Talk:MGMT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text to merge[edit]

From a previous unsourced version.

MGMT, formely known as The Management is a collaboration between Andrew Vanwyngarden and Ben Goldwasser. What began as an experiment in electronic dance music while freshman at Wesleyan University in 2001, MGMT evololved into a sound for everyone. Their first hit, "kids" quickly became a campus theme song which, along with other tracks, was performed off an ipod version 1.0. Ben and Andrew would sing acapella style over their prerecorded music becoming the nucleus of dance parties with hundreds and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people dancing around them. After spending a couple summers playing music together in Athens GA, MGMT befriended many other youg artists including Of Montreal with whom they set off on their first national tour in 2005. On the tour, they brought with them the recently recorded Time To Pretend, an EP produced and distributed by three NYU students and their label Cantora Records. After nearly a year long hiatus, Ben joined Andrew in Brooklyn where a record deal from Columbia Records was soon proposed. In the early spring of 2007, MGMT joined forces with producer Dave Friddman and recorded Oracular Spectacular, a fully realized album of epic cosmos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cable9 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to add stuff like the original band format of a backing track. --William Graham talk 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trustfundia?[edit]

trustfundia is in fact a style of music quite prominent in brooklyn. obviously, it's not on the internet, but i guess you would know that, now would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

I corrected the newly added genre link of Surf to the Surf music article, but in doing so I started wondering if MGMT is really considered within the genres of Surf or Jungle, as the article currently states? It doesn't sound like it to me, and their roots wouldn't indicate it, but I have no counter evidence hence why I'm leaving the genres up for now. Any ideas on the matter? Cbragg (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas? Yep, their MySpace profile lists those genres and that's most likely why they'd have been added. I got rid of them. Nova Prime (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Band name[edit]

Quick thing.I am by no means an expert on this band, but I saw them on "Later...with Jooles Holland" the other week and Jools Holland asked what does MGMT stand for. The band member replied "Machine Gun Mountain". Should this be affed somewhere?--AjCrisci (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't stand for anything. Their band name had to change to a literal "MGMT" because there was band using the name "The Management" before them. They say "Machine Gun Mountain" as a joke. --William Graham talk 00:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they also said it stood for Make Good Music Today. it doesnt stand for anything its just letters. Some people think its supposed to be pronounced The Management but those people are really stupid, because if youve ever seen a single interview with them youd know how they pronounce it. Stupids...--99.249.149.134 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MGMT is an abbreviation of Management, not an acronym. They often went by The Management or Management before they were signed to Columbia, even though they recorded their EP under Cantora as MGMT. So, 99.249.149.134 (talk)
, perhaps everyone isn't as "really stupid" as you claim. (personal attack removed) 63.197.164.19 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I KNOW THAT. I KNOW THEY USED TO BE CALLED THE MANAGEMENT. I KNOW. BUT THEY DON'T CALL THEMSELVES THAT ANY MORE. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING NOW PLEASE SHUT UP. IT'S MGMT. NOT MANAGEMENT. MGMT. MGMT MGMT MGMT MGMT MGMT GOT IT IN YOUR HEAD YET? GOD . I KNOW THEY USED TO BE CALLED THE MANAGEMENT. BUT NOW THEY ARE MGMT. NOT MANAGEMENT. (personal attack removed). THANK YOU. (personal attack removed). (personal attack removed)? WATCH AN INTERVIEW WITH THEM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. There are hundreds of them on Youtube. --99.249.149.134 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors: Please refrain from personal attacks. Editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably. Thank you. Version prior to removal of personal attacks kollision (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

woven leg garments... lol that's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.169.205 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase[edit]

The Mediabase links used as sources seem to have been disabled and/or broken and/or deleted. Why is this? Did Mediabase redisgn something? Those were pretty important. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Someone seems to be vandalising this article again and again... - 86.27.65.97 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metanoia[edit]

This article need more info about Metanoia and its respective EP and it should have gotten article by now. Not to be bossy but someone should get on that. GEM036 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie?[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that these guys aren't technically indie anymore, since they signed with Sony/Columbia? I know their previous releases were, but Oracular Spectacular is a major label debut, and not really indie anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.151.0 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are referring to it as "indie" in terms of genre.  — Adriaan (T★C) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt really a genre in itself, but there's no real need to mention the company model of their label, that only belongs on that particular page. However the genres listed in teh infobox are far too many and all unsourced i'm going to cut them down using allmusic and rolling stone as a start for sourcing. --neon white talk 19:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content problem[edit]

The English language Wikipedia focuses too much on technical detail like dates of events and economic successes - music articles usually lack information about the musical attributes about bands and fail to discuss in musically termed paragraphs the nature of the musical ensemble or entity.  — Adriaan (T★C) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations?[edit]

So how is this an already released Album? I can't find ANYTHING on it. GEM036 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's their next album (title is confirmed) but they're still in the process of writing/recording it. They've mentioned it in many interviews, and have said that while it'll be finished probably by summertime, it likely won't be out for us to buy until the autumn, at earliest. --Kerrigwen85 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles charts references[edit]

The supplied references for most of the charts do not directly substantiate the claims. Perhaps it would be better to direct people to a historical-chart reference site rather than the current charts? JulesH (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is vs Are[edit]

Why does the article say "MGMT is..." instead of "MGMT are..." when most other articles about bands say "<band> are..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklitten (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, singular collective nouns use "is". In British English, singular collective nouns use "are". MGMT is an American band so the article is written in American English. See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. --William Graham talk 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture section[edit]

Anyone else agree the popular culture section should be removed? it serves no purpose in describing the band, its just a bunch of references to miscellaneous TV shows and BMX videos. You could put a section like that for any band article and it could go on forever and ever... --99.249.149.134 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring????[edit]

I think that the use of the word spring in this article and others to describe the expected release date for Congratulations is... not misleading, or ambiguous, just a bit unfair to those of us who live in the southern half of the world, since this is the case I'd like advice as to whether Wikipedia should include words such as seasons that don't correctly apply to the entire population?  PN57  00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phish festival[edit]

The album Oracular Spectacular was also in the running to be the musical costume for the jamband Phish at their Halloween 2009 festival. The song Kids was played during the soundcheck for said festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.186.3 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Moon soundtrack[edit]

Did MGMT really write a song called "Hunny Bunny" for New Moon, the 2nd movie of the Twilight series? I can't find it anywhere--it's also not on the Wikipedia "New Moon soundtrack" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tess55 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. They do have a song called "Honey Bunny" on their demo album, Climbing to New Lows, but I highly doubt that song has anything to do with Twilight, as it was written pre-2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.198.126 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGMT Picture[edit]

I think the picture representing MGMT is outdated and not serving its function as representing MGMT the very best. I would apreciate if someone could change it to something more symbolic of the duo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.243.64 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea.^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.204.97 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-And they really aren't even a duo anymore now that Matt, James and Will record with them too. I would put up a picture of all 5 of them. I would reccomend something along the lines of this: http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4803/mgmtimage73766galleryv9.jpg or this http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9610/mgmtsnl3.png --96.236.141.171 (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they're no longer a two man band, I would say the second one of the above links would be the better of the two, i dont know how to put that up though so can someone please do it?- RREDD13 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture has to go. It is even older than the last picture that was used, and features Hank Sullivant, who is no longer in the band, and hasn't been since late 2007. Seeing this picture is an eyesore for big fans, such as myself, and regular contributers to the page. I would suggest(like someone has above) http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4803/mgmtimage73766galleryv9.jpg as it is the most current and professional picture of the band. It also goes along nicely with the release of their current cd Congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krbkrx (talk • contribs) 11:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?[edit]

Really? Is a citation necessary for the release date of an album that's been released for two months? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.219.80 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand exactly what you mean. You need citation just for your citation on Wikipedia. Part of what makes Wikipedia so great, and at times, so annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krbkrx (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Rock?[edit]

I noticed that in the "genres" section of this page Progressive Rock is one of the many genres listed there. Now, I've listened to quite a few MGMT songs and none of them show any signs of a Prog influence albeit two 12 minute songs ("Siberian Breaks" and "Metanoia"). These songs are multi-parted and rather long by mainstream standards, which fits the Prog genre. And those two singles have, indeed, Progressive Rock listed in their genres in their own pages, but that does not mean the band should have the genre listed in their own page. They show no signs of Prog influence except in those two songs. Even Green Day has a single that has "Progressive Rock" listed as a genre (that would be "Jesus of Suburbia") and we all know that Green Day are not Prog. The genre is not listed on their page just because they have a 9 minute-long single that is multi-parted.

I'm just saying Progressive Rock is not a genre that describes this band. Besides, they aren't even in the ProgArchives.com database (and they have everything prog-related in there). They did two "Prog" singles and that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy-Snail (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"loves emily"?[edit]

The caption below the photograph of MGMT playing live reads "loves emily". I suggest that unless that is correct, someone with more knowledge on the subject of MGMT fix that, because that would be vandalizing the article. Again.

156.34.205.29 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGMTea?[edit]

Are these two edits really correct? I considered reverting it but I thought I would ask here instead. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 03:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jeux?[edit]

Who is this? I can't find any proof of him being a member of MGMT anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.238.190 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave[edit]

Is there a source that describes MGMT as New Wave? --69.4.153.234 (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Why does it not say anywhere on here anything about Glitter Penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.173.81 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, James and Will[edit]

Shouldn't these guys get Wikipedia pages. I mean especially Will Berman because he writes a lot of songs with Andrew (most famously Electric Feel) and Will has worked with other bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.122.26 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Proceedings[edit]

The section on legal proceedings describes their donation to "an organization that supports rigid copyright enforcement". A better translation from the French article would probably be an "artists rights organizations", which is in line with what they wrote in their official statement. Here's an article that includes their statement.

Without a reference to the specific organization that they donated their settlement to, it's fairly speculative to make claims about the rigidity of their copyright enforcement. Perhaps just best to stick to a quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.102.6 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm just going to go ahead and edit that, because it seems like quite a weaselly translation. The article you linked to seems to indicate that MGMT isn't really that concerned with "rigid" copyright infringement, but is rather concerned with the UMP's hypocrisy: "...the fact that the UMP used our song without permission while simultaneously pushing anti-piracy legislation seemed a little wack." Dewert (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

artist of the day is really not a big deal[edit]

kinda makes the band sound so much less awesome than they are that you guys are that excited about an award like that (and it appears as the first sentence of the second paragraph). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.194.188 (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MGMT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MGMT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Band Name (again)[edit]

Despite personal attacks and CAPITAL LETTERS above (in 2009), the article doesn’t say how to pronounce MGMT.

Also doesn’t cite a story for why they originally chose “The Management”.

MBG02 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theres an article (https://www.vulture.com/2008/07/once_and_for_all_how_do_you_pr.html) that states it’s pronounced “Em Gee Em Tee”, I belive this is an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDLSS NMLSS (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph genre[edit]

The current lead states “MGMT is an American rock band” although I believe MGMT are more a pop band with rock elements rather than a straight up rock band. I'm requesting we change the lead from rock to pop. NDLSS NMLSS (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:SNOW, pretty safe to say this isn't happening. (page mover nac) Nohomersryan (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MGMT → Mgmt – as per WP:MOSTM, where names which are treated in Sentence structure, such as Time (magazine) which is Time rather than TIME, and Kiss (band) is Kiss rather than KISS. Onel5969 TT me 23:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per nom (WP:MOSTM itself): "Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if only because the examples above are spurious. "Time Inc." is the name of the company (look at Talk:Time_(magazine)#Move_to_Time_Magazine? for the whole discussion). Ditto Kiss, the band uses it and KISS interchangeably. Markvs88 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:TMRULES, specifically: "Using all-caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't (or no longer) stand for anything." PC78 (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above comments. Additionally, every source used in the article spells it MGMT. Calidum 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since, you can't say Mgmt like a word. --Quiz shows 04:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, most common usage uses all caps, and it allows each letter to be pronounced individually. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 05:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose https://www.vulture.com/2008/07/once_and_for_all_how_do_you_pr.html - 10 Jul 2008 "We called the band's label, Columbia, and a publicist told us it's definitely pronounced “Em Gee Em Tee.” This seems to be confirmed by this video, in which MGMT's Andrew VanWyngarden pronounces it that way." In ictu oculi (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tbhotch. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Middletown Go My Top" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Middletown Go My Top. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Middletown Go My Top until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MGMT&oldid=1195551242"