Talk:Mono (UK band)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Now there is an article of mono band

Call for missing print sources

I am currently looking for the following magazine articles relevant to this article. Any information on locating these would be greatly appreciated.

Toliver, Chris (March 1998), "Mono Knows the Way to San Jose", CMJ New Music Monthly, no. 55, pp. 20–21, ISSN 0007-2353{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
~~Rule, Greg (May 1998), "Plug-In: Five Questions with...Martin Virgo of Mono", Keyboard, vol. 24, no. 5, p. 14, ISSN 0730-0158{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)~~
Thackray, Jerry (June 1998), "The Big Picture: Mono", Vox, no. 92, p. 21, ISSN 0960-300X{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Harris, Keith (June 1998), "Low Profile: Mono: One-Track Minds", Alternative Press, vol. 12, no. 119, p. 26, ISSN 0011-6798{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Details, June 1998
NME album review, October 1997
Rolling Stone album review, no. 738, April 2, 1998, pg. 74
Stereoplay (Germany) album review, no. 10, October 1997, pg. 157
bc Magazine (Hong Kong), November 1997
Request magazine, April 1998
University Reporter Washington, May 1998
Melody Maker, singles review section, vol. 73, no. ??, November 16, 1996, pg. 46

Thanks, –Unint 05:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Keyboard interview in a database called IIMP my university subscribes to. I think others should be available through such databases. Would it be easier to copy the articles I find to a talk subpage? Cool Hand Luke 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reply. What do you think of the progress here so far?

I'm using IIMP myself right now, and the top four are the ones that I found through such databases; however, my university doesn't seem to subscribe to databases that actually carry these magazines. For instance, ProQuest only has issues of Keyboard starting from July 1998 — almost there. But you say you can access the full text as well?

Not sure about posting copyrighted material directly into the site; probably best done off-Wiki. I think one of the WikiProjects coordinates these things through email. –Unint 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just realized that copyright problem. Silly me. You don't take email?

I think subscriptions difer depending on the institution. Actually, I'm sure of that because I remember the libraries in Salt Lake County gave me the two local dailies back to the 1980's, but I'm forced to rely on LexisNexis' post-1996 coverage here because they only have text for the last five years here.

Anyhow, I looked into all of them now, and the Keyboard Q&A seems to be the only one I have. We have Rolling Stone in more than one database, but there seems to be an issue/month mismatch. #738 would be in 1996. Also the publication is biweekly, so "April" is ambiguous, but it doesn't seem to be any of those issues. It seems that the only reference to Mono at all is "Great Expectations: The Album", Roling Stone, James Hunter, 02/05/98 Issue 779, p58, 1/4p. Brief review on the soundtrack—I have the full test on it too, but Mono is only mentioned for one sentence. (The song is reportedly a "too-easy rewrite of a late Abba tune ('Life in Mono')".) Or is there a seperate publication called Rolling Stone Review? I assume you have the material from Billboard? Cool Hand Luke 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to configure my account for email. Done now.

Rolling Stone situation is very strange: I forgot to copy down the date (April 2), but the database still stands by that information. Also, maybe I shouldn't have stuck that "review" at the end as it does say just Rolling Stone. I think I will check our library's microfilm or bound copies when I get the chance.

Billboard: I have archived text of the album review from the Internet Archive (vol. 110, #9), and two brief articles (I've used both for citations at Life in Mono (song)). That's all I know of.

Thanks, –Unint 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the April 2 issue is 783, so I bet they just transposed the numbers. I still don't find the review, but it doesn't show any articles for p.74, so perhaps it just never found its way into ebsco. Emailing you the Keyboard article. You've done a great job here. Oh, and Billboard. In addition to "Mercury's Mono evades pop stereotypes with 'Blues'" and "The modern age" we have:

"Singles: New & noteworthy", Larry Flick, 11/08/97, Vol. 109 Issue 45, p76, 1/6p—reviews of three bands, including short initial coverage of Life in Mono.
"Dance music moves forward with `Life in Mono'" 11/08/97, Vol. 109 Issue 45, p32, 5/6p—1500-word article that uses Mono as a jumping-off point to write about supposed trends in dance music.
"Atlantic has `great expectations' for set", Paul Verna, 11/22/97, Vol. 109 Issue 47, p13, 3/5p, 2bw—what it sounds like, only partially about Mono, 1000 words.
"Albums: Pop", Paul Verna, 02/28/98, Vol. 110 Issue 9, p70, 1/6p—incl. Formica Blues review, probably what they had on their site.

Let me know if any of this would also be useful. Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; thanks. Also, it turns out I can access the rest of these Billboard articles as well, so no need to trouble you about that.

If that's everything that can be found at the moment, I guess all I can do is wait for something else to turn up. (Random Google searches still seem to locate the most unlikely things.) –Unint 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-do

I have an .flv of the Silicone and Slimcea Girl videos - are those needed for something? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, per consensus here and also precedent set at Talk:The Ghost (Faroese band)#Requested move 28 July 2018 — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mono (UK band) → Mono (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. bd2412 T 01:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a duo of electronic musicians. They play electronic musical instruments. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. WP:BANDDAB says "Use either '(band)' or '(duo)' when the musical ensemble is a duet." It does not deprecate the use of "(band)" in these cases. Dekimasuよ! 02:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the guidance on WP:BANDDAB says "Use either '(band)' or '(duo)' when the musical ensemble is a duet." Maybe we should remove the (duo) option as it adds nothing In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a band makes it more imprecise because there could be 2 to an infinite number of members whereas duo shows there is only 2 members in the group. A band is defined as "a group of instrumentalists playing music of a specialized type". This music group is a duo of electronic musicians who are not instrumentalists (players of a musical instrument). In popular culture, a band is typically a group of 4-5 people who sing, play the guitar, drums, bass, etc. Calling a group of 2 musicians a band is simply inaccurate and improper although literally they could fit the scope. @Chubbles: @Dekimasu: @In ictu oculi: please consider reconsidering. Not only (duo) makes it easier to categorize music groups consisting of 2 members, it also distinguishes electronic music groups from regular music groups. The editor whose username is Z0 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) To this point, I think everyone has been fairly accepting of the fact that you filed 30 individual move requests instead of a multimove. However, please understand that it's annoying to get over 30 page notifications for the same comment–and then getting 30 edit conflicts after you edit the comment with the ping in it. If the issues at hand are the same, please pick one talk page and have the rest of the discussion there.

2) There is nothing inaccurate or improper about calling a band with two members a band. Musical ensemble#Two parts: "Examples of two-member bands are Japandroids, Local H, Pet Shop Boys, Hella, Flight of the Conchords, Death from Above 1979, Francis Xavier, I Set My Friends On Fire, Middle Class Rut, The Pity Party, Little Fish, The White Stripes, Big Business, Two Gallants, Lightning Bolt, The Ting Tings, The Black Box Revelation, Satyricon, The Black Keys, Tenacious D, Simon and Garfunkel, Hall & Oates, Johnossi, The Pack A.D., Air Supply and Royal Blood. When electronic sequencers became widely available in the 1980s, this made it easier for two-member bands to add in musical elements that the two band members were not able to perform. Sequencers allowed bands to pre-program some elements of their performance, such as an electronic drum part and a synth-bass line. Two-member pop music bands such as Soft Cell, Blancmange, Yazoo and Erasure used pre-programmed sequencers." In fact, this shows why it is easier to have two-person bands when electronic music is involved. As Chubbles stated, electronic music is music made using electronic musical instruments. It isn't necessary to require a band to be analog.

3) The proposal referenced a particular naming convention, but the moves do not follow from that naming convention. Dekimasuよ! 08:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reply to Dekimasu: I'm not saying a two-member band is incorrect but it's just less preferred compared to duo. Musical ensemble#Two parts says two-member rock and pop bands are relatively rare and they are mostly rock and pop groups not electronic music duos that are the subjects of these move discussions. Wikipedia's preference is usually the one most commonly used. Bands play musical instruments unlike electronic musicians who use digital audio workstation (DAW) to produce their music. DAW is not a musical instrument but a computer software. As for the naming convention, it did say to use either "(band)" or "(duo)" when the musical ensemble is a duet, as in duo for the duet and band for others. That precisely supports my argument so I'm not sure why you said "the moves do not follow from that naming convention". The editor whose username is Z0 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the discussion for the general issue of whether electronic duos are accurately described as bands seems to be coalescing at Talk:The Ghost (Faroese band). Chubbles (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation#"band" preferred to "duo". Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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