Talk:The Replacements (band)

Where's the NPOV

As a big Replacements fan I was glad to see a Wikipedia article on the band. But much of the article lacks a NPOV. Take the line "The band's first LP, 1981s Sorry Ma Forgot to Take Out the Trash, defined the band's sound and ethos." Who says? The line as written would be fine for a web site of rock criticism given it's very subjective nature but not for an encyclopedia. Maybe if Paul Westerberg said it I'd feel better about the line but it would still have to be written thus- "In an interview in__________, on ___________, Paul Westerberg said that the band's first LP, 1981s Sorry Ma Forgot to Take Out the Trash, defined the band's sound and ethos." By the way, I doubt the first album defined the Replacements sound given it's Minor Threat-like hardcore nature. It's more likely that the band's sound was defined by their 1983 release, Hootenanny.

The same with the line, "Too sloppy and unprofessional to be heavy metal, yet too bar-band sounding to be punk rock, the band never fit in from the beginning." Did they want to be heavy metal? Did they say that? Were they trying to be? And I have never heard them described as "too much of a bar band to be punk". If anything in the days when the band were on Twin Tone I heard them constantly described as punk. So where does this line come from? The writer of the article's own opinion? Sources need to be cited.

And this, "Of all the bands from the '80s, the Replacements were perhaps the most overlooked, the most deserving of widespread, popular appeal. And the fact that they never got it just made them all that much better." Completely not NPOV. - Buster 15:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations there on achieving Wikipedia's NPOV prime directive. I remember the original entry for the Replacements. It was insightful, readable, and made all the important milestones crystal clear. But it was also clearly NPOV -- unfortunately, some really good writer had authored the whole article.

Thank God, the article is now NPOV, so the usual mishmash of poorly cobbled-together sentences, awkward and dull prose, and disorganized progression of ideas has replaced what was once an article worthy of a rock encyclopedia you'd actually shell out cash for. But, hey, it's NPOV and referenced, and that's what counts. StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention in Wall Street Journal

This article is mentioned at the end of this Wall Street Journal article: "Check out Wikipedia's entries on deconstructionism, the history of records, or the Replacements, then consider that those entries and some 868,000 others are the work of volunteers. I find that impressive -- revolutionary, even."

wow, thats an amazing article... !!! Xsxex 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is It Time For A Rewrite?

I'm with Buster. While I agree with a lot of the subjective material in this article, I think the entire thing could do with a wave of the NPOV wand.

Also I think the writing slips into humor a few times ("looser (not loser)", "instead play covers, which they were also too drunk to play"). It's nice to hear the stories, but it feels out of place on wikipedia.

There are also a couple of places that could use fleshing out or correcting. By most accounts, Bob was fired; the article makes it sound like he walked. Also I think the story of the "diastrous opening tour" needs fleshing out. Maybe explain their hostility towards an indifferent crowd. For the singles, there are numbers next to some indicating their chart position, but which chart?

It might be nice to add more structure to the article. Start off with a paragraph saying who they were and their general sound and reputation. Go with a chronological discussion of albums without veering off on tangents too much -- just sound, notable songs, critical/fan reaction, impact on band. Maybe divide this by the Twin/Tone Years and Sire Years. It would be nice if the chronology could impart the sense that they always flirted with success, but were undermined by their self-destructive tendencies. Add a separate section for post-Mats projects. Add a section on people they've influenced.

This article is in need of a rewrite. I'm a huge HUGE fan, but this article needs some serious work, NPOV and otherwise. Help me or I will get to it eventually. Ee60640 12:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it mentions The Clash. Sure both bands were loosely "punk", but if you absolutely MUST list an early punk band as an influence, The Ramones or Sex Pistols seem way more fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.144.5 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

About that picture...

The picture of the band, which the caption says was taken in 1985, is actually a Twin/Tone promotional affair that dates back to about 1981.

Discography page

I removed the discography, with the exclusion of studio albums, and put it on a new discography page. Bsd987 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also made a category for The Replacements, so if you see anything connected to The Replacements directly not in a category, please add it. I've checked for songs, finding a page for Kiss Me on the Bus, which is only a stub and I put that to the songs subcategory, and I made a page for I'll Be You. Let's get pages for all the singles, or at least all the singles that charted. Bsd987 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

pop punk early in career

The New York Times has refers to the early years of The Replacements as pop punk. I am using this as support to add this band to the "pop punk groups" category. Here is a link to the article: [1], here's a direct quote from the first 2 sentence, "The Replacements entered the 1980's ripping and roaring, becoming the smartest, brashest, loudest pop-punk band ever to perform songs by Kiss, Cher and Black Sabbath. They left the decade with thinking caps on, recording contemplative, more classic-sounding rock, pop and roots music before breaking up in 1990, too soon to cash in on the alternative-rock explosion they helped create." Xsxex 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob Stinson

Didn't Bob Stinson use to wear a dress onstage from time to time? (unfortunately, I never saw them live even though I lived in the Twin Cities.) Seems like an interesting factoid to work into the article. I know some articles were written after Bob died, about him and the Replacements that could be linked to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.34.148.192 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I believe he did and got the idea from watching Captain Sensible of the British punk band, the Damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.104.88 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Men dressing in drag was not invented in the 20th century. Geez guys there is like history books you know? It goes back to Shakespeare and classical greece, dressing in drag for comic effect and theatertric performance. Rock and Roll did not invent this, it took it from theater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.161.14 (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References missing

This page needs references. If people want to help, a good place to start would be Our Band Could Be Your Life. Also, the genres for a band like the replacements are going to be a total mess considering they played every kind of music, and were at least partially responsible for inventing alt country. Cank 16:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in the claim that "Westerberg, through series of well-placed lies and manipulations, put the band at odds with their singer and tensions soon forced the singer to depart". I am not disputing this, but it seems like something that should be supported with quotes.Hop365 04:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we use this?

The song "Lookin' For Ya" was recorded in mid-1982 'specifically for the "KQDS Miller High Life Rock to Riches Talent Search Contest", and appeared on a compilation album ("Trackin' Up the North") dedicated to contest entries from various bands. At the end of the song Paul yells "Keep your riches, gimme a Budweiser," which probably didn't make the Miller beer people too happy. Needless to say, the Mats did not win the contest.'

source: http://www.22designs.com/foshaytower2/sessionography.html

Excellent proof that the Replacements' messed up any opportunity they got, even before they really got acclaimed. Should we use this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.104.88 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They're reputed to have opened an interview (conducted by Cameron Crowe who also told the story) with the words "We don't believe in tape recorders". Hilarious quote (how did they record their music, then?) but not the token of a band very willing to jump on an opportunity. 83.254.159.35 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

article/source/interview suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting any information from this article, or the article itself. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine this piece on Hüsker Dü and the Replacements, which was originally published in Q in 1987 and republished in Crawdaddy! in 2008, and incorporate it if they see fit. I appreciate your time. [2]
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

External Link / Resource suggestion: New interview with Peter Jesperson

As the Crawdaddy! Editorial Assistant, and to comply with COI guidelines, I'm not posting a link to this new interview with Peter Jesperson, former manager and co-producer for the Replacements, about the new back catalog reissues. However, it's a great article, and hopefully an editor will get time to read it and, if they see fit, add it as an external link or resource link. Thanks for your consideration. [3]
Mike harkin (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

overdose

the article says: "Foley died in 2008 from an accidental overdose of a prescription medication (not a drug overdose)." Er, isn't an overdose on prescription drugs, by definition, a drug overdose? I suppose the parenthetical is meant to assure us that he didn't overdose on illegal drugs, but surely the word "prescription" does that nicely. --Jfruh (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

color me [whatever]

I have removed the reference to the phrase "color me impressed" being a Replacements reference. It's a common enough expression - unless there is some reason for thinking that it was specifically intended to be a reference to the band, it should not be here. If it is a reference to the band, a reference should be provided to demostrate this.

203.39.12.130 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

what????? It's a song title?!

"Color Me Impressed" is one of most beloved Replacements songs - case in point the title of the fan made movie "Color Me Obsessed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.113.239 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Dogbreath"?

The current version of the article mentions the band Dogbreath as if we know who is being talked about. Was that the name of the pre-Replacements trio? This should be clarified.24.45.7.108 (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

They Might Be Joking

If "We're the Replacements" by They Might Be Giants is written "in tribute" to the band, as it says in the Legacy section, it's a very ironic tribute. I'd say it was more like a satire. What do people think if I just remove it?

Well, I grabbed the bull and deleted the reference. The song sounds like "We're the Monkees". It implies that all the band's extreme drinking, drugging, and horsing around was (at least partly) an act. Which it was. What was genuine at first evolved into a reputation they felt they had to live up (or down) to. That's how I hear the song anyway.Prohairesius (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

down love

With regard to the first half of the article: considering the number of times Azerrad is paraphrased, often in the service of pointlessly trivial detail, I suggest a link to the book's webpage on Amazon simply be substituted. I'm sorry, it reads like a high school book report. I'm tempted to go in and give the whole thing one of Bob's asylum cuts.Prohairesius (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at this after more than a year and it's gotten worse. The number of inaccuracies in the account of their SNL performance is symptomatic of the page as a whole. How drunk were the editors when they wrote it? It's a fanpage, a sloppy fanpage. I'd help but it wd be way too much work, it's beyond help, it stinks.

Saturday Night Live performance

Their drunken January 1986 appearance on Saturday Night Live has become the stuff of legend, and everyone involved who is still alive agrees that it was a fiasco. Ironically, as you can see for yourself by watching the videos of their two songs on Youtube, they actually sounded OK. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Canadian?

So some anonymous editor decided Minneapolis is in Canada and the band were Canadian. Might be some South Park humor, but I think it is best if I change it back to American. --MichielN (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No more Mats

I have tried in good faith to tidy up this article multiple times now by cutting out the mention of The Mats, truly one of the worst nicknames in rock music history. It's inappropriate due to its irrelevance, informal nature, and potential confusion for readers seeking factual and comprehensive information about the band. Articles are expected to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone and focus on essential details. "The Mats" may be a name casually used by a certain fringe group of fans, but it has certainly never been done “affectionately” (it was coined as an insult, after all), and it lacks the significance necessary for inclusion. It also begs the question - who are these fans that refer to the band as such? Certainly not me. Certainly not anyone I’ve ever spoken with about the band (I've been around - there have been many!) Such information detracts from the article's professionalism and fails to contribute meaningfully to the reader's understanding of the band's artistic achievements or cultural impact. As noted, the band's name carries a very specific and well thought out meaning. "The Mats" diminishes this important part of the band's identity, and its inclusion in the article is ultimately disrespectful to the band’s members and its legacy. Let this awful nickname be relegated to the dustbin of history - please. The Replacements are The Replacements. They are not something to set on the dinner table, or to wipe your dirty shoes on after coming home. Respectfully. 202.17.148.173 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

With respect: You are clearly and demonstrably wrong. Many, many fans of the band, including prominent musicians and rock journalists, have frequently referred to the Replacements as "The Mats." There are dozens of examples of this in print media. The two citations in the article are both from well-respected sources, but there are many others. And while the nickname may have its origins in an insult, it has grown to be embraced with affectionate irony by people who both love and understand who the Replacements are. Please stop. Mehendri Solon (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mehendri - thanks for your comment. Sorry, but this information is simply not relevant enough to be included in the biography of an already niche indie rock group. It adds nothing positive to the article, and rock journalists do not (and should not) speak for fans of the band at large. Again - I don't refer to The Replacements by that name and I don't know anyone who does, so the fact that their "fans" refer to them by that as a blanket statement is objectively false. On the topic of awful rock nicknames - even Paul McCartney's nickname "Macca" is relegated to a small note in the infobox on his page. On Morrissey's article, at least the editors there have had the decency of quoting Morrissey's rightful disdain of the nickname as sounding like a cleaning product. Aside from music, let's not even get started on Joe Biden's "Brandon" nickname - also, rightfully, nowhere to be seen in his article despite it's popularity with a certain group of people. To be clear - I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't meaning to imply that I don't love or "understand" (?) The Replacements for objecting to this - but it would be pretty easy to take it that way, and I wouldn't appreciate it one bit if that were the intended meaning.103.125.235.30 (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You have been mounting a one-person fight against a nickname that you don't like. That nickname shows up in many, many reliable sources on the band, and this wikipedia article would be worse if it didn't mention the nickname. Please stop. CAVincent (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)