Talk:Matthew Bellamy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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.

Contents

[edit] Band Names in the Past

According to a video I was watching they were Also Called "The Black Plague" am I wrong? Im not sure But the Guy in the video(he was a talk show person) Had said they used to be called "The black plague" -i think its "Gothic Plague"- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.82.173 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitars

Why does this article cite that Bellamy has 9000 Manson guitars? Manson is a custom luthier, I very much doubt he has made 9000 guitars in his career. Is there any way that this claim can be substantiated or a more accurate figure obtained? I was under the impression that he had maybe 15 Manson guitars at the most.

That is an outrageous statement that even someone would suggest that prety much Insults matthew, matt probably has about 15 at the most, Give me a break people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.7.190 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

According to this article he is dead. However I notice that there is no citation for this claim, nor can I find any information outside of this wiki on it. 124.182.214.53 10:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. I just saw them live in Seattle on 9/9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.249.2 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Position

Does anyone have anymore information regarding Matthew and his political positions? xcuref1endx 03:07, Nov 25 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is totally uncited, but I would say, based on the lyrics to "Take A Bow," "Exo-politics," and "Knights of Cydonia," that he is at the very least against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Claims Intriguing?

The following seems slightly strange. "Demigod" seems a bit subjective and what source would that be from? Also, "single-handedly took down the Soviet Union"? I think there needs to be some shred of evidence to keep that here. 213.168.233.251 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to a brief stint spent in Russia in 1994, he is considered a demi-god in rural regions of the country. While the cause for this is largely unknown, common belief suggests that he single-handedly took down the Soviet Union.

[edit] Signature Keyboard?

Does Matthew Bellamy have a signatuyre keyboard? Sabrebattletank 03:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean The Dalek? It has lights activated by each key. If I wasn't strapped for time, i'd put it in, it's worthy of a mention. Karma Llama 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that The Dalek is, and a google search came up with it being some sort of TV show. Maybe i need to rephrase the question, so here goes: Does Matthew Bellamy play on a signature piano keyboard, much like he plays on custum guitars? The guitars and parts are listed but not nothing is mentioned along the lines of a piano/keyboard.Sabrebattletank 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to an interview, Dalek is just a nickname. http://musegear.fobbedoff.net/ has pictures and a model name of a couple of his keyboards, but to be honest I think keyboards are far more dispensible to him. There's nothing specialist you can say about them really; he doesn't seem to have any particular manufacturer ties or anything. BigBlueFish 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, and this deviates slightly from the topic of the original question, but i feel there was some confusion about the name "Dalek." The keyboard is affectionately termed the "Dalek" because of the flashing lights on the front, which give the keyboard a vague resemblance to the "Dalek" characters from the Doctor Who series from the BBC. Hope that helps... Joshy116 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] falsetto up to g#6

isn't anything past c6 whistle register/superhead voice?

No its E6 or higher. but if he hit G#6 then thats whistle. Superhead is a biased term. It can be a synonym for head or falsetto above E6 or whistle; or a totally different register.Myke 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just in case there's any doubt, he reaches the 7th octave in the backing vocals of Knights Of Cydonia "No one's going to ..." --Tene 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not a product of the vocoder? It sounded very false to me, and quite irritating. I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen in the live version either. BigBlueFish 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds the same in live version, but he often uses vocal effects live as well, so it's pretty much impossible to tell. It does sound false, but it may just be distorted rather than pitch-shifted. What octave is he in Micro Cuts? That's very high and definately natural. — mæstro t/c, 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Micro Cuts hits G#6. But I believe in the song's context it's an A7 chord so really it's Ab7, so there we go, he's hit 7th octave! BigBlueFish 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"isn't anything past c6 whistle register/superhead voice?" There can be no absolute value to define such terms - it depends on the singer. Most critically, gender determins the 'breakpoint', but we can only ever give an average pitch at which men's / women's voices 'tend' to move between ranges. Whether the, say, man, is a contrabass, bass, baritone, tenor etc is also of high relevance. "No its E6 or higher. but if he hit G#6 then thats whistle." I presume the source for this "E6" comes from the Wiki article on vocal registers...? Their source is highly questionable. Having worked all my life with singers, and having studyied at the Royal Academy of Music, London, what I have to say is still not definitive (the only way would be a large study taking an average of all vocal ranges measured), but I would say from experience the following: men with low voices (using the word 'low' deliberately vaguely, as more precision is useless without an extensive study) tend to use falsetto to around B4, or, equally commonly, not at all (ie are not able to at all); men with averagely pitched voices tend to produce good falsetto to E5; high male voices (tenors) to A5, though some go a little further (very rarely more than a couple of semitones higher). All of this depends enormously on the individual and such generalisations are of very limited value. The competing theories of vocal production effect our verdicts here: terms such as 'superhead' and 'whistle' are considered non-existent by some singing teachers who interpret (owing to a lack of empirical evidence) the production of sound as coming from different vocal fold combinations / different cavity resonances etc. Another observation regarding where whistle voice starts: singers 'tend' to employ different singing techniques for particular registers, but the dynamics, mood etc influence the choice. Falsetto is most often used for very soft and high passages, BUT falsetto can also be achieved much lower (though never very loud) in the register which would almost always be reserved for chest voice. Similarly, the question of 'where' whistle voice starts is blurry. Anyway, the conclusion about Matthew Bellamy is that if he is indeed hitting G#6 (and I've never heard it, though 'hearing' it on a recording is far from proof!), then it is most likely whistle voice. Another observation: 'whistle' voice is only ONE way to produce such high pitches. There is a common alternative where the singer 'sucks in' rather than 'breathing out' (most common in male voices), tending to achieve notes about an octave above the top of the falsetto range. The adjective for this technique, though rarely cited by the academic community in the context of singing, is known as 'pulmonic ingressive'. The term is more common in phonetics. It constrasts with 'pulmonic egressive' - the 'normal' / common way of producing sounds by breathing out. (Cf 'velaric ingressive' for the click sounds of some African languages.) Are we sure that Matthew ain't a 'ingressive whistle vocaliser'?  :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.55.211 (talk • contribs) .

Wow, you seem to know your stuff on the issue. Could you possibly confirm what voice he is using in this selection of samples? In order, they are:
  • "Micro Cuts" - A flat 7
  • "Citizen Erased" - D6 (but a headier tone of voice)
  • "Knights of Cydonia" - G6
  • "Knights of Cydonia" - the "no-one's going to take me" line as mentioned above. The main melody where you can hear Matt's signature voice sounds much like an E5 to me, but there's definitely an E6 line which may well be multi-tracked on rather than vocodered. There could also be an E7 but unless Matt's gone Bohemian Rhapsody on us I'm sure that's vocoder.
Would be useful for reference. BigBlueFish 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Micro Cuts: a flat 5

Loads of FX here. Extreme tremelo which is probably not done with his own voice. a flat 5 is not particularly high though. Pretty much all tenors who can muster falsetto at all achieve this note (though it’s likely to be around the limits of their abilities).

Citizen Erased: d 5

For clarity, in this extract, the phrase with the highest note runs thus: d 5 c 5 c 5 a flat 4 g 4 The g at the end of that phrase is the 2nd line up from the bottom of the treble cleff stave. (Which in Scientific Pitch Notation is notated as g 4.) The highest note in that phrase – d 5 – is not at all high for a man. Note that I said in my last post that a man with an average range (say, high baritone) tends to be able to sing e 5 with little trouble. That’s a tone HIGHER than the unremarkable Citizen Erased top note. As for the “headier tone of voice” you mention, it’s simply falsetto again but more softly produced.

Knights of Cydonia 1: g 5 / g 6 There’s so much processing on this track that if you hadn’t told me it was a voice, I would probably have presumed it to be a synth. I trust you have a good reason to suspect that it is in fact his voice in the 6 octave? I’m not saying it’s not – but the lower octave doubling by what I’m guessing is a guitar certainly makes it hard to be sure. I own several synths / sound libraries perfectly capable of producing exactly that sound. Also, the effects of the 6th octave are drowned out by the 5th in the mix. (The 5th is undoubtedly a voice). Interestingly, after the top g in the melody just before the end of the excerpt, there is a b flat which is arguably three semitones higher than the g (though, again, the FX make it impossible to discern the octave with certainty). Overall conclusion: it really doesn’t matter what anyone claims... this track is too processed to stand as evidence for the ability to sing a g 6 in an encycolpedic article. If he could sing it (impressively), he’d presumably want to show it off by leaving it more exposed. As you rightly point out, a vocoder may have been used. Any tuning software however – no matter how out-of-date – would do the trick too, given how disguised the timbre is by the FX’s and the mix.

Knights of Cydonia 2: e 5 “there's definitely an E6 line” – don’t think so: if you perceive it, it’s just an auditory illusion owing to strong harmonics from the octave below. If you think you’re hearing an e7, I’d attribute it to harmonics again, though I certianly hear nothing of the sort.

General comments: With the exception of the highly disputable 6th octave in Knights of Cydonia excerpt 1 (which would be a whistle voice), all the high notes in all the excerpts could be safely labelled simply ‘falsetto’. They lack the volume to be interpreted as any sort of ‘mixed voice’. (No traces of ingressive techniques by the way!)  :-)

With the exception of Micro Cuts where you placed the octave as 2 above my own assessment, you’ve been almost consistently labelling the octaves one number higher than I have. Is it possible that we’re not in agreement because we’re using different numbering systems? I’ve been using Scientific Pitch Notation throughout. I refer you to this article which ought to clear a few things up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pitch_notation (Ignore the controversies mentioned on the page and in its discussion page about alternative systems – they’re rare anomalies.)

Hope this helps.

Sorry for not signing my name before, by the way. Wfructose 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on "Micro Cuts hits G#6. But I believe in the song's context it's an A7 chord so really it's Ab7, so there we go, he's hit 7th octave!" It doesn't work that way. The level changes from C, Cis or Ces. So it's C2,D2,E2,F2,G2,A2,B2,C3 not C2,D2,E2,F2,G2,A3,B3,C3. So it's either a G#6 or a Ab7 (the note being hit in 2:53). Also your conclusion that because the context is A7, it should be Ab7 doesn't make sense to me. And actually it's not A7 at all, The bass is playing a G2, while the guitarist is playing a Ab4, and Matthew also an Ab only an octave higher. So you could describe it as a Gadd(9-) without a 3rd or 5th, but that makes it hardly a chord. It's definitely his voice, that's for sure (even with all the effects and all). Manolito Mystiq --Manolito Mystiq 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

BigBlueFish: Yeah, I thought that the very high vocal in "Cydonia" sounded rather artificial...I really miss the old days of bands like Queen or Boston, where Roger Taylor or Brad Delp would naturally hit super-high notes...but that is no reason to trash Matt Bellamy. The artificial nature of the vocal is very much in keeping with Muse's electronic/rock sound. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for refference, Matt goes a bit higher in a few live songs (early versions of Showbiz and most Butterflies and Hurricanes performances) - up to A5 at the end of both in falsetto. He's also hit a slight flat Bb5 in the Radio 1 "performance" of Muscle Museum, though it was more of a scream and was back around 2000 where Matt's voice was also a bit younger. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if he could still hit a Bb5 on a good day. His chest voice also spans from A2 (Spiral Static) up to Bb4 (Futurism, Feeling Good), though I haven't heard him go lower than a Bb2 live (Blackout, Wembley stadium 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.141.8 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hmm

is matthew bellamy any relation to tom bellamy from the cooper temple clause?

Not that i know of, though he is son of George Bellamy from the Tornados. Bellamy is a fairly popular last name, especially in britain, so i would tend to think that there is no relation.

[edit] Piano mid section

The piano section in Butterflies & Hurricanes does not contain part of Sergei Rachmaninovs Opus 18 part 3, despite sounding similar. It is an original composition. --Tene 21:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


One of the main themes of the third movement is quoted exactly in the beginning strings, and the harmonic structure continues underneath, disguised by the altered melodic line of the strings, quite distinct if you listen for it Mr8131127126 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Compare 3:20 of Butterflies and Hurricanes to this listening to the violin part as the melody! I'm gonna re-add the comparison; hope you don't mind! Mr8131127126 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on that soundbite I'm reverting it. The melody is not exactly the same except for a few notes, the harmony is different except for the same few notes which have the same chord progression. Rhythmically and texturally it is completely different. You need much more than this to make a direct comparison to a single musical work. Consider the 12-bar blues you don't see this family of hideously formulaic songs attributed to any one influence. BigBlueFish 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
But its a direct quote!!!! Of the main theme melody!!!!! Every note is there, delayed in a free-time cadenza style, the piano arpeggios replacing the background syncopation, and a few extra improvised melody notes inbetween!! It's so blatantly from it considering his love for the concerto, for the fact that it's practically a concerto cadenza and that that entire section is so incredibly the same!! The harmonic sync with the melody is out, since the melody has been augmented somewhat overlapping, and some of the chords have been rephrased somewhat, so ya get diminished 7th chords instead of the originals that would have started with the same note. Texturally, it's obviously gonna be different, since it's being played by 1 piano and a few violins, rather than an entire romantic symphony orchestra and professional classical pianist! Infact in the last repeat, there's even a basic outline of notes in the piano part leading upto that cadenza that played by the piano part, then orchestra, with elements of various piano sections in Butterflies and Hurricanes, before the final repeat of the theme! Maybe I need a more precise soundclip, 'cause I can't believe people are questioning it! :S Also, I don't see how it's in need of so much more, to be compared. We aren't comparing it, just stating that it shows his influence, supported by the other quotes used in his songs!Mr8131127126 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you check that the link you posted is correct? What I'm hearing isn't a cadenza. And it's definitely not note-for-note. BigBlueFish 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I made a more expansive MP3, containing the Muse quote first, followed by the exposition of the theme, at about 2 minutes into the concerto, followed by the piano repeating the theme at about 2:20, then onto about 6 minutes through, where the theme comes back, first time in the orchestra, then about 20 seconds later again, by the piano, and finally returning in piano chords (note the chords are the same interval etc to that of the piano part in B&H) and full orchestra, playing in the free-time style of the cadenza in B&F, at about 8 minutes, as the finale before the final climax! If this doesn't show it, I must be going insane! :P Link(P.s. I'm referring to B&H when calling it the cadenza) Mr8131127126 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I really think it is digging a bit deep to say that they sound the same. I can see where you see the similarities, but the theme that is repeated in the concerto is not a theme in B&H, and only the first part of it is a part of the cadenza in B&H. Essentially it's only the first chord triplet in the piano interlude that follows the beginning of that theme. I am sure you can find similar tonal matches elsewhere in Romantic music, and they all influenced each other. You certainly cannot call it a quote and so it's not really significant to the article. BigBlueFish 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's true but the song is a short song, and to cram any more of the concerto in would dominate it, especially as it's already part of the key point in the song. It shows yet another significantly Rachmaninov influenced section of music, and the whole piece is practically an ode to the piano concerto, and the style is practically spewing Rachmaninov anyway! There are Romantics that sound almost similar, but Rachmaninov really is that significantly stylistic that no other composers sound like the style in the Muse songs. There are even micro-elements earlier, in mood, falling syncopation, etc. that strongly suggest the ossai cadenza of the 3rd concerto aswell if you dig really deep, and considering Rachmaninov has appeared so often, and since we're only stating works that have shown strong elements of this influence, and since it's also such a significant example of this, I really feel we should leave it in, and would feel at rest if we did! Mr8131127126 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at it another way: the cadenza is a short cadenza, so if it was really such a significant influence then the whole thing would be more like an excerpt. For its length it is simply far too much original work to be called a quote. Yes it was influenced, yes it contains elements, but the article already says that. The paragraph is already a little on the lengthy side, so we shouldn't be aiming to list every little bit of Rachmaninoff that we hear in Muse songs. BigBlueFish 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point about the size, and yes that way it makes sense in the over-listing, but what I'm thinking about is how it's the most prominent example of this influence, and shows that it's this composer that has influenced his songs so much. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression when using 'quote' in my previous comments; rather an adapted section or phrase. As I said it's prominent, and I think missing it out would be removing an important one from the list, so if I cut the paragraph down a bit, could I leave it in? :D :P Mr8131127126 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess so. Is my last revision ok? I think it gets in the mention, accurately, without making a meal of it. BigBlueFish 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Yup, that's awesome! *Thumbs up* Mr8131127126 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have the same sort of problem again, someone's written that the first few chords of the piece can be heard in Hoodoo. Firstly, the chords aren't in the same order. Secondly, not all of the chords are the same as some of those in Rachmaninov's piece. Thirdly, hundreds (if not thousands) of musical works could therefore be stated as referring to this piece. --Tene 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I think ya misread it, it's comparing the Tchaikovsky one with Hoodoo. Mr8131127126

[edit] Photo

We need a free photo to stick on the page. The old one was removed because of fair use stuff. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Loads of Muse fans have taken their own pictures. Er, but not me. I'm sure they'll donate a good one. Same with the Chris Wolstenholme picture. Makron1n 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new picture...

It needs to be resized. It leaps all over the beginning of the article. Litis 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Crop it a bit, maybe... 81.229.240.155 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I scaled it down to 300px. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 09:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks way better now. Litis 12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live

is the part about him being able to play plug in baby (which is NOT a hard riff by ANY means, thats why you hear it in EVERY guitar shop by even beginners) whilst jumping around? many guitarists can do this. this part just smacks of fanboy writing to me, something that wiki is meant to avoid. anybody else feel this?

- I couldn't agree with you more. I've added a Weasel Word Status to this page, hopefully we can get it cleaned up.

No such statement existed on the version of the page to which the tag was added. The tag has been removed. Adzz 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Wow, you must really hate Matt or something - I didn't interpret that statement to suggest that hew as super awesome for it - it's just a trademark that he employs invariably in Plug In Baby. He doesn't jump around as much in other songs so it warrants note for that song. Taking it as a "fanboy" remark would require you to be a bit paranoid and/or spiteful. 24.6.105.44 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] BIAS

There is some definate bias in this article. If you don't see that, you must hold Muse higher in your priorities than a well written entry.


Is bias liek a term for bs?

[edit] Article name

Why is the name of this article Matthew Bellamy but not Matthew James Bellamy? --S.Örvarr.S 05:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because articles don't use the middle name unless it's needed for differentiation or is commonly used, which wouldn't be the case here. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 05:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal Range

Why doesn't this article make any mention of Matt's high vocals? SouperAwesome 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy

I removed the section on Matt's pregnancy (!) M2Ys4U 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Truth Movement

I have removed the section regarding the 9/11 truth movement. Wearing a T-shirt once during a performance hardly makes anyone a part of anything, and certainly not a part of an encylopedia article. As it was not discussed here before being added I did not ask about it's removal. 68.88.140.152 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've put it back. He didn't just wear the shirt at Reading--he's made numerous comments about it, and these comments are included, and cited, in the article. I don't see why they aren't appropriate in an encyclopedia article about Matthew Bellamy. Now, the Religion part of the article--there's a section that really needs some fixing up (& citations). In fact, I clipped out two quotes because they were in jest (more or less) and didn't fit the section (if anyone does think they deserve to be somewhere in the article, cite http://www.rocketbabydolls.com/mmjune32000.html). — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 12:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources Needed

You need to cite sources for the information under "Religion." In fact there's quite a number of places in this article that needs backing up. --216.165.32.148 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very true but for some reason people don't listen. Some things on wikipedia are hopeless, PLEASE CITE SOURCES otherwise certain things should not be written!--75.93.214.228 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influences Section Deleted?

Why was the influences section deleted? I found it by accident on Answers.com. If it needed some cleaning up and sources just add a note, but don't take out the whole section! Inko9nito 09:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's because Muse fans do not like the suggestion that Muse was 'influenced' by Radiohead. 155.198.13.234 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self-plugging.

hi there - i couldn't help noticing that some bloke has shamelessly plugged himself and his myspace page in the 'fan base' section, proclaiming himself their biggest fan ever, and such. just thought i'd let you know. cheers!

Lol Give me his Myspace, Ive only knoown them for abotu a year and Already I know every song Theyve made, also where mat was born along with Dom and Chris, Also when the band was made, what their old name used to be, the lyrics to almost every sog, by heart, Though ive never been to a live concert *sadly* Because they rarley ever play in Sandiego :{

[edit] References, validation?

The information from IMDB and the associated reference is fine but a lot of material is still unreferenced. Some of it can be found on the single external link, MuseWiki, a page which makes a seriously large number of dubious claims about Matthew Belamy and Muse with references that point almost solely to other MuseWiki articles. This needs to be addressed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.160.243 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

The religion section says that he says that he would like to meet "Jesus Christ" whereas the quote only says "Jesus". Christ is not a surname and is a title only used in reference to Jesus by Christians. He never says (and Wikipedia surely isn't Christian) and so it does not belong. I'm removing it for now. If anyone has any objections as to why it should remain the way that it currently is, please say so. 66.153.236.8 (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)