Talk:MxPx

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

Religion[edit]

Yuri's Facebook profile simply says that he's in a "Pop Punk" band. Maybe we ought to take his word for it. (Oct 30 2009).

I have decided to remove the Christian statement in the opening paragraph and in the info box, as although the band members are Christian, their music is not. Therefore, it makes no relevance to put this on their wikipedia page. Mtranter 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jars Of Clay is a Christian song.Heath In Jersey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathinjersey (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their inclusion at sites like this: http://www.christianmusic.com/mxpx/bio.html would seem to indicate otherwise. When conducting interviews with mainstream publications, MxPx' front man does tend to play down their christian affiliation. Nevertheless, the band is signed to a christian label (Tooth and Nail, which is in fact a part of the EMI Christian Music Group) and they routinely play christian tours and venues. To me, I'd say that basically makes them a christian band. NiftySwifty 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya i would have to say there not christian Punk becuse they say there music is not so there not if the band member say it. You cant change there or put what you think they should be.Skateremorocker

There are undoubtedly some Christian songs (You Make Me, Me for example), and a lot that could be interpreted as Christian, but the most official word we're going to get:

http://www.mxpxrocks.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000955

"IS MXPX A CHRISTIAN BAND?

Mxpx are Christians in a band(See Appendix A)."

Though I don't believe in grouping a band into a genre by their beliefs, I do think there should be some mention of the band member's faith, as it is more apparent than other "Christians in a band" bands. Philtrauferson 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that sounds like a complete cop out answer from them. I've known country bands who tried to call themselves pop, but that didn't mean they were. Thinking back to Amy Grant, she definitely started out as a Christian singer who made a crossover and at the time I recall her past as a Christian artist downplayed. Now she is clearly identified on her wikipedia page as an artist best known for her contempary christian music who succesfully made a crossover. Just because MxPx now wishes to downplay their christian music origins, I don't see why their Wikipedia article should completely ignore their past. I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like they are simply attemping to keep from alienating their core christian audience while they try to cross over. 166.217.101.101 02:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MxPx is Christian music in the same way that Michael Knott is a Christian musician (Michael Knott>Blonde Vinyle>Wish for Eden>Brandon Ebel>Tooth and Nail>MxPx). They are supported by and have a sometimes uneasy alliance with Christianity, and with the sub-genre that is Christian music. MxPx also have some real talent, and a chance at more mainstream success. I wish the guys the best, but they don't need to hide their roots; nobody likes deceptiveness.

According to an Interview with MxPx with AP on their August 2007 issue, MxPx is not a Christian Band, but are indeed "Christians in a Band". Although it is obvious that many of their songs, even now a days, are very much Christian inspired, we should list then as Punk Rock according to their wishes. However, we should also mention in the history section of the influence God has on the band, and also mention the songs where it is very obvious that God influenced it. (Jaimito: July 12, 2007)

Why should we list them as punk "according to their wishes"? I'm sure Larry Craig would prefer his entry doesn't mention his bathroom indiscretion, but I thought Wikipedia was about facts, not a vehicle for a clearly historically christian band whos trying to make a crossover downplay their past. They have historically been a Christian Punk band. Good for them if they want to abandon their christian roots, but just because now they're going on about this "Christians in a band" nonsense, doesn't mean we should completely leave out the facts that they definitely are signed to a christian label, play christian concerts, and are generally recognized as a christian band. 24.28.9.102 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Tom Festival: POD, Danielson Famile, Pedro the Lion, MxPx

This happens in every christian band that get mainstream popularity. The mainstream people want it their way so they start debating and then a bunch of interviewers ask them about it and then they give a speach about the genre and people still question them about it I say in this case the members are Christian and/or a Christian punk band its always one of the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.33.172 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the band themselves have stated they are "Christians in a band". This is totally valid. Yeah, they are on a Christian label, and seemed to have connections in the community, but the music itself is not Christian, in the sense that it is not 'praise and worship' music. The songs aren't about God or religion; they're entirely interchangeable with any Sum41 or Blink182 song. This needs to be addressed somehow121.210.30.179 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information Needed in this Article[edit]

Any article on MXPX that doesn't mention their spirituality or history in the Christian music market is radically incomplete. That struggle, along with their related struggles bouncing between labels, virtually defines this bands history.

changed a grammatical error. thanks. dantedanti

Added information about their release for 'prey' Deltro 05:36, 7 July 2006

  • Not sure why there's a citation needed for how they got their name. That's basically the scoop, and there isn't any recorded media that I'm aware of that explains it unless somebody wants to interview them about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.159.125 (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for deletion[edit]

Why should this article be deleted? I don't think this article should be deleted. That's why I removed "Pages for deletion" until I find out why someone added "Pages for deletion" or it should be deleted. Alex 101 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the user who did this (24.164.79.187) hates me for voting to delete an article that he probably wrote (here). Look at my user page; see how it has a bunch of wikilinks? He/she/it decided to put all those articles up for deletion without giving any reason at all (look at his contributions). I assumed good faith until I saw he tried it on this article too. *sigh* EdGl 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I noticed their genre has been edited several times; we should clarify it here. I say MxPx is pop-punk. -EdGl 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say you're right. There are barely any REAL punk bands anyway. Pop-punk is new punk basically.24.64.223.203 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy[reply]

I think we should change the genre from punk to pop punk/christian punk DavidJJJ 14:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that they are still labelled as "Christian Punk"? What makes them "Christian Punk"? Furthermore, isnt "Christian Punk" just an oxymoron that contradicts each other because Punk Rock is about self driven DIY ethics with an anarchical attitude... therefore, in order to be "Christian Punk" it must be music devoted against Christianity and MxPx is clearly is neither for or against Christianity in their music.

You're wrong. "Christianity" is a religion, and "punk", in this case, is a musical genre. "Christian punk" is Christian-themed punk rock. "DIY" means "do it yourself", so Christians can't do anything by themselves? They can't be "anarchial" either? Read Christian anarchy. Have you even read any MxPx lyrics? Christian themes abound in many of their songs. Read Christian punk and get educated on this. —EdGl 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with Christ. And yes, MxPx is for Christianity in their music, it is VERY obvious.

I'd just like to clarify something here, when interviewing Michele Herrera (Mike's mother) we specifically asked her what genre MxPx considers themselves to be a part of, since all the sources online were ambiguous. Her reply? (I can't claim this is an original quote, my notes are at home) "They're a punk band with members who are Christians." So yes, the members of the band themselves are Christan, but they no longer consider their music to be. Allynfolksjr 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MxPx is a Christian band. [1] MxPx should definitely be listed as punk rock at least.—Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who added ska punk? I'm going to remove it.68.114.92.198 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

best to just call them a punk band... all genres listed for them come under punk

loveyourfaithLoveyourfaith (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think this band should be "pop punk". They're way too pop. I miss real punk =[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.179.24 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- pop punk, or just punk. MxPx members may be christians but their music is definitely NOT about christianity, religion, spirituality, god or anything like that. Christian music is a completely different genre. JF -- 15:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.85.204 (talk)

MxPx is also an alternative rock band; this should be added as a genre in the infobox. ~Peter Dzubay 29 June 2015

They are? Do you have any reliable sources to support that, or do you just know that to be the case? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MxPx is referred to as alternative rock in various reliable sources, including this, and is categorized under alternative rock on websites such as Amazon.--Peter Dzubay (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon is not a reliable source. The local paper is also, in this context, not a reliable source. A music reviewer should be the source of the story, not a street beat reporter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the book Faith, God and Rock n Roll by Mark Joseph, MxPx is specically referred to as an alternative rock band (which can be seen in the online version here). Also, in this article by John Bush on AllMusic.com, MxPx is referred to as an alternative rock band. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AllMusic genre cloud is not a reliable source. If John Bush, the author of the biography, had stated they were alternative, that would be a reliable source. The Google book does not support the statement either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book does, in fact, support the statement as it refers to MxPx as an alternative rock band various times, stating things such as:
  • "Tooth & Nail, a Seattle-based independent label that would spawn dozens of Christian-oriented punk and alternative rock bands like [...] MxPx."
  • "[Slowly Going The Way Of The Buffalo] contained a single 'Chick Magnet', which climbed the alternative rock charts"
--Peter Dzubay (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the tome states it, but that's one work.
"Tooth & Nail, a Seattle-based independent label that would spawn dozens of Christian-oriented punk and alternative rock bands like [...] MxPx." Emphasis mine.
Alternative rock charts because there are no Billboard punk rock charts and even if it were truly an alternative rock song, one song does not define the band's entire style. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to you making the word 'punk' bold, I did not try to say that MxPx's music is not punk; it no doubt is and the sentence is saying that the bands that are listed are classified as both genres. Typically, punk is linked very closely with alternative rock which is definitely the case with MxPx. The source that I provided is very reputable as it is a printed published book and is a completely reliable source accepted under Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, the band's music is defined as alternative rock on iTunes. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stretch. The conjunction likely means "punk bands" and "alternative rock" bands, not all bands are both punk and alternative rock. Similarly, iTunes is not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a stretch; the two genres are very closely linked and the author included both genres to describe bands like MxPx. Also, under Wikipedia guidelines, as bands' record labels publish everything related to them on iTunes, iTunes is considered an acceptable source in this case; it is their label, Capitol, that is stating that MxPx is alternative rock. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skate Punk or what[edit]

I think MxPx is a Punk/Pop Punk/ skate punk band. mean there band skateboard when they were youner and they still do and some of they music videos do have skateboarding in it.

skate punk has a specific sound to it its not just punk rockers who skateboard although that is how the genre got its name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.249.193 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what?[edit]

FTA: "MxPx cites their influences from 70s, 80s and 90s bands like Bad Religion (ironic, considering their anti-religious stance and music)..." I hardly think this is appropriate, and I feel that there is no encyclopedic value to the encapsulated note. I am removing it. If someone can come up with a _good_ reason to put it back, discuss. Lunis Neko 03:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the removal. It serves no purpose to point out Bad Religion's philosophical leanings and blots out NPOV. A reader who clicks the link to BR can easily determine for themselves that the spiritual beliefs of BR and MxPx's members are likely quite different. It need not be blatantly stated. GBrady (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Rock[edit]

Where do you think Let's Rock should be added in the discography? It's hard to define whether it's an album, EP or other. Philtrauferson

I'd say under "Compilation albums". It's not a "real" album, so it wouldn't fit under albums. Also, it's just rare songs and b-sides, which is basically what "Let It Happen" is. And it certainly isn't an EP. —EdGl 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Record Label?[edit]

Is MxPx on SideOneDummy Records or Tooth & Nail? Did they go back to T&N? On T&N's website MxPx is back under artist rather then alumni, they were under alumni a couple weeks ago.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.59 (talk • contribs)

This is a mistake; they didn't go back to Tooth and Nail. The reason why they put them under artists is because MxPx is releasing Let It Happen Deluxe Edition under T&N (T&N still has the rights to it... long story). —EdGl 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for clearing that up

it says in their wikipedia page that their back on T & N

Yeah, I reverted that edit. —EdGl 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also just removed the paragraph about leaving SideOneDummy on the "Current status" section. Alex 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivia"[edit]

I caught something on the trivia section that mentioned two of the members were recruited as drummers, this is not true. Tom was more of a drummer on his own time. When Andy was leaving MxPx, Tom was asked to join the band as a replacement guitarist. Tom had little guitar expierience when he was asked to join. See AP Magazine's August 2007 Issue.

The band was together for a while before Tom replaced Andy. Tom and Yuri actually played drums together in their High School band for the 3 years they spent at Central Kitsap HS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.159.125 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo[edit]

Hey, I don't know if we can confirm this, but I think the MxPx version of the Scooby Doo theme is played at the Warner Brothers MovieWorld theme park's Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster Ride. I am fairly sure this is true, and might be right for the trivia section.

"Format"[edit]

Do we need the "format" headings on all the tables?

The only one that isn't a CD is under the heading "DVD".

RanDawg 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B-Movie01.jpg[edit]

Image:B-Movie01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:At the Show.jpg[edit]

Image:At the Show.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MoveToBremerton01.jpg[edit]

Image:MoveToBremerton01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ten Years and Running.jpg[edit]

Image:Ten Years and Running.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Let it Happen MxPx.jpg[edit]

Image:Let it Happen MxPx.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Renaissance EP.jpg[edit]

Image:The Renaissance EP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key to the city photo[edit]

What happened to the photo of MxPx receiving the key to the city? A quick skim over the history doesn't show that whomever removed it ever mentioned it in the comments. --Yurimxpxman 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians[edit]

It should mention that the band members are christians, even if they want to weasel out of identifying as a christian band, people should be warned. People have the right to know their music is coming from a place of delusion. So it is going back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.149.191 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that made my day. Atheist bigotry at it's finest and most blunt. Thanks for that. Regardless, in the article you phrased it as I was going to, so I think we can keep it that way. Thanks for making a good contribution to an article about a Christian band =) Philtrauferson 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are a Christian band... Otherwise they wouldn't have, I dunno, said they were. IronCrow 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band members have stated in multiple interviews they "are christians in a band, not a christian band". Removing "christian punk". Regardless of if they "are a place of delusion" their lyrics make fewer references to god/religion than many non christian musicians.Mattpace (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're on a christian label, they continue to play christian venues, have several decidedly christian songs, and they even gave an interview THIS YEAR with Christian Music Today... sorry buddy, they're a Christian band. Listen: Today they were nominated for an award by CCMSingles.Net for their single "You're on Fire". CCM Singles is for CHRISTIAN MUSIC, and yep, MxPx has posted the fact to their news section. Sorry, they don't seem to be running away from the christian music label, regardless of what they've mentioned in a couple of interviews. NiftySwifty (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they won't lable themselves a Christian band because they can't reach out to non Christian people because we all know that they are christians in a band and that is the most comon thing with bands like them for example Switchfoot or Anberlin they are all one in the same.

I don't think they should be labeled as Christians. While the members may be Christians, nothing in any of their songs relate to said religion. ~DarkZero —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonLegend (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have never actually read the lyrics to their songs, have you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.105.44 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MXPX has stated that they have returned to tooth and nail records so they can have more control of their direction and be able to play in the secular market and return and play more in the Christian Market. * [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MxPx Banner.jpg[edit]

Image:MxPx Banner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Continuity[edit]

There needs to be some clarification about the genre of music they play. I'm completely avoiding the "Are they a Christian band?!" discussion, because that subject has the potential to go on until the end of days.

My point is that on Mike's page, MxPx is listed as a "Skate Punk" band. On Yuri's page, they're a "Christian Punk" band. And on the band's main page, they're listed as "Skate Punk".

Why can't they just be straight "punk"?! There's too much variation in their music. They have so many different influences, one genre title as specific as "Skate Punk" or "Christian Punk" is too exclusive in which to put them.

I'm changing it to "punk". SkittlzAnKomboz (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enthusiastically agree that the articles should be consistant. I'd make them all "pop-punk," which I think is more accurate, but I have no problem with "punk." Thanks for taking the initiative. ~EdGl (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the members actively identifies the band as a Christian punk band, a full 50% of the citations for this article are from christian media outlets, they continute to play Christian venues, they are signed to a Christian label, and this article is supported by the Christian Music WikiProject. I understand they also have non-religious pop punk offerings, but I think a better proposal than simply trying to stamp any association with Christianity out of the article may be to take the approach the Amy Grant article has taken. Why not say "MxPx is a band well known for their contributions to the pop and christian punk genres", or something along those lines. I believe this is likely more accurate and informative than the current article which, despite heavily referencing Christian media sources, has virtually no indication that the band has a heavy historical and current association with the Christan punk scene. Thoughts? NiftySwifty (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with NiftySwifty. Saying "they're punk" or "They're Christian punk" really aren't definitive. They really are "both". I think his wording is also appropriate. While I can appreciate the band's own description of themselves and the fact that religious references are seldom blatant, nonetheless they have a big Christian following who feel their music IS Christian in nature. A band can argue for whatever they want to say they play but ultimately their FANS define their genre for them. (refer to any modern pop-punk band that gets pissed off at being referred to as "emo".) GBrady (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1969?[edit]

That can't be right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.134.4 (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Cover II[edit]

I have noticed that a few editors are placing On the Cover II on the "studio albums" list. It is my understanding that OTC2 should fall under something like "miscellaneous" because it is not an "official full-release" by the band. Thoughts? ~EdGl ★ 13:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. Strictly speaking, OTC/OTCII would be studio albums, so it seemed appropriate to include these. However, as special projects, a case could be made that these should remain with the discography article. In that case, clarifications are needed in the section content (should indicate something like "original material"), and the section comment should also specifically exclude cover albums, compilation contributions, etc. (or include only full albums featuring (primarily) the band's original material). Dl2000 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tour 2008[edit]

They have played at the FlevoFestival in the netherlands in august 2008.. it is not mentioned in the tourhistory .. they played in Utrecht the netherlands just last night... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.180.142 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Wars 2009[edit]

Please see my above comments for how I feel on this. Also, I refer you to the Bio towards the bottom on MTV's page at http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/mxpx/artist.jhtml. They call them Christian Themed, and mention that although their music is not largely christian, they are nevertheless considered a "Christian Punk Bank". Can we stop the revert wars now, children? Remember, *your* opinion of their genre doesn't matter, as you are not a reputable source. NiftySwifty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that a third of the references for this article (none of which added by me) are from the Christian Music Press, and they are also mentioned in Wikipedia's very own Christian Punk article twice. And finally, please note at the top of this page that this article is *supported by the Wikipedia Christian Music project... NiftySwifty (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is going. Everything has an internal bias, unless of course you're saying that Christians are the only ones with it. Would you not go to a biologist and ask questions about biology or quantum physics? 64.234.0.101 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record Label[edit]

The last two albumms put out by the band, Punk Rawk Christmas and Left Coast Punk EP, have been released by the band's own personal label. does this mean they are no longer signed with tooth & Nail?--75.76.70.49 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just means their contract with T&N allows them to release some material on their own label. I'm assuming. ~EdGl ★ 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to the "Teenage Politics" album page?[edit]

It used to be there, I remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiohsilva100 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MxPx. 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) 16:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MxPx. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MxPx. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Here's a making-of interview for the 2018 album: https://chorus.fm/podcasts/mike-herrera-of-mxpx-encore-episode-158/ (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 12:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MxPx&oldid=1211959463"