Talk:Neutral Milk Hotel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

Where is the info about the re-release of On Avery Island with live tracks from? Also, it's past Jan. 2006... --liam 22:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Two comments:

It appears some earlier version of this article was a copyvio from here. Could someone rewrite the offending bits? I'm not sure if it's similar enough to qualify as a copyvio at the moment, since much of it is different.

No other band has so many generic categories (neo-prog, neo-psychedelia), and I would like to replace it with one or two broad categories. How about Category:Indie rock groups?

Tuf-Kat 19:29, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Response:

Since most of the offending changes are my fault, I'll rewite them as soon as I get the opportunity; I've meant to fix them anyway as they are too close for comfort in some places.

As for the categories... IMHO the term "indie rock" is so broad as to be almost useless for anybody seeking clarification on the subject: it may as well be "Post-WWII Contemporary". Four categories, however, is alot. That could easily be trimmed.

Clockwork Troll 14:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The page is more or less entirely copied from the allmusic.com entry (here). Some things get moved around, but a lot of descriptions and details about the history of the band are copied exactly.

I'll delete the text besides the lists and some of the third and fourth paragraph because the part about "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" isn't from anywhere else.

Andrew123 02:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Singular/Plural

Think of it this way: in this context, "Neutral Milk Hotel" is a pronoun that may the place of "Jeremy Barnes, Scott Spillane, Julian Koster and Robert Schneider". Now, you would never, ever say "Jeremy Barnes, Scott Spillane, Julian Koster and Robert Schneider is an American indie rock band" would you? Also, referring to American_and_British_English_differences#Singular_and_plural_for_nouns shows that the plural form is correct in both British and American English - surely it is preferable to be consistent to a greater number of readers? Turkeyphan^t 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if logic determined linguistic practice, but it doesn't. I don't know how you get from the American_and_British_English_differences that "NMH are" is correct American English usage. It is 100 percent nonidiomatic and very jarring to American ears, trust me. --Jfruh (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article "British English: The Clash are a well-known band. American English: The Clash is a well-known band. Both: The Beatles are a well-known band." It may be jarring to you but using the singular is both jarring to me and incorrect. Plural forms are always used when the group is considered as a collection of people doing personal things such as a band. Turkeyphan^t 13:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit of an annoying conversation, IMO, but "The Beatles are" takes the plural in BritEng because they're a group, but takes the plural in AmEng due to the name of the band being plural. The Beatles are, The Clash is, The Strokes are, R.E.M. is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What jeff said. You're profoundly missing the point of the example you cite. In American English the form of the noun determines that form that verb agreement will take, in British English the meaning of the noun is the determiner. The word "Beatles" is both plural in form (i.e. one Beatle, two Beatles) and meaning (there are four of them), so it takes a plural verb on both sides of the pond. Nouns that are singular in form always take singular verbs in American English, even if they represent more than one person or thing. Wikipedia practice in a case like this is to follow the nationality of the entity in question, and NMH is an American band, so... --Jfruh (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read the example carefully enough. However, I take issue with your claim that "Nouns that are singular in form always take singular verbs in American English". Both plural and singular verbs are correct in American English and it is better to use plural as this is understandible by all English speakers. Turkeyphan^t 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't be obtuse, by which I mean, not listening to your fellow editors and persisting in believing that you're right and that it's necessary to be "right". NMH is an American topic, and as such should be written in American idiomatic English. We really will not solve the differences in British and American usage here on this Talk page, and if you truly think that your contribution to Wikipedia is making sure that the English that sounds right to you is the one used on all pages, well, good luck. I think your interest would be better placed elsewhere. The only way that "were" would sound correct to Americans would be if their name had been "The Neutral Milk Hotels". Maybe that sounds wrong to you, but surprise! -- your way sounds wrong to us. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you are the only one failing to listen to fellow editors. I apologised for my mistake and clarified my objections. It doesn't matter if it sounds wrong - lots of idiomatic expressions sound right but are simply incorrect and do not belong in an encyclopaedia. I will reiterate: Plural forms are always used when the group is considered as a collection of people doing personal things such as a band. The plural form is correct in both British and American English - surely it is preferable to be consistent to a greater number of readers? Turkeyphan^t 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, because it is wrong. Your claim is incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately my claim is backed up by verifiable sources, academics of language and cold facts. When talking about bands the plural form is correct and should be preferred in all cases. This is abundantly clear as Neutral Milk Hotel is an abstract entity - it can't interviewed itself; only its members can. There is a necessary implication that the members of the collective are being talked about so the plural form should be used. Turkeyphan^t 12:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to make claims about verifiable sources, please provide them.

In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole.... It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals.... In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals. American Heritage Dictionary

Athletic teams and governments are usually treated as plural by the British, both for pronoun reference and subject-verb agreement.... Americans generally use the singular for the verb, but the subsequent pronouns will often be plural. Columbia Guide to Standard American English

When a group is considered as a single unit, its collective noun is used with a singular verb and singular pronouns... But when the focus is on the individual members of the group, British English tends to use a plural verb and plural pronouns with its collective nouns. American English usually uses a singular verb and pronouns in these circumstances. Hutchison Encyclopedia (UK)

I'm sure your sources would be very interesting. As I have said, you are obviously unfamiliar with idiomatic American English, and I understand that you were confused. But Wikipedia has been over this many times and there is a guideline to follow, which is that local idiom is favored. In the United States, we say "Neutral Milk Hotel was a band." --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)