Jump to content

Talk:Switchfoot/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Archive created 15 January 2007

Template

I got a template made, everybody. Make any changes you think necessary. --Akrabbim 17:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the Relient K page I wasn't thinking about doing this myself, good job --T-rex 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Also a side effect of the template that people might not be aware of but this page can be used to monitor all switchfoot related changes --T-rex 20:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Evergreen

Where would it be appropriate to mention this song as it has yet to appear on any of their own cd's --T-rex 06:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. If it is a Switchfoot song then I see no reason why not, even if not on a CD. Andrewduffell 09:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The issue is more on where to put it. Except for their radio singles no songs are mentioned in the main artical, but thats ok because every song is listed on the cd's. However Evergreen has only been realesed on a compilation cd (by Tooth and Nail records I believe) and lacks an obvious spot to list it --T-rex 03:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Influences

What do you guys think about incorporating the band's influences somewhere in the article? I can provide the information and sources, but I just wanna know what you guys think of the idea.. and, would "Band History" be the right section to add this bit of info? -Phil

I think we would add a new section. Perhaps we could include the whole "Not Christian by genre" paragraph, because I don't think that fits in band history either. Akrabbim 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I set up these sections when I reorganized the article about 2 months ago. The reason I threw it into band history is that I didn't fell that a single paragraph deserves its own section and it didn't fit anywhere else either. I guess you could call God a musical influence(?) and combine the sections and put it between Nothing is sound and other projects? as for now you may as well at least post your references on the talk page phil... --T-rex 20:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm busy with exams right now, but I plan to write up a "bio" section that would include their influences as well as relevant info about the guys. I think it would be a good idea to move the whole "Switchfoot is often referred to as being a Christian band..." paragraph to the proposed "bio" section, what say ye? Btw, I fine-tuned that 'Christian band' para...read it as if it were already in the "bio" section, since it tends to side-track from "Band history" as a topic. -phil
Since "Band history" and "bio" are kinda synonymous, I decided to add two sub-sections under "Band history" to deal with the Christian band thing and their influences...they both kinda relate to the band's history, yet are somewhat on a different tangent, so I guess this would be a good way to go about it. Let me know what you think. -phil
Yes, but Switchfoot is a Christian band. They directly address God through there lyrics. They never said they aren't a Christian band, they just believe that there shouldn't be a genre for any Christian music. -Logan
please read Talk:Switchfoot/Archive 1#Explanation_for_why_Switchfoot_is_not_a_Christian_band --T-rex 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Other contributions

Under "Discography" we could do with a sub-category listing Switchfoot's contributions to other compilation albums like the "Happy Christmas" series. Feel free to get started if you have any info ready. -phil

but there is no other song listing on the page so this would cause "throwing chairs" to be mentioned but not like "learning to breathe" well anyways here is a list:
  • Evergreen -- on some happy christmas album by tooth and nail
  • Old Borneo -- christmas album for some San Diago radio station
  • Monday Comes Around -- b side of a vinel -- also got played in concet alot before it was cut from TBL
  • Throwing Chairs -- recorded for the "neverending while lights" project, but cut from the album, may be included in a sequal
  • We're Awakening -- written like a month ago, currently being played on tour and supposvly will be on the next album
--T-rex 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if anybody knows what they were on, you could use the format like the one used on Relient K's page. --Akrabbim 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
added some details, although you'll find them kindof fuzzy, I'll look at the Relient K page --T-rex 15:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure how these should be mentioned, they are not extremlly important, yet I feel that they should be mentioned somewhere, and I do like that cool little box on the bottom of the Relient K page. Is there support for a Switchfoot template? --T-rex 15:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should include "Throwing Chairs" and "We're Awakening", because they'd make a "song listing" type thing necessary. We should limit it to songs that have been studio-recorded for a specific purpose/album, so then we can include them under "Discography" (where "Throwing Chairs" wouldn't fit but "Evergreen" would.) See what I mean? .phil. 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well just include the two christmas songs then? --T-rex 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
We could also include:
  • "Monday Comes Around", since they did put it out as a B-side
  • "Spirit" (featured on "X Worship 2006" and "Listen:Louder")
  • "Sooner or Later" which was re-made for the Elektra soundtrack.
  • "Good Night Punk" which was a bonus demo exclusive to the Nothing Is Sound CDs sold in Target stores.
--.phil. 07:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Meant to Live was on that UK spiderman soundtrack as well, although if we are doing soundtracks we definetlly need to include "a walk to remember" again. They should just put all of this on an album and make this easier on us --T-rex 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of including soundtracks that featured a song exactly as it was on SF's album though we could maybe include those too ("Sooner or Later" is re-done, not the same as the album version). Anyway, there's a comprehensive list here that will be useful. There's also a neat fansite list there, that we could take cues from, and maybe update the wikipedia list of external links. --.phil. 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Honestlly, I'm stuck, I wish I had a suggestion, but I just don't. I don't think adding fansites is really a good idea though...
Still don't know what to do with it, but there is a very comprehensive list here --T-rex 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you a boardie, T-rex? --.phil. 19:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
To some extent, they actually a large group there, you should check it out--T-rex 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This conversations seems to have died, but also think there should be some mention of what I refer to as their "unreleased" songs,(although not unreleased so much as not on any Switchfoot albums.)

  • "Daylight to Break"
  • "Revenge"
  • "Monday Comes Around"
  • "Evergreen"
  • "Old Borego"
  • "Spirit"
  • "Goodnight Punk"
--DrumStickHolder 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Awards

I have moved this of the main page to here because it makes no sense to list every San Diago award, and barley mention the doves or grammys

  • 1997 -- ASCAP award for "Best New Artist" at the San Diego Music Awards
  • 2001 -- Jon Foreman awarded the "Les Paul Horizon Award" at the annual Orville H. Gibson Guitar Awards in Los Angeles
  • 2001 -- "Best Pop Artist" at the San Diego Music Awards
  • 2002 -- "Best Adult Alternative Artist" at the San Diego Music Awards
  • 2002 -- "Best Pop Artist" at the San Diego Music Awards
  • 2002 -- "Best Pop Album" at the San Diego Music Awards -- Learning to Breathe
  • 2003 -- "Best Pop Album" at the San Diego Music Awards -- The Beautiful Letdown
  • 2003 -- "Album of the Year" at the San Diego Music Awards -- The Beautiful Letdown
  • 2004 -- "Song of the Year" at the San Diego Music Awards -- Dare You To Move

Switchfoot also had a 2001 Grammy nomination for Learning to Breathe, 3 Dove Awards in 2004, 4 Dove Awards in 2005, and 5 Dove Award nominations in 2006, besides a slew of nominations for the San Diego Music Awards.

You're right t-rex, the reason I didn't compute the Dove Award list is because I haven't yet been able to get a comprehensive list of the Dove awards. I've conclusively found what they won in 2004 and 2005, but not the previous years... so I didn't wanna include Dove Awards to the list until I had em all nailed down. I had my doubts too about the relevance of so many SanDiego music awards, but I put em on there anyway primarily to get started, to give you guys an idea of what an 'Awards' section could look like. As for the grammys, I've now found it was "Learning to Breathe" nominated under "Best Rock Gospel Album" category. So once I nail the Dove Award pre-2004 list, we can have the 'awards' section back on the main page? What if I don't, shall we list just the post-2004 awards (3 in 2004, 4 in 2005)? The Grammys might have to stay in the bottom-note, because its only a nomination. I think we should limit awards *won* to the awards list.. and relevant nominations can be mentioned in the note at the end of the list. -phil
I don't know, it's kindof long. Maybe just mention that they had like 8 doves 9 sandiago awards and a grammy nomination, and move the details to the album/single pages? I'm not saying that it doesn't blong here, but they've won alot, so I don't know --T-rex 17:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
An annon has added a list of all of Switchfoot's dove awards to the article (although omiting the one they got like last week), should we just added the above awards back in (and subsection them), or take everything out. I'm for including them all, but would like some more opinions on the matter --T-rex 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC) -- Temporarally going to include --T-rex 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Switchfoot and Christian music section

I have been moving this section up and out of the Influences section for a while. T-rex keeps moving it back down under it. However, the section doesn't talk about how Christian music influcced them. It talks about how they are considered part of the Christian rock and greater Contemporary Christian music industry. It should not be a sub-section of Influences. --Walter Görlitz 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how this is not considered an influence? (also note that this section has been a subsection of influences as long as it has been a section, and no, not by my edits either) --T-rex 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Members

Okay, I was thinking that the members section should be moved before band history, but then I saw that they're mentioned in the intro section and the infobox. I don't think the section belongs toward the end of the article, and on second thought, is it even a necessary secion if it is mentioned two other times, for redundancy's sake? If not, we just need to incorporate their instruments in the right place. —Akrabbim 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the section is usefull for the clear instrument refrences, but you're right it dosn't look right either. The insturments arn't going to fit into the infobox without looking even worse, but if you can find a better way to work it in then by all means do it. --T-rex 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

X Worship 2006

One may want to add to this article the fact that this band has a song on this compilation cd. -EdGl 01:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we have disscused it above, but havn't found a good way to include it yet (although it appears as if it was relesed on the "Listen louder" cd first, so it would probably be mentioned there instead) --T-rex 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. -EdGl 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Lately I've been seeing trivia entries that aren't so relevant. The latest one seems to be a advertising ploy from CrimsonLight. I don't feel the following are relevant or interesting enough to be on the article. The first one, because pretty much every artist has one song that has mutiple versions, and 3 is not a surprising number. If it were 4, it would make for interesting trivia. Besides, the DYTM version on the Japanese version, I think, was an acoustic recording- so it doesn't really count.

-.phil. 06:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Switchfoot's first online chat was on CrimsonLight.com ans Switchfoot themselves was excited to be there. This was also planned and promoted heavily by Sparrow Records. Switchfoot has made a lot of headway for the music industry in terms of online music swapping, chats, and in a few other areas. So, as a CrimsonLight.com and Switchfoot fan, as well as a Wiki user, you are keeping great trivia from users. I request that it be reinstated as an area that Switchfoot has focused on greater access for their fans.
-SwitchfootFan
I argee that the trivia section is getting a bit bloated, I've never heard of CrimsonLight.com so I can't really say, at this time, if that particular bit of triva is noteworthy or not --T-rex 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that something as big as their first chat when they are instrumental in various growth between music and the internet makes this important. Switchfoot is a band that pioneers, thus making it important. Also CrimsonLight.com was important enough for Switchfoot to launch their internet endeavors on the site. Interesting trivia to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crimsonl (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 June 2006.
well looking at the dates it wasn't Switchfoots first presence online as switchfoot.com has been registered to a Tim Foreman at least back to 1999
--T-rex 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Who cares when they registered their domain name. We are talking about internet history and how Switchfoot has changed how many musicians feel about the internet. crimsonl
Well if that's your point then it deffiantlly doesn't deserve to be on this page, Switchfoot hasn't done much spectacular in terms of the internet at all, they are better with it then most bands, but I don't see how it matters, doing an interview is not a big thing for bands --T-rex 20:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree that these items are really not suitable for the Trivia section. I'd also like to questions whether Crimsonl is coming from a NPOV in this discussion? With a name like Crimsonl I assume you are somehow connected to the site.
Andrew Duffell 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am definately a bigger fan of Switchfoot and www.CrimsonLight.com than I am of Wiki. Your trivia on Switchfoot stinks. We don't care how much they charge. To the normal internet user that does not matter. So, I am taking that off. crimsonl

hey hey hey, calm down please. how much they charge is more important than where they had their first online chat. we're switchfoot fans too, more than wiki fans. the fact that switchfoot charges less than the typical rate says a lot (good stuff) about the band. and please sign your comments and edits if you want to build credibility here. Do this by typing two dashes, and four tildes, with no spaces.

-.phil. 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this here, because I think the information is a bit too personal, what with links to church websites/addresses. Hint: obsessive fans, prejudiced journalists. I'm sure the guys wont appreciate this bit of info being on the internet's most popular encylopedia. So, I hope we can agree to respect them & their families' right to privacy, while trying to keep the trivia section fun.

-.phil. 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually yhey are very proud and open about where they come from. They love to talk about their parents. How much they charge is definately a worthless piece of trivia. -crimsonl

i'm sure they are proud of it and open about it to their friends and even their close ring of fans, but having that stuff on a public domain is a different matter altogether. i've read a million interviews of theirs...give me an instance where they talk about their parents to the media. -.phil. 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some Trivia entries are not relevant. I think we need to compeltely redo it. Tfe fact of what Switchfoot charges is nonsense. Nobody really cares at this point. We are reaching people interested in Switchfoot not concert planners. :-.crimsonl.

maybe people interested in switchfoot would like to know that they're not greedy people? that is why its on there, not for concert planners. -.phil. 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Album 6

I just wanted to let you all know that I have started a brief article outside of the main article namespace for switchfoot's upcomming album. Meant to be unofficial, but to help us out later --T-rex 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but...

The WikiPedia article on Christian rock states the following: "Christian rock is a form of rock music played by bands where the musicians are openly Christian. The extent to which their lyrics are explicitly Christian varies between bands."

It seems to me from reading over the earlier debate that the definition of "Christian rock" depended on the openness of the lyrics, in which case, yes, the categorisation would be debatable. However, under the definition used in the WP article, Switchfoot would be a Christian band. Which article is in error: Switchfoot or Christian rock? --3M163, Complete Geek 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is one very poor dead horse. The problem is that the Christian music industry likes to claim many bands that arn't part Christian bands, and say they are. Besides Switchfoot some other examples would be Anberlin, Mute Math, U2, Creed, and Evenessecne. All of these bands have specifically said that they don't consider themselves to be christian bands, yet many christians want them to be so they are anyways.
So in reality neither article is wrong. People who listen to Christian rock include switchfoot and the above bands as Christian rock, but those who don't listen to christian rock don't see switchfoot and the other mentioned bands as being christian rock. So for the intrest of the article we have decided to take the band's stance on the issue (read the archive to see how dead this horse really is...). For more on switchfoot's stance on the issue see if you can read a copy of the switchfoot article in CCM magaize this summer where Jon irronically went out of his way to disown the CCM industry. --T-rex 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. I actually don't like the definition of "Christian rock" as a genre, as it has nothing to do with musical style, and the classification is rather subjective... I think even Delirious? (my favourite band, incidentally) have tried to shift focus off their "Christian" aspect, although most CCM fans have never heard of their more "secular" albums.
By the way, why most Christian artists on WP classified as "Christian rock" in the introductory sentence? All that means (in the popular eye) is that the lyrics talk about a particular subject; why not move that down a couple of paragraphs to its own heading? "Lyrical style", maybe...
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud; thanks for the prompt reply! --3M163//Complete Geek 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Delirious? had a bit of an odd way of going about it, that really doesn't work for the whole "not a christian band thing", but thats just my opinion --T-rex 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about having a "Lyrical style" heading rather than classifying these bands as "Christian rock" in the introductory line. It would've been a good idea, but the problem is, no other lyrical style boasts of an industry of its own. Artists like Sufjan Stevens and U2 who sing about their faith more openly than a lot of CCM industry artists aren't introduced as Christian artists (though their faith may be mentioned later in the article), because they don't belong to this industry (fortunately, in my opinion.) I agree with you, in an ideal world, it shouldn't be this way, bands shouldn't be introduced by their faith rather than by their music, in fact I don't even see the need for a Christian music industry to exist. A detached Christian subculture, in my opinion, isn't something that falls in line with Christ's teachings, but thats a whole 'nother debate. -.phil. 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Á
I don't see it as a dead horse, but you must get tired of people bringing up the relationship of Switchfoot to Christian music. Too bad you can't accept it as fact and want to make less of the band's involvement in it. --Walter Görlitz 07:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not like we deny the relationship - if we did, we wouldn't devote a whole section to it. -.phil. 06:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've linked switchfoot's newer album to their pages in a sligtly different style, to avoid the need to scroll to the bottom to click to them, however I would like to get some feedback, as to if everyone else thinks that this approach is a good idea --T-rex 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well no feed back, but as it's been almost 2 months now I gues you all like the layout --T-rex 07:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone against adding a link to the lyrics of Switchfoot's music? I have a couple sources which I think are pretty much as close as we can get to the authentic source of their lyrics. (Jdingman 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

um, we already have a link for lyrics, see Lyrics and song stories --T-rex 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
oops, missed that, thanks rex! (Jdingman 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Switchfoot/Archive_2&oldid=922011682"