Talk:Cute Is What We Aim For

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cute Is What We Aim For article.

Don't start with that emo crap here, please. This band is obviously not emo. Philipdistefano 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stop changing my edits

Harry, please stop putting personal opinion into the article. Statements like the buffalo music scene is overly critical is opinion, unless you can prove it (which you can't). there are other examples of this and absolute statements that dont belong. I removed or fixed most of them. --Jonmedeiros 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)-- 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not fixing it if you include weasel words or other opinionated sentenses ("the quartet created what some consider a lyrically accentuated brand of power pop" makes no sense). And every band has people saying "<insert band name here> sux!". It's not worth a mention, but people saying "Shaant ruined Cherry Bing so his new band must suck" without having heard them is. --HarryCane 09:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not include weasel words. If you dont like the opinionated sentences get rid of all of them. Take the shakespeare thing for example, not everyone agrees with that statement. It's personal opinion (and probably yours). That needs to be noted. If you are going to say that people criticized CIWWAF for everything except the music, you need to somehow attempt to prove that, because that is a really bizarre statement. Are you saying nobody at all criticized them for their music? Source claims like "Shaant ruined Cherry Bing so his new band must suck" or else it's hard to include them here. Remember, wikipedia is not like a myspace, its supposed to reflect fact and not popular (or unpopular) opinion. When you say "CIWWAF creates a blah blah blah blend of blah" you either need to prove that this is generally what people think or preface it with "Some people." --Jonmedeiros 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to gut this and try and source everything that needs it. I feel as though nobody ever compared them to Shakespeare (what a joke) but I'll look for that too. --Jonmedeiros 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, nobody said they are like Shakespear or anything similar. The article certainly does not say that. What it does say is that the band makes use of the exact same poetic devices that William Shapespear is predominantly famous for, namely puns, metaphors, etc. (one source for that is the AMG album review I think). And that both CIWWAF and WS use these stylings is fact, we sure could give examples from their lyrics and WS's texts, but we shouldn't reference every sentence. Please have a look at WP:WEASEL as what you're suggesting ("Some people...") is exactly one of the phrases to avoid. Also, nobody said that they are not criticized for their music. Yet again, as I already said, every band is, and I was simply trying to put an emphasis on the criticism of negligibilities and superficialities, such as the band name and the Kenny Vasoli thing. I knew close to nothing on the band and read into A LOT of material (bios, interviews, message boards, old band websites, etc.) before writing this article, so I really didn't make any of this up. I'm really not trying to defend the band, or to attack you, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I kind of have the feeling that you are doing this out of spite and dislike for the band. --HarryCane 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct about the shakespeare thing, but I still think it should go. It's a silly sentence. I am familar with the concept of weasel words and I think they are the lesser of two evils here. You cant make blanket statements unless they are true. And yes, you repeatedly have claimed that nobody has criticized them for the music. Thats the issue. I keep saying they have, and you change it to they haven't. I have now sourced the claim from the verry same thread that all the superficial garbage comes from. Please don't change it. We could have a discussion about removing the nod to criticism of music alltogether, but to lie is just not appropriate.

My motives really shouldn't matter, all that should matter is that my edits are factual; which they are. Personally I dont like the bands music or the individual members. I DO, however, think that they have a fantastic story and kudos to them for getting to where they are. --Jonmedeiros 14:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I now see what you mean. I never read my own sentence that way. Then you're right, the music thing should stay out of there, for emphasis. Oh, and Cherry Bing is actually written in two words (Cherry Bing's record label) .--HarryCane 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it? I've seen it spelled both ways, and I seem to remember a lot of cherrybing merch being one word. Perhaps the sentence should start, in addition to criticism of their music, cute was..., I really think it should be noted that Cute wasnt totally being criticized for stupid things. Not to mention a lot of the allegations are true (song stealing, auto-tune, the lock-out, ghost writing, etc) but really can't be proved (well the auto-tune one was) so they should stay out--Jonmedeiros 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The album covers show it as two seperate words... About the music criticism: Again, every band has haters who say they suck – I think the criticism part has already a large enough part in the article and to now also put special emphasis on this as well, borders IMO on hating on the band a little too much. And how are you so sure that the song stealing, ghost writing, and lock out rumors are 100% true, especially when these very issues are explained in every detail in every single interview with the band? --HarryCane 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
the album covers have two words but a little flash thing has only one..eh, who cares. To note that the band is criticized for their music is important because without it it looks as if they are this incredible band and the only thing people can find to criticize them for is stupid things. Think of the people who knock Godfather for the shitty punch Caan throws. Same deal. How am I sure about the rest? It really doesnt matter because such a thing would be impossible to prove because it all comes from people who were personally involved, its not really typed up anywhere on the web. If you really want to know, e-mail me. --Jonmedeiros 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a little silly, I think. Nobody will think they play perfect music if it's not explicitly mentioned in the article that there exist people who think differently. New Found Glory, Fall Out Boy, hell, not even Panic! at the Disco articles say there are loads of people who don't like them. And, believe me, there are. It's really not worth a mention, that there are people who dislike CIWWAF's music. If it was a load of professional reviews saying they suck, that would be different, but a couple of kids hiding behind screennames and writing on message boards "Gay Is What We Aim For sux!"... come on. --HarryCane 17:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
well if its silly and not relevant that people on message boards knock their music why is it relevant when those same people knock Cute for their names? --Jonmedeiros 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's notable simply because it's unusual. The fact that they get criticized for every single move they make is what distinguishes the band from their peers. I mean, they were runner-up in Spin or what magazine's "Worst Emo Band Name" contest. New Found Glory does not get "New Found Gayness"-comments. Straylight Run does not get "It's John's fault that Taking Back Sunday now sucks and therefore I won't listen to his new band"-comments. And again, every single band in this scene has to put up with music criticism from internet gossip boards. Show me a single post on any band on Absolutepunk, Punknews or For the Sound, that does not have at least one scenester saying "This band is shit". If you think this goes in the CIWWAF article, you certainly have to include "xXemogurl16Xx wrote on her MySpace this band is kinda hawt but sux nontheless." in every band article on Wikipedia. It's plain unencyclopedic. --HarryCane 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just say that they use poetic devices then? That would be far less likely to cause controversy than saying they use Shakespearean devices.

--Merlinme 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a possibility, sure. And it should be changed if people feel offended by having Shakespear mentioned in this article. But it would be an unnecessary generalization, as poetic devices would mean any figure of speech, and the intention was not to put them on par with Shakespear, but to point out that the band uses the same poetic devices as he did. --HarryCane 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt like the power-pop thing should be sourced, as a lot of people consider them a lot of different things. going with what the band says makes sense and they say power-pop, thus the source. --Jonmedeiros 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a list of devices which Shakespeare uses: http://www.bardweb.net/grammar/02rhetoric.html. If you can persuade me that CIWWAF use a large majority of these devices, or they write in iambic pentameter, or even that they try and sound like Shakespeare, then fair enough. If, as I suspect, you just mean that they use specific poetic devices, then I suggest you say that. Bringing Shakespeare into the article just confuses things.

--Merlinme 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. This is a free encyclopedia. If you feel personally offended by the mention of William Shakespear in the article, take it out, change it, or whatever. I'm not here to prove to you that this band does or does not use a certain percentage of similar poetic devices as Shakespear does. Be bold. --HarryCane 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I also fixed this "Hacikyan and the album's producer, Matt Squire, admitted to using Auto-Tune but denied the other allegations in the following Absolutepunk interview."

By the sounds of what squire says, auto-tune was used more than just a tiny bit, as shant would have you think. It needs to read that the allegations were denied and not something else because this is coming from the band and the label, it would be a bad move if they admitted to the lockout, etc. --Jonmedeiros 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reference to Shakespeare is gone. I don't mind changing things, but I don't want to p*ss anyone off on a subject I'm sure they know a lot more about than I do.

--Merlinme 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with sentence

I'm unsure what should be done with this:

"Despite their efforts to start anew, Cute Is What We Aim For was continuously criticized for their past engagements, their band name, or their frontman's prospects of winning a Kenny Vasoli look-alike contest, their ethics, and musicianship."

Is it worth including the Kenny Vasoli thing? The reason I ask is because Cute has been criticized for a lot of stuff, including ripping off other bands and Shant has been accused of trying to emulate, say, NFG. Point being is that we can't include every criticism, so we should have the important ones. Band name should stay, past engagements should stay. The allegations of shady ethics by a former manager should certainly stay. Criticism of musicianship I would normally drop, as there are always critics, but without it it might appear that Cute is criticized for superficial things. ...what say you? --Jonmedeiros 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was trying to oppose the two things, which I really think should stay: Wide criticism of totally unimportant superficialities, rather than their music (which, as with every band, was certainly also criticized). And I think the manager ref might be better suited with the paragraph about the incident, don't you think? --HarryCane 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


I feel like the manager thing should be mentioned here too, since it is criticized. Perhaps all the superficial things should be removed and replaced with something like "cute was continuously criticized for a number of superficial things, as well as etc so on and so forth." I mean, I don't really thing it should be there at all because every band gets the same stupid shit, but at the same time I have no big problem with it remaining. But I like my idea because I don't think there is a fair way to pick from the list of superficial complaints (ie why the kenny thing and why not the X thing, etc). --Jonmedeiros 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I was just trying to give an example. Tip of the iceberg, of course, but I think it would be nice to give the reader an example or two of thoroughly unimportant criticism so that he/she is not left in the air wondering what superficial things were complained about. And yes, the manager thing should stay there, I was just thinking about moving the ref. --HarryCane 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

do whatever you want with the ref, im not good with them anyways. --Jonmedeiros 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/t/Talk%7ECute_Is_What_We_Aim_For_2ce2.html"