Talk:The Coup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Hip hop, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to hip hop culture and hip hop music. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-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] Picture change?

Does anyone know how to change the main picture on this page to one that DOESN'T make it look like they are terrorists?

-Someone who doesn't know how to change pictures on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndubin (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key Songs?

Is the "Key Songs" area really needed? Seems difficult to determine what "key songs" are, and no other aritst I have seen has a "key songs" section. IanMcGreene 04:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

they're so disgusting, why don't you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.240.175 (talk • contribs) November 11, 2005 03:26

Um. No. Mike Dillon 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epitaph?

Are they on Epitaph Records now? They were on the Epitaph compilation Punk-O-Rama 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.168.14.42 (talk • contribs) September 12, 2005 06:57

Yes, they are on Epitaph. Mike Dillon 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Fox News criticism?

Please provide a source for this (emphasis added):

The Coup's song '5 Million Ways to Kill a CEO', with lyrics such as throw a dollar in a vat of hot oil, when he jump in after it, watch him boil, has garnered intense criticism, specifically on the Fox News Channel.

Kent Wang 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist?

They are NOT Marxist. Whoever put that in obviously has nary a drop of political knowledge in their brain. However, they are highly witty and probably the best group of all time besides De La Soul, with Boots Riley being the greatest MC of all time. Boots has said he has no specific political position - HE'S NOT MARXIST, IDIOTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.69.221 (talk • contribs) March 23, 2006 23:41

Dude, chill out. You removed the word "Marxist" from the article at the same time you made this comment. No need to call people "idiots"... Mike Dillon 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Boots is indeed a communist, and therefore a "Marxist". Check out the lyrics to Dig It. If that's not enough he was interviewed and had this to say:

Question: Define your political agenda.

Answer: I am a communist. I have been a communist/socialist since I was 14 years old. I think that people should have democratic control over the profits that they produce. It is not real democracy until you have that. And the plain and simple definition of communism is the people having democratic control over the profits that they create. When you first have a revolution, you are heading into socialism. People who were against communism have defined communism for us. People that are for communism and who have dedicated their lives and given their lives to giving people power, they are the ones that created the concept.

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/coup-the-boots-riley-on-communism-capitalism-and-patriotism-lyrics.html

It seems like he's talking about "communism" with a little "c", not "Communism" with a big "C" (i.e. Marxism-Leninism). I haven't seen any direct quotations where he says he's a Marxist, Leninist, or any other sort of official "Communist", but there are some lyrics that are pro-Maoist and otherwise complimentary toward Marxist Communism. I'd say on the whole that the Coup's sentiments are "communist anarchist"/"libertarian socialist" since they are generally anti-state and about direct democracy and cooperation. Mike Dillon 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In various songs Boots make reference to Mao, so Mike Dillon's above comment is correct and it seems proper to not suggest otherwise. -Zack


[edit] Prophetic Album Cover

The Album Cover of “Party Music” by the aptly named punk rock band “The Coup”. Party Music CD Design was printed in July and was scheduled for release “after Labor Day” during the week of 9/11/01 – immediately the album was pulled from store shelves on 9/12. (Notice the “Covert Labs” (i.e. CIA Issue) detonator, Soviet “Red Star” or “Red Shield” (Rothschild) logo and the “location” of the explosive charges. Notice also the smug smirk on the bomber’s face. JUST A HARMLESS COINCIDENCE??

Who made the design?

Others have noticed! http://www.boingboing.net/2001/09/15/weve_all_seen_the_bi.html The server-date of the picture is 15 Sept 2001: http://www.well.com/~doctorow/foreseeing_the_future.jpg

The World Trade Center was famously the site of a bombing in 1993 that attempted to bring the towers down, so more than one person had the idea of bombing it again--one facetiously, another in earnest--is really not so remarkable. It's not like The Coup put out an album with the Murrah building in Oklahoma City just before Tim McVeigh blew it up. The Coup uses a red star logo because Riley considers himself a communist. The location of the explosion on the album cover is well below where the actual planes hit. As for his "smug smirk"--what expression would you think would be less "coincidental" on the face of someone joking about blowing up a national landmark?
I'm not sure I understand what the logic behind this theory is--that the CIA/Soviets/Rothschilds wanted to let people know that they were behind the bombing, but then pulled the album from stores because they didn't want to make it too obvious? Nareek 11:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YEAR in music

WP:PIPE--which currently claims that the "YEAR in music|YEAR" style of link is disallowed--is not a policy, but a proposed policy. It refers for its justification for this rule to a number of discussions, none of which seem to reach a consensus against the "YEAR in x|x" format, as well as to the WP:MOS, which is an official guideline.

However, if you look at the WP:MOS for date style--I don't know how to link to it in wiki fashion, but you can find it here--you'll see that it actually supports the opposite policy:

Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example [[2006 in sports|2006]]. (emphasis added)

In sum, the supposed rule against the "YEAR in x|x" format bases its legitimacy on a guideline that says that some editors prefer the "YEAR in x|x" format. That doesn't seem like much of a basis. Given that linking to "YEAR in music" takes the reader to a more relevant page that is one click away from the "YEAR" page, and given that adding parenthetical links to "YEAR in music" is distracting and awkward, I will side with the "some" and revert this page back to the [[1992 in music|1992]] version. Nareek 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"They have set up a PayPal account on their MySpace page for donations." While I am a huge fan of The Coup I am forced to remove this line. It is totally inappropriate for wikipedia to solicit donations or provide a link for the purpose of doing so.

[edit] Lead image

Does it strike anyone else as inappropriate that the main image we have for this article is the abandoned album cover for Party Music? I understand that this obviously created a lot of controversy, but a casual visitor to the page would be quite shocked by it and might make the mistake of assuming that the Coup endorsed the 9/11 attacks (obviously if they read the article the issue would be cleared up for them).

I think we should keep the image in the article, but rather move it into the section on "history" and caption it with an explanation as to the history of the album cover. Ideally we would have a free image taken by a Wikipedian of the Coup in a live performance (or something similar) for the lead image, or barring that I would suggest we use the album cover for Genocide and Juice or, more likely, Steal This Album. Any thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I just visited this page to read up on The Coup and saw that. It's an interesting anecdote in their history, but not worthy of a cover picture. Should be of Boots and Pam. Or if it has to be an album cover, it should at least be Steal This Album, which is their most critically acclaimed album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.166.8 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be that Party Music cover, but it shouldn't be a picture of Galactic; that's a totally different band. In fact, I think the Party Music cover is fitting. It's one of the main things they are known for. The September 11 Attacks were a Coup, though not caused by this band. There's lots of disinfo in the media, and there's a lot of stuff that is put out to seed the public. Anyway, I think at least the image should be one of the band or one of their album covers.Slipgrid (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Party Music Release Date

I have a problem with the line, "the album's planned release date was just after the events of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the cover art was withdrawn hastily." Everyone knows that music is released on Tuesdays. This article, and many others say it was to be released in "early September." So, that's September 4, or September 11. We know it wasn't released on September 4, so it seems it was released on September 11, and pulled from the shelf. Does anyone else have more information on this? Can we change it to say early September 2001, quoting the Wired article? Why is it so hard to pin down the actual release date? Isn't it painfully obvious just from the cover art, if not by the date in the article?Slipgrid (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wired article you cite explains the situation, as does our article on the album. Wired said "the release date of the CD, entitled Party Music, got pushed back 2 months from early September to November." Apparently image of the cover art was all set to be printed on September 11th and the label literally stopped the presses. We should probably adjust this in the article using the Wired piece.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)