Talk:The Brian Jonestown Massacre

1556:

other people on the same Knowledge (XXG) page, but my edits have been flagged as spam and taken down. I have read the article on “Spam” and "External Links" and don't think that anything applies to me, except perhaps that I posted to different articles quickly and this is why it was flagged and removed. The articles (and audio podcasts) that I’m linking to are with the actual people the Knowledge (XXG) page is about; the particular artists are not pushing a product, but discussing themselves and their work, and, often, the history of the musical genre. I feel this content is valuable and pertinent to the particular subject on the Knowledge (XXG) page, and I'm asking that it be allowed back on, or at least make the infraction clear to me. I think that the information is useful, and can only be referenced at the site, and would like it to be provided to the public at large. Thanks for your consideration. Mika Grueski --

1664:

just generally act crazy. He was arrested in London for stabbing a member of his band (for a lot of people, this might be the most noteworthy event). He has maintained countless feuds with rival bands and criticized rock icons as well. He said of Eric Clapton, "All he's ever done is throw his baby off a ledge..." Every time I try to include these objective facts in their proper section, someone erases them. They are the real identity of BJM and why people find them interesting. The criteria for inclusion in the article should be 1) relevant and 2) truthful. Drug use and violence are relevant to a critical and historical appreciation of this band and to Anton Newcombe as a historical and cultural figure.

1690:

BJM, but other members wrote lyrics and music), 2) evidence of missed appearances and internecine conflict in the band (missing big gigs, random hirings and firings, drug arrests, stabbings, physical violence, etc) 3) controversial remarks and actions of AN (remarks re Eric Clapton, Dandy Warhols, Oasis etc.) and 4) Apologies on AN's behalf (explaining why DiG! is biased and inaccurate). All of these actions and remark have forensic evidence supporting them and are relevant from a historical and critical perspective.

2042:

wouldn't be on their band page. Historians agree, however, that that was one of the defining moments of 60s culture: "Just after the tour the band performed at the Altamont Free Concert at the Altamont Speedway, about 60 km east of San Francisco. The biker gang Hells Angels provided security, and a fan, Meredith Hunter, was stabbed and beaten to death by the Angels after they realised that he was armed. Part of the tour and the Altamont concert were documented in Albert and David Maysles' film Gimme Shelter."

334: 2173:

a Satanist, it merely states an opinion of a third party that has relevance to Byron's historical and cultural work. Similarly, I do not want to defame or libel any of the band members. However, the cultural import of this band is tied into accusations of violence, drug-use and conflict. I thought it would be better to put these examples here in the talk section than in the article. I am new to wikipedia and appreciate your guidance.

240: 213: 250: 374: 181: 1134: 1065: 996: 927: 858: 789: 720: 651: 582: 512: 119: 95: 322: 64: 1585:

more commercial success than the others. I think a lot of these changes stem from AN or his fans wanting to characterize BJM and AN as the same entity. That's fine, but as a matter of fact, they were billed as BJM not AN and BJM. We have to rely on album credits and billing because they are matters of historical fact. AN's intent now regarding the past is irrelevant.

2237: 2197: 129: 2065:

discuss their image in regard to drugs, violence and dischord. It's the subject matter of their music, part of their appeal to their fans, and part of their image in journalism. It's why DIG! was critically acclaimed; it followed that story. Even if the accusations are unfounded, they are relevant to the band.

2017:

His fractious personality was exposed to the world - some say in an unfair light - in the 2004 documentary Dig!, which focused on the Brian Jonestown Massacre's deteriorating relationship with the Dandy Warhols. Shot over seven years, it showed Newcombe at - one hopes - his worst; punching bandmates,

2003:

Anton admitting to using drugs excessively: "R13: 'My Bloody Underground' is the first new album in over 4 years, what did you do during that break? Anton: Well there was an EP called, "We Are The Radio", which is great, but I've been doing a lot of things: I've been taking care of my son, we've been

1584:

The caption to the first photo should read "Brian Jonestown Massacre" not "Anton Newcombe and Brian Jonestown Massacre"(it's a very poor photograph because only AN is really featured). A photo of the Beatles would not be captioned "Paul McCartney and the Beatles" despite the fact that Paul went on to

1580:

As a point of reference, Roxy Music has had many studio musicians and line-up changes over the years, but a concise, relevant description of the band will always include Brian Eno's tenure in the early years. A description of Hawkwind might even need mention of Lemmy, simply because he is a person of

1305:

I think the problem is to distinguish the sort of trivial interest in violence and drugs with a serious cultural investigation of how rock and roll artists are driven to social transgression through their art and character. To me, it seems very relevant to the music. Psychedelic rock is fundamentally

2172:

You are missing the point. People regarded Byron and Shelley as Satanists during their lives. It may be defamation to call Lord Byron a satanist, but is not defamation to say that a literary critic accused Byron of Satanism. The second statement does not speak to the truth of whether or not Byron is

1689:

I sincerely think that many of the style issues and inaccuracies of this article stem from people with a positive bias toward Anton Newcombe editing out relevant and truthful aspects of the history of the BJM. They tend to remove or downplay 1) attributions to other band members (AN is the leader of

2064:

A) It's 1000 words. B) It's mostly quotations and citations from relevant, appropriate primary sources. C) This is an awful WP article. I want to help other editors improve it. That is my only goal. In my opinion, the only way to tell the most relevant details about this psychedelic rock band is to

2033:

Whether or not Anton is violent and drug-addicted is a question that perhaps cannot be answered. However, it is well documented in secondary sources above that a) the perception of him in the contemporary rock press is that he is violent and drug-addicted and b) he has been accused of being violent

1926:

As a separate matter, you removed what seems to be a relevant comment by the Dandy's drummer with an edit summary that implies you think there is some sort of punctuation problem or editorializing, but the comment is unclear. I have restored it, please explain in a sentence or two why you think it

1872:

If something is documented on film, in a peer-reviewed serious documentary, it has some substance. According to the WP page on primary sources, "In the humanities, a primary source could be defined as something that was created either during the time period being studied or afterward by individuals

1663:

And there's plenty of forensic evidence of this. AN's studio burnt down in a drug-related incident. AN hires and fires musicians seemingly at random. In the Dig! film you can see him punch his guitarist in the head, kick an audience member in the head, pawn a guitar for heroine, abuse bandmates and

2133:

This is the talk section. The purpose of this section is to discuss different strategies to making the best article possible. In my opinion, the confrontational and dangerous image of the band is what makes them distinct and interesting from an academic standpoint. We have to find a way to discuss

2021:

Perception of AN as violent, drug-addicted: "In the film, Newcombe is hailed as a musical genius — the more talented artist and the one perhaps more deserving of fame. But he's also painted as a sad and troubled jerk who sabotages his career with onstage fistfights, a raging ego, and a grim spiral

1995:

Perception of Anton as self-destructive, addicted: "It’s an exchange like this that flies in the face of the public perception of this highly misunderstood musician. Since having his profile raised thanks to Ondi Timoner’s controversial yet highly entertaining 2004 documentary Dig!, Anton Newcombe

1942:

The reference is the film, itself. As I explained above, the film is a primary source in regard to the history of the band because it includes interviews with the members regarding their thoughts on their lives and music. The film, "Dig!", is referenced throughout the article. It is not slander or

2084:

Psychedelic rock is a genre of rock linked to drug culture, particularly that of hallucinogenic drugs. Anton has admitted his prior drug addiction in interviews (see above), has an image in the press (fairly or unfairly) as a drug user or addict (see above), and writes extensively about drugs and

1641:

I sincerely think that AN or one of his fans is coming on wikipedia and editing this article so that AN is featured more prominently and that all the press that painted him as a drug addict, narcissist, impossible to work with is removed (if you read the primary sources, this is what the US press

1555:

Hu12,I apologize, but I am new to editing pages on Knowledge (XXG); I thought would start out small by editing “External Links” to get the hang of things. I’m unsure why my edits and external links were taken down. Any help would be appreciated because I seem to be following the same procedure as

1975:

The following has been deemed acceptable at the page for AN: "Newcombe has battled heroin addiction. His substance abuse problems are featured prominently in the documentary film Dig! which focuses on the tense relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols as both bands

1718:

Spacemen 3's style and sound has influenced many artists, on both sides of the Atlantic, including some bands belonging to the Shoegaze scene. E.g. My Bloody Valentine, Chapterhouse, Slowdive. Ride, Six By Seven, Mogwai, Bardo Pond, The Flowers of Hell, Yume Bitsu, 7% Solution, Lockgroove, Luna,

1667:

As a note, the articles on famous musicians generally include their personal struggles such as drug addiction, feuds and alcoholism (the article on Eric Clapton is a good example of this). This information needs to be included in an objective, scholarly fashion with the necessary sources. It's a

1527:

I have completed a review of the entire article and have copyedited for general grammar, citation-needed tags, and have inserted citations, where possible. I have also removed sections of unverifiable content that I presume was the reason for the "Original research" and "Personal reflection ..."

496:

Ha - the only way to "prove" it would be to have him sit in a recording studio while being monitored by an observer for no more than 24 hours. At the end of that time, only the material he had generated in that period could be used in recording his album, no alterations would be permitted. The

1472:

I propose that descriptive details concerning psychedelia be moved from the opening paragraph to another subsection, and that the first paragraph should function primarily to give the reader an overall picture of the band. I'm thinking specifically about this sentence, which is a little weak on

2041:

I think you are being overly critical of accusations and criticisms that have extensive documentation in both primary and secondary sources. You are also downplaying the impact of drugs and violence on rock and roll; if we took this stance regarding the Rolling Stones, the violence at Altamont

1953:

The most interesting thing about this band is all the: missed gigs, arguments, infighting, drug abuse, accusations, etc. This was documented in a documentary film. Any reasonable person knows that the film itself must be judged as a source. However, it is a credible source for an encyclopedia

1301:

There needs to be perhaps a "Controversy" section. The identity in the contemporary music press is that these guys (AN specifically) are a bunch of troublemakers. What is the origin of that identity? Is it hype or is it based in fact? Does it influence their music? Is it intentional? Are they

1179:

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

1110:

1041:

972:

903:

834:

765:

696:

627:

558:

1873:

reflecting on their involvement in the events of that time." Dig! contains many interviews with Anton Newcombe and other BJM members regarding their involvement with the band and their releases. Thus, in that capacity, it is a primary source for analyzing the history and impact of the band.

1457:

Concerning multi-instrumentalists, I list their instruments from rhythm-section upwards, starting with percussion and bass, then harmonic instruments and ending with melodic instruments e.g. "Matt Hollywood - bass, guitar, vocal, songwriting". I think this is common practice and is good for

2037:

This page will not be an objective, neutral description of BJM if it refuses to address BJM's image in the contemporary press. The Mary Shelly page, for instance, is a FA page and there is a whole section on her reputation with the critics of her time, and her struggles with accusations of

1441:

I've taken it upon myself to clean-up this article: re-working the prose so that it 'flows' better and removing superfluous/clunky phrases and fanpage-ey pov-isms e.g., "Joel Gion is the voice of the revolution" or "Their Satanic Majesties' Second Request . . . an excellent album for the

1902:. Even if the claim is correct there's the question of weight and appropriateness for the article, which is about the band, and not one article. I suggest you find judicious, reliable sources, and make a neutral statement in the article. Until then, unreferenced claims violating 1362:

I hate this page. It is sloppy and biased. The only discussion of "Dig!" is an explanation of why it was an unfair portrayal of Anton. The problem is that Anton's bad behavior is omitted. It doesn't make sense to explain away a portrayal that isn't even mentioned in the article.

1576:

Someone seems to be removing all reference to Newcombe's drug addiction and the band's failed appearances. I also think they are minimizing the role of other band members. I have seen the introductory section listing "all-star" band members added and removed multiple times.

1996:

has come to be viewed as something of a figure of fun prone to wanton acts of self-destruction fuelled by ferocious drug and alcohol abuse that has led to him create a Midas touch in reverse. Forget gold, says the general perception, watch him turn everything to shit.

1784:

To me, that distinguishes BJM from nearly every other band out there. Does the Sex Pistols page mention Nancy and Sid's death? Does the Iggy Pop page mention his self-mutilation and wild stage presence? Does the Stones page mention the drug arrests? Yes, yes and yes.

1473:

clarity: "Newcombe once described the term 'psychedelic' as to refer to "mind-expanding", but the BJM's music can also be spoken of as being psychedelic considering that some fans think of it as a direct continuation of popular music from the 1960s".

2091:

I am very confused by this article. I think that social and cultural import of BJM is their capacity to transgress taboos regarding violence, sex and drugs. To ignore this aspect of their performance is to omit the most relevant details.

2013:

ANTON NEWCOMBE, lead singer-songwriter and deranged genius of US outfit the Brian Jonestown Massacre, has a reputation for being notoriously difficult to interview; he's fond of tangential ranting and leaving interviews halfway through.

523:

is b35rhrhhglhlhvlhfllerlglhtrlghlhgllhfvghgfklshgfjklhgkdlsjfhsdkljfdlksjad;ljfa4irirjjcjkfkdoeoiruttuyttytytytytytyruiewoqpeing used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

1897:

You are not entitled to claim on your own authority that something is documented on film, then add that claim to the article without a reference. Especially not a criminal allegation. And especially not regarding a

1946:

In regard to the quote, there was significant editorial ellipsis there without brackets or an editorial note from the editor who quoted it. When I checked the link, there was no article at that address. Dead link.

347: 223: 1829:

Scandals are part of the historical record as long as they are documented. Allegations and accusations, too, are part of the historical record. Does the OJ Simpson page happen to mention his trial, for instance?

1227:

This section is definitely not a list of bands that share members as the Black Angels (while they have played with the BJM) do not have any members who were once a part of the BJM. This section is certainly OR.

1976:

struggle for success. Chris Nashawaty, writing a review of the film for Entertainment Weekly, stated that in the documentary Newcombe came across as "deeply troubled, drug-addicted, often downright scary.""

426:

and the title of the horror movie The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The name uses the same poetic meter and syllable count as the name of the horror movie (iamb/iamb/dactyl) short-long/long-long/long-short-short.

1781:

It's on film, Anton Newcombe kicking an audience member. It's a matter of record that he has slandered Bernard Sumner, accusing him of stealing a song. He also stabbed a guitarist during a London gig.

1284:

No. My question is related to wether or not this article would be improved by adding a section that touches upon the published criticism of BJM, positive and negative, dealing strictly with the music.

497:

album would then have to be released and generate enough sales to be classified as a "hit" by some standard. Basically it's the most stupid statement ever put in wikipedia in the history of mankind.

2045:

Now, most of the Stones are still living. This was a violent act by their security agents and it is relevant to the history of the Stones. That fact was included in a B-level article, by the way.

1176: