Talk:Richard Cheese/Archive 1

Archive 1

name

His website contains numerous references as "Dick Cheese", obv. a parody name

He is also called Dick in many of his songs. He even makes references to himself as Dick. It maybe a parody (Dick Cheese, he he) or just a nick name.

Dfrg.msc 02:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he often makes/made deliberate use of the sexual connotations of the word "dick" in his recordings and live shows. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

He named himself Richard Cheese so that his nickname would be dick cheese, a reference to the slang term for smegma, which accumulates in the foreskin of the penis.

Bad attribution

The copy of Gin and Juice I've seen attributed to him was a completely different artist doing a very non-lounge (catskills/bluegrass?) version of the song. Does he really have a cover of Gin and Juice?

Rycanada 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He does, though the oft-incorrectly attributed version is by The Gourds.

• iTunes has several versions of the Richard Cheese Gin and Juice recording. --AStanhope 21:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Songs in "Style" List

Am I the only one who thinks that this list has really gotten out of hand? At what point is this going to become a complete list of all of his songs in no particular order? UnhandledException 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. A sample has become a discography. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be done? Should they all be deleted since they just seem to spawn growth? Ideas, anybody? UnhandledException 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there WAS a category that was deleted in June, I didn't see it before (only had Personal Jesus anyway). I think that would have been good. What about we put two sample songs (the first being from the band that the CD title spoofs) under each CD, and then make sure that any extra data gets pushed to the specific CD (like the specific song links, looking at Tuxicity there is only the band name). Example (in Discography section):

• Tuxicity (2002)
  • Chop Suey! by System of a Down
  • Hot for Teacher by Van Halen

— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A ha! Found it, the category was renamed to [[Category:Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs]] (if somebody knows how to link without making this page in the category let me know). So, while fixing the discography, we can go tag those songs also with the proper category. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Put a colon (:) in front of the word Category in the link. UnhandledException 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A complete and accurate track list of released songs and albums is available at richardcheese.com/rtracks.html . The bootleg recordings are kind of irrelevant and unverifiable, in that they don't OFFICIALLY exist as sanctioned recordings, except in the possession of a few individuals. So, I think the bootlegs should not be listed at all; they're not really extant for all. -- RC (yes it's me) 71.102.69.42 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Cleanup

Well, I was bold and did as I had proposed. I also played with AWB and we now have 58 songs in the category instead of 22. Enjoy, bedtime was 2 hours ago... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, even if it does make you sleepy today. I'm really curious to see what is on his Christmas album coming out in a couple of months or so... If I had extra money at the moment, I would have paid the $75 he's charging to put something in the liner notes... UnhandledException 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Glad you liked. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

69.164.190.77 recently vandalised this article. When I viewed its other contributions it seems that it has been vandalising other articles. Can somebody with authority please block him? --Sfrostee (Sfrostee (talk · contribs))

This is not the place to ask. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is a good start, then read the top of the page. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I just changed an deleted

Changed the bold font of his real name to a "red" link and deleted a seriously pointless link; http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/22800

Lounge Against the Machine

Isn't "and Lounge Against the Machine" only included in the band's name on "Tuxicity"? Tim Long 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard frequently uses the name "Lounge Against The Machine" to refer to his band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration? Predecessors?

Is there any record claiming how Cheese supposedly "came up with" this idea? I know, for example, that the New York-based Lounge-O-Leers were working the same gimmick as early as 1997. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Cheese discusses his inspiration at richardcheese.com on the FAQ page.

new wikipedia category

There should be a category for bands that cover songs in a particular style, like Richard Cheese(lounge), Me First and the gimme gimmes(punk), and Hayseed Dixie(bluegrass). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.96.46 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments?

Please do not post defamatory, inaccurate hearsay on this page. This is not a page for gripes and complaints. FACTS are welcome; RUMORS, ACCUSATIONS, and LIES are not.

That said, I truly appreciate the diligence and attention to detail that many Wiki visitors have shown to this page. [comment suggesting user is RC removed by Exploding Boy (talk)] Best, RC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins' noticeboard

I dropped a note here for administrators to review this. rootology (T) 04:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• We've got some real serious WP:RS and WP:BLP issues here. The blogs that are sources are quite marginal if they're acceptable at all, and the incident is being given undue weight in the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, can everyone please stop posting this "Coverville 500" section? It's inaccurate, hearsay, sour grapes, and above all, completely irrelevant. And yes, this is actually Richard Cheese typing this.

Email me at my website lounge@richardcheese.com if you want verification. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.69.42 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard, if it is indeed you, the onus is you to provide verification, which you can do by logging in as Richardcheese2 (if that was you) and emailing Wikipedia, as instructed on your talk page.

Regarding verifiability, it seems to me that reports by a dozen new media types just might make for verifiability. Not sure how BLP would come into play, although I agree that the section was being given undue weight. That's often the case though, with new controversies. Look how the Michael Richards article exploded right after his infamous tirade, and how it's now settled. The point is, when a performer assualts people during a stage act, if that is indeed what happened, it's pretty notable and belongs in their article. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source describing the incident, yes. Our rules for reliable sources are stricter, not weaker, in the case of derogatory information about article subjects (and certainly saying someone spat an audience member is derogatory). With Michael Richards, that also shouldn't have been usable until it moved from blogland into the MSM. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit as RichardCheese2 because that account is evidently blocked. I don't know how to fix that. I am not a Wiki expert, and I simply don't have the time to defend every false accusation that is posted. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? What happened to "the right to face one's accuser"? These anonymous posts full of exaggerations and one-sided accusations are simply abhorrent. And, your use of words like "assault" is completely irresponsible and reckless. You are repeating lies and giving them creedence. I'm sorry, but a dozen "new media types" ranting about something IS NOT VERIFICATION. 12 people doesn't automatically make a fair or impartial jury. These posters are biased, vengeful, and they are trying to paint me as a villain when THEY are the ones who BROKE the law and VIOLATED my rights and the rights of the song copyright holders.

There were hundreds of other people in the audience, and none of them posted complaints. This is all just a big case of sour grapes, a smear campaign orchestrated by a handful of self-righteous law-breaking inconsiderate egomaniacs who are resentful that they were stopped from illegally filming a copyrighted performance.

The REASON why we don't allow our shows to be filmed is because we don't own the synch rights to the songs we perform, so we do not have the right to be filmed performing them. If someone films us doing so, we get held responsible and liable. I told everyone in the audience to stop filming numerous times, and most of them blatantly ignored my pleas. I had to physically stop people from filming our show. Those individuals who continued to violate my rights were irresponsible, disrespectful, and foolish, and they willfully jeopardized MY rights and livelihood.

The people who have been whining and blogging and posting insulting comments and making obscene threats are the people who I busted for filming illegally. They were committing a crime and violating my rights, and because I tried to stop them, I get painted as a monster.

Comparing this to Michael Richards is apples and oranges. I am the victim here, not the lawbreakers who ruined my show.

This is not a "controversy." THERE IS NO STORY HERE. You can't just allow people to go online, exaggerate facts, manufacture lies, stretch the truth, make accusations, and then call it a controversy. Is it a 'controversy' when people are allowed to just make up lies and then demand that they be proven otherwise? The proper word for that is LIBEL.

THIS IS YELLOW JOURNALISM, and anyone with an ethical brain should stand up against this kind of irresponsible posting.

I mean, seriously, this is ridiculous. I have been accused of assault and battery (which didn't happen), I have been accused of breaking someone's camera (which didn't happen), and I have been accused of numerous other absolutely ridiculous and false things. Obviously, one cannot believe everything one reads, but it is irresponsible to allow rumours to be printed as facts. That is why these people need to be stopped from posting these LIES.

I posted several notes begging these people to stop, and begging Wikipedia staffers to step in and fix it. I cannot be expected to defend myself against every crackpot slanderer out there, and I certainly don't have the brains to figure out what a GFDL or a BLP is.

Please just help me out by stopping these posts of hearsay and revenge. I am an innocent victim here, I am just trying to do my work and get by, you know?  :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.69.42 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard -- to verify that User:Richardcheese2 is you-the-performer, send email to mailto:infoen@wikimedia.org from your richardcheese.com email address verifying that. You still will be discouraged from editing the actual article, however. Anyway, the posting here is limited by our requirements for verifiable, reliable sources, and noisemakers on blogs don't rise to that level. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that simple instructions for verification were left on your Richardcheese2 talk page, and on the talk page for your current account.

A few additional points. First, please take it down a few notches. I understand that you're upset about reports of whatever happened, but you'll notice that the section you object to is not currently in the article. Nobody's comparing you to Michael Richards or claiming you assaulted anyone. Second, there are no Wikipedia "staffers." We're all volunteers here, and we all have different opinions. We use talk pages to discuss articles for that reason. Third, GFDL is the Free Documentation License; you can read the text here. BLP refers to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

Finally, if you would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you are welcome to do so anonymously. Otherwise, please provide verification that you are who you say you are, or stop claiming to be Richard Cheese. Your Richardcheese2 talk page is here, with specific instructions on how to provide verification. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I verified, thank you for your time and understanding and patience and support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.69.25 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Musician Additions, Factual Revisions, Tour/Recording Updates, and re-organization

I added some new information to the various sections, including information about our new albums and tour plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Official Updates To Richard Cheese Wikipedia Page

Richard Cheese here. We've revised the page with updated musician names, titles of forthcoming albums, tour schedule for 2011, and record label info.

Thank you for your support.

--RC richardcheese2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Wedding

Richard Cheese's new album is called "Live at the Royal Wedding". His official site, Facebook page, Twitter feed etc present this as a genuine event at Buckingham Palace, when all evidence suggests otherwise (no mention in other media, and just look at the "setlist"... Too Drunk To Fuck? Really?)

I don't know how best to address this in the article, without causing undue embarrassment for the artist. As much as I'd like to phrase it as some kind of "parody" (rather than a lie), I can't cite this because the artist is claiming it as fact. I opted to remove paragraphs speculating as to whether he played or not; once the album is released next week, I'm sure there'll be more evidence to help with clarification.

(My two cents: Appalling behaviour to encourage pre-orders of an album based on a concert which didn't really exist. Poor show, Cheese.)

It's a live album of some sort, with upper class/snobbish reactions to be heard from the audience. If not the Royal Wedding, some related dinner event or something. -- unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.98.71 (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just read these notes from 2011 -- of course the album was a parody. Duh. It was a fictional live performance, the entire recording was created in the studio and the live audience was created using sound effects. My fans didn't think it was real, either; they're not dumb! Richardcheese2 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)