Talk:Wolfmother

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

Genre[edit]

I wouldn't really describe them as 'stoner rock'. --Stuart mcmillen 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it. --huwr 05:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Psychedelic rock? I'm unsure if that is a category though, but it seems more suited to their style. --Rachel Cakes 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of changing it to psychedelic rock while cleaning the well-meant but awkward edits of User:139.168.25.189. They marked it down as Retro Rock, which doesn't have an article, so I changed it to psychedelic rock, which does. --huwr 06:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent article in Guitar World magazine called them "Hipster Metal", a term they also describe in the article. --Sportsfan541 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Psychedlic, it seems some of these kiddies don't realise that there were similar kinds of music around before "stoner rock" (which this band is part of) _ Deathrocker 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider them in the grunge category, although that movement doesn't really exist anymore. Perhaps neo-grunge would be a better label?

Orly? dposse 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even Pearl Jam have moved on from Grunge now.
Neo-Psychedelia, as they're a new Psychedelic band, and something along the lines of Heavy Metal, as they're an intricate part of what All Music Guide is calling a "Mid-'00s metal revolution." Any way you dice it, they're hard rock and obviously (in buzz and recordings) influenced by Hendrix, Sabbath, Zepp, AC/DC, etc. That's how I think all this breaks down - but one thing's for sure: this band is NOT ALTERNATIVE ROCK. They don't hold the punk structure nor the sound, and they specifically build upon a clear metal-style, and seeing as punk and metal can never be friends (excluding the year 1991), these guys are just plain out, clear and simple, hard rock. Editor19841 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the problem is, Neo-psychedelia bands are alternative rock (or at least post-punk) by definition, and therefore, for the exact reasons you stated, Wolfmother does not belong in this category. Squeal 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, as with many of the other rock band pages. It's the most general term, and will hopefully aleviate any mild edit wars. -- Reaper X 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rock" is way too general. I rarely see it used. I think the genre is fine the way it is.dposse 03:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty damn obvious that they're classic rock/ prog. They suck, and to classify them in the awesome genre that is Neo-psychedelia is a joke, they sound nothing like any of the bands associated with that movement.

i think stoner metal and heavy metal should be deleted from the article, neither article applies to Wolfmother since they dont sound anywhere near metal 24.241.227.184 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not stoner metal, though a classification as metal or heavy metal is accurately descriptive. The comment above regarding neo-psychedelia is pretty spot on, i think. Prog seems much more appropriate both in the spirit of what their music seems to be getting at, and in the sound itself. Verineo 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Do you have any reliable sources to back this up? Because im sure that i can find multiple sources for both Stoner metal and heavy metal. [1] [2] [3][4]dposse 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Wolfmother being called Metal, what is wrong with everyone, Wolfmother are pop, they're nothing like metal.


I would class Wolfmother primarily as hard rock and heavy metal. However the band also has elements of stoner music, and this is plain to see. Read the opening paragraph of the stoner rock article for a description of these characteristics. Superfopp 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop"? What the hell are you smoking? Wolfmother delivers a sound that is similar to Steppenwolf and Deep Purple, who were both important in shaping the sound that would become Heavy Metal. I also suggest including the band as Blues-Rock.(BreakerLOLZ 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why all your input is interesting, there is no use in debating this without the use of sources.. I think Wikipedia:NPOV solves this issue right there: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As long as this debate revolves about one's personal opinions, there will be no end to this. So: look for sources - any, not just the ones that represent your POV - and then adapt the aricle. The Rolling Stone for example uses Retro metal and Garage rock [5], AMG uses Alternative Metal, Stoner Metal, Heavy Metal, Hard Rock [6] --Johnnyw talk 13:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfmother are not in any way metal. Do you people even know what metal is?--Tbboy16 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfmother is not metal or anything close. Iced Earth is metal. Wolfmother is the definition of mainstream pop rock. I don't know what the heck "stoner metal" is but, they sure are not heavy metal! (KingYaba 19:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Anyone who says that Wolfmother is not heavy metal clearly has no understanding of what the term means. Heavy metal originated in the Late 60s/Early 70s with Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc, all of whom have a clear influence on Wolfmother. All other forms of Metal(i.e. Thrash metal, speed metal, death metal, stoner metal, or whatever Iced Earth plays) are derivations of this.38.112.225.84 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath were at the time considered "heavy rock", Wolfmother are better described as metal than as heavy metal.

'Heavy Metal' and 'Metal' are interchangeable terms in genreal usage. Also, by "heavy rock" I assume you mean "hard rock", which was used synonomously with "heavy metal" at the time the term originated. Though 'heavy metal' and 'hard rock' became more divergent as rock music developed, both styles have influenced Wolfmother.38.112.225.84 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream? POP?? OK, has anyone heard "Woman" on the radio, cause I sure havent. Wolfmother is metal, not pop-rock.Mezmerizer 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer[reply]

if you lived in austrlia you would hear "woman" + every single other wolfmother song on the radio. way too much. AFAIK they are definately closer to Pop Rock than Heavy Metal which is pretty much a dead genre as far as describing bands goes unless youre talking about iron maiden or black sabbath.150.101.169.179 13:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. TV ads, video games, pop radio stations; Wolfmother are everywhere (although their exposure is dying down.) However, that's not really relevant to their genre. They really have very little to do with metal, OR stoner metal (the best example of stoner metal is probably Kyuss; a dirty sounding 'relaxed' metal.) Unfortunately, AMG lists their style (but not genre) as Heavy Metal and Stoner Metal, so it stays... thems the rules. I dare say that AMG are fast losing their credibility as a reliable source, though. The KZA 07:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the thingy here above as it was nothing but insult. I think that if you look what is NOW regarded as heavy metal Wolfmother is not, stoner metal, na also not influenced by them probably, Psychedelic Rock and Hard Rock would be right, earlier named grunge, completely not. Pop rock? Not at all it is miles away from pop rock, not that it is superhardcoreultramegaunderground but pop rock, no I am just looking what neo-psychedelica is so I leave that one open. So psychecdelic and hard rock should stay, stoner should be left out and heavy metal depends on what your definition of it is, if you mean by that the first bands like Black Sabbath and you see the NWOBHM bands and beyond as not heavy metal but really different genres than Heavy Metal would be okay.

I will remove alternative rock from the list of genres. Based on this: " ... but one thing's for sure: this band is NOT ALTERNATIVE ROCK. They don't hold the punk structure nor the sound, and they specifically build upon a clear metal-style, ... Editor19841 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC) "' I will remove it. The only argument in favor of alternative rock: '"You know, the problem is, Neo-psychedelia bands are alternative rock (or at least post-punk) by definition, and therefore, for the exact reasons you stated, Wolfmother does not belong in this category. Squeal 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"') The problem with this argument is that neo-psychedelica isn't alternative rock, if it would be there would be no reason to give it a different name. It is clearly not similar enough to alternative rock to be called alternative rock.--Tomvasseur (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfmother are not alternative rock. They are alternative metal, but this is a minor genre and can be found in reliable sources. Not alt. rock. Andre666 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo out of date?[edit]

The photo of the band seems a bit out of date. If you can't pick Andrew Stockdale's afro at an instant glance, something's wrong. He probably hasn't had a haircut since that photo was taken. Daniel Kiley 09:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is still quite recent as it would be less than a year old. --Galaga88 11:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone object to putting a colour photo of the band up? --Rachel Cakes 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say some form of classic rock...it does have that classic rock edge...of course its also somewhat progressive especially some of the b-sides like "earths rotation around the sun."

Regressive Rock[edit]

I've reverted the Regressive Rock description, becuase I've nominated the term for deletion. It's a neologism which the author admits is not in wide use. Cnwb 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They fit the criteria and thus the categorisation was apt. -IJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigoJones (talk • contribs)
I happen to like the phrase, and think it's quite apt, but Wikipedia isn't the place to promote new terminology (see WP:NEO for more info). By the way, you can sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end. Hope this helps. Cnwb 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep it at hard rock Scipo 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release corrections[edit]

Their first single was a double A-side, Mind's Eye/Woman. And what was describled as dimention (single), is actually known as Dimentions (EP).

Joker and the Thief?[edit]

In my opinion, this is a very good song by wolfmother. Does anyone know where this song came from? im going to add some information about it in the article, unless there are any objections--Bagel7 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

name?[edit]

just curious, does anyone have any knowledge on the origins of their name? Joeyramoney 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a spin on the fairy tale, Mother Wolf JayKeaton 21:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. The origin is explained in this article, I'm just not sure how to reference it in. http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18883850%255E5001182,00.html

Sources[edit]

Two articles from The Guardian, one an interview and the other a review. Have fun.

Telsa (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Woman a cover?[edit]

Just wondering if there song Woman is a cover. It sounds like something Black Sabbath would do, and I have a felling I've heard it before

No. --Mdhowe 04:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think they sound more like zepplin but u could argue that they sound alot like many different rock bands. i wish a new band would come out that sounds like the doors though.

i thought it was led zeppelin when i first heard the song, also i heard another song by wolfmother that featured an a organ like keyboard in the background that sounded a lot like the doors Lenn0r

The sound a lot like all three. The song with the Doors organ is White Unicorn. And the first thing i thougt about when heard was also the Doors' Break on through. And no! Woman is not a cover. Just an excellent song. TheEsb

Listen to thin lizzy - china town, listen to the main guitar riff and then to the solo of both songs. And weep /ordbrukaren

iPod Commercial?[edit]

Was that Wolfmother in the new ipod commercial I just seen?

Yes --Mdhowe 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments[edit]

maybe someone could try and find specific references as to what instruments they use. both the gibson SG and the rickenbacker 4000 are pretty iconinc in the rock world but i havnt been able to find any specific specs on which models are you used.

I think the bassist plays a Hammond organ, but I'm not sure. They also make frequent use of the Big Muff Pi pedal.24.159.205.132 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Train[edit]

I'm not sure that Love Train was ever actually released as a single in the United States. How could it have hit #5 on the Billboard Modern Rock charts?

You're right, it was just someone vandalising / being dumb. I've removed the Love Train line altogether as it was never released as a single anywhere. Mdhowe 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Change[edit]

Just corrected a piece of information. Wolfmother played Roskilde Festival in July - not June. http://www.roskilde-festival.dk/object.php?obj=553d2e81&Day=Sunday&code=1

Woman, you...[edit]

Is the line, "Woman/You know that you're a woman..." or is it "Woman/You're not a woman..."? In the lyric booklet and television captions for the video, it's the former. But I've also seen it as the latter, so which is it? There are other minor mistakes in the lyric booklet that I know are wrong because when Andrew sings a certain word, it's clearly different. One example in Tales, the end line reads "Light the candle to see what may unfold" but it's pretty clear that when sung, it is "Light the candle to see what you may be." So due to these minor mistakes throughout, I thought maybe the Woman line was misprinted also (maybe because Andrew decided to change it while singing, as is a common practice and creates typical discrepancies for the printed version). Also, it doesn't really seem like someone could fit all those words from the former within that time constraint of the beat, and it also seems like it makes more sense to say, "You're not a woman/You've got to be a woman" cause you're not yet or something, but that's my interpretation. -Wilhelm Screamer 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He tries to sing "You know that you're a woman" but doesn't have enough space, so it is shortened to "You know you're woman"

they used wolfmother's woman as soundtrack for wayne goss's segment on New World Disorder 7.

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Wolfmother[edit]

Anybody here who listens to Wolfmother can add the userbox I just created: {{User Wolfmother}} or [[Category:Wikipedians who listen to Wolfmother|{{PAGENAME}}]] to thier user page(s). Enjoy. Editor19841 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous[edit]

With regards to the spam, some of it may be remotely useful in the miscellaneous, as it does state that the band's music is used in so-and-so, or was played in someplace. So, should the spam be scrounged through for useful information or not?

Page-protection may also be needed for this wiki, as it has been subject to several broadsides on the part of a couple of vandals. Qwerty 15:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flatout2[edit]

the song dimension appeared on the game flatout2. u should mention it somewhere. i would have odne that, if i knew how :\

I disagree. A huge portion of this article is all the games, advertisements and TV shows that the bands songs have been played in. But who really cares about those things? Are they necessary? --Mdhowe 06:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, so u better delete the other crap, or u should add this crap.
Thanks for your insight! I don't have to do anything. I was posing a question whose answer may or may not lead to me or someone else deleting the crap. --Mdhowe 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use picture[edit]

i reverted the image page back to the public domain picture. can someone tell a admin that it's ok now? 'cause that deletion warning still seems to be there. dposse 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh, i didn't know how ugly that first picture was. someone needs to do something about this!! dposse 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new picture seems a little odd... Editor19841 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes[edit]

Should something be added about the remixes that are getting lots of exposure in the clubs? MSTRKRFT has a magnificent version of Woman out and there is a nice version of Love Train out too.

Use of songs in video game soundtracks[edit]

The following sentence does not make sense:

The song "Woman" is currently the opening theme song for John Force's new reality TV show called Driving Force and is also featured on the Madden 07 soundtrack, the PlayStation 2 , Xbox 360 And PSP video game Guitar Hero II, Tony Hawk's Project 8 and Rugby 06 (the song used was Dimension).

The sentence lists what (video game soundtracks) the song "Woman" was used on and concludes with stating that the song used was "Dimension" (err... since it's in the sentence, it should feature "Woman"). In short, what this sentence says is:

The song "Woman" (...) featured on soundtracks (the song used was Dimension).

Can anybody with knowledge of what song is used on which soundtrack correct this please?

Spam link cleanup[edit]

I noticed that a lot of sites have been linking to articles, interviews etc. I think removal of these is fair enough, but a link to the only dedicated fan site and forum is surely okay (wolfmother.net)? I just added it back - please advise whether you think it should stay. Chimaeric 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod commercial[edit]

Can somebody link to the iPod commercial either within the text or in the external links section? Thanks The freddinator 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template and Category[edit]

Just a heads up guys.
I have created {{Wolfmother}}, a band template. I have also created Category:Wolfmother.
Any pages relating to Wolfmother should have the band template and Category placed at the bottom of the page. -- Reaper X 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touring with The Who/other acts[edit]

I just heard about some plans for the band to tour with The Who/Pete Townshend. [7]. We should probably get an associated acts section in the infobox up and start listing some of the acts they've been touring with/performing with in addition to the upcoming set with The Who (Dead Meadow, Wolf People, Pearl Jam). Also; some info was included in the noted link of possible future collaboration between P Diddy and Stockdale. Editor19841 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences[edit]

Don't these guys sound so much like The White Stripes it's hard to not classify them as an influence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.118.131 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i remember when the first album came out, the commercial was like " what do you get when you mix the white stripes, led zeppelin and black sabbath, you get wolfmother" so ya, white stripes could be added. i'll see if i can find the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boozeclues (talk • contribs).Boozeclues 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiobarga (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Album?[edit]

The article lists the name of the next album as 'Wolfmother II' but i can't find a source for that name, even in the link which it says that information is from. Can someone verify the name of the next album if it's indeed titled yet? And if not could someone please change the information. Thanks.Donnelly Rules 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when i asked if someone could find a source, i did NOT mean make a wikipedia page for 'Wolfmother II'. The page doesn't have any sources and the main wikipedia article doesn't have any either. I'm not trying to be an asshole about this, but whoever's doing this is not understanding the idea of wikipedia. Write your fan fiction elsewhere. Please, someone find a source on the name of the album, otherwise get rid of all that unverified stuff. Donnelly Rules 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I surfed a bit when I stumbled upon the article, and all I could find was a blog posting that claimed there was a quote that Rolling Stone said something about it. Is there any subscribers in the house? -- Reaper X 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer. As yet, there isn't one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.152.15 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Hey guys how about linking to Wolfmother's A.D.D. bio on MTV.com? Its exclusive content and Its a pretty cool piece on the band. Check it out and see if you want to add it to the external link page. The URL is http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1537670&vid=99706--Chasingemy 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Chasingemy is an MTV employee. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please to Meet You first performance date[edit]

The article says: "On June 28, 2007, they headlined at Summerfest, "The World's Largest Music Festival", in Milwaukee, WI. This is the first time the band performed the song "Pleased to Meet You" live, according to Stockdale during the show."

I know this statement to be false, because they played it at a concert April 28th, 2007, so either Stockdale lied or someone is making things up.

Kilamanjaroface 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well regardless, this paragraph has a [citation needed] template, and cannot be verified. In fact the whole article has quite a few uncited claims similar to this. If you can find a source that can confirm or correct that line or any other uncited material, be bold and add it. It makes the article credible and look a hell of a lot better. Cheers. -- Reaper X 23:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Article Disputed[edit]

This is too negative, and comparisons to other bands are blown out of proportion and too biased. They're more psychadelic rock like Pink Floyd, than Black Sabbath and other hard rock, they're own style is being neglected. These articles are B.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunto (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)‎[reply]

Mike Patton[edit]

Adding the paragraph on Mike Patton is clearly not acceptable for Wikipedia. It reports a POV of one person, whose POV is of no great significance, and reports it in the form of a personal attack on that person ('Jealous Prick'). This is a violation of Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view twice over. Criticism is only notable if it has a point (not just "I don't like them"), or is made by particularly relevant people. Otherwise would it be acceptable to add a note to every band that Mike Patton doesn't like? Just so we know? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nessecarily a violation of NPOV since it's a straight quote from Patton and wasn't written to support or detract from what he said. The 'Jealous Prick' thing is the title of the reference, that being a YouTube video, and it's referring to Patton, not Wolfmother. Regardless, I see your point, and I usually might agree that it's of no significance, however, Patton holds a pretty high esteem in the rock world and his comments about Wolfmother were a pretty big deal when it happened. I think it warrants a mention on this article. The user that added it exaggerated it to be pretty biased and "fannish" on Patton's part, but I've edited it down to how it is now. Thanks. The KZA 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my book it's the most amusing thing that's ever happened in relation to Wolfmother, but Wikipedia isn't my book, so I shall leave it alone. --Bobyllib 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think criticism constitutes a feud. Patton clearly doesn't like Wolfmother, according to the youtube video. From the Wolfmother interview it looks like Myles Heskett is a fan of Patton. He cites Faith No More as an influence, and calls Patton a cool guy. Saying ATFV is "too irritating and painful to endure" isn't criticism, it's supposed to be irritating.Pwrong (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Critisism"[edit]

This, surely, should come under "Critical Response". Also, a band member saying the band have jam sessions is not evidence for the band stealing music.

I agree, it's redundant and adresses the same issues the critical response section does.--68.50.46.113 14:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Influences and Similar Artists[edit]

The band's myspace at myspace.com/wolfmother lists theirs sources as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The White Stripes, etc, could someone PLEASE add these to the article? i don't know how to refernce sources, every time i try it doesn't work or someone deletes it. -- boogerman111 3.35, 22 November 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogerman111 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style, grammar, meaning and lack of same[edit]

'Wolfmother have enjoyed considerable success in reaction to the mid-2000s Retro Metal movement, at which they are often considered the chief pioneer.'

This sentence is trying to mean at least two opposed things at the same time - that Wolfmother have succeeded in being 'in reaction to' a movement 'at which they are often considered the chief pioneer'. And that should probably be 'of', not 'at', me bucko. I know nothing about any 'mid-2000s Retro Metal movement', but assuming that one exists, I would have thought that Wolfmother are hardly 'in reaction to' it. They're as retro metal as they come. I like them, mind you. But would the person who wrote this sentence mind telling us what s/he was trying to say? Otherwise it should be 'Wolfmother have enjoyed considerable success as part of the mid-200s Retro Metal movement, of which they are often considered the chief pioneer.' Even then it would need citations to back up the 'often considered' bit - who has often considered them that, exactly? The whole article needs a general stylistic cleanup, mind. Lexo (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section "International Success" the last sentence of the fourth paragraph 'The band covered Zeppelin's "Communication Breakdown", a common song on the band's set lists of previous and subsequent.' it is unclear as to what the previous and subsequent refers to. I also think that band's should be bands' Alsunnyjim (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict With Mike Patton?[edit]

Is it really worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.106.194 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think it counts as a "beef" since only one or two words were said, and only by happenstance. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened To Mammoth?[edit]

Can anyone explain why the mentioning of the new album was taken down. There are some sources (eg: interviews with Andrew and the band that state that the new album will be out soon.) They also say the name of a new song. so why is it so bad to mention that on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.246.98 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth is not the official name. There is no official name of the second album, so it should not be given a name. The 2008 section does say that there is a new album coming soon, but that's fine exactly where it is. However, we don't know the title of the album, and stating the title of the album, whether it's Wolfmother II or Mammoth, isn't a good thing to put on this article, since it's unverified.Rookie162 (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Genres Changed[edit]

I don't see why the genres were changed. I believe that neo-psychedelia and stoner rock/metal were up there before, but now they aren't. Why was this changed? Was it vandalism or intentional? Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Look at the genre discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.156.168 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cover of perfect day[edit]

Domdrysdale (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC) surely that has to be taken down. the source used is an upside down picture of some wolfmother song names written vertically, plus "Perfect Day"[reply]

not yet dissolved[edit]

someone keeps changing the date band has dissolved when in fact it has been stated numerous times that Stockdale continues on. No permanent dissolution is yet announced DrScummm (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. People also keep changing "Wolfmother is" to "Wolfmother was" in the intro. I've changed it back (again) and added a note. As long as Stockdale is looking to continue, the band still exists. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And someone on the talk page keeps using the word "dissolved" as if Wolfmother were a financial trading company or a house of parliament. JayKeaton (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or any other organised group of people. Oh, wait... Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus, White Feather, new members[edit]

I believe the article should have the band as on hiatus from August 2008 to February 2009, or even later. As the band have been inactive since August (until February), it should be considered a hiatus while Stockdale looked for new members. As they have now played their first gig with new members (Feb. 6), the band should be considered active again. Alternatively, they could be considered active again when an official statement is made revealing new members. So, options:

  • Wolfmother are active from 2000–present;
  • Wolfmother are active from 2000–2008 (Aug.), (Feb.) 2009–present; or
  • Wolfmother are active from 2000–2008 (Aug.), (Mar./later) 2009–present.

Thoughts? Andre666 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

does someone wanna add that they were good friends with the cast from Jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICheets (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty unnecessary info. The Jackass Crew's involvement in the "Joker & the Thief" music video may have been mentioned in that article. Andre666 (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
your right, that would be a better palce to put it, thanks. --iCheets (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band members section[edit]

I propose removing the color bar chart/timeline from the Band members section of the article, as being too obvious, and it also throws off the formatting of the rest of that section. The history of the band's membership just isn't complex enough to justify taking up the space with a chart. (For an example of a band that really does need a colored membership timeline, see this: [[8]].) But on the other hand, maybe it isn't really hurting anything either. Comments? Doomsdayer520 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bar graph is a bit ridiculous, seeing as the band has had only a handful of members, and most didn't overlap, but that's just my personal opinion. 99.246.2.97 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Sorry, not signed in. 2 November 2009[reply]

Sure, I implemented it so I'll go ahead and remove it. Andre666 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock and metal[edit]

allmusic lists them as alternative metal and alternative rock so those genres should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Their sound is inherently and thoroughly mainstream, and they show very few signs of alternative rock/metal, other than the occasional drop D song. Andre666 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stockdale solo and Wolfmother hiatus/split[edit]

Okay, so Stockdale announced that Wolfmother, at least the name, is no more. But I'm not sure whether this is just a change of name (like with Vista Chino/Kyuss Lives) or that Wolfmother is completely over and that both acts are separate. So are we going to change the band name on the article, like what we did with Vista Chino/Kyuss Lives!, or is this going to have its separate article?--TheBronzeMex (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The band is over. Andrew is now a solo artist, and I have created a template and stuff for this accordingly. Andre666 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing use of tense?[edit]

By the use of "were" I assumed the band had finally collapsed, but the article makes it clear their third lineup is releasing an album very soon (if they haven't already). So which is it?

I've changed the article back to the proper tense, if anyone has any objections, feel free to talk about it here. Insidious611 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check sources, the band has ended and Andrew will continue as a solo musician. Feel free to edit the bits which say a third album is being released. Andre666 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formation[edit]

Recent edits have tried to change the history of the band, according to interviews with Andrew [9], he first got together with Chris and Myles in 2000 but their first public performances weren't until 2004. Dan arndt (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that still does not constitute the formation of the band. They jammed together, but did not have a band name or do anything public until 2004 (the band name was chosen right before their first show apparently). Also, in that source on the page, he makes it VERY clear to the interviewer that they formed in 2004. Just because they met and started playing music together years earlier, that doesn't mean "Wolfmother" was formed then. Do you get what I'm saying? I think it's fair to say 2004 is when "Wolfmother" officially came into existence. Andre666 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response[edit]

Led Zeppelin is NOT a heavy metal band. They did some heavy metal songs, but they are few in between albums. Officially they were a rock and roll band, although they didn't have a specific genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.210.32.71 (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wolfmother. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wolfmother. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formation: 2000 or 2004[edit]

Look, we need to settle this and stop edit-warring. The band were formed in 2004, not in 2000. Andrew, Chris and Myles, as individual musicians, jammed together a few times between 2000 and 2004. That does not mean that they are Wolfmother. This is probably way overstated and I bet if you asked them, they would say that the band formed in 2004. After jamming for that time, the 3 then went "Okay, let's form Wolfmother", and began booking shows. Just because they jammed for a few years or whatever beforehand, that does not mean that is when the band formed. All that needs to happen to cover this period is for it to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the history, which I did just fine in my recent overhaul. Making the lead confusing for people does not help either; this is supposed to be a succinct, simple section covering basic facts. Please can you understand this and cease editing this particular element of the page? Happy to discuss further of course. Thanks for your time. Andre666 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That maybe your point of view however from what I have read of published sources and interviews the band spent four years practising and honing their sound before they felt that they were ready to perform as a band. The reason that started jamming together was solely to perform professionally. So I would have to disagree with your interpretation that they formed in 2004. As a compromise I have included the comment that they started practising in 200 and made their first public performance in 2004. That way it avoids the contention of when the band 'formed' and sticks to the facts not an individual's interpretation of those facts. Dan arndt (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So... your "interpretation of the facts" are THE FACTS, but my "interpretation of the facts" are just... wrong? I bet you're a super nice guy to hang out with. I'll change it 2000, fuck it. Andre666 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wolfmother/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

C-class: good info, some refs, sectns + infobox supplied. Article should be B-class (maybe GA?) but needs more: in-line refs (fully wikified, incl. Grammy Award claim in first sentence, other awards and chart histories), details (e.g. Lead needs fleshing out: it should summarise entire article: three to four paragraphs worth; sectn for pre-2004 work by members? any side-projects/solo works?), copyediting (e.g. main text is disjointed in places needs to be more unified) and wikifying (e.g. int Links, WP:MOS);Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wolfmother. 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) 00:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfmother&oldid=1209745416"