Talk:Taking Back Sunday/Archive 1

Website Link

Looks like Enter Shikari website is having a competition on who can get the most hits on their site with a unique link. The TBS official link was changed to http://www.shikarizone.com/ecard/iamtherealfred. I have changed it back to the official one. - Tobes (who should really make a account) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.94.146 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Taking Back Sunday is not emo or screamo or hardcore or any derivative therein. Do not call them such. If you are confused on these genres, go to their entries.

the real Info By Kirk Sharrow

Well they sure as hell aren't rock (like theri profile states), Their deffinently not punk, sure not metal...What the fuck are they then?

What do u mean they arent rock? a monkey could tell that they were rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tbs is prolly one of the greatest bands ever! and they are not emo.

Taking Back Sunday, upon creating [or having created by their record label?] a page at Pure Volume simply labeled their genre 'rock.' Emocore, Screamo, Emo, and Hardcore are all derivates (or subderivates [screamo, emocore]) of "Rock." Emo (encompassing screamo, emocore, pure emo) is a subset of Punk Rock. Screamo is the far left side of the spectrum, Emo is the far right. An example of a screamo band is Underoath. The majority of the songs are screaming, not singing. An example of an emo band is Dashboard Confessional. The majority of the music is far more melodic and less charged, sometimes acoustic. Emocore is the middle of this -- very charged music, every now and then a scream and a hard riff or whine. *The* example of emocore is Taking Back Sunday. Now if you please, the genre listed at the top of the page is being changed.

Underoath is not an example of a screamo band.low pitched screaming on many of the modern post-hardcore bands isn't 'screamo'.examples of screamo bands would be Saetia and I Hate Myself and chaotic emo like Circle Takes the Square and Indian Summer.Underoath(who i think are good)'s screaming is well,shit,i think.but the band are okay.

Emo isnt a subset of punk, its subset of hardcore and hardcore was a subset of punk. Emo is Emotive Posthardcore, and doesnt stand for "emotional" as alot of people think. Reiver 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay retard, its a subset of a subset of punk. that makes it a subset. and posthardcore is used by some people as another word for emo, cuz they dont want to be put in the sterotype —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBS's myspace and purevolume pages are listed under "Rock" or "Indie". They are not emo, emo isn't just in lyrics. Get your facts straight.

This whole genre topic is completely ridiculous. All of you ar misguided, especially Kirk Sharrow. Please, don't act like some brilliant elitist when you have no idea what you are talking about. How is Taking Back Sunday emo? You never answered that. If emo just meant emotional, then please tell me what band wouldn't be emo? Thus, emo should be avoided when labeling a band because the new use of it is completely different than its original meaning (emotional hardcore). Emocore is a term that was made in the 80s, so just quit talking about that. Screamo is very charged music, not emocore. Reiver, you have the right idea. Sorry, but that Kirk really bugged me by acting all informed when he made no sense. Emo should remain as one of the genres on the sidebar, considering they are often labeled that, but not used in the article unless in the sentence "They are labeled as emo" because to call them emo would only add to the confusion and bastardization of the term. TimeAsImperialism

a band that is not "emo" as you described it would be the bloodhound gang. honestly, theyre rather sketchy.

Apparently, TBS' new Bio on their "new" site says they are melodic hardcore. "Louder Now is the album that bottles the lightning that this powerful, melodic hardcore band generates whenever they hit the stage." 69.124.131.70 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further research on the topic, it doesn't matter what TBS says they are, they may indeed be a emo band. Whether they find this disgracefuly or not is up to them and their fans. But since this is an encyclopedia, well, truth is best. But I did move what the band member said about TBS and emo within the article because it is not a good start it sounds too much like an argument against emo. I would sure as heck love to know what the dictionary term for emo is outside of wiki though. Darthgriz 9 8 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This band is actually emo, no matter what they say. Who cares what they think they are? I may say I'm king of the world, but does that make me king of the world? My mother once said she was making rusks, but what came out of the oven was crumbles. So what the band labels themselves as is out of the question. Also, I have never before heard that "emo" is derived from the word "emotional"... But anyway... --Scotteh 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on every emo band page does someone have to complain about the fact that their favourite band belongs to a controversial genre? They share plenty of similarities with other emo bands - punk basis, pop influence, "emotional" lyrics - and yet noone can accept it. If you say wikipedia can't label bands according to the cliques that follow them, then maybe Alice in Chains, a band not really grunge at all, should have been reclassified by now. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and an exception shouldn't be made in the case of Taking Back Sunday. You can hear what you want, but in my opinion, a) They do sound emo, b)Their fans are emos, and c) You don't want to admit it. And one more thing - stop classifying every indeterminate genre as Alternative rock. Alternative is a specific genre, not just one for those who don't necessarily conform to any particular stream. Arkyopterix 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can whoever is removing Pop Punk from the genre stop, cause I know that they're deeply involved in that genre whether it be past present or future

Why don't you all quite whining about the genre and find some sources! That would actually help the article! ;-P

Seraphim Whipp 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

currently the genre just says alternative. alternative what? altenative on its own dosn't mean anything88.97.6.98 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since emo is apparently a subgenre of hardcore and all that, and no band should have four catagorys, lets just leave it at post-hardcore. Four is excessive and all the edit waring over genre is really starting to make the article look bad. Darthgriz 9 8 03:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A band can have more than one genre. Itachi1452 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I've noticed, that's why another user and myself found citations for their genre to help prevent edit warring.Darth griz⁹⁸ 23:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually....the members of TxBxSx don't like to be called "emo" They consider themselves "alternative"

That's the bottom line

The thing is that even if they say they aren't emo it doesn't mean that they aren't. Finding cited sources that say what genre they are from reputable music authorities is the key. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would they really be considered emo? theyve been labeled emo by other people but has the band ever labeled themselves emo? unless they have i think the genre should be either just post-hardcore or post-harcore and emo(disputed)70.125.40.113 23:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on several current band pages, whether the band labels themselves emo has nothing to do with being emo. They could label themselves country rock, but that does not make them country rock. The current way it is worded - "Taking Back Sunday is an alternative rock band with punk rock/hardcore/emo influences" - is probably about as good of a definition as we will be able to settle on. They are not emo - as in, the genre of music - but they are considered to be part of the emo-subculture, just like every other band at the moment.. 68.219.188.246 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're emo. look, we all know how emo my chemical romance is, yet they label themselves as metal/rock, which is totally ridiculous. they are nowhere near metal, and most fans accept that they aren't, and i think taking back sunday labeling themselves as simply rock or indie is so that they're not being specific, and let the fans argue it out. Itachi1452 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Chemical Romance has never labeled their music as Metal. Ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shy.Emo.Eyes. (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're emo. Well, Number Five With A Bullet was kind of emo and You Know How I Do seems almost-emo but I don't think they should be known as emo just for 2 songs. After all, emo means emotional and I don't think their music too emotional.

emo means wimpy, effeminate and shitty, not emotional. ۝ ۞ ░ 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo sucks ass, and MCR is not emo at all, they're altern rock, as this band should be labeled. Tim Y (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know a lot of you may think that TBS is either emo or not emo and may feel very strongly about it, but we found a cited source that says alternative rock with emo, hardcore, and punk influences. That is why there is a citation after that sentence and why it should remain. Unless you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, do not change it. Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBS on their own myspace has their genre listed as Rock/Rock/Rock. Why keep changing it to specifics such as emocore (which they are not) when rock is so much more fitting and general? Noone would argue that theyre not rock. DevelopmentArrested 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that all genre changes have to have cited sources, which is hard to find. Darth griz⁹⁸ 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Alan Freed would argue that they're not "rock." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.87.183 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taking back sunday is no pop punk! it's just emo! there are no pop punk influenceS!! for you is every emo band pop punk/alternative rock or post-hardcore!! NO TBS IS EMO!

Well the first album, Tell All Your Friends, was definitly a Pop Punk album in its' own rights. But it appears as if Emo is the new Pop Punk.

lol. Tommyhaych 01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not emo. They are Pop-rock. Manupod 04:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo is the best description for them. Genre is an inescapably fluid and contentious concept, however by history, sound and culture, TBS are most certainly emo. For further discussion, see "Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers and Emo," by Andy Greenwald (http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Feels-Good-Punk-Teenagers/dp/0312308639/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-0698324-1174859?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180453695&sr=8-1) [Pub: St MArtin's Griffin], which contains extensive reasoning for placing them within the genre.Faktczecher 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tell me if you think TBS is emo or not or alternative or whatever because it seems that everyone thinks they are definately not emo, but Hoponpop69 disagrees and keeps putting emo back up as the genre when it isnt even a genre at all, its a style of rock. He also refuses to accept the fact that they are alternative rock, let alone rock at all. Tim Y 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to acknowledge or supply sources, which is why emo stays up in the infobox, and why alt rock has a citation needed. Are you new to wikipedia?Hoponpop69 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo should not be the only genre up. There needs to be more. And obviously a lot of other people think the same. Every single genre does not need and shouldn't have a citation. Genres are generally not even sourced in the infobox. Are YOU new to Wikipedia? Tim Y (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emocore? I was always under the impression that a band would have to scream regularly to be considered emocore. I realize that TBS will scream occasionally but not enough to be emocore. I think that this should be changed to just "emo." Razorblade666 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nevermind. What I was referring to has been changed. Razorblade666 16:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo should NOT be listed as one of there Genres. The band have said, like many bands they don't want to be associated with Emo. Its a stupid teenager thing, and calling a band emo is stupid. Just list them as Rock, or Alternative Rock, the hole Emo thing SHOULD just be kept as a subculture, not a genre of music. (86.159.141.158 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

alternative as a genre is worse a more misleading than emo!, at least put there something like "third wave emo", for a lot of people they are EMO, they sound different than a plain alternative rock band, in fact they have heavy influences from 2nd wave emo, they as many of the bands at their time they started to mix it with pop punk and alternative creating this hybrid that IS NOT alternative, I changed it to plain rock, please solve this issues, its proven that a lot of people are not agree with taking back sunday with alternative rock as their only genre201.233.5.203 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing it to Rock and Disputed Sub Genres, rock because one way or another they are a type of rock music, and disputed so we can have a really pointless argument about it/its what your meant to do. (86.159.141.158 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Taking Back Sunday is a good band because no one can actually decide what their genre is. With the ir intricate bass lines, pounding drums, inverted guitar chords with subtle riffs that pull the music together to support an elborate vocal style with not one lead singer, but more of a one and a half lead singers. Taking Back Sunday's genre should be known as, Taking Back Sunday. They attract many people to their music because they are different from every other band out there. Taking Back Sunday should be known as one of, if not the, best band of the era. -Brian Dollard. www.myspace.com/briandollardmusic

I think it should be left as just Rock and Disputed. Emo and Alternative are just stupid because really the band just are not Emo, and there not anything to do with alternative. Yes rolling stone have stated that taking back sunday are emo, but to be honest the idiots at rolling stone call anyone with long hair that play guitar emo, so its not really a good idea to call taking back sunday emo, and emo in many peoples eyes is just a subculture more than a genre of music, and many people now find it the term 'emo' degrading and childish. So it should just be left as rock, which is what taking back sunday describe themselves as on

When will people realise that the genre of a band is never determined by what the band decide to label themselves. What if they turned around and said they are a techno funk metal death rock experimental band. Would we then list their genre as that. Obviously not. The genre, as with everything else must be based on verifiable fact, not the band's opinion of themselves. Go find some sources. Nouse4aname 07:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This band, along with many others, was part of derivative trend that exploded, and is now unfashionable. In an attempt to save their career they're changing what they describe their music as. Every "emo" band has been doing this. Taking Back Sunday are part of a specific trend, and it's very obvious what they should be categorized as. Please don't let Wikipedia be run by fourteen year olds who can't stand the cooler kids picking on them for listening to an "emo" band. It's like saying From First To Last is just alternative or straight rock, just because when you admit you listen to post-hardcore it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Either find a new band to listen to or accept what you are listening to for what it is. Do not try to make the band more fashionable, especially on something as respectable as wikipedia. - J. Riddle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.131.79 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Back Sunday is not emo. They are obviously Pop/Rock (besides Tell All Your Friends which is Pop punk). If you want to know what real emo is go to fourfa.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billydude (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though they deny being emo, and are obviously a rock band, we cannot deny that they have emo roots. They are one of the first bands that popularized and set a foundation for the genre. There is no denying that fact. Are they a rock band? Of course. But, that doen't change the fact that their earlier songs, especially Tell All Your Friends, have emo influences. This is why I believe we should list both rock AND emo under genre.

If Taking Back Sunday aren't emo than there no emo bands. Leopold Stotch (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is made by people. Many people listen tv, radio, and see websites, that says that those bands are emo (the type of music), but they are not, since they are mtv, radio by logic they should know about types of music (since they work with music), people think by that logic and believe in everything that they say. But sometimes they say some wrong things to make trends, to make people think that some old things are knew and some other reasons.. Wikipedia is make by people (many % are those kind of people), so thats the reason that wikipedia has things like, taking back sunday being called emo, electronica articles, nu metal being called (or having discussions about being called) metal, the genre of electronic music Jungle being called Drum and Bass, and some new electronic artists being called electro.Exdeathbr (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie's Child(ren)

"He also has a daughter, Mazarine Moon. His next baby is due on August 28th, 2007." How do people her name is Mazarine Moon and how do they know when the next child will be born? Even doctors can't predict the exact birthdate if it's months away. That's not posted on the TBS main page, it's on Eddie's page. I posted this same comment on that discussion page but haven't yet gotten a reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.101.98 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can't argue something as subjective as Genre. This is the most imbecilic discussion on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.143.113 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Back Sunday off of Victory Records?

I was looking at the Victory Records page (which I happened to create), and noticed that Taking Back Sunday was put under Former Bands. Have they left Victory Records, or is this untrue. Whenever I try to search, all I get is that Taking Back Sunday will no longer appear in any of their music videos. Can someone clarify this? --G VOLTT 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TBS signed to Warner Bros. Records. Reiver 00:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!they took them off of victory recordes ohhhhhhhhhhhhh someones dead

            kalie

New Album

If anyone has a timeline for their new album (that is, when it will be released), that would be a wonderful addition. A quick look through recent news entries / diary entries at the group's website proved to be fruitless.

What if it all means something....

SEE EXPLANATION BELOW

Just a question to put out to you knowledgable folk. I've been listening to TBS since '02, seen them live a few times now. I've always wondered what the origin of the band name actually is, and possibly what it means.... anyone care to shed light on the subject....

p.s. I personally think the labels (emocore, emo) are a bit arbitrary and therefore a bit of a moot point.

edit

Wow, I had googled this numerous times over the years, and actually just found an answer, ironically right after posting:

"Got it from a local band's song title" (Kamino)

If anyone cares to shed more light feel free....

Well Duh... taking back sunday. Sunday was once considered a holy day by the christian faith, shops and businesses weren't allowed to open and no one did anything. it was a family day where no one worked. Theoretically, the origin of the name is that in these modern times where sunday is just another day, we should 'take back' the sanctity that it used to represent.

In reality though, it just sounds cool. I doubt TBS has any intention of reviving sundays holiness... its just to seel records.

It isn't too deep... just if it sounds cool... roll with it. }--jebus989

why arent they on itunes?

it would seem like a band with as large of fanbase as them would be on itunes. any idea why they arent?

The reason that that their first two albums aren't on itunes is that those albums are with victory records, and no victory records albums can get on itunes. Now they're signed with Warner Bros. so louder now is on itunes.

they are on itunes they got them up i just bought a song from them so yea pretty cool

             kalie

What the fuck does kalie mean?!!!!! Please stop posting this crap on here. And if it's meant to be your signature, please use the standard version of signatures: --~~~~. Thanks for your co-operation. --Scotteh 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[gasps] You sweared! :O eleven zero one^{chat / what i've done / email} 15:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Albums

Do any of the first TBS albums listed on wikipedia (Taking Back Sunday EP, Lullaby EP and Taking Back Sunday Demo) actually exist? I can't find anywhere to buy them online.

Well I am pretty sure they destroyed the remaining copies and I am sure because of that people are not willing to sell. But a lot of the tracks actually have improvements on the other albums.

Well the CD's themselves may not exist, but I've downloaded all their songs off of iTunes like sites. This includes all the songs off of TBS EP and all the others.

The band sold these at their live shows a while back. --ARBOCALAVIV (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

their title?

would anyone know by any chance why they named themselves "Taking Back Sunday?"

Check this out - their first ever TV interview, for IMX http://youtube.com/watch?v=9YAjYkGsjEw&mode=related&search=

At the end of the clip (Part I) they are asked why they are called Taking Back Sunday. The band refuse to answer the question, saying it is a secret, but list the top 5 suggested reasons, which may not necessarily be true (and clearly they cannot all be, since 4 and 5 are mutually exclusive):

1. There is a Smiths' B-side with this name (Shaun says this was "a reason" (not *the* reason))

2. Ed watches football on Sundays (seems unlikely this was a deciding factor)

3. There was a rumour that they couldn't play shows on Long Island except for on Sundays (seems unlikely this is the reason since most of the band did not appear to have even heard of the rumour!)

4. They are a militant Christian band who want to "take back Sunday" and make it a holy day

5. They are a militant anti-Christian band, who want to "take back Sunday" from the Christians

If it is considered that this is a relevant piece of information to include, perhaps someone could add a discussion of the band name to the main article? This seems a clearly authoritative source, since it is what the band have said themselves (although clearly they may contradict themselves later, and no-one actually knows the real answer)

Rakie love 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)rakie_love[reply]

Because they wanted to, why does it matter?

Why do you have to go out of your way to be a jerk. It was a good question.

I've guessed that it has something to do with dissociating the sabbath with football but they don't write especially christian lyrics so that theory holds little water Proeliator Sancti 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think that they think their god and there day is sunday and they want it to be about them or they just think it is cool ??? your guees is as good as mine but hey does any one know about touring kalie

i read somewhere that it's a line from a song somewhere, and they liked how it sounded

I think they took it from a band on Long Island called The Waiting Process who wrote a song called Taking Back Sunday. It is funny how they do not give anyone credit for it.

Pretty sure I saw them say that exactly in an interview (on youtube), actually. Anyway, its kind of cliche to ask what a band's name stands for. 68.219.188.246 05:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse lacey, who was one of the band's founding members, was a huge fan of the Smiths. "taking back sunday" was a b-side of the Smith's. There's your answer. Pwned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.155.80 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent pic

Can someone get a recent pic of them up?

There's an interview on youtube where they say their name comes from a song title by a local band that they liked. Something to do with sunday being the day when they went to check out other bands.

Discussion page

Could the discussion page stay about the wiki page and NOT the band? Thanks arn't we soposed to discuss the band isn't the bage about the band???????????? kalie

Headline text

Maybe write some thing about "There Is No I in Team","Seventy Times Seven", and "Mix Tape"? (tip. read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_New)

Yes, I agree with this, I've heard about this, and it would be fun to read about! --ARBOCALAVIV (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Nolan

Why did John Nolan leave TBS? I know he wanted to start Straylight Run, but was TBS boring for him or what? WereWolf 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     He left TBS because Adam was dating his sister and cheated on her. This left the band divided.

Rock Rock Rock

Does anyone know where the rock rock rock quote comes from?

if you are talking about the genre and the band says their genre is rock/rock/rock, it is on their myspace Jds10912 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someones head

       kalie

darnit, just please stop signing your posts like that, kalie. Itachi1452 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Signatures Links->Transclusion of Templates Tvaiello (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites

I can see that some of the fansites were removed, but not everything that is not official has not been removed. Why is this? Is there that much difference between a forum(which was removed)and an MSN community so that one can stay but the other cannot? And if the posting of links to these sites is considered spam (and that was the reason for deletion), why was the lyric page for TBS not removed? That is in no way official and yet it remains. Someone please clear this up. Jds10912 19:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i checked out the non-official site currently linked from the page, and i think it is genuinely useful and informative for any TBS fans, so i would argue it could perhaps stay? Is there a rule that only official pages may be linked? Rakie love 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for No I in Team feat. Jesse

here is a video of Jesse playing with TBS on the song There's No I in Team http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-518952726051656927 Jds10912 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and the Smiths

I think the "trivia" section needs to be removed or reworked. those are both OBVIOUS Smiths references, owing to the fact that John Nolan and Jesse Lacey are/were close friends, and Lacey is a self-proclaimed huge Smiths fan. I see no need for speculation that these are Smiths references. Evan Reyes 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i also read an interview where Nolan said specifically that the name came from a Smiths BSide; if anyone does not believe me i can find it for you Jds10912 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see band name section above, i linked a youtube video where they state this

POV?

I have removed the following sentence,

A lot of their original fan base they had from pre "where you want to be" have seen them as the downfall to everything they once stood for.

firstly because it doesn't make any sense, and secondly because if it means what I think it does (i.e. that Taking Back Sunday have alienated a large proportion of their earlier fans with the directon their new record has taken) then it is an unsubstantiated POV comment thinly disguised by adding 'A lot of their fans' at the beginning. If their was something in the article about this, e.g., "magazine X saw Where You Want To Be as a more mainstream effort, stating 'blah blah' ..." then it would be a perfectly fair comment. SilhouetteSaloon 23:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

emoness

Template

I created a template and added it to all of the articles. What do you think? =] --Die Hard 2k5 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information gone

why delete so much good information? i changed it back to how it was. If there are any disputes, say them here.

Am I the only one who noticed?

Am I the only one who has noticed that the page has been vandalized. Down at the bottom some moron decided to change the titles of everything to mention "How gay they are"

Like 'Twenty-Twenty Surgeon on My Small Penis' or some crap that was written there.

Singles?

Where is the list of singles?--Martin925 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred\John:Backing Vocals?

I think they should be put as co vocals or co lead vocals because their contribution vocal wise is more than someon like Mike Dirnt or John Frusciante or Pete Wentz. What do you think?Howl5 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, on some levels. Since the line-up change their dual vocal arrangement has slowly disappeared. John's contribution to Tell All Your Friends should definitely be noted as co-lead vocals. Where You Want To Be saw a slight dip in Fred's vocal duties as opposed to John's though is still classified, as some, to be co-lead. Listening to Louder Now, their is a significant change in the "duelling vocals" that TBS became famous for, Fred has certainly been demoted to a back-up vocalist with most of his lines being a mere echo of Adam's.

Renée

I was watching Steven's untitled rock show last night and Matt said that was dating Renée Zellweger is that true, or was he joking?--Kingforaday1620 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha he was joking! Silly Matt...

Tell All Your Friends

Just wondering if anyone agrees that there should be more info on the Tell All Your Friends era? Taking into consideration the impact it had on the "third wave emo" genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.243.159.47 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, that was a really important album..Hairsprayqueen 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred

Why was his page deleted?!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.101.98 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Louder Now.jpg

Image:Louder Now.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 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 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....

I think this page needs to be semi-protected cause someone wrote " TAKING BACK SUNDAY IS A FAG BAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", "TAKING BACK SUNDAY RAPES DOGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", "TAKING BACK SUNDAY IS FUCKING GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Stuff like that. But if we protect this page, it probably won't happen again.

(not to mention they changed the album names "tell all your friends" to "tell all your emo friends" and "louder now" to "crying now". that is so annoying...)

A bit funny... but yes, definately, we don't want that happening again.

Fred Left

According to their myspace bulletin Fred left the badn to pursue his solo career, thus he should probably be taken off the current members list. -72.84.249.13 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMO

they are emo becuase they sound like an emo band, they dress like emos, their fans are emo, and they sing about getting dumped and slitting themselves in a emoy fashion. what more could they possibly do before everyone just admits the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.196.205 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about pop-punk. Who the hell doesn't sing about relationships anyways? Emo has its' own set of musical styles, such as timings and playings styles. TBS is not emo, Emo is just the new term for Pop-punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.96.228 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know the right definition of emo. Emo was a style of music in the 90's. See Sunny Day Real Estate, early Jimmy Eat World, Mineral if you want to rant about emo. Now it's being used by the media to describe the kids you see wearing MCR shirts because people seem to think that emo means emotional. No, it means emotional hardcore. Oh and this band are not emo, they are yet another band that have been wrongly given this tag. 12:28, 6. april 2008 (UTC)

Emo died in 2000 sorry guys. Emo kids dont even listen to emo music., Cap'n Jazz. Sunny Day Real Estate. Heroine. All emo. Alesana. Atreyu. Circa Survive. Tbs. My Chem. NOT emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.150.43 (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Freeman

Where is the rumor of him joining TBS coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.41.201 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know that too. I can't find a source that can verify it. Should it even be there if it's mere speculation? Geriatric.cheeseman 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band logo in infobox

I have recently had many of the band logos I have uploaded removed from pages by IllaZilla, without consensus and with flawed logic, at least from my point of view. On this basis I believe they should not be removed until a consensus is agreed upon. Ase nine ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IllaZilla definitely should have discussed this first before removing all these images from several bands' articles. The images are, however, non-free and are subject to the fair-use criteria. I'm not one to interpret that though, so the logos should stay until a consensus is reached. Tim meh ! 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes the discussion is ongoing, and you are invited to participate in it at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos, however I think you will find the consensus is pretty clear: Logos don't belong in the name field of the infobox. The name should be in plain text. This is consistent with the purpose of the infobox and with WP:ACCESS, as users with slow connections or images disabled will be unable to read the name. If the logo is notable, then it should be in the body of the article next to a discussion of its significance: Who created it? What does it symbolize? In what context is it used? This is too much discussion to cram into the infobox, and since logos are copyrighted and may only be used once per article, the appropriate place for them is in the article body. Without any discussion then the image is clearly only serving a decorative purpose and thus fails Wikipedia's criteria for non-free images and fair use.

2) I notice you've tried to meet the issue halfway by placing both the name in plain text and the logo underneath. This is less objectionable, but still not acceptable. The infobox does not have a field for logos, and for a reason: it has a field for a free image of the artist. This, combined with the artist's name in plain text, provides identification of the artist, and in the best possible way: Free. A logo does not accomplish this, and since you already have the photo and the name the logo is again serving a strictly decorative purpose, thus failing fair use.

3) To address the specific images you seem to be stuck on, namely Taking Back Sunday, Saosin, +44, and My Chemical Romance: none of these are in fact logos, they are just the stylization of the band's name pulled of their most recent album. You seem to have some confusion as to what a logo actually is: it's an ideogram, symbol, emblem, icon, sign, and/or typeface used consistently over time and across various media to identify something, in this case a band. None of the images you are using have been used consistently enough to be called a proper logo. Take your My Chemical Romance image: It's the stylization of the band's name from the cover of The Black Parade, and thus also appears on the merchandise (shirts, stickers, etc.) associated with that album. But it's not the same as the stylization used on I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, or the merchandise associated with those albums. When the band releases a new album, chances are the name will be stylized differently. Thus this particular stylization is not used consistently enough to be called a logo. What makes it more of an "official" logo than this? I'd say nothing except the fact that it's more recent, which doesn't carry much weight. Not every band has a logo. Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, KISS, and Rocket from the Crypt are examples of bands that had logos: symbols and/or lettering that was used consistently across most of their careers and almost all of their albums and merchandise. The bands whose "logos" you are defending don't in fact have logos at all.

To conclude, since we are debating about copyrighted images that fall under fair use criteria, the onus is on you to provide some rationale for including them, not on me to rationalize removing them. And unless you can come up with a valid rationale (ie. something better than "logos look cool") they're going to stay out. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on what basis do you assume that you have the final say? You're not the definitive voice of reason. I now can understand where you are coming from and will stick only to logos that are frequently recurring - but I find it highly insensitive and unprofessional for you to simply assume that by having a long 'conclusion' you have ended the argument, like you suggest in your remark "they're going to stay out". Ase nine ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply meant "to conclude my comments" since it was a very long comment. And by "they're going to stay out" I meant that because consensus on this issue is very heavily weighted towards not having logos in the infobox, concerned editors (other than just myself) are going to continue taking active steps to make sure they are not used in that way. No offense was intended by either remark. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Ase nine ^(talk)^(contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.fourfa.com. Come on guys, learn your facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billydude (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emo died in 2000 sorry guys. Emo kids dont even listen to emo music., —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.150.43 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feud between Jesse and John

Shouldn't that be discussed somewhere in the article? It marks a major turning point in TBS's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadxsouls (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be. Leopold Stotch (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New album

Please note that WP:MUSIC explicitly prohibits articles about unreleased albums until such time as a title, track listing and release date have been officially announced by the band or their record label. Until that information has been released, there is not to be any article entitled "Taking Back Sunday Fourth Album" on Wikipedia. And it also would seem that the potential title "Duel Day" is unsourced speculation — the only ghits that title gives in conjunction with the band name are this article itself and its Slovak equivalent on sk:. Early discussion of the album, if properly sourced, can be placed in this article until such time as proper sources exist for the album's title, track listing and release date, and then it can be split out into its own article. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taking Back Sunday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

The refimprove template at the top of the article. If the article has maintenance templates, then please do not nominate it.
Entire sections are unreferenced, including "Independent success", "Major label debut", and "Upcoming Album and New Member"

Please renominate the article once these issues have been resolved. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is proof of a new album. And if there is, link it to the page. I am curious myself ^^67.81.169.196 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rubano

Should he get his own article since he's now hosting No. 1 Countdown Alternative on Fuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.66.117 (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked how they all used to have their own page it was so much better, in my oppinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.230.176 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not emiotional-hardcore

"they are emo becuase they sound like an emo band, they dress like emos, their fans are emo, and they sing about getting dumped and slitting themselves in a emoy fashion. what more could they possibly do before everyone just admits the truth."

They don't even sound like the post-hardcore bands that are mistakenly called emo.

They sound like good charlotte, sum 41 and all those other alt. rock bands

they dress like "scene kids", (haha)

their fans are more scene kids

cutting yourself with a sharp blade is only performed by kids who wish they were emo and people who need help, and singing about an ex-girlfriend doesn't make up the emo genre.

The lyrics. I don't understand how "then back on that island that you swear by still barely can't afford" even falls under this new false idea of emo and writst cutting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.143.99 (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That's actually a reference to Lord of the Flies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.139 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant, but thank you, i've always wondered.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.158.116 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lazzara

born september 22ed'1981 ' sheffield'Alabama is the lead singer of the american alternative rock/post hardcore band taking back sunday He lived in north carolina before moving to long island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyboy234 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Members having their own articles.

Adam, Eddie, Mark and Matt Fazzi should all have their own articles, due to all of them doing things outside of Taking Back Sunday. Adam had his Burbank Hayes side-project, Eddie has been in numerous bands before TBS, Mark helped record the Straylight Run demos and Fazzi was in Facing New York. They've all done enough outside of Taking Back Sunday to warrent seperate articles, especially considering the amount of trivia that could then be added for each member that just would clutter the full TBS article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.205.214 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, trivia, let's create pages for trivia! Wikipedia is just the place for it.

Do the members meet WP:NMUSIC? Sure, they may have other projects, this doesn't mean their other projects warrant any kind of coverage on Wikipedia, nor does it mean they do. kiac. (talk-contrib) 11:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs cleanup

Added cleanup tag to article.

Why? Mhiji 01:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warring

Page is semiprotected for a week due to continuous genre warring. To the genre warriors: bring your sources refuting the sourced genres currently on this page for discussion right here. If you have no sources and can't find them, then your changes will continue to be reverted, and protection will continue to be used. 'k? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Adam

I don't know enough about Wikipedia to make a page myself or I would, so this is simply a suggestion. But seeing as how many other less influential vocalists have their own stand alone page (Ben Burnley of Breaking Benjamin, Adam Gontier of Three Days Grace being just a few examples) wouldn't it seem logical for Adam Lazzara to have one? While the band is a big part of his musical identity he can stand on his own. He is a major figure and influence within TBS's genre and one of the most recognizable frontmen in modern rock (and all it's sub-genres). On top of that former members John Nolan and Fred Macharino have their own pages. I don't see why Adam should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.185.77 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Member Change

Does a picture on their website with the eyes of the members blocked out prove that Nolan and Cooper are back in the band? KellanFabjance (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is messed up :(

I think someone may have deleted something in the code for it and I have tried everything but I can't fix it unfortunately. The page looks kind of crazy. I am certainly not an expert in the area of infoboxes, so if you have skills with them could you be a dear and fix it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilisk4u (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York?

I thought they were from Jersey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.80.54 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Back Sunday - Changes to The Page.

I've made changes to the start of the page where you read where the band is from and what the current members of the band are. I've also made huge changed to their recent eponymous album release Taking Back Sunday. Also to Where You Want to Be. And much more to be updated from the band. Don't get me wrong, I'm also a huge fan of the band. I've joined Wikipedia for reasons, reasons that this article had a few dust bunnies rolling around in here.

Anyway, I see that there is no official band picture right now. Can someone fix that? CamStick (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Band Members

In the Alternative Press oral history article about TBS it lists Michelle Nolan (John Nolan's sister) as backup vocals for Tell All Your Friends, and you can definitely hear a female voice on Bike Scene and Ghost Man on Third. Shouldn't this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxjoyitaxx (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and in the article it also said that Adam and Michelle dated, so that should be added too. Jeanettez (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tell All Your Friends page includes Michelle Nolan in the album credits. Her contribution was specific to that album, she was never a full member of TBS, nor was she ever an official touring member, although she did occasionally sing live with them. Mrkite6270 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Members

Current touring guitarist/vocalist Nathan Cogan, and former guitarist/vocalist Isaac Bolivar (now in Happy Body Slow Brain with Matt Fazzi), are both well documented, Cogan having played on the TAYF10 live album and Bolivar on Live at Bamboozle 09 and Live from Orensanz. These names are therefore worthy additions to the touring members section; on the other hand, can anyone provide proof, whether a legit source or footage of a performance, that these guys Ian Brieck and Evan Morris ever played for Taking Back Sunday? I don't recognize their names and can't find anything about them online.Mrkite6270 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081113152237/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/videos/player/24160279 to http://www.rollingstone.com/videos/player/24160279

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]