Talk:Cute Is What We Aim For/Archive 1

Archive 1

help with sentence

I'm unsure what should be done with this:

"Despite their efforts to start anew, Cute Is What We Aim For was continuously criticized for their past engagements, their band name, or their frontman's prospects of winning a Kenny Vasoli look-alike contest, their ethics, and musicianship."

Is it worth including the Kenny Vasoli thing? The reason I ask is because Cute has been criticized for a lot of stuff, including ripping off other bands and Shant has been accused of trying to emulate, say, NFG. Point being is that we can't include every criticism, so we should have the important ones. Band name should stay, past engagements should stay. The allegations of shady ethics by a former manager should certainly stay. Criticism of musicianship I would normally drop, as there are always critics, but without it it might appear that Cute is criticized for superficial things. ...what say you? --Jonmedeiros 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was trying to oppose the two things, which I really think should stay: Wide criticism of totally unimportant superficialities, rather than their music (which, as with every band, was certainly also criticized). And I think the manager ref might be better suited with the paragraph about the incident, don't you think? --HarryCane 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the manager thing should be mentioned here too, since it is criticized. Perhaps all the superficial things should be removed and replaced with something like "cute was continuously criticized for a number of superficial things, as well as etc so on and so forth." I mean, I don't really thing it should be there at all because every band gets the same stupid shit, but at the same time I have no big problem with it remaining. But I like my idea because I don't think there is a fair way to pick from the list of superficial complaints (ie why the kenny thing and why not the X thing, etc). --Jonmedeiros 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I was just trying to give an example. Tip of the iceberg, of course, but I think it would be nice to give the reader an example or two of thoroughly unimportant criticism so that he/she is not left in the air wondering what superficial things were complained about. And yes, the manager thing should stay there, I was just thinking about moving the ref. --HarryCane 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

do whatever you want with the ref, im not good with them anyways. --Jonmedeiros 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

stop changing my edits

Harry, please stop putting personal opinion into the article. Statements like the buffalo music scene is overly critical is opinion, unless you can prove it (which you can't). there are other examples of this and absolute statements that dont belong. I removed or fixed most of them. --Jonmedeiros 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)-- 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not fixing it if you include weasel words or other opinionated sentenses ("the quartet created what some consider a lyrically accentuated brand of power pop" makes no sense). And every band has people saying "<insert band name here> sux!". It's not worth a mention, but people saying "Shaant ruined Cherry Bing so his new band must suck" without having heard them is. --HarryCane 09:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not include weasel words. If you dont like the opinionated sentences get rid of all of them. Take the shakespeare thing for example, not everyone agrees with that statement. It's personal opinion (and probably yours). That needs to be noted. If you are going to say that people criticized CIWWAF for everything except the music, you need to somehow attempt to prove that, because that is a really bizarre statement. Are you saying nobody at all criticized them for their music? Source claims like "Shaant ruined Cherry Bing so his new band must suck" or else it's hard to include them here. Remember, wikipedia is not like a myspace, its supposed to reflect fact and not popular (or unpopular) opinion. When you say "CIWWAF creates a blah blah blah blend of blah" you either need to prove that this is generally what people think or preface it with "Some people." --Jonmedeiros 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to gut this and try and source everything that needs it. I feel as though nobody ever compared them to Shakespeare (what a joke) but I'll look for that too. --Jonmedeiros 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, nobody said they are like Shakespear or anything similar. The article certainly does not say that. What it does say is that the band makes use of the exact same poetic devices that William Shapespear is predominantly famous for, namely puns, metaphors, etc. (one source for that is the AMG album review I think). And that both CIWWAF and WS use these stylings is fact, we sure could give examples from their lyrics and WS's texts, but we shouldn't reference every sentence. Please have a look at WP:WEASEL as what you're suggesting ("Some people...") is exactly one of the phrases to avoid. Also, nobody said that they are not criticized for their music. Yet again, as I already said, every band is, and I was simply trying to put an emphasis on the criticism of negligibilities and superficialities, such as the band name and the Kenny Vasoli thing. I knew close to nothing on the band and read into A LOT of material (bios, interviews, message boards, old band websites, etc.) before writing this article, so I really didn't make any of this up. I'm really not trying to defend the band, or to attack you, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I kind of have the feeling that you are doing this out of spite and dislike for the band. --HarryCane 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct about the shakespeare thing, but I still think it should go. It's a silly sentence. I am familar with the concept of weasel words and I think they are the lesser of two evils here. You cant make blanket statements unless they are true. And yes, you repeatedly have claimed that nobody has criticized them for the music. Thats the issue. I keep saying they have, and you change it to they haven't. I have now sourced the claim from the verry same thread that all the superficial garbage comes from. Please don't change it. We could have a discussion about removing the nod to criticism of music alltogether, but to lie is just not appropriate.

My motives really shouldn't matter, all that should matter is that my edits are factual; which they are. Personally I dont like the bands music or the individual members. I DO, however, think that they have a fantastic story and kudos to them for getting to where they are. --Jonmedeiros 14:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I now see what you mean. I never read my own sentence that way. Then you're right, the music thing should stay out of there, for emphasis. Oh, and Cherry Bing is actually written in two words (Cherry Bing's record label) .--HarryCane 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it? I've seen it spelled both ways, and I seem to remember a lot of cherrybing merch being one word. Perhaps the sentence should start, in addition to criticism of their music, cute was..., I really think it should be noted that Cute wasnt totally being criticized for stupid things. Not to mention a lot of the allegations are true (song stealing, auto-tune, the lock-out, ghost writing, etc) but really can't be proved (well the auto-tune one was) so they should stay out--Jonmedeiros 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The album covers show it as two seperate words... About the music criticism: Again, every band has haters who say they suck – I think the criticism part has already a large enough part in the article and to now also put special emphasis on this as well, borders IMO on hating on the band a little too much. And how are you so sure that the song stealing, ghost writing, and lock out rumors are 100% true, especially when these very issues are explained in every detail in every single interview with the band? --HarryCane 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the album covers have two words but a little flash thing has only one..eh, who cares. To note that the band is criticized for their music is important because without it it looks as if they are this incredible band and the only thing people can find to criticize them for is stupid things. Think of the people who knock Godfather for the shitty punch Caan throws. Same deal. How am I sure about the rest? It really doesnt matter because such a thing would be impossible to prove because it all comes from people who were personally involved, its not really typed up anywhere on the web. If you really want to know, e-mail me. --Jonmedeiros 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a little silly, I think. Nobody will think they play perfect music if it's not explicitly mentioned in the article that there exist people who think differently. New Found Glory, Fall Out Boy, hell, not even Panic! at the Disco articles say there are loads of people who don't like them. And, believe me, there are. It's really not worth a mention, that there are people who dislike CIWWAF's music. If it was a load of professional reviews saying they suck, that would be different, but a couple of kids hiding behind screennames and writing on message boards "Gay Is What We Aim For sux!"... come on. --HarryCane 17:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

well if its silly and not relevant that people on message boards knock their music why is it relevant when those same people knock Cute for their names? --Jonmedeiros 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's notable simply because it's unusual. The fact that they get criticized for every single move they make is what distinguishes the band from their peers. I mean, they were runner-up in Spin or what magazine's "Worst Emo Band Name" contest. New Found Glory does not get "New Found Gayness"-comments. Straylight Run does not get "It's John's fault that Taking Back Sunday now sucks and therefore I won't listen to his new band"-comments. And again, every single band in this scene has to put up with music criticism from internet gossip boards. Show me a single post on any band on Absolutepunk, Punknews or For the Sound, that does not have at least one scenester saying "This band is shit". If you think this goes in the CIWWAF article, you certainly have to include "xXemogurl16Xx wrote on her MySpace this band is kinda hawt but sux nontheless." in every band article on Wikipedia. It's plain unencyclopedic. --HarryCane 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just say that they use poetic devices then? That would be far less likely to cause controversy than saying they use Shakespearean devices.

--Merlinme 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a possibility, sure. And it should be changed if people feel offended by having Shakespear mentioned in this article. But it would be an unnecessary generalization, as poetic devices would mean any figure of speech, and the intention was not to put them on par with Shakespear, but to point out that the band uses the same poetic devices as he did. --HarryCane 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt like the power-pop thing should be sourced, as a lot of people consider them a lot of different things. going with what the band says makes sense and they say power-pop, thus the source. --Jonmedeiros 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a list of devices which Shakespeare uses: http://www.bardweb.net/grammar/02rhetoric.html. If you can persuade me that CIWWAF use a large majority of these devices, or they write in iambic pentameter, or even that they try and sound like Shakespeare, then fair enough. If, as I suspect, you just mean that they use specific poetic devices, then I suggest you say that. Bringing Shakespeare into the article just confuses things.

--Merlinme 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. This is a free encyclopedia. If you feel personally offended by the mention of William Shakespear in the article, take it out, change it, or whatever. I'm not here to prove to you that this band does or does not use a certain percentage of similar poetic devices as Shakespear does. Be bold. --HarryCane 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I also fixed this "Hacikyan and the album's producer, Matt Squire, admitted to using Auto-Tune but denied the other allegations in the following Absolutepunk interview."

By the sounds of what squire says, auto-tune was used more than just a tiny bit, as shant would have you think. It needs to read that the allegations were denied and not something else because this is coming from the band and the label, it would be a bad move if they admitted to the lockout, etc. --Jonmedeiros 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, reference to Shakespeare is gone. I don't mind changing things, but I don't want to p*ss anyone off on a subject I'm sure they know a lot more about than I do.

--Merlinme 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

curse of curves

i created the page for the single but I have very little info for it; can anyone help me out by expanding it? --tennisman sign here! 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I also created the page for there's a class for this. any help ppl?--tennisman sign here! 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you have close to zero (i.e. incorrect) information on the subject, why would you create the page in the first place? To be honest, since there are no chart positions for either single (neither US, nor UK), as of now there isn't much more to say about the singles. I'm thinking redirects to the album article would do better. --HarryCane 15:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that would make sense; they were both listed so I thought I'd make the pages. But what you're suggesting makes sense. --tennisman sign here! 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I put on there's a class for this it recieved airplay on mtv2 and mtv2's t-rock did that help?????Chriscool334 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Barely, since it's pretty vague and quite frankly not all too informative, since basically all you're saying is that it was played on TV at least twice. If there were verifiable chart positions or something, that would be different. I still think a redirect is the best choice, for now. --HarryCane 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Label

CIWWAF is now on Atlantic. Might want to state it in the article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.77.19 (talk • contribs).

Really? Fueled By Ramen still has them listed as their's. Do you have a link to an article or anything? Lebroyl 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed (and sourced). --HarryCane 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What??? On their myspace page they are still from fueled by ramen not atlantic and it says nothing about atlantic records Chriscool334 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the interview that is linked within the article says that they signed to Atlantic afterwards. --HarryCane 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

new member

theres a new guitarist. someone might want to add him in. nice guy to, met him the other day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.115.33.224 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Members & Former Members

The sections "Members" and "Former Members" should be removed and should remain so. These are superfluous sections, for the information is already given in the infobox as well as links to the members' individual articles (if any) where any extra information on that particualar person resides. --I Are Scientists 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

True, they are sort of redundant. But the instruments should then be transferred to the infobox as well. --HarryCane 15:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Go Buffalo?

Someone wrote "Shaant Hanikyan=GO BUFFALOS!!!!!!! I deleted that but, was that really vanadalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TaylorLTD (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Leopold Stotch 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why... (notability)

Does this band rate an article in Wikipedia? This belongs on myspace until the band actually DOES something.

Google them and you recieve over two million hits. That's pretty good for a Indie band. It's pretty notable to me. I'll find extra sources to establish notability if this is really a problem. dposse 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Somebody does not understand WP:Band. Gekritzl 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Don't start with that emo crap here, please. This band is obviously not emo. Philipdistefano 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly if they aren't considered emo nobody can be considered emo... Leopold Stotch 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, please take a look into what emo music is, and especially what the difference to emo (slang) is. --HarryCane 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

...And? I'm not going to war with you on this, I don't really care. I stick to my comment above. Leopold Stotch 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They definitly aren't power pop.. people argue they aren't emo as it doesn't have any random "hardcore punk" influence. A lot of emo bands go that route, but several others also follow a more pop-punk or even indie rock/pop sound with the emo style, and I think that's what a lot of these bands sounds nowadays. Andrzejbanas 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They definitely are power pop. The band's singer Shaant Hacikyan describes it as "power pop with intellectual lyrics."[1] Many reviewers describe them as powerpop. Gekritzl 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, people confuse the fashion trend "emo" with the musical genre "emo", which are two completely different (and often opposite) things. And there are labeled "power pop" by professional sources (e.g. Absolutepunk), rather than sources like MTV or Kerrang, that slap the emo-moniker on any band wearing tight pants. --HarryCane 16:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The band was called "emo powerpop" by Spin Magazine: [2] Gekritzl 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ. Anon users keep changing the first sentence in the article to read that they are an emo band. It's getting really annoying now. DeadByDagger 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

someone here should

make an article about the band members and not just the band.

There's not really enough info about the band members' lives before CIWWAF or even now. DeadByDagger 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pete Wentz????

This isn't the same Pete Wentz from Fall Out Boy is it? Someone should create Band member pages that specify who is who. Especially when you have a CIWWAF band member with the same name of FOB's Pete Wentz. Unless they are in deed the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.39 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New album

Can someone please source where they got the title "No One Breath" please? Thedarkchao93 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

the link "Newport Living"

the "Newport Living" song is linked to The O.C. - I really don't understant why? this should be fixed... --Yaarp (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, i fixed it, there's also Newport Living (song) :-) --Yaarp (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?!

The article makes clear claims of notability, substantial coverage in reliable sources is provided, and they are a very well known band. A badly written article does not give license to a speedy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shaant's engaged to a guy?

Jack Marin is a guys name, I believe. But after him writing Curse of Curves, I find it hard to believe he's gay... does anyone actually have proof of this engagement?

- This is a load of shit. Somebody hacked into Shaant's MySpace account, posted a bulletin that loads of people assumed to be by him, that he was "coming out". Shaant's not engaged to anybody, and as far as everyone knows, he's straight.

shaant is deff nott engaged to to a guy...he is totally straight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.124.202 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone have a picture that we can use for the infobox? Ideally, a self-taken shot from a show or live performance, or a picture that is in the public domain. I'm sure that one of the many contributors of this article has seen this band perform live, and has taken a picture of the band. Even a cellphone shot may suffice, since the infobox is only a couple hundred pixels wide. Let's get on it. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Last Known Members

Currently all members are listed as "former members". If that's the case, and this band is broken up, it would be helpful to list a "last known lineup" rather than just have everyone lumped together like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.240.194 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

who talks like this?

"continuous plethora of hearsay"??? also, i removed that "look-alike" sentence. this entire article is a joke, but i don't know enough about the subject to fix it up proper. hope someone with more knowledge steps in.67.168.202.53 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, I've tagged the article. The tone needs a lot of work to make this article more encyclopedic and less like a breathless story in a fan mag. JGHowes 11:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Giving examples sure would help — you're probably referring (amongst other things) to the end of the history's first paragraph, but I certainly wouldn't call the article a "joke". There are little things here and there that desperately need fixing, agreed, yet I still consider the general point of view neutral. Also, I think it's a good thing that it reads like one article, instead of a listing of incoherent facts and trivia, like many articles of similar bands do. --HarryCane 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am positively choleric at the insinuation that people don't recurrently employ expressions not-dissimilar to the one you site!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.41.94 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Track on Punk Goes Pop 3?

Should it be noted the Cute has recorded "Dead And Gone" (originally recorded by T.I. ft. Justin Timberlake) for the upcoming Punk Goes Pop 3 album?168.122.167.202 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of current verifiable information

I am aware that Cute Is What We Aim For (CIWWAF) is now a solo act, retaining the full band name. A lack of verifiable information such as new officially released music, updates on the internet or recent interviews makes it difficult to successfully edit and improve this page. Certainly, I appreciate the significance of having this page. This page however contains numerous grammatical errors and phrasing that appears less than neutral. In order to improve this article new sources of information (currently not available) must be found BYEFandom (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it true?

Is it true, that this band was created in 1999? I think it was vandalism without any referrences. --93.72.76.168 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a fan site

I don't think I agree with the editor who put the Fansite tag, "This article or section resembles a fan site". Any thoughts? Gekritzl 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've looked at some of the older versions of this page, and I really can see why people had that impression, but it seems to me that it's been rewritten and fixed up well enough that that tag should be taken down now. --BreakfastJr (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Back then I was a fresh, timid editor, but now I've returned with a bigger dose of hubris and a knowledge of WP:BOLD. BreakfastJr (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ron neiss

"Rob neiss" was never ever apart of cute is what we aim for, someone please take his name down from past members. It is false, Fred Cimato Jeff Czum and Tom Falcone are the only original members. No one was before them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.247.235 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)