts, etc. were, and punk rock certainly is a stronger association than "heavy metal" is w/ the Misfits. I know that what I have just written is "original research", but it is also just common sense/common knowledge to anyone w/ passing familiarity w/ both the 'Fits and '77 to '80 era punk rock. Just leave it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.121.204 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Horror punk and hardcore punk are, of course, subgenres of punk rock, so having the parent genre is redundant. Either we should list horror punk and hardcore punk, or we should list punk rock. But not all three. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added Glenn's comment to Spin magazine that "The Misfits helped form what American punk is" as a reference. I hear you about redundancy, but my own position is that punk rock is a stronger categorization than horror punk, but figured advocates of that tag would not stand to see it removed. Whatever, if you remove it again I'll leave it alone, it's not worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.121.204 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously they were punk, but more specific than that they're recognized as hardcore and as the innovators of "horror punk". There are several previous discussions about this in the talk page archives. I just think we need to avoid redundancy either way. I'd actually prefer just listing "punk rock" rather then either subgenre, but other editors in the past have been insistent that hardcore & horror punk be listed (even though the infobox documentation advises to "aim for generality". The "Style" section gives us plenty of room to elaborate on their more specific subgenres/styles. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Who keeps removing the updates on the Tours, Album and new Gold Box Sets? Wiki knows nothing about the band, so stop changing our posts and check your facts first. Ref included you know, thats what they are for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.207.110 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, information must be referenced to a reliable source. Misfitscentral.com is a fan site and therefore not a reliable source (particularly its forums...messageboard forums are not sources at all). This isn't a place for "our posts", it's an encyclopedia. If the band reports progress on a new album on their official site, or better yet if a third-party music publication reports on it, then that can be used as a source. Anything sourced to misfitscentral.com will be removed on the basis of WP:RS. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wiki admits it knows nothing again ha! You tell them Fiend! they are always changing stuff when they dont bother to check references. The new album pictures are coming through, if they are posted on a forum how can we help that? You saying fans are fabricating pictures of the band recording to myth wiki? You people are power drunk man, chill it. Theres loads of fake info in this profile alone you have not spotted too, and rumours on the band members pages you have not removed. It seems you pick and choose when to control everything. Bored at the moment? Go save Obamas profile and leave people who actually know what they are talking about alone.
Wiki is dumb and run by net-Nazis. Theres videos of the band recording on YoutUbe... are those fake... how about Jerry holding up the Gold boxsets to celebrate the Gold Cert, yet you removed that. Fiends against wiki bs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.207.110 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If you don't care enough to do proper research and provide reliable citations to sources other than fan messageboards, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. When the news is reported by reliable secondary sources then we'll include it. Just because it's out there on the internet doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. We have higher standards then that. Our priority is proper research and good writing, not whether we please the Fiends. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record I checked both of those "sources" and they're both crap. Both are to threads on fan forums, so that's out the door right there as far as WP:V and WP:RS are concerned. Second, they don't even back up the statements they're trying to support. There's this...a handful of pictures posted by a guy who says he's "just internet friends with someone who is helping in the studio" and followed by a bunch of fans speculating. Yeah, super reliable *rolls eyes*. Then there's this...some fan mentions the box set going gold, followed by a bunch of other fans going "Really, it went gold?" Again, really backing up the statement it's meant to support (*insert sarcasm*). Now if it really did go gold, I'll do a search of the RIAA website & submit the news to someplace like Punknews.org. Hopefully they'll fact-check it & report it & then Wikipedia can include it (as Wikipedia is a tertiary source). Of course, you'd think news like this would be something that the band would post on their own website or the label's site... But if the best we can do are fan forums & assorted youtube videos, we're better off just leaving it out for now. Wikipedia isn't paper and has no deadline, so we can wait for better sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You people are nuts, I made some changes yesterday which had two references from THE MISFITS. And you deny them, I already called Jerry about you and hes thinking of taking legal action as your dammaging the bands image deliberately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.245.36 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Here's the revert. I removed it because the details on the box set belong in The Misfits (box set) article and are more pertinent there than they are here. And you can't use a photograph as a source (see WP:RS). You don't need it anyway, since the news post already says the bit about the voting on 3 designs. The box set was actually certified gold in April 2008, according to RIAA, so that may be worth mentioning earlier in the history. But the fact that they're putting out a special package just for fan club members isn't significant to an overall history of the band. Again, worth mentioning in the box set article, but not here.
And please don't make legal threats (however ludicrous they may be) or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I fail to see how placing info in the appropriate places, or not mentioning a particular piece of upcoming fan club-only merchandise in an encyclopedia article, is "damaging the band's image deliberately". That's just a ridiculous claim. Unless you can show that the article violates WP:BLP in some way, then your claim is nonsense. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: I submitted the news to Punknews.org and they published it, so now we have the added benefit of having both primary and secondary source coverage to add as references. Though it's certainly worth mentioning the set going gold here in the main article, the info about the special plaques still isn't too pertinent here and belongs in the article about the box set itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think what people are saying is that you are controlling the information too much on here, some pages you can edit fine without this sort of control but this is locked down for some reason, you people need to relax unless its obvious. Theres millions of real flaws with wiki, when someone posts the truth and has it removed then I dont see why it should be removed unless it can be proven false. The Misfits HAVE gone Gold with the Boxsets, and HAVE released a Gold Boxset Special edition to celebrate it, they are also on a World Tour that contains more contries then thats listed here. They HAVE also been recording the new album, which is news readily avaialble to anyone with the internet so I can see why Fiend Clubbers, Jerry and even Michale Graves are getting angry at wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.43.8 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, that just too bad. Per Wikipedia's core policies, unsourced or poorly-sourced information may be removed at any time. Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline, so we can wait for more reliable sources to report on these things rather than relying on fansites, messageboard communities, and blogs for our information. We are better than that. This is the Misfits, for pete's sake...when there's actual news to report, such as when they actually release some updates about the recording of the new album, then numerous reliable music publications are going to pick up on that news, and then we can cite those sources here on Wikipedia. Until then, we can do without tidbits that come from random corners of the internet like blogs and fansites.
Also, I'll thank you to assume good faith on my part. Keeping Wikipedia articles tidy and in line with policy is just as important a task as keeping them up-to-date. Just because there are other, larger problems elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should ignore problems in this article, not when there are people like myself willing to keep an eye on the article and help maintain it. Wikipedia is written and maintained entirely by volunteers, after all. Note that I never said that we shouldn't include information about the box set going gold and the special plaques Jerry is making for it, I merely said that the main article about the band isn't the most appropriate place for that info and that it would fit much better in the article about the box set itself. In fact, I went out of my way to make sure we could provide it in a way consistent with Wikipedia's policies: by submitting it to a secondary source (punknews.org) for publication so that source could then be cited in the article. Why would I go out of my way to submit the news to online publications if I was on some crusade to suppress the information? I swear, if the Fiends had their way the entire article would just be cribbed straight from misfitscentral.com, have zero references, and be locked for editing by anyone except Fiends. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for cover versions

The "Legacy" section is terrible and entirely unreferenced. Not only that, but over time it has devolved from discussion of the band's impact and influence into more of an un-bulleted list of Misfits cover songs. I suggest splitting off a separate article, List of Misfits covers, for listing released cover versions of Misfits songs. I actually started working on one a while back, but never finished it. See User:IllaZilla/List of Misfits covers ... it needs referencing and some work on the prose to show how the numerous Misfits covers make for notable encyclopedic content, but it's a start. I was also thinking of merging the tables together and making them sortable. Anyway, I think we need to clean up the section and sweep the cover song mentions off to a separate article. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IllaZilla (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its an excellent idea, of course it would be good to leave a note talking about the legacy of Misfits and their impact on the world both with their music and iconic logo. But all those "x band covered x song in x place" is just horrible, I would say YES on the List. --Blodnatt13 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yea, there would definitely still be content left discussing their legacy and influence, but all of the "x band covered y song on z album" stuff would move to the list article, and we'd use a {{See also}} link. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead & done it. The new article is at List of Misfits covers. Any help with it is appreciated. I'll probably add a hidden text to it indicating that it's only for covers that have been officially recorded & released, so none of this "x band sometimes covers y song in concert" or "x band covered y song, it can be heard on z bootleg". I spent some time referencing it and there are only a few entries currently that don't have citations. I also just cut the rest of the "Legacy" section, as it was entirely unreferenced, full of trivial items of questionable relevance, and had some original research issues as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates

WHo keeps moving the updates and why? Whos responsible for this page, its infactual and everytime it gets corrected and updated someone changes it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.72.200 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What exactly is "infactual", and what "updates" are being moved? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Myke Hideous?

I was just wondering why this guy isn't listed as a former member of the band? For that matter, I think it's missing quite a lot of former members... thanks. 71.116.54.86 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

He was only a temporary/fill-in member for 2 tours (over a 3-month period), never an official band member. There is a separate List of Misfits band members that covers him and other temporary members. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that, but wouldn't that still constitute including him on a list on the main page? There are others listed that had just as brief a tenure in the band, for instance. 71.116.54.86 (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: Nevermind, I actually disagree with it myself now. 2 minutes later. 71.116.54.86 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added Myke Hideous to past members as I read an interview with him that states that after hearing of his audition to fill in, Graves quit the band. Myke was then informed that he was the new singer. Even though Graves ended up becoming the singer again, I believe that this was more like him rejoining and not returning. Myke was eventually "fired" upon returning from the tour. This means that during those tours, he was the misfits singer. Not a stand in. This is the interview if anyone wants to read it [36] 75.66.58.195 (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he felt like/got the impression that he was a member. We'd need a secondary source stating that he was. All the sources I've read only mention him filling in for that 1 tour. They never say that he replaced Graves or was meant to be permanent. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
During this interview this interview with jerry only (between the 6 and 8 minute mark somewhere) Jerry states that Graves was given the option to go on the tour or leave the band. It says that michale "decided he didn't want to be part of this band" [37] If Michale was officially not part of the band, and standing in what was once his spot, now stood myke hideous, would that not mean that Myke had taken Michales place as the lad singer of the misfits? As short lived as it was, this time did in fact see Myke as a member.Now that Myke and Jerry have both confirmed Myke's membership, may I add him in peace? 75.66.58.195 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
See, what you are doing is synthesis: taking 2 sources and combining them to make a claim that neither source explicitly supports. If what you want to say is "Graves quit the band and Mike Hydeous replaced him as singer", you need a source that explicitly says that. All we have are sources that say Graves didn't want to tour South America, but the band did, so they got Hydeous to fill in. He clearly wasn't permanent, as he only did that one tour and they went on to do another album and several more tours with Graves. This source explicitly refers to Hydeous as a "touring vocalist". That's why he is listed as a temporary/fill-in member at List of Misfits band members. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I just wanted to point out that there are referenced articles where Jerry Only first claims that Glenn Danzig wrote all the songs. He later goes back on this with his "25-30%" statement. Someone should look into that. Also someone should mention what the book American Hardcore says about guitarist Bobby Steele and how the Misfits felt he didn't present a 'heavy' enough style for the hardcore sound and what statements Jerry Only said about Bobby Steele in regards to why the Misfits fired him in 1980. I believe the book American Hardcore counts as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.209.73 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"There are referenced articles where Jerry Only first claims that Glenn Danzig wrote all the songs. He later goes back on this with his '25-30%' statement. Someone should look into that." — If you know where these articles can be found, could you please provide them? Adding reliable sources is always welcome and would help improve the article. Simply telling us "articles exist" doesn't really help. As for American Hardcore, I have both the book and the film so I'll take a stab at adding material from it. Right now I'm busy with other Wikipedia projects but I'll come back to it. Or if you've got the book, you can add the info yourself and cite it. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
We all know that Danzig wrote all of the songs and Only is nothing but a liar...But we still need the sources to back it up. rzrscm (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Robo

ROBO is in THE BAND I SAW THEM LIVE ON FRIDAY 12-3-2010 IN FT LAUDERADLE FLORIDA OK THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.187.16 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. In the sourced interview Jerry Only clearly states that Robo was fired from the band and replaced by Eric Arce. You are likely confused because Robo and Arce are of similar builds and both have shaved heads. Please do not removed reliably sourced information from the article without discussing it here first, and don't type in all-caps (it comes off as shouting). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, obviously for reasons IllaZilla already stated, "I DONE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES" isn't exactly considered a reliable source. rzrscm (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

African American?

Since when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.101.202 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed That was an act of vandalism. It's been reverted. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Diane DiPiazza to this article

A recent AfD of the Diane DiPiazza article resulted in "merge" here. However, it looks to me as though her short tenure is already sufficiently covered here, so I propose to do a straight redirect. If anyone thinks there is additional material that should be moved, please perform the merger. Or, if I have already done a redirect, please copy the material from the redirect history, and please note the Diane DiPiazza source in your edit summary. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. In fact the only places I've ever seen Diane DiPiazza mentioned in connection with the Misfits are on Wikipedia and on a Misfits fan site. I'd really like to seem some reliable sources verifying her involvement with the group. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychobilly

Shouldn't they also be called progenitors of psychobilly as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.14.171 (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You would need to provide reliable sources to support that claim, but I doubt you would be able to find any. The Misfits and psychobilly originated at about the same time, with the Misfits being mainly an American act while psychobilly developed in England. Just because psychobilly and the Misfits share a common trait of having horror themes does not mean that one was a formative influence on the other (correlation does not imply causation). In fact, early psychobilly acts (The Cramps, The Meteors, Guana Batz, etc.) did not even have much of the horror influence that later psychobilly bands made such use of; early psychobilly was primarily rockabilly revved up to punk tempos. The Misfits definitely had an influence on later-day psychobilly acts (Tiger Army, for example, openly acknowledge the Misfits as an influence), but the Misfits were not "progenitors" of psychobilly (they couldn't be, since they never played in that style at all). It's a common misconception that since the Misfits are the highest-profile "horror punk" act, and since psychobilly combines rockabilly with punk rock and horror imagery, that the Misfits were somehow tied in to the origins of psychobilly. However, the history and the sources do not bear this out. The two developed around the same time, but had little if anything to do with each other. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
i agree that the misfits weren't progenitors of psychobilly. they were kind of a convergent evolution.... you know how a dolphin and a fish look the same but neither descended from the other? i mean "american nightmare" pretty much IS a psychobilly song, but it's only a coincidence, it has nothing to do with the development of those bands. still, it is NOT true that the cramps and meteors did not have a horror/sci-fi influence. that stuff was HUGE to both bands imagery, which both bands always acknowledged. so the misfits did share a lot in common with those lot... and yet were purely punk (the original horror punks, natch). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.205.127 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

not only should "psychobilly" not be added to genre, but "horror punk", "hardcore punk", and "metal" (!!) need to be deleted as well, and "punk rock" be the only genre. hardcore isn't that bad of a description, they did exist in that milieu for walk among us and, especially, earth ad, but it's redundant for a true original punk band that merely evolved slightly during its lifespan. "metal" is a retarded description, i don't care if some misinformed source has used it. calling the 'fits "horror punk" is literally like calling black sabbath "doom metal", or the ramones "ramonescore". there was no "horror punk" in the misfits' life time, no one called them that (maybe as description, but not in the sense of implicating that it was a genre they belonged to). that's a posthumous genre composed of bands that are misfits copy cats. not hating, i like the genre, but a spade is a spade.

Early Members

What's the consensus on including Jimmy Battle and Diane DiPiazza in the timelines and referenced as members? It seems like like they weren't actually official members, they just rehearsed some music with Glenn, but realized they couldn't commit to the band. Whenever the Misfits refer to early members, they always mention Jerry Only as the "only other original member" and Franche Coma as "the first guitarist." This was mentioned in the linear notes to Bullet, Walk Among Us, and on the old Misfits site, to name a few sources. While those two musicians should be mentioned in the bio as taking part in rehearsals with Glenn, I do not believe they were considered official members. -Disco dude rock (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Separate Timelines?

Think it'd be easier on the eyes if two separate timelines were made? One for the band's original run, and then an ongoing one for the 1995 revival. It looks kind of odd with such a large blank gap in the middle. -Disco dude rock (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite intro

The first paragraph ends with this sentence:

Danzig and Only were the only consistent members throughout the next six years, one of there albums also had a skeleton which cliff burton got a tattoo,which they released several EPs and singles, and with Only's brother Doyle as guitarist, the albums Walk Among Us (1982) and Earth A.D./Wolfs Blood (1983), both considered touchstones of the early-1980s hardcore punk movement.[1]

The syntax is horrible and it makes it unreadable. It stopped me from going any further. Anyone who cares about this article should fix this IMO. --I am axx (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Misfits". Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misfits_(band)/Archive_1&oldid=1161490426"