Talk:Jimmy Eat World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Emo Music,
a WikiProject developed to create high-quality articles about Emo music. If you wish to participate, feel free to edit this page or come to the project page to take part in the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Just to be clear....

They are emo (I guess) but I also would label them as post-grunge. Their newer material kinda reflects it. Plus I found a source. :DRaikiriChidori (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

They are definitely NOT emo. Come on. Emo music reflects death and the band wear makeup and cut themselves. I can't believe so many otherwise good wikipedia editors believe that all pop punk and alt rock bands are emo. This is completely false and too many people think it is true. Just listen to the band's newer music. It sounds completely different from emo and even from what most people think of emo as today. Calling this band emo is insulting them to the highest degree. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What, are you kidding? Before you criticize an entire, well-respected genre like that, at least know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.101.163 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah who am I kidding? They aren't emo. I just said they were (I guess) as to not start an argument. Yeah, they're not emo, people. There is another genre in which emotional lyrics apply: post-grunge. If you don't believe me, read this article. It will convince you otherwise. RaikiriChidori (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You dont have to wear makeup and cut urself to be emo, and its not all about death. emo was first used to described emotive/emotion hardcore. emotions dont necessarily hav to be death related. at least kno what ur talkin about if ur gonna talk about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future albums

I don't know what you are talking about, but I added the name of the latest album.--Origami dragon 23:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • cprompt and Camembert Elwhy felt it was pointless to listed "to be announced" (TBA) albums.

[edit] My edit.

WTF?

There was nothing wrong with my edit of the Good To Go EP.

Why call it rubbish... thats just mean. -- 195.194.178.252

You copied the text off another article (via your browser) then just pasted it all as text. Seriously, you even copied and pasted the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" from the top of the page, as well as the "Edit" Wiki editing links, and left it in there.
See for yourself, your edit: [1]
Now, compare to how it looks now: Good to Go EP
I understand if you're new to Wiki, but please learn the proper code techniques before starting an article. Pick a couple of long articles, click "edit this page", and do nothing but look at how the pages are written and how things are oriented. Your last edit of this page included several Wiki goofs.
Also: articles (a, an, the) and prepositions (of, on, to) are not capitalized in titles. (There are exceptions if the preposition is used adverbially, as in "Stay On" or "Hold On".) I know that people do it where they capitalize every word, but that's not the accepted standard. -- ChrisB 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, consider me told. But seriously, theres NO CHANCE of me ever learning proper code techniques... can't I just carry on doing crappy edits and let you clever people make the changes???

[edit] There is no way that Jimmy Eat World is emo.

Where the hell did that classification come from?

They were the preeminent emo band of the 1990s. You all do realize that emo existed before 2003, yes? When people talked about emo in the late 90s, the first name that came out of their mouth was Jimmy Eat World. Clarity was considered one of the defining albums of 1990s emo. Seriously, just go to AllMusic and read their bio and reviews, for crying out loud.
Jimmy Eat World is one of the main reasons that modern emo is what it is. Before them, emo was something drastically different. Jimmy Eat World turned mainstream and brought the word "emo" to a more mainstream sound. BTW, this is all entirely documented in the article for Emo (music). -- ChrisB 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--Look, these classifications are bullshit, TRIVIAL, to say the least. **


---TOTALLY EMO!!! xx little anna 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They are Emo. Early Emo. However Early Emo is not a genre.--WhereAmI 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but they were Emo and an early band in the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Their very old stuff was emo (a sort of "indie-emo"), but you cannot say the new material is even close to emo. They abandonned that style a long time ago. They're just alternative rock now. -- FatalError (talk | contribs) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Eat World (1994)

Why is this album not mentioned on the first part of the article? I just double checked, and it is mentioned, but not linked. I'll try to rewrite the paragraph.

.-Zingazin 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Emo Discussion

Tey another artice arguing over the tag emo. Why does the wiki community still continue to use it? "Jimmy Eat World were WIDELY considered the prominent Emo" The keyword there is "were" Nowadays Jimmy Eat World is no longer considered emo.DevelopmentArrested 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Genre" doesn't specify present day. -- ChrisB 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone were looking to get info. on the band, implying that they play emo music would give the wrong impression. DevelopmentArrested
How exactly does it give the wrong impression? Three of their four albums were specifically labelled as "emo", and many media outlets labelled Futures as "emo" as well.
Wikipedia is not the court of public opinion. It represents facts and histories. The "Genre" element of the infobox encompasses a band's entire career, not just the specific present. -- ChrisB 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To reply to this old comment I'm just going to say that the genre should tell what they are NOW with their latest album. For example, If AFI's infobox were to encompass their entire career it would list about 20 genres since the band changes with every release. And also infoboxes should only contain the most general genres which definitely doesn't include emo. So maybe I will just remove emo and some other genres and leave it as alt rock and hopefully solve this problem for good. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake... They're EMO. GET USED TO IT. Sheesh, people that complain about this annoy me. Should it matter if they're emo or not? No, it shouldn't so shut up.--punkromance 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason they're no longer considered emo is because all the bands,fanboys and girls are trying to distance themselves from the cliche that is emo.Regardless, Jimmy eat world, among so many other bands which insist they are just 'rock' ,'alternative' or 'hardcore' are emo bands and will always be remembered as so. 220.237.23.19 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


If you're going to consider Jimmy Eat World emo, then why aren't Taking Back Sunday or Brand New labeled as emo on wikipedia? After all they have a lot more emotional styles than Jimmy Eat World. And JEW aren't entirely emo, even if they had a few characteristics similar to 90s emo bands like Sunny Day Real Estate, they are undoubtedly Pop Punk/Alternative rock now. As seen by songs like The Middle and they were in the heart of the 90s punk revival movement (toured with Green Day and Blink 182). Why are you people so hung up on calling them emo anyway?

ok. to the dude abov me talkin about how they hav influences from 90s emo bands. THEY ARE THE 90s EMO BAND that people would take influence from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

-Also I've taken the liberty to say list emo as their early material. That way it satisfies the emo enthusiasts and pop punk/alternative rock enthusiasts. Its true anyway that Clarity had some emotional characteristics but the recent albums have had less.

Because the editors of those articles refused to allow Emo to be included in the infobox. That's not our fault or our problem.
"Early material" doesn't work in the infobox for several reasons. Mainly, it's not an accepted part of the infobox template. But, furthermore, what counts as "early"? It's POV, especially considering that Static Prevails, Clarity, and Bleed American have all been specifically called "emo". (Some reviewers labelled Futures that way as well.) There's no reason to split the difference.
And, no offense, but your version of events is a little bit of a historical rewrite. Jimmy Eat World have never been popularly considered part of any "90s punk revival movement" (assuming such a thing exists). Sonic similarity doesn't count - such a statement would need to be

attributed per Wiki guidelines. -- ChrisB 16:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright you have a good point. In my opinion they are generally alternative though. But if its wrong to put early material in the infobox why does it say that in Brand New's infobox? You guys gotta get on top of your game. As for the 90s punk revival movement you would have to be ignorant to say that did not exist. It was brought forth by Nirvana and the grunge movement who basically opened the gate for alternative artists like Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam. Punk, being part of the alternative genre soon broke through with Green Day's "Dookie", NOFX's "Punk in Drublic", The Offspring's "Smash", Bad Religion's "Stranger Than Ficiton", etc. which were all popular albums in 1994. Thus followed by late 90s/early 2000s pop punk bands like Sum 41, Blink 182, SR-71, New Found Glory, etc. I would consider Jimmy Eat World part of these bands because in some situations they are listed as "pop punk". But whatever makes your wikipedia world flawless and happy is fine, I really don't care because I don't have to agree with it. unsigned comment

Just so u kno, a revival is when a genere starts up again. this so called "punk revival" in the 90s was more of punk-pop coming into the public, not a revival —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat my comment from above: Jimmy Eat World are definitely NOT emo. Come on people. Emo music reflects death and is a style in which the band wear makeup and cut themselves. I can't believe so many otherwise good Wikipedia editors believe that all pop punk and alt rock bands are emo. This is completely false and too many people think it is true. Just listen to the band's newer music. It sounds completely different from emo and even from what most people think of emo as today. Even Yellowcard probably has more emo in their music than Jimmy Eat World. Calling this band emo is insulting them to the highest degree. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the emo article, the term "emo" is admittedly wrongly applied to many bands on wikipedi, but music does not have to reflect "death" to be considered "emo", you are confusing the “emo stereotype” with what is actually considered to be “emo music”. As well the genre was been thoroughly sourced in the article, and thus it should remain. Jacknife737 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since only their early albums were emo, I noted that in the infobox. They have changed from emo without a doubt since a few years ago. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

They are still referred to as "emo" by several notable sources. Right or wrong, "without a doubt" is absolutely incorrect. -- ChrisB 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris B is obviously obsessed with referring to this band as emo so let him leave the little three letter, insignificant word on the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.253.184 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World was not part of the 90's punk movement, they were a part of the 90's indie emo movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.118.197 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Their first single "The Middle" was not emo. It was pop punk. I don't really see how they were part of this "indie emo movement" you talk about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.137.84 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emo is Emocore

Emo is Emocore! it's like: punk is the smallversion of punkrock! or hardcore for hardcore punk and alternative for alternative rock!

Emo did originally stand for emocore, but that stuff is almost completely different than the emo stuff you hear now. Emocore was hardcore punk with an emotion edge. Stuff like Jimmy Eat World definitely isn't hardcore punk.

Emo isnt emocore? Its 'Emotive Hardcore'. And Jimmy Eat Worlds earlier work is punk. And finally Emotive Harcore/Emo is a type of punk.

It's not "emotive hardcore". That term only came into popular usage in the last few years. Emocore was established as "emotional hardcore". The elitists in the current emo scene have patently ignored the history of the scene in favor of their own belligerence.
The term "emocore" largely fell out of popular usage in the mid-90s, and was almost entirely used to describe the 80s and early 90s emo bands. By the time Jimmy Eat World was associated with "emo", it was simply that: "emo". It wasn't "emocore". The terms are not exactly the same: all emocore is emo, but not all emo is emocore. -- ChrisB 00:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)




ive never really done anything on this site. but my question is if jimmy eat world IS emo....that is the term for the music....what would you label such bands as my chemical romance, sum-41, NEWER greenday, the used, AFI, and stuff like that? the eyeliner the gloves and gay hair?.............also what is the term or label or whatever the f- for bands like thursday, bayside, brand new and taking back sunday? i mean i'm like seriously genuinly curios as to what u guys think. i dont like to be the one to say that the whole emo scene today is extremely stupid, because you know i respect people and their right to a certain lifestyle. but come on....the stereotype thing....ive heard the whole 'cant spell crap without rap' and 'crock without rock' stuff. i hate seeing these pretentious people dressing up in black and growing their hair out, the make up and just the whole style man seriously. do you HAVE to paint ur nails black? what happened to the term goth? when did it become cool and trendy for the outcasts to put those stupid fingerless glove whatever the heck they are things on. i mean HOT TOPIC??? wtf. oh god im getting tooo crazy. im sorry. got a little to into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.150.109 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

okay dude. none of sum41, any greenday, or AFI could really ever be considered emo, punkpop yes, but not emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Emo stands for Emotional Hardcore. Hardcore = Hard, fast, heavy. Jimmy Eat World is not hardcore, and therefore, is not Emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.30.153 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But they were, at some point, so the tag BLOODY WELL STAYS, DISCUSSION OVER PEOPLE - savage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.2.214 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BleedAmerican.jpeg

Image:BleedAmerican.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Clarity.jpeg

Image:Clarity.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Futures.jpeg

Image:Futures.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:StaticPrevails.jpeg

Image:StaticPrevails.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my two cents

I disagree with their debut album being called an emulation of punk-rock influences. Is it being claimed that the album sounds more like The Sex Pistols and Ramones than late 80s/early 90s college rock like Husker Du's last album? "most major-label bands were ostracized from the underground as "sell-outs"" is a dubious claim. Most major label bands were ignored by the underground because the kind of music they played was irrelevant to it, however bands that had underground cred to begin with have never typically lost it for signing to a major. I disagree with the claim that Bleed American is a more emo-influenced song than A Praise Chorus. I assume this distinction is based on vocals? The vocal performance on Bleed American has no specific relevence to historical emo vocals styles, although it could be claimed to be "emotional". The chiming guitars and dynamics on A Praise Chorus however do have particular relevence to 90s emo playing styles. "Jimmy Eat World continued to be referred to as an "emo" band, meaning that the term "emo" began to describe something completely different and more mainstream than what existed in the 90s". Yeah, just like Sunny Day Real Estate being called emo in the 90s meant that the term began to describe something completely different and more mainstream than what existed in the 80s. I think the term "completely" is an exaggeration and should be removed or elaborated on. 149.135.107.165 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Liam

The contentious statements that you're concerned about are not currently sourced in the article; if no sources can be found to back these statements, they can and should be removed. Several do seem like plausible statements that a reviewer might have made, though, so it's possible that sources will be found. Of course, if there are sources that are in disagreement with these statements, those can be invoked to provide a balanced view, as well. Antelan talk 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos?

I think the article could use a list of their official music videos. A lot of other band articles or discography articles have these and it is a helpful reference. That's what I was looking for but couldn't find one. Just a suggestion. --IllaZilla 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Eat World Genre

Hello, I believe the justification you gave for the removal of pop-punk as a genre for Jimmy Eat World is insufficient. I’m not debating whether or not the band is considered emo, in fact, if you check some of the article’s history, you will see that I have frequently fought for its inclusion. That said, I believe (and the source provided agrees) that Jimmy Eat World do have strong elements of pop-punk in their music. Several other band articles in wikipedia have various genres listed for the band (ie The Offspring, Green Day) Jacknife737 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you said about "emo" is irrelevant. Jimmy Eat World is not popularly recognized as a pop-punk band. Even if they were, you've got to find a better source than a negative (and poorly-written) review: WP:RS. Regardless, whatever pop-punk style they have fits comfortably under the umbrella of "alternative rock". -- ChrisB (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually Jimmy Eat World are popularly recognized as pop punk. I agree the source previously included was poorly-written and unreliable, but it doesn't matter if it's negative or not. We are supposed to be aiming for neutrality here. I added 2 reliable sources so it shouldn't be removed again. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, I would argue that Jimmy Eat World are in fact widely recognized as a pop-punk band. Secondly, Chart (magazine) is a prominent Canadian based publication, and I hardly think a single spelling error suddenly invalidates its content. Furthermore, there is nothing under WP:RS that should prevent the reference from being included within the article, Chart is a third party, published and relatively reliable source. Just because you do not like what the source says, does not mean that it is somehow invalid. Jacknife737 (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's one thing if it were a Chart article about the band. But it's one guy's paragraph review of the album. That's not a reliable source. Plus, given Tim's sources, it's completely unnecessary. -- ChrisB (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with how it is, but ChrisB, I’d appreciate that next time you decide to move a comment of mine, you’d let me know afterwards. Take care, and happy editing. Jacknife737 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm with the guy at the top. Maybe they have a post-grunge sensability. 71.203.146.98 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The rewrite is COMPLETELY unacceptable

Seriously, this is among the worst rewrites I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

1) Many of the sources fail WP:RS. Songfacts is not a reliable source, and neither is CD Universe (among others). Furthermore, most of these cites are completely unnecessary. We don't need to cite that Static Prevails was released in 1996, as the information is not controversial and cannot be challenged for veracity.

2) The rewrite contains incredibly poor grammar, with countless run-on sentences. Honestly, it reads like somebody's grade eight English assignment.

3) The rewrite contains several POV statements, such as "with British new-comers Hard-Fi replacing unfortunately Simple Plan", "the band performed at one of the largest gigs the United Kingdom has ever seen" (unlike every other band that has filled Milton Keynes), etc.

4) The rewite also contains several statements that are COMPLETELY FALSE. Clarity was not a "big hit" - it wasn't even successful. Capitol didn't promote it, and dropped them a few months after its release. And Jimmy Eat World never had a deal with Drive-Thru Records - they released the self-titled EP on Fueled by Ramen.

Worst of all, the rewrite was completely unnecessary. Everything in the article as it currently stands is factually accurate (and is siginificantly more detailed than the rewrite). The problem is that it's mostly unsourced. The correct course of action is to add cites for the existing material, not replace it with a wholly inferior new version. -- ChrisB (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Adkins' Death

I've found no information online that he was killed in a car accident on April 18. I was in Des Moines for the show, and if no source can be found confirming his death, it should be removed immediately.