Talk:Beastie Boys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beastie Boys article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is part of WikiProject Hip hop, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to hip hop culture and hip hop music. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Start Fresh

I have archived the previous discussions. Tom Harrison Talk 21:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Change

  • I personally hate the main image for this article and I was wondering if anyone would be bothered if it were changed, preferably to something more recent?Jimmyjrg 13:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't love the image, but if anything I'd say use an image from them in their prime. Aroundthewayboy 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


  • That image is terrible, it looks like the kind of poster a 90's bong-head would have stuck on their wall, I'd prefer one of them in their intergalactic outifts... but then again, that's just me PeterPartyOn 13:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I like that idea, or of them in concert. Aroundthewayboy 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are all right. This image needs to be changed. It's almost embarassing to the Beastie Boys. We should put an "old school" b-boy pic up or something like that.



  • hey i was thinking that somebody should post a pic of every era in every section that discusses that era. like in the hello nasty section post a pic of the boys from the hello nasty days?

The point of Wikipedia is to provide free information. Restricted-use images are to be avoided. I realize that the CC-licensed photo I uploaded is not the best, so please try to find a better one; but do not replace it with an unlicensed, copyrighted photo. The tag for the previous image specifically says that the image is only to be used "[w]here no free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). That certainly isn't the case here. Come on folks--go bring your cameras to their shows and get a better shot. —Chowbok 15:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also sent an e-mail to their people asking if they could release a publicity photo under an acceptable licence. I'll put something here if I hear back. —Chowbok 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right Right Now Now

Pretty sure this was released as a single off the "5 Boroughs" album. There's a video for it. --Scaryice 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mullet

From the section on Grand Royal Magazine: 'The 1995 issue of the magazine contained the first print reference of the expression, "mullet," to describe the hairstyle.'

This is untrue and there is no proof that the Beasties coined the term "mullet" to describe that particular haircut. Nor is there any proof that Grand Royal was the first publication to print the word "mullet" in reference to that (there needs to be defnitive proof, and there really is none. Just saying you can't find any referenced before that 95 issue of the mag is not enough).

I've removed that line from this article before, but someone else who seems to be adamant about the B-Boys association with the mullet keeps putting it back.

I am removing the line again. If you want to say that the B-Boys constantly joke about mullets (as evidenced in their song "mullet head" and a feature on mullets that appeared in Grand Royal magazine) that's fine, because it's true. But to say they somehow originated the name, the idea, or popularized it as a comedic haircut is not accurate.

As for proof that the Beasties coined the term "mullet," the Oxford English Dictionary supports it, and that trumps every other source on etymology as far as I'm concerned. The OED says: "Apparently coined, and certainly popularized, by U.S. hip-hop group the Beastie Boys (see quot. 1994)" A PDF version of the entry is available at [1]. See definition #9.
I'm putting the claim back in. Anson2995 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually am going to dispute the Oxford English Dictionary's claim that the Beasties "coined" the term. I will concede they did "popularize" it, but if you look on the actual wikipedia page for the mullet, it points out that the term "mullet-head" is used in the film "Cool Hand Luke," George Kennedy's character uses the term to describe Southern men with long hair with short sides. So I think the OED actually got that point wrong (note that they say "apparently").
I believe the fact that the term Mullet is used in "Cool Hand Luke" in reference to a character's haircut means that the term existed before the '95 Grand Royal magazine article. I do think there is ample evidence to say that the Beastie's popularized it, or put it on the cultural map. But they didn't come up with the term.
The term "mullet-head" is used three times in Cool Hand Luke, once in reference to Luke (Paul Newman) and twice in reference to Koko (Lou Antonio). Both men have crew cuts, so it's obviously a term of gerneral derision, not a reference to their haircut. The Random House Historical Dictionary of Slang says that the term "mullet-head" was first mentioned in print in 1857, meaning "a stupid ignorant person." Clearly, that's the context in which Geroge Kennedy's character (Dragline, fwiw) uses it in Cool Hand Luke. The question here isn't about the use of the term "mullet-head" or even "mullet" as a general insult, but the use of the word to describe a particular hairstyle. I vigorously dispute the claim that it was used that way in Cool Hand Luke.
Also, in the interest of remaining cordial, could you please sign your posts? Thanks. Anson2995 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even really sure how to sign my posts, but in the spirit of cordiality, I'll just say that I concede the point. Even though I think the Beasties didn't make the name up (it seems to me like the name already existed but the Beasties had a wide audience who learned about it from them first), I can't find anything that verifies they didn't.
I guess I don't disagree with your point that the term wasn't originally invented by them, that the term was probably a bit of existing slang that they picked up on. But I do think the evidence suggests that they were the first one's to use it in mass media or in some published form, and as you say, it's hard to dispute that they popularized it. I think that both points are important and should be conveyed here, and I'd be interested in whether you think what we've done that adequately.
And to sign your posts, just enter four tildes ~~~~, and your post will be signed and date stamped. That helps so that in the course of a discussion like this, I can understand whether I'm talking with the same person or several different ones. Makes me feel like less of an idiot. :-)Anson2995 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
and it also let's other people know when the last post was, not knowing if something is out-of-date is not a good idea. --Sam 07:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostly Hip Hop

Kudos to the person who had the balls to change the genre from "rapcore" to "hip hop." Although they may occasionally experiment with rapcore, and were a great influence on rapcore, the group is first and foremost rap. Putting down just "rapcore" as the band's main genre shows how ignorant people are of the Beastie Boys' influence in the hip hop community and secured place in hip hop history. The Beastie Boys were one of the very first popular rap groups, along with Run-DMC. Both Run-DMC and the Beastie Boys are responsible for shaping rap music into what it is today, both musically and lyrically. And for all new schoolers, the Beastie Boys profoundly influenced gangsta rap (along with Schooly D, the Beastie Boys were the first rap group to talk about guns, drug and alcohol use, car jacking, and gang activity. Just listen to "Licensed to Ill" and "Paul's Boutique!") Just because they are white and experiment with punk, metal, and alternative music does not make them a rapcore group. That is absurd. Yes, they have played rapcore-like music in the past. But so has Run-DMC. Are the Beastie Boys and Run-DMC rapcore bands? Hell no.

[edit] Image removal

Please explain why you're removing an image before you do it (here) or at least in the edit summary. Ziggur 00:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Joel as "fifth Beastie Boy"

I have heard that Mike D once crowned Billy Joel "the fifth Beastie Boy." Can anyone explain the rationale? J21 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike D christend Joel as the fifth Beastie in a 1995 article for their 'zine called "BILLY JOEL: He DID Start The Fire, And If He Didn't, Then Who The Hell Did" It's still available online[2] and all I can say is that after reading the article, I have no idea of how to answer your question :-) Anson2995 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenced?

"The band was also a leader in the use of sampling techniques—with Paul's Boutique being notable for its effective use of samples. The influence of this album can be seen on Beck's 1996 Odelay album (also produced by the Dust Brothers)."

These albums were both produced by the Dust Brothers. Soooo...the Dust Brothers influenced themselves? --24.205.251.41 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The main image

The first image in the article should illustrate the topic at hand in a clear and complete manner. The freely licensed picture is garbage for that purpose. It's blurry, underexposed, and you can't even see Adrock's face. See the fair use rationale on the image page. I am aware that if a freely licensed image is available it should be used, but this one is just not up to the cut. Ziggur 17:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I already addressed this: please see my comment above. —Chowbok 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see it. That topic was a bit old and unrelated. But really, the free image is free but it is seriously garbage. It doesn't even do its job. Just because it's free shouldn't override the fact that it is almost worthless encyclopedically. I guess I have to restate the point that you can't even see one of the member's faces! The other faces are muddied and one is partially obscured. Imagine if all the fair use pictures on Wikipedia were replaced by bigfoot-esque poor quality, but free-use, photographs. That would certainly do more harm than good. I'm dissapointed that you reverted back to the poor picture without taking into account these concerns, and I'm not going to change it back to the fair use picture without further discourse. Ziggur 01:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There's really two issues here. One is whether it's okay (legally and according to Wikipedia policy) to use the publicity photo, and the second is whether the CC-licensed concert photo is too poor-quality to use. As I said before, I don't see how we can use the publicity photo; especially see point #2 of the template, which states it's only okay to use if "...no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". This would apply to something like the photo of Robert Johnson, of whom only two photos exist, and obviously no more can be created. It is certainly not true of the Beastie Boys, as anybody can go to one of their concerts and create a new, CC-licensed photo. I just can't see how using that photo is acceptable in this case. You seem to be arguing that it's better to have copyright-infringing, high-quality photographs than legal, amateurish photos; by that logic we could take every poorly-written article and replace it with a verbatim Encyclopedia Britannica entry.
The other point is that the current photo is crappy. I think you overstate it, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a photo. As I've argued above, I don't think going to the previous photo is an option. So... is this photo so bad that it would be better to have nothing at all? I think that just like with articles, we should start out with something sub-optimal if we have it, and wait for somebody to improve upon it. I'm sure if we're just patient somebody will upload a decent, properly-licensed photo (it's also possible that Nasty Little Man Productions will respond to my request for an unencumbered publicity photo). However, if you feel strongly about it we can remove this picture and leave it blank. —Chowbok 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also see here. I think that's worse than the one I uploaded, but you can see all three of them. —Chowbok 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So because a free equivalent photograph could in theory be created of every living person, and even some dead, all of the fair use photographs of these people (musical groups as well) should be removed from Wikipedia? I just don't follow that logic. Of course I agree that if a free equivalent picture is available it should be used, but what I argue is that the free picture in question is not even near equivalency to the fair use picture for reasons already given. I commend you for asking to use a publicity photo under a free license, but it should not affect whether or not we use a free or fair use image for the moment.

Also, the fair use photograph that I uploaded is low quality which I explained on the image page under its fair use rationale. Ziggur 05:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, most of the fair use images on Wikipedia are, in fact, in violation of the terms, and should be removed. You don't seem to understand that the quality of the picture I uploaded in no way affects the copyright status of the photo you uploaded. I don't know how to make this any clearer. It says right in the tag that you can't use that image if free images exist or can be created. This fails on both counts. The point of Wikipedia is not to provide pretty pictures. It's to provide a freely redistributable encyclopedia. Instead of devoting your energies arguing that it's okay to use that publicity photo when it clearly isn't, why not spend your time helping me find an acceptable unencumbered picture?
I'm sorry if I sound snotty, I'm not trying to--I'm just pretty sleepy as I write this. But there's got to be a photo out there that will satisfy both of us. The Beastie Boys themselves have released music under the Creative Commons; if somebody can get through to them it's not inconceivable that they'll put a photo under it as well. —Chowbok 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news! Nasty Little Man got back to me, and they said all the publicity photos at [3] are free to use "with no strings attached". One of those is the photo you uploaded, so I've moved back to that (also replaced it with a higher-resolution copy). —Chowbok 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Ziggur 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error

Quote:

The Beastie Boys are a hip hop group from the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan. The main members are (from left to right on the photo) MCA (Adam Yauch), Mike D (real name Michael Diamond) and King Ad-Rock (Adam Horovitz).

However, on the photo that is nearby, one can clearly see that the order from left to right is rather Mike D, Ad-Rock and MCA, not MCA, Mike D and Ad-Rock. 88.222.177.11 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (Carnifex)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —Chowbok 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] videography

I have moved this in here for the momment from the Videography as I feel it would be better suited for the DVDs page:

To promote the film, as well as their hits album, the Beastie Boys performed a medley of classics from "Three MC's and One D.J." to "So Whatcha Want" on The Late Show with David Letterman on February 8, 2006.

To promote the film's DVD release they performed "Root Down" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien on July 22nd, 2006 --Jimmyjrg 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Rock

Ad Rock redirects here but isn't mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.128.253.162 (talk • contribs).

Uh, Ad-rock is one of the three members of the Beastie Boys. He's listed as "King Ad-Rock" in the infobox at the top of the article. The second paragraph about the early days says "John Berry left the group (later forming Thwig) and was replaced by Adam Horovitz (Ad-rock)..." -- Plutortalkcontribs 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC).


[edit] The Best Mixtape

I've added information on the Beastie Boy's greatest mixed album "New York State of Mind", courtesy of DJ Green Lantern. It really shows the New York influences in the rap industry, and has an hillarious adition from Busta Ryhmes. You're welcome Millm0w 11:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

Okay, doesn't anyone else think the line "They were the first white (and the only partly-Jewish) rap group of any importance..." is not NPOV? --C.travis 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed that part, you're right, it wasn't in a NPV. Feel free to change it back if I'm wrong. Patmagroin1289 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who deleted the New York State of Mind album

ok, who was. i put that album, not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and now somebody has deleted it. it is a great album, and i want a reason NOW!!! Millm0w 15:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not create a seperate article for that album and link it on the Beastie Boys article, it's more likely to stay then.--Jimmyjrg 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know it's humor, but

On Futurama, the seven albums were probably because of The Beastie Boys taking time to count their money. Anyone else think that?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/a/Talk%7EBeastie_Boys_e941.html"