Talk:Coheed and Cambria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Coheed and Cambria has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Jack (talk · contribs)
The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs)
Rehevkor (talk · contribs)
Wick3dd (talk · contribs)
If you feel you have a good knowledge of Wikipedia, how citing sources works, and of Coheed and Cambria, please add yourself here.
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Genre, again

There are half a dozen citations for major musical journals and sources regarding this band as emo, or prog-emo. The only pro-prog citations are from the band themselves and their label, which have marketing bias and are not regarded by Wikipedia as journalistically significant. Why are POV fans allowed to keep reverting this page to blatant inaccuracy? A few complicated songs does not a prog band make. Where is the encyclopedic accuracy? Why the bullshit? I'm looking at you, haunted angel. MTV classifies them as emo: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1486023/20040329/coheed_cambria.jhtml Newspaper classifies them as emo: http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/1064


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At least two of the editors for this page show serious Pro-Coheed fan bias in their editing and a lack of the ability to properly allocate neutrality to this article. Haunted Angel, you're a ponce if you can't see that you're pushing this prog crap without basis. They are considered, by the sources IN THIS ARTICLE, as more emo than prog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The debate, as I've said, is not whether or not they're emo, it's the fact that they have been called emo, but that in itself has been disputed. We do not provide the POV, but the fact that it is disputed to begin with. And do not accuse me of being bias in favour of a band I like - in the past I have actually been told that I manage to retain a neutral POV on Wikipedia dispite my personal beliefs. Another example of how the genre of a band should be shown to be disputed rather than throwing as many links down that have a particular favour one way or the other can be seen at Cradle of Filth. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's disputed, which it is, then get the fucking "American progressive rock band" out of the opening sentence and label them as something that establishes the controversy. You are clearly pushing a pro-prog POV because you don't want to see these guys publicly considered emo, as it would dash your illusions of their musical worth and perseverance. They are emo-prog at best, MTV, Spin, Blender, dozens of others classify them as emo. The dispute must be equal, they are not prog.

Again, you fail to provide sources that clearly show a dispute on their prog status. And, if you think that I am "pushing my POV" because of my inability to accept that I like an emo band, I will openly admit I like certain emo stuff such as Panic! At the Disco, even some My Chemical Romance. I like a band for the music, not the label. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you seem to understand that having a half dozen major music publications and various newspapers not referring to the band as prog, but rather, as emo, establishes a controversy over their prog status? They were and are marketed as prog, and simply following the roots of the band to the present day will show they are not a prog rock band, at best, they are an emo band tasked with providing simple prog to emo fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Every single person talking about this is pushing a POV. Even if it is not fan based, it seems to be rather hate-based. Notice, though, about 90% of the articles or reviews citing them has emo were during the SSTB & IKSSE: 3 era. Fan or not, anyone with a brain can say they changed their musical style after the first two albums, even the first and second are quite different. Now, my POV (not journalistic obviously) is that they show both qualities in their discography. I would not go has far to say they are an actual progressive rock band. That term has far as I'm concerned died a while back. I would be comfortable calling them New Prog, which I know atleast Entertainment Weekley has called them. Rolling Stone even went has far to call them progressive metal. BTW, no such thing has emo prog. I don't think there is a controversy over any genre that CO & Ca belongs to, atleast journalist wise. It's only the fans who argue what they sound like. People who hate it call it emo, people who like it say emo or prog. Also, complicated time sigs are an essential element of prog. My 2 cents, is that the genres should be: New Prog, Emo, Alternative, Post-Hardcore (the last because of SSTB). Peace. 204.185.26.251 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, in an up to date article says progressive metal RS. A number of the emo citations are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.144.63 (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coheed and Cambria have progressive influences, but if anything it is a subgenre, they are NOT a true prog band as a whole. The statement "Coheed and Cambria is an American progressive rock band" is misleading. That said, they are also not truly emo. Would it not be better to pick a more generel genre, like rock or alternative rock or something? Say Coheed and Cambria are a rock band with progressive and emo influences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.22.122 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is anyone talking about "proving" that this band is not prog? The fact that they aren't classified as prog anywhere is the only evidence needed. You don't just label a band and then force people to disprove your label, you prove a label before you give it to them. If there aren't any sources for them being considered prog, other than the irrelevant opinion of the band themselves, then take the label off. 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJRussell (talk • contribs)

I just feel the need to add my 2 cents. I'm a huge Muse fan and so whenever I'm playing them people ask me if I like Coheed and Cambria. So I listened to their newest album (No World For Tomorrow) and I have to say I'm really disappointed. There are definite prog influences. But its more like a modern rock/emo band decided to add prog flourishes to their sound rather than actually incorporate prog into their music. Which would be fine if New Prog was a term we could tag to this. But as a fan of Muse I can't condone that. Muse actually takes modern rock/emo and provides prog song structures. Sure C&C have concept albums and play some pretty mean guitar solos. But for the most part they are playing your basic ho-hum rock with an eclectic singer. The singer has a very nice range and sounds like Geddy Lee but that hardly makes them a prog band. This is just food for thought. Once I've explored this crazy New Prog genre some more I'll add more here. In the meantime I can only say that I completely understand the controversy. But if C&C wants to be known as a prog band, they need to be know as a crappy prog band. marnues (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On further exploration of New Prog and Coheed and Cambria I would agree that these guys fit the bill. They certainly have the concept album thing down. They incorporate instruments outside of guitar, bass, set, and vocals. And they do stray from the typical rock standards, though not nearly as much as I would want. I gave Good Apollo, I'm burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through the Eyes of Madness a listen and actually kind of liked it. From my cursory listens it seems more progressive than the newer one. marnues (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Debatebly; more of the songs on Volume I break the typical song structure trend, though Volume II has far more time signature change-abouts; although it's only really to 6/8. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archived discussions

If you are looking for old discussions, please see the previous version of this page. Archived discussions include: the band's genre, the current band line-up and the full official name of the new album. Side note, does anyone know how to use a Wiki link to an older version, or do I have to use an external link?

Please do not start a new discussion on the band's genre unless you have compelling evidence to suggest change; the band themselves have stated that their genre is "Progressive Rock", and so it should remain. "But they don't sound prog!" is not sufficient reasoning. Opinions do not matter on Wikipedia, especially those running along the lines of "This band sucks, they can't possibly stand up to the likes of Dream Theater, RUSH, etc..." or "OMG this is the best band evar, how can you say they're not godly, etc..."

Also, with the release of the album, there is no longer a question as to the full title: the lyric booklet gives the title Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, volume two: No World for Tomorrow.

If I've removed a section you feel should remain, I apologize, but this page was cluttered beyond usefulness [there are still 27 topics at the time of writing this (including this one)... several of which might stand deletion too at some point soon] and all or most of what I deleted was completed. Harukaze 12:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And since when has a band's opinion of themselves affected their actual genrification? In Wikipedia articles about song lyrics or books, an author's statement about what the story is actually about is considered secondary to what fans have decided. Why the Wikipedia rules be exempted for this one band? 24.183.196.19 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singles

so who put "crossing the frame" has a single? no...check all music guide...didn't chart. im taking it off the singles list, b/c it was never a single. to bad...its a good song. Nineinchsin 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

also, ten speed was made into a video, but who has prove its gotten radio time? Nineinchsin 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gear

I really don't know why this has been put on this page. It reffers to the gear of each individual member, not the gear of Coheed. I think it's only bee put there to pad out the article. In addition, this lists has been blatently taken from Cobalt & Calcium. IT's not even been edited, just copied and pasted, complete with informalities; "I still need to 100%-verify the EMG models". I think this information should be sorted then moved to the appropiate article (ie. Claudio Sanchez's gear in the Claudio Sanchez article). Any takers? Neverender 899 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed it anyway. Pointless it being there. Neverender 899 00:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tetralogy...

It's not a tetralogy, it's a pentalogy:

  • The Amory Wars (Not yet released)
  • Second Stage Turbine Blade
  • In Keeping Secrets Of Silent Earth: 3
  • Good Apollo... Vol. 1
  • Good Apollo... Vol. 2 (Not yet released)

there are five albums, not four. i am going to change the page accordingly.

The thing is both Good Apollo's have the base "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV". And so little events actually progress in the central concept to call it a separate part seems a bit weird. It mainly dealt with a metaphor for Sanchez's life and why he's putting the story in this direction. But I guess this point is debatable.
I myself would say that it is a quadrilogy because Good Apollo I'm Burning Star IV is one part broke into two.-Leandreamo
I disagree totally. If they had decided to call God Apollo... Vol 2 by a divverent name altogether it would make this a "Pentology" no? Likewise if they had released the whole story over 3 albums we would all call it a trillogy. This needs to be taken at face value - 5 albums = "pentology". -Blackout8
I agree with Blackout8. Five albums make a pentalogy, it doesn't matter if two of the albums have "Good Apollo.." at the beginning of their name. -Iamthecockatoo
Five albums doesn't make the STORY anything. The it is definitely a quad... simply that one of part is split. It doesn't make it move in 5 parts. QUAD!!!
Well, how many comics are being released? Maybe go by that? Lord GS-41 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It's going to be 4 different editions to the comic book in the new Amory Wars series. SSTB, then IKS, then both the Good Apollo's as one comic, then the Bag.On.Line Adventures, the prequel to SSTB. that's 4. tetralogy. :D Coca73 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Five albums, four chapters. Is this so difficult a concept? The final chapter is simply longer and more complex, requiring twice the music to tell. The important thing is that the comment in question refers to the story of The Amory Wars. And the story is four chapters. The number of albums it takes to tell that story is irrelevent. If Claudio decides to make Chapter I three albums long, does that push Chapter II back retroactively into Chapter IV? Nope, it's still Chapter II. Harukaze 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I vote for trilogy in five parts. Surely one should count the comics as separate works from the albums regardless of whether they are the same story or not. If Lord of the Rings was made as one movie, would we call the movie a trilogy? The same logic applies here. Five albums is five albums is five albums. Fourth album should have been released as a double album if they wanted it to count as one part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.39 (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly are you getting trilogy from? As I already said, the comment we're discussing for the main article regards the -story-. And the story is four chapters long. Not three, not five. The number of albums is completely and utterly irrelevent to this discussion. The fact is, we don't know there -will- be five albums. There could be six, or seven, or twenty albums! And yet, as I said in my previous comment, that still won't change the fact that the story is four chapters. Harukaze 09:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Claudio has said that it will be five chapters long, the final album/book being the Bag.On.Line Adventures of Coheed and Cambria. This, being a bit Lucas-esque will be based before Second Stage. However, this is, as you said, susceptible to change. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velorium Camper

Where later he crashes his ship "The Velorium Camper" into a space colony.

The bulleted list is supposed to be information that is verified, either directly in the albums or from Claudio himself. Can this claim be confirmed? I've never heard it before. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 06:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) Quadrilogy isn't a word.

Only thing I have to add to this that might help is that The Velorium Camper is Al the Killer's ship, he was payed off to take Claudio K. (character) to the "space colony" House Atlantic, the planet that Wilhelm Ryan is on. Thus the song A Favor House Atlantic. 140.104.19.99 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Site your sources... I'm pretty sure that's also NOT verified.StocktonDan (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Recently someone removed a link from External Links that led to a fansite that "competes" with the other fansite listed. I beleive it was intentional and re-added the link. - Devin

I have since verified that it was the owner of the other site, Brian. IP is 68.227.40.35. To be clear I think it is fair that I mention I am one of the owners of the site that was deleted. - Devin
This has happened yet again, same person. Is there anything that can be done about this? Horsman 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone is removing the Last.fm link in the profile page. The page is a link to their Last.fm profile, which is generated by people listening to their songs. The charts are sort of a user submited chart of their most popular songs, with other user submitted content. Who ever is removing this, please state a proper reason for doing so. --Matthew McCullough 03:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link farm. We don't supply exhaustive sets of links (see Wikipedia:External links. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Granted that Wikipedia isn't a 'link farm', but it is pathetic that Brian from the Cobalt and Calcium fansite is trying to harm our own Severed Ties fansite. All fans should be given equal opportunities and we are not attempting to 'compete' with anyone. Also, the Last.fm charts are a useful tool for people to check whether they would like a particular band or not (in this case, Coheed). Steb2424 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC+1)
If it makes you feel any better, Brian is no longer in charge of cobalt and calcium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StocktonDan (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I think that the Co&Ca Story section of this page should be spun off into a separate article. There's a lot of information in it and people searching for information on just the band will probably be a little disappointed to see only a paragraph about that and a whole lot about the story. Splitting the pages will let this page evolve and contain a lot more information on the band, while the other page will continue with the story. We should still have a little paragraph about the story on here and a link to the new big page, I think. Anybody agree? Cookiecaper 04:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the story should have its own article (what would the title be though?) I also think the articles Paris Earth and Coheed and Cambria Killgannon should be merged with the story article, I don't think they need thier own pages. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 04:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think separate pages are good for those two. Somebody could hear or see somebody talk about Paris Earth and come look that up. Maybe it'd be better if they were redirects. But I think they're nice as separate, it's easier to find specific information that way and some good stuff would happen. Probably. But anyway, I'm glad you agree about making a new page for the story section. One or two more agreements and no objections and then I'll split 'em, see. Cookiecaper 04:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. The story section should definitely be its own article, and I've given this some thought: I think the story section would fit best into a Bag On Line Adventures or Coheed and Cambria (comics) page. While the story is the focus of many of the band's songs, the comic has had thousands sold (therefor notable) and most of the major plot details come from it. I actually vote for Bag On Line Adventures being made into an entry and eventually expanded beyond the story information present. When that dust has all settled, a simple paragraph summarizing the story and linking to the big story page, as Cookiecaper suggested, is a great idea. If you guys want, I'll do all this. Lemmmmmme know. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 07:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think Paris Earth and Coheed and Cambria Killgannon should be redirects. They're not notable enough in and of themselves (at least, as of now... ) [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 18:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've done the split. The Coheed and Cambria section of the story will now be found at Bag On Line Adventures. Coheed and Cambria Killgannon and Paris Earth have been modified to redirect to that page, as well as some other things. Does this work out okay for everyone? Cookiecaper 04:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Love it, thanks man. Nice work. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 06:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relative information that needs to be added is on the official coheed bandpagea>

[edit] comic vs album

I was wondering if the comic(s) should have separate articles from the corresponding album(s). The Second Stage Turbine Blade is the current link for both the record and the comic, but the article only talks about the album. Is there any real difference between the story in the comic and the one on the album? Or should the info on the comic be included in the album article? (And now I must admit that I don't listen to C&C, but for some reason these articles intrigue me. I just downloaded a few songs, and these guys are great. I'm expanding my musical horizons thanks to a Wiki article, how big of a nerd does that make me? :) ) [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The SSTB article should have one of those indented italics at the top explaining a comic of the same name exists and giving a link to The Second Stage Turbine Blade (comics). My reasoning for this is that the SSTB comic is named so because of the first track on the album, not the album itself. There are probably going to be about six or seven comics covering the SSTB album (all with mountains of information not available in the band's lyrics) so it would make sense to give each comic its own page with a synopsis of and link to each on The Bag On Line Adventures. Character descriptions would fit on the Bag On Line page, too. With all these changes taking place, I'm going to write more about the overall story, the character descriptions, and more about the SSTB comic in the very near future. There is still a lot of information that can be put down and the more we expand these pages, the more accessible and better presented it will be. Co&Ca is the best band that has ever existed so any questions about them, their songs, or their story I am fairly confident I can answer. And you're not a nerd, you're modern. That is all. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 20:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

There seems to be a little conflict going on over the release date GA:IBS4:V1FFTTEOM. What's the correct date and why do people keep changing it? Cookiecaper 7 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)

[edit] Discography, external links, etc

the last edit cut out a LOT of info and it really detracts from the page. I'm putting it back unless someone can justify why deleting it is an improvement.

I found usefull information about the EP at www.emacular/interviews/eud%e/cambria.php </href> regarding the meaning behind songs and the album, and the initial strugle to make the ep. Lots of usefull stuff there.

[edit] Severed Ties

I run a website called Severed-Ties[1]. I wanted to invite whoever would like to join our community to sign up on the boards. If there are no objections I'll re-add the site to External Links in a few days time. Horsman 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an objection, I'm afraid. There really are plenty of links there already, and another link of this kind is unnecessary. This is an encyclopædia article, not a Web page that tries to offer every relevant link (there are, of course, plenty of those around). We also have a rule against people adding links to their own sites. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So what of the owner of the other site adding his website? Does it not matter? I don't understand why only one fansite is linked. There are plenty of people who would probabally like to know that there is more than one. Horsman 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're objecting because of 'plenty of links' existing already, why are there still two links to the same site - cobaltandcalcium.com (a site with ads, I note, although one which seems to have a large enough forum to be a representative fansite I'll admit) - in the External Links section, which you just 'tidied' in an edit? Can't we zap the lyrics one, or change it back to the previous link? --Fuzzie (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point — I missed that; I've deleted the lyrics sub-link, and added the description to the main link. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the link was added by the site-owner? Again, though, we're not here to provide complete sets of links; people can go elsewhere for that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I know the site owners IP address. He's the guy that edits external links like 20 times a day. Horsman 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Then it's up to you to remove links that he adds. Why do you assume that whatever you know, everyone else knows? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's posted above in vandalism header. I understand what you mean though. I'm clearly just a little miffed. Horsman 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User:68.227.40.35 certainly seems to be repeatedly reverting any edits to that link section, whether adding other fan sites, fixing the description, or removing duplicate links. I've asked them on the talk page to come participate in this discussion. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does the one fansite get to stay in, but the other doesn't? According to the rules only one main one should be listed if there are a lot of fansites for the same band, but there are only two. It seems obvious that it is someone from the other fansite editing ours out, since they continue to do it on a daily basis with no personal gain. Our site can give more insight into the Coheed and Cambria story, as well as a place to talk with other fans. So why can't it be stopped? It is not my site, by the way, I merely find it to be irritable and unfair. You could at least make the page semi-protected, since the people who continually vandalize are not registered users.-- Sunshine748

[edit] #influences and similarities

hey y'all. I put up some of an older version of the Coheed and Cambria#influences and similarities section, cuz I think it fits. some of the stuff under this section that came later was indeed getting reeeeeal crufty edit by edit. citation was asked for regarding the whole section, but I think what I put back is acceptable. KzzRzzKnocker 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the word impressive from this part because it seems to give too much of a one-sided view for an encyclopedia. And don’t get mad i'm not hating against them I just don’t think that should be in there. --ZASH 10:28, 9 April 2006 (Hawaii)

Added At The Drive In, Iron Maiden, Stevie Wonder(??) and Madonna(????) as influences. Those last two may seem odd, but all 4 have references. Liberdade 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This was commented out of Influences and similarities

"Coheed and Cambria's music is often compared to that of Rush, partly because of lead singer Sanchez's wide vocal range and high-pitched voice, Dream Theater, for their technical phrasing and intricate time changes, and Yes, partly because of the intricacy and "dueling" style of guitar and bass work. Their technical precision, terse rhythmic phrases, and the advanced compositional structures of songs evoke earlier similarly crafted rock. Story elements and melodic themes are cohesively wrought throughout their albums to date. Coheed and Cambria are the most visible proponents of a new sort of "prog-rock opera" style for the 2000s. Notably, though, the futuristic science-fiction storyline on which all their music is based harks back to the epic sound and feel of 1970s progressive-rock."

due to "Comparing them to Rush and Dream Theater is utmost ridiculous!"

If anyone feels all or part of it should be re-inserted, feel free to do so, preferably with reasoning in the edit summary or here on the talk page. References, such as a prominent music magazine or reviewer comparing it to Rush, for example, would help a lot too. Gotyear 04:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Considering that I know a few people who mistook Coheed & Cambria for Rush, yes, it should be reinserted. I'll wait for someone to agree with me first though... it could just be me. Spike the Porcupine 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

— Well, I was watching this neat little channel called Fuse a few months ago, and I didn't know the name of the band until the end of the song (I tuned in halfway through "Welcome Home") But after a few seconds of listening to them I said aloud "Damn! What are they? Rush v.2?"172.134.243.6 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Oh, I just got my account, so now... Lass Lethe 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

- I know someone who once confused Billy Joel for The Beatles. Come on, guys, let's keep this discussion up to Wikipedia standards. If an article compares the two bands, then wikipedia can safely mention that an article once compared the two bands. Wikipedia doesn't have to comment on the validity of the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJRussell (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Track and Soundtrack not noted in the Article?

There seems to be no mention of the track that Coheed have in the Snakes On A Plane Original Soundtrack, the track is Wake Up in acoustic, do you think it should get some mention in the article? and will someone put it in? UkNegative 12:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thats mentioned on Good Apollo I'm burning star IV blah blah...page...it's there... --Nineinchsin 19:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the first paragraph...

When it mentions the three areas of New York that C&C are from, it repetitively says New York after each area... It looks rather redundant. Would it be better to just say 'New York', or list the three areas then mention in brackets that they are all areas of New York?

Zombequin 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and corrections

This article needs cleanup. There is some information listed in the infobox that is probably false, and there is no mention of former members in the infobox. In addition to this, this page and linked pages have been vandalized constantly. Explanations on this page are either too confusing or are too short to be useful. I advise that this page be completely rewritten with accurate information because this article is simply not up to snuff.

18 November, 2006 4:00 PM UTC

second that motion UkNegative 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That should help

[edit] The Coheed and Cambria EP

As far as I know, this album doesn't exist (it's been sugested it's a faux album created for P2P networks to group together random Shabutie/C&C tracks). I eventually proposed a deletion unless someone could produce proof of the album, yet no one did, and it was deleted. Today someone re-created the page and I have done the same again. If anyone has any reliable evidence or references for weather the album exists or otherwise, please ammend/comment the article.. thanks. Rehevkor 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've heard, it's a collection of Acoustic demo tracks made by Claudio that were leaked, there was no Coheed And Cambira EP. Neverender 899 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it's been deleted now, so I've removed any mention of it. Until next time. Rehevkor 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Besides the acoustic tracks that Claudio cut, Shabutie, I thought made a demo of a few Second Stage Turbine Blade songs such as "Sweet" a demo for Devil In Jersey City, and "New One Conspirator", a demo for God Send Conspirator. The tracks are simply rougher versions of the other songs and have different guitars or rawer sound to them.AloysiusR 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weerd Science

Since Josh Eppard has departed, should his side project, Weerd Science, be mentioned under "Other Projects"?

I would say yes because he made three albums with the band, therefore making him a bigger part of Coheed's history. So to answer your question, yes leave the mention. I think it would be a good idea to mention that he is no longer a member of Coheed and Cambria, or something along those lines. Angel of Anubis 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes addition?

Anyone noticed the line, "Jesse... just come look at what your brother did..." in Everything Evil (SSTB) and in Willing Well Three: Apollo II (GAIBSIV:FFEM)? Lord GS-41 03:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a ton of lines like that (like "Blood Red Summer" and "Apollo II" both contain: "what did I do to deserve..." We can't include them all because it would be too long. It's just a generalized section to help draw attention to recurring themes in melody. Gellister 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

One thing this page is badly lacking is a more detailed history for the band in the C&C years (2000-2006). I'm not knowledgeable enough to even attempt it so if anyone has anything they could add please do so.. this page really need to be sorted out. It's been in line for a clean up for long enough.. -Rehevkor 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shabutie & the film "The Naked Prey"

I believe "shabutie" is the African (Afrikaans?) name of a type of rodent which a friendly child roasts on a spit for the main character. I don't know if the word means "rat" or "roast rat", however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgreenbook (talk • contribs) 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately...I'm pretty sure that is not the case. Angel of Anubis 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps; however, a verifiable citation would be a nice improvement here.Jgreenbook 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attempted improvement

Hi, I kind of changed a little bit of the language in parts of the article to make it less fragmented. I also removed some less relevant parts such as the old Shabutie covers and songs. I also removed the part about Weerd Science, since Josh isn't in the band anymore. I also added the citation as to where the band is from. I hope everyone more or less approves the changes. ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.133.227 (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


I removed the like to Beautiful Loser because the link was not related to Coheed & Cambria, but rather Bob Seger's album of the same name.

[edit] Members?

When the two members left, (now the bassist has returned) should we not put the bassist who came in temporarily as a former member? JackRM

[edit] Singles order

Wasn't The Suffering the first single off of Good Apollo, not Welcome Home? Why does this site say everywhere (for example, in Good Apollo, The Suffering (song), Ten Speed (Of God's Blood and Burial), etc.) that Welcome Home came before The Suffering? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you're right... I think people think that Welcome Home was first because no one paid a bit off attention when Suffering was released, and Welcome Home, being the song that pushed them into the mainstream popularity, was the one that everyone noticed. Then people started to notice other Coheed songs... so yeah, go ahead an change it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, The Suffering charted higher than Welcome Home. But agreed, it's not as good a song... zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup - August 2007

So, "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It's said this for nearly a year, so what exactly needs cleaning up? It has some references now, so I changed that tag correctly, but what else needs cleaning up? Please reply! -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another subject i'd like to raise is that in the external links section, the link to MTV videos of Coheed and Cambria are only available to users in the U.S. ("Copyrights restrict us from playing this video outside the U.S.") and in WP:EXT it states that we should avoid adding Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.. Shall we remove it? Just checking with the rest of you. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that I edit this article, but I've been visiting it for a long time, at least a year, and every time I've been here the notices that it requires clean up and sources has been there, despite how much it's changed and been added to. I think it's maybe about time they're taken down as well. 207.30.253.250 11:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't really see what needs cleaning up. It needs additional references, yes, but what needs cleaning up? → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 09:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should put together a list of what might need doing.. suggestions for the list? Rehevkor 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A list of things that may need doing can be found here, but hasn't been updated in a few weeks. Some of the stuff I plan to do over the next couple of weeks. Feel free to add anything to it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Years: Change

I edited the early years section to include when Claudio nearly changed their name from Shabutie to Paris In Flames, problem is I'm new to editing and don't know how to post a source. So here it is for someone else to do, thank you:

http://www.bettawreckonize.com/interviews/coheedandcambria_interview.html

Quote: "Originally, we were going to call ourselves Paris in Flames, but then we found out it was a Thursday song." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.142.155 (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Tour

here's source that Coheed are playing at Soundwave Festival in March 2008 [2] should it be added to Coheed's Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.76.10 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added, no. Not every gig they play is notable. Thankyou for your idea though! — jacĸrм (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

We really need an image for this article, so if anyone's been to see the band live and took a decent photo please consider uploading it. Thanks. Rehevkor 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as of a couple days ago we had one. A freaking bot deleted it. I don't know if there was legitimate reason to do so, but I'm pretty sure there was no warning on our talk page saying that we had an image lacking justification. As for a live shot, I'm a self-described "decent" amateur photographer and I'll be going to a show next month. If for some odd reason no one can provide a good picture, I'll happily smuggle my camera into the show and see what I can get. It's small and has good zoom, so I might be able to come up with something good. I'll try anyway ;) Harukaze 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The last image was a non-free promo image.. it seems policy dictates images of bands are replaceable, since they're fairly easy to get photos of, live or otherwise. Rehevkor 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
We can use pictures from Flickr, as long as they have a certain 'free-to-use' license on them. I had a look through flickr looking for one to replace the one that just got deleted, but had no luck finding a good, clear one; it was me who added the last picture, so I feel I have a right to find a new one, but so far, I'm having no luck! Harukaze: It would be awesome if you could get a picture of the band, enjoy the show! — jacĸrм (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Does anyone think that this article is close to being a good article? If we added a few more references, got a new picture of the band, and kept the article well written and vandal free, I think the article could well be classed as a good article. It is well written, well formatted, follows the manual of style etc., so what else would need to be done? Here are my ideas of what needs doing:

  • A few more references need adding, especially for the early days of the band.
  • Picture of the band - not a fair-use one.
  • Patch up a few of the articles related to the band such as EPs.

Anyone up for helping me complete this, and nominating it as a good article? :) — jacĸrм (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel the history really needs fleshing out a little more too. I'd try a peer review before nominating for GA too. Rehevkor 14:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I would more then happy to help you achieve this - although as I don't have the internet during the week, my ability to assist will be limited. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to help. Will try to search for any official sources for earlier information, though honestly I don't know what is still out there. The official CoCa page doesn't generally seem to keep old data around. Maybe I could poke a webmaster over there, see if s/he's got any older information still archived? Harukaze 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class

"This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale." - Surely it's not start class anymore? The quality scale does not say I cannot change it to a higher class, so I shall make it B class. It's definitely not start-class anymore. — jacĸrм (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why not. I agree, it certainly isn't a start class article anymore. Harukaze 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cobalt and Calcium

I noticed that recently THA reverted the added link to Cobalt and Calcium, stating that it was not an official fansite and that it constituted spam. I have to disagree here. For one, I'm pretty sure that it is the official fansite, but since I could be mistaken I'll let this slide. There is one rather indisputable fact, however, that suggests Cobalt and Calcium is official: the official Coheed and Cambria website links to Cobalt and Calcium as their forum. They are also thanked specifically by name in the credits of GA4.2. Possibly other albums, not sure.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Cobalt and Calcium has to say, especially about the story of The Amory Wars, so I'm not completely for inclusion either. But I don't think the reason provided for the revert is necessarily valid. Other opinions are highly requested here. Harukaze 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It pained me to have to remove it, as I quite love that site - however, although I've seen the band use Cobalt and Calcium a lot, I can find nothing stating that it's official. Although it does link from the official site, the Cobalt and Calcium site itself doesn't use the words official anywhere that I've seen (I could have missed the said words, but the most that I've seen is "The ULTIMATE Coheed and Cambria Site" and "Inspired by Coheed and Cambria. Created by Fans. EST: 2004"). This leads me to believe it is in fact just a fan site that happened to become so immensely popular, that the band have collaborated with them numerous times in the past. As I said, I do like the Cobalt and Calcium site a lot, but I'm not so sure on it's place on Wikipedia.
This in mind, it may very well be an excellent example for the Ignore All Rules policy. It may count as spam, but due to it's import within the Coheed and Cambria fanbase (as I said, such as how the band have collaborated with them numerous times), it may be acceptable to list it. Thoughts, anyone? ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm a mod from Cobalt and Calcium, the name is Yattering. Anyways, the message forum from Cobalt is now the "official" message forum for Coheed and Cambria. I do have proof of this and thought that it should be known. Nonetheless, the site now host little to no ads or anything of that nature. So, if the link to Cobalt could stay that would be great. ~ Redotter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.122.114 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

I don't agree with a review being added to fit Coheed's genre. The band should be what they describe themselves as, which is progressive. If the band say they are progressive, let it be. The best source for a genre is what they say themselves, and have they said anywhere themselves they are emo? A source which is not themselves should only be used to describe a bands genre if no official website of them (such as MySpace) can be found to describe their genre. But in this case, they have described themselves as progressive, and only other people have described them as emo. Opinion? — jacĸrм (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — jacĸrм (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • What major publications like The Village Voice call them is very important, in order to maintain Wikipedia's guidelines about neutrality. The band does not automatically take precedence over other sources when it comes to Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that, but I was just raising a point. Since these reviews are all professional, they are a verifiable source and you are correct to add them, but it just seems strange how Coheed describe themselves as progressive and not themselves as emo. — jacĸrм (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, some bands--My Chemical Romance comes to mind--openly reject the emo label, probably because it has become associated with the subculture and/or the derogatory slang term. In that light, I find it stranger that Coheed and Cambria has not yet openly complained about being called "progressive emo" by so many major publications. It's not uncommon for bands to avoid overclassifying their music, though; AC/DC's members still strictly refer to the group's music as "rock and roll". JimmyBlackwing 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
They even say that they think being labeled as "emo" was just a time thing, see this video, 5:05 in. Todd says "I don't really understand, that's what I always said, that was a time and place thing, that word is a time and place thing, [..] I don't really understand what aspects make a band emo, I don't really know how to clasify a band that anyway, I don't really think we fit in with the time, I think it was a time thing,". If the genre is described by themselves as just being a time thing, which is, in a way, saying they are not emo, then surely, it should mean they are not emo? — jacĸrм (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a section the intro about this. — jacĸrм (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That works. The section makes it pretty clear that the article isn't tilting one way or the other; it's just equally providing both viewpoints. JimmyBlackwing 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me say something: if Coheed and Cambria is emo, then what does that make bands like Genesis and Yes?
  • cackles!* Oh God, some of Genesis's songs. I love them to death, but seriously, I just want to slap Phil Collins sometimes :D 春・Harukaze・風 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember, there are two Genesises. Genesis, with Peter Gabriel as the lead singer, is the prog band. When Phil Collins became the lead singer, like the Invisible Touch era, they were no longer considered prog, they were considered an 80's pop band. And Yes is also considered a prog band, but only about half their albums - the other half are just considered pop albums. KevinJRussell (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you define emo?

Could you list the defining traits that a band needs to have to be classified as emo, because Ive compared a lot of emo bands to C&C and I just really dont see much similarity between the two, and the emo article basically just says "wimpy fags who sing about being depressed" which C&C dont seem to be, so what does a band need to be labeled emo? GreasySam 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you see the little numbers next to where it says they are classified as Emo, that's what they need to be classified as emo. Check those links out. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

the first one just compared it to geddy lee and rush.
the second said it was emo because most of its fans are emo kids, and called it sorta emo and sorta prog.
the third had emo nowhere in it.
the fourth one just called them emo-prog
the fifth said they were a mixture of emo, metal, and prog....
and yet still I have yet to find what exactly emo is, maybe Im just stupid..... GreasySam 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, emo only refers to the lyrics, and, if you think about it, their lyrics do have alot of emotion in it. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost every song ever has emotion in it. Rehevkor 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, every song has emotion in it, I guess with emotional lyrics I can go call pretty much every other band in history emo, even classical music is emo, listen to beethoven thats just pure emo. GreasySam 19:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. The way see it the whole emo genre is a joke. Same could have been said for nu metal. It's just a name for whatever popular new music people that's too different to be under a standard classification, or something traditionalists don't want classified with their own music. Rehevkor 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
From my experience, emo is just a certain branch of hardcore punk music. The genre got started that way, and there are clear hardcore punk roots in bands like Fall Out Boy, Jimmy Eat World and most of the other bands commonly labeled "emo" these days. It's weird that so many people call Coheed and Cambria "prog-emo", but I can kind of see where they're coming from. It's more progressive than emo, in my opinion, but those are probably the two genres I would use to describe the band's sound. JimmyBlackwing 19:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Emo, which is a very vague term, I think is for any band that is strongly emotional in their lyrics, all songs are emotional, but I think Emo are bands/songs that are extremely emotional usually sadness and negative emotions, but then again Heavy Metal is extremely emotional with anger, so the whole term Emo is very vague, but yeah I could see them as being called Prog-Emo/Emo-Prog, not that I agree with it, but wikipedia is for facts, and their lyrics are strongly emotional, so unfortunately I guess they are Prog-Emo, I just hope I dont get labelled as a emo for listening to them.....(mumbles) stupid emo kids...... GreasySam 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there is a pretty good article about emo here on wikipedia...anyways a music genre can not be defined just by the content of the lyrics. This is simple: Co&Ca have nothing to do with emo in any way. emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk, with certain features that are not present in Co&Ca. They're not even hardcore in the first place,so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.25.135 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So.. do we go by Wikipedia definition or the press' definition? Isn't it the press that create the definitions really? I hate to think of Co&Ca as emo as much as anyone, but we have to think about this neutrally. I say if Wikipedia doesn't say they're emo by their definition, then they're not.. but I dunno.Rehevkor 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect information, not make original commentary. To put that into context, what the press says about emo should be how Wikipedia defines it. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on the genre is a mess, what with the POV wars, ambiguity and bands themselves complaining. It's not a particularly good place to look for a comprehensive, balanced overview of the genre. JimmyBlackwing 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just don't forget, what press you choose to use is also half the equation. You can find plenty of press articles on subjects that absolutly contradict eachother. Press media is still just a medium for presentation of opinion. IMO, their sounds and lyrics do not fit under the Emo subgenre, but they tend to get bundled in with that label because at this point in time they have alot in common considering concerts and fanbase. I'm into hardcore punk, industrial rock, heavy metal, hard rock and trance mainly. When I goto punk concerts, I see a but of the emo crowd in there, when I goto deathmetal concerts I see some of the same too, same with industrial gigs. They're right, it's a time and place thing. If it were 15 years ago with the same popularity, they'd be more associated with post-grunge bands and punk-revival to the point where they'd probally be called pop-punk (you want evidence about that? look at the allmusic styles they list them under: Alternative Metal, Emo, Punk-Pop). It's all about the current trends that define an active band. In 10 years, the emo thing will probally be ignored and they'll be called straight up prog-rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.128.129 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emo/MySpace

Using Co&Ca's MySpace and PureVolume sites as references seems a little weird. Do you really think one of the band members actually logged in and set their genre to emo? I even wonder if they had any say in that at all. Those official pages are typically left to people associated with the record label and possibly even with the band but not as often the band members themselves. Yes, I'm aware that there's some bands do look at their own pages but I'm of the opinion that we get rid of "emo" as part of their genre until we hear it straight from one of their mouth(s). Furthermore, Coheed and Cambria doesn't really strike me as emo. Their overall sound and lyrical content is probably best labeled only as rock and/or progressive with metal influences because the similarities to "emo" seem few and far between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.110.195 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article (2)

I think the article is ready to be assessed to become a good article. Do people agree? — jacĸrм (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After recent updates, I think it looks pretty damn good. But you guys know a lot more about what qualifies than I do. All I can say is that I'm happy with the article's current incarnation. Harukaze 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] expanding Coheed and Cambria (2001–2006)

I feel the section Coheed and Cambria (2001–2006) is the weakest part of the article, it should really have been one of the busiest times for the band, including the releases of SSTB, IKSSE and IBSIV, yet they're not even mentioned. If anyone is able to expand it, please do. I'm currently trying to get together some sources and information to add to it myself, any help would be greatly appreciated. Rehevkor 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've currently working through the history here. Rehevkor 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I put together a short section with some references. It can be improved, but its a good start. -Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.120.45 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's amazing, Andrew. Make an account! You seem like a fantastic editor :) — Jack (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Made one. I'm kind of new to wiki, but I like Coheed a lot so I figured I 'd try to fill in some gaps. Liberdade 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Good work Liberdade. You've done a much better job than I could have. Rehevkor 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely, fantastic work here, by everyone. When I first came to Wikipedia this article was a mess, and now we've all worked together.. now look at it :). -- Jack 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Ok. Since you feel it's OK to use the image of the album cover, I added another rationale to it so it's being used perfectly, so we aren't hurled with abuse from bots! — Jack (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok as far as I know anyway, as per WP:FAIR#Acceptable_images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I've seen several notable articles, featured ones even, do as such, so I doubt we'll have a problem. A second fair use rational will certainly help, thanks. :) Rehevkor 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The user who is meant to be reviewing this article to be a good article told me to remove the image here. The image policies here on Wikipedia get more confusing day by day. I thought the policy was this, that we couldn't use it in this article, per my previous edit, but then I agreed with Rehevkor's edit, but we're obviously both wrong! I also fixed the cite errors. /Me nudges The Haunted Angel. ;) -- Jack 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Reasons like this that, no matter how long I stay with wiki, I'll never want to be an admin. How can people even hope to keep all of that in their head? And trying to administrate everything while bouncing around checking to make sure the policies you're enforcing are still supposed to be enforced the way you know them... it just all spins my head. 春Harukaze風 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation under "Genre" and Post-Hardcore

"The debate is largely redundant since the band display elements of both musical styles. Songs such as A Favour House Atlantic and The Suffering follow the emo blueprint of simple riffs and catchy, pop-punk melodies whilst the likes of In Keeping Secrets Of Silent Earth: 3 and The Willing Well IV: The Final Cut display a more prog-style approach, with complex time signatures and often lengthy guitar solos."

That section seems sort of speculative/unenyclopedic, however commenting about the various types of songs does seem appropriate when discussing the debate over their genre. Is there a way to rephrase this or maybe provide some references talking about the two competing styles of Coheed's songwriting?

Also, I've added in some of this already under influences, but their first two albums (especially the Second Stage Turbine Blade) have a post-hardcore feel to them. I'll add this with a reference to their post-hardcore influences (like At the Drive In) if no one objects. This might also be relevant to clearing up the debate around whether or not they are emo, since post-hardcore is closely related to emo and the emo scene (and Coheed has toured with a lot of post-hardcore, emo, and punk acts like Thrice, Thursday, The Used, AFI etc.) Liberdade 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Overall, pretty decent read. Don't let the huge amount of bullet points below scare you, I thought in general it is a decent article that just needs a little bit of in-depth attention.

  • A general point I'd like to make, which is mentioned below in a bit more detail: there's alot of full dates throughout the article. In general, consider if it is really worth mentioning the exact day that an album was released or a concert was recorded. That is generally better left for other articles, such as an album's article or a discography. Also, it gives the article the bitter taste of proseline.
  • Also, I'd like to point out, according to WP:DATE dates should only be wikilinked when they "deepen readers' understanding of a topic". Rehevkor 15:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Jack?! 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also in general, names of albums, eps, dvds, etc should italicized. I fixed a few instances of this, but there's still a few lingering. Same thing with comic book titles and films.
  • Y Done Can't see anymore. Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that Image:C&C logo2.jpg is a copyrighted logo, regardless of whether it is recreated or not. I could be mistaken, though since I really don't know for sure.
  • Y Done - added correct rationales and tag. Jack?! 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence, it would probably be better prose to write "...from Nyack and Kingston, New York." Or, even better, why even mention the cities in the first place? Most music articles just say "American progressive rock band" or something like that. You can expand upon the exact locations later on somewhere else. I'll let you figure out what's best though.
  • Y Done Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, as per WP:Lead, the lead section should summarize the entire article. That said, nowhere else in the article is it mentioned that they are from Nyack/Kingston NY. I'd say just move that info out of the lead and into the first section.
  • "short space of time" is kind of awkward.
  • Y Done Changed to "brief period". Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's unnecessary to list all four studio releases in the lead.
  • Y Done Moved to Discography, but still kept a section in the lead about their album types, as it is an important part of the band. Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The two fragmented paragraphs in the Shabűtie (1995–2001) section should be combined into a single paragraph.
  • Y Done Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Sanchez took control" sounds like a dictatorship or something.
  • Y Done Changed to "took the role of.." Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Todd, who was primarily a guitarist, picked up the bass specifically for Shabűtie." should be sourced since it is surprising and/or unexpected.
  • Y Done It was mentioned in the source at the end of the section, but I moved it around. Rehevkor 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Same thing with "Kelly would leave the band during a performance in late 1999 after becoming upset over the band's drunken performance."
  • In the first sentence of Coheed and Cambria (2001-2006) section, is it really necessary to give another running tally of band members? Seems like your unnecessarily repeating information we already know. The mention of the temporary keyboardist is also a little out of place - that is, it seems out of chronological order. Why mention 2005 when you're still talking about 2001? Furthermore, that sentence is just a huge run-on sentence. I'd recommend trashing the whole thing.
  • Y Done Removed members, just changed to "The band then had a line-up that would remain constant until..". I believe the mention of the touring keyboard player is important because it says how long they kept this line-up without any additions.
  • "February 5, 2002 saw the release of" is awkward. Also, is the full date necessary here? In the grand scheme of things does it really matter what day it was released?
  • Y Done Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Same thing with "when bought online at Tower Records after March 19, 2004" Does the day really matter here? Leave that to the EP's article. In fact, is the Tower Records deal even worth mentioning here at all?
  • Y Done ? Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Influenced by seminal post-hardcore group At The Drive In" says who?
    • Sanchez explicitly states that in the reference afterwards. Should I quote rather than summarize? I think its relevant for giving an idea of their sound at the time, as it definitely evolved over time.Liberdade 03:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose you could either reword the sentence to state who said it, paraphrase, then add an in-line citation, or just quote directly and add a citation. Either way would probably work, it's up to you. Drewcifer 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Jack?! 13:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Influenced by seminal post-hardcore group At The Drive In, the band's first release also featured a credited guest appearance from Dr.Know of the D.C. hardcore punk act Bad Brains on the track "Time Consumer", the reworking of songs "Delirium Trigger", "33", and "Junesong Provision" from the Delirium Trigger EP as well as the band's first single and music video, "Devil in Jersey City". " Is also a very confusing run-on sentence.
  • "The record also invited many comparisons to Canadian progressive rock group Rush due to Sanchez's characteristically high vocals and the distinctly technical nature of the music in comparison to their peers in the post-hardcore scene." Is problematic, since it is opinion stated as fact. If this is a reviewer's opinion, then mention whose opinion it is, and definitely provide a citation.
  • Y Done - could be more added though. Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "release on Columbia Records(owned by Sony BMG)" Who care who owns Columbia? What does that have to do with Coheed and Cambria?
  • Y Done Removed. Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "the album represented a departure from their previous melodic post-hardcore influenced rock toward a progressive rock sound, incorporating long guitar solos and several explicit nods to Sanchez and Stever's classic rock influences like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd." Says who?
  • Y Done Cleaned up; provided examples of how it is more progressive and removed unsourced "nods" to other bands. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Sanchez has several times stated" begs for some citations.
  • I believe they are after the next sentence? We also had to remove one citation due to some copyright problems with the video, this one. Jack 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "The debate is largely redundant" is an opinion.
  • Y Done Cut down POV slightly, I hope to clean up the genre section more. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Whenever possible, citations should provide a wikilink if the publisher has its own article. For example, any citations citing rollingstone.com should ideally read Rolling Stone. And to further complicate matters, only the first instance should be linked, so any further citations from Rolling Stone should read Rolling Stone. AND (it's really not as complicated as I'm making it sound, I promise), any website with a name (such as IGN or Billboard) should be labeled by the name not their url. So IGN rather than ign.com.
  • Y Done I wikilinked the publisher whenever possible, but only the first one. Jack 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put the article's GA nomination on hold. I know the above looks like alot of work, but most of the issues are fairly minor. Overall it is a decent article that just needs a bit of polish. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions or concerns. Also, when you fell you have addressed all of the above, drop me a line so that I can take another look and hopefully pass the article. Good luck! Drewcifer 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few more...

Good work overall! I went through the article and did a bit more copyediting. There are still a few things that should be worked on, however, mostly very minor things:

  • Image:C&C logo2.jpg is still problematic. Since it's a copyrighted logo, there are some rules to using it under fair-use. Currently it is used merely for decoration. To justify its use, it must be mentioned in the prose somewhere. If the logo is as meaningful and as constant as it seems to be, then that shouldn't be very difficult.
  • I'd like to see the input of Rehevkor and Haunted Angel on this one. The logo represents the band and the Amory Wars, so I am wondering how we're going to mention it in the prose. Jack?! 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm.. well.. mentioning the keywork and it's use as a logo and in the story in the article maybe? Rehevkor (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The band's official MySpace is not a reliable source. Ideally, citations #1 and #5 should be replaced with something more objective and reliable for anything not actually related to the band's MySpace page.
  • "In March 1995 Claudio Sanchez and Travis Stever's band split, they were joined by Nate Kelley to start a band called Beautiful Loser, featuring Stever on vocals and guitar, Sanchez on guitar, Kelley on drums and Jon Carleo on bass." Is a long and confusing sentence.
  • Y Done Simplified. Jack?! 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "With Eppard, the band went on to release Delirium Trigger in 2000, marking the beginning of Coheed and Cambria." Did they officially change their name for this release or are you saying that this is the lineup that eventually became C&C? It's not clear.
  • Y Done You were right, it really wasn't clear, and I believe it was a mistake. The band was not yet known as Coheed and Cambria, so I changed it a little. Jack?! 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Coheed and Cambria once again toured almost non-stop in support of In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth:3, finally stopping to record their third release and major-label debut Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through the Eyes of Madness (which included the bonus EP Live at the Avalon when purchased from Best Buy) in the spring of 2005 for a September 2005 release on Columbia Records, with whom they had signed a multi-album contract." Another sentence of epic proportions.
  • I'm still wary of whether it's even worth mentioning the Tower Records/Best Buy deals. What does that really have to do with the band's history?
  • Y Done Removed them. Jack?! 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also added a few {{Fact}} tags for things I believe should be cited.
  • "The album's first single, "The Running Free", was released to radio in August, 2007." Is this significant? Beware recentism.
  • "For example, when Coheed returns home to Cambria, she says, "Somehow I’ve always known", which is a line that Princess Leia used with Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars movie." Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
  • The Amory Wars. All Coheed's music is based on that. Jack?! 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear: I realize that it is an example of how they are similar, but this seems like a completely unnecessary tangent. Drewcifer (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the justification is for naming the section Influences and similarities: perhaps to justify the Star Wars quote? I would recommend just titling it Influences to match ample precedence in other similar articles.
Y Done Rehevkor (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally, I would recommend adding a few more external links. Take a look at Nine Inch Nails for a good example. Try and stay below 4-5 links though. It's easy to get carried away.
  • Y Done. Added a few more. Jack?! 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, that should do it I think. Sorry to stagger my criticisms like this, but hopefully the above isn't too much work. Again, let me know when you think things are taken care of. Drewcifer (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, an article can only be on hold for 10 days. So, I wanted to give you fair warning that tomorrow I'll take another look at the article and pass or fail it. I see a few unresolved points up above, and while those in and of themselves might not mean disaster, you might wanna take another look at my suggestions. So now's the time for any last minute changes! Drewcifer (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Although the article is very close, and alot of hard work has obviously been done to address my above comments, I've failed the article's GA nomination. The two main problems I see with the article is the heavy reliance on the band's MySpace for in-line citations, and the questionable fair-use claim of the Keywork logo, both of which are mentioned in greater detail above. I don't think either problem will be terribly difficult to address eventually, but they do represent a problem for the moment. If these issues are eventually addressed, feel free to renominate the article at any time. If you like, you can drop me a note on my Talk Page, and I'll be happy to take an immediate look at the article, since articles tend to be on the nomination page for a very long time. Finally, if you think my review is in error, you can nominate the article for GA Reassessment. Otherwise, feel free to drop me a line with any questions or concerns you may have. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shabűtie (1995–2001)

The first paragraph under this section makes no sense to me. It is not well written and I don't even think it is relavant. I'm sure some fans appreciate extra information about the band, but as a someone who really isn't a fan, this didn't make much sense to me. SleepyStud 11:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism (I reverted it last night but it seems the editor re-added it.) Rehevkor 14:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck the rules?

Anyone who is half a Coheed fan has heard of Cobalt and Calcium, easily the biggest Coheed fan site on the net. Now I myself have removed the link to this site in the past due to it not being an "official" site, but I suggest that we ignore all rules here and add it back; mainly under the reasoning that the site, although unofficial, has played a major part in spreading promotion for the band. The official Coheed site links to Cobalt and Calcium, the band have frequently done interviews with the site, and even more so, before No World... was released, a lot of promotional stuff (such as the message updates, or the cryptic Willing Well videos) was display on this website, straight from the band themselves. I say that this is enough jurisdiction to add the site back. Thoughts, anyone? ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the material is trustworthy, I am going to have to give the standard admin answer here. Basically if we bend the rules here, it opens up the door for other pages with not-so reliable fansites.--Wick3dd (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that that is a valid argument and risk, but there are plenty of decent 'heed fansites we could add - and I chose not to bring them up because they are frankley, all irrelevant next to Cobalt and Calcium for the reasons I gave above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The "forum" link on the band's official site now links to Cobalt & Calcium. Not sure if that changes anything.193.63.197.247 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination 2

I reviewed and failed the article's previous GA nomination back in November, and was happy to see it renominated some 3 months later. For the most part, I'd still say it's a high-quality article, and to a certain extant it seems some of my previous comments on the article have been addressed. I still have some reservations, however, detailed below. I've put the article's nomination on hold, a process which lasts around 7 days, at which time I'll have to pass or fail the article.

  • My previous critique of using the band's MySpace page have been partly taken care of, but not completely. It looks like 4 referencse have been switched to the All Music Guide source, which is great, but 4 more remain. Is this information seriously not available anywhere else?
Y Done Sunshine748 (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The fair-use application of the logo still seems questionable to me. The Keywork is only mentioned in the caption. Since it is copyrighted, there needs to be more of an explanation of what it is to justify it being in the article. Mention it in the article itself and you should be cool. Take a look at Nine Inch Nails for a good example of how to discuss a logo in the prose.
What do you think about moving the logo to under the name of the band, at the top of the page? It is an official logo for the band and I see from earlier edits that there was an unofficial logo being placed there. What about putting this where that used to be? Sunshine748 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Moving the logo wouldn't really change anything. If I remember correctly, the FACs for a few articles had the same issue, and it was generally agreed upon that logos shouldn't be in the infobox, since one, it isn't actually their name, and two, it's questionable fair-use. A simple sentence or two in the prose about the logo would suffice. Drewcifer (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I honestly can't think of a way to add it into the prose without going into the story of the lyrics. And there is a separate Wiki for that purpose. It's a logo that pretty much represents the story Coheed tells. If anyone else here can think of a way to add it to the article, please do. Otherwise maybe it is best to just leave it out of this article and explain it in the Amory Wars article? Sunshine748 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a comment about the logo into the prose. I hope it will suffice. Sunshine748 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "debated subgenres" in the infobox is silly. It's the equivalent of a question mark in the infobox. I'd reommend taking it out, and leaving the finer points to the genre section.
Y Done Sunshine748 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, just as some advice, you may want to put a comment in the genre section, since if it really is debated, people will keep adding in the genre that they think fits. Again, take a look at Nine Inch Nails (the coding in the infobox) for an example. Just a friendly suggestion. Drewcifer (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you undo sunshine's edit? I was suggesting you do both: take out the "debate subgenres" and add a comment. Not one or the other. Drewcifer (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry; he didn't explain his removal of the subgenres part, so I reverted it - the idea for the "debated subgenres" bit I got from another article a while ago, which I believe has since been removed (I think it was either Panic! At the Disco, Fallout Boy, or My Chemical Romance). Will re-remove the link. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking of the genre section, it needs a bit of a copyedit. Also be careful of describing song, since it is WP:OR. If possible, try and reference a critics description of a song, rather than your own.
Y Done Sunshine748 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've updated with some album reviews for the first half of this section's song descriptions; I'll get to work on the other half tomorrow. Sunshine748 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's pretty much it. Feel free to drop me a line here or on my talk page if you have any questions, or when you think the article is ready for me to take another look. Drewcifer (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched the web for like 2 hours tonight looking for stuff about Shabutie and at last found some old interviews with Coheed where they discussed their origins. I hope this will suffice for those sources. Also, for the logo problem, I found a source saying it is the official logo of the band: http://www.scifislacker.com/music/coheed-cambria-interview.shtml . The link also goes into a brief detail about the meaning of the logo, however I am not the best encyclopedic writer so I don't really want to put this info in myself. Something about the logo becoming known around the release of IKSSE, and its significance as pertaining to Coheed. Sunshine748 (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I've passed the article's GA nomination, excellent work to everyone involved! I don't know what the next step for the article might be, but if you plan on nominating it to FA, here are a few more suggestions to get you started: expand the lead, start a "Musical style" section or something like that, add some fair-use applicable music samples, and tighted up the language/prose throughout. Good luck in the future, and great work. Drewcifer (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news, thank you. To you and everyone that helped the article reach GA status :) Rehevkor (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
'grats, everyone ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
woot! Sunshine748 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say well done. Although I'm not really contributing to Wikipedia anymore, I used to try daily to get this article up to GA standard. I added many of the references, the image, the audio samples and lots more. Well done everyone who worked on this! Really good news. Jack?! 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Band

I think it should note somewhere in the artical that the song "Welcome Home" is in the Rock Band game (A current major seller)... I'm not exactly wiki savey but maybe someone could figure a good way to insert it. 70.51.134.194 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's mentioned on the Welcome Home article; there's not much need to have it repeated here also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also mentioned at the end of the "Departures and No World For Tomorrow (2006-present)" section of this article, so it's already mentioned :). Sunshine748 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative metal

I dunno.. but to me it's pretty clear to me that C&C is easily be covered under this genre, they've incorperated prog into an alt metal sound. Any objections to adding this to the info box? Genres are not my strong point mind. Rehevkor (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources need to back up your assertion. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[3], [4], [5].. Rehevkor (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, even though I'm a metal fan, I think calling them metal is rather dubious, even with the sources. I think that if you're gonna' add alt. metal, it should be done in the "genre" section rather in the infobox - the only thing we have for certain on Coheed is that they are prog. rock, and other labels for them (such as emo, as well as metal) seem to be a much rarer occurrence, and more down to the opinion of whomever wrote the source of which the genre was found; so yeah, I think it should only be added in the "genre" section, if anywhere. ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think we should keep it to one label at the top of the page, and it should stay what the band label themselves. Anything else can be added to the genre section. Sunshine748 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport Cabinet

I have just edited The English Panther to "original" side project by Travis Stever. I also added Davenport Cabinet to the list of side projects. If anyone can better state what i've added, feel free to edit it.StocktonDan (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cambria & Taylor

I just stayed at a Super 8 motel, and the bar of soap was branded with the name Cambria & Taylor, in stylized lettering unmistakably similar to Coheed & Cambria. Does anyone know anything about this company? Is the name and logo just an odd coincidence?--Johnny Jupiter (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)