Talk:Conor Oberst/Archive 1

Vegetarian Controversy
I have personally read multiple articles proclaiming that Oberst's close friends & family thought he was becoming too gaunt, so Conor starting eating fish. This would make him NOT a vegan. I don't have a citation but someone does; once that citation is posted here, someone, or myself, will make the appropriate adjustments.

Is this appropriate?
"Oberst was also called out by many for increasing ticket prices on his last US tour. Tickets were up to $30 in some markets which is very high for an idie artist. This has led many to call Conor a "sell-out."" -- that just sounds like someone got pissed at having to pay $30 for a ticket and decided to try and defame him with a poorly structured addition to his Wikipedia article. Unless someone has a source for ticket prices/reaction to ticket prices/what is or is not considered high for tickets to see an indie artist, I'm going to go ahead and remove it; it doesn't add much anyway. I've copied and pasted it exactly in case anyone thinks I'm wrong. Whampir 00:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article merged with Bright Eyes (Band)
I'm not an expert at Wikipedia formatting, but I think I've done it. I will get around to cleaning it up later, but if anyone wishes to do it themselves, go ahead and help out. By merging the articles, we have to make sure no information is repeated, which includes discography.


 * I unmerged the articles. Please don't merge them without discussing it first on Talk:Bright Eyes. Elvrum 04:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unmerging the latest merge. Oberst is different from Bright Eyes, though he's the "primary" figure.  T K E  04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion concerning article
The talk page is for discussion relating to the article. If you disagree with the inclusion of certain words, Be Bold and remove them, or reword the appropriate sentence. Also, please sign your comments as this makes the discussion easier to follow. --Sanguinus 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

we must acquire a picture of this hottie. Lockeownzj00 01:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2 pictures is probably too many for such a short article. readers looking for more photographs can follow the links...otherwise, the pictures add clutter. we should treat wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a fan site.

It would be nice to add more infomation on his boycott of Clear Channel Communications, I'll look this up and add it in the next few days if someone hasn't already changed it. CalPaterson 00:00, 28 May 2005 (BST)

excuse me but i added that picture to show this man's obvious humorous side. i am a devout listener of bright eyes [his band as you wouldnt know] and i would think he would like it if that picture were sustained.

yes. leave the picture. shows conors facetious side.

I don't care about whether the picture is there or not, but don't wreck others work with poor formatting. Be considerate and format it so that it fits with the rest of the page please. CalPaterson 01:55, 31 May 2005 (BST)

I deleted this section beacuse it expresses bias: His performance of so-called "protest songs", and his status as a solo singer-songwriter have invited certain critics to make comparisons between Oberst and Bob Dylan; some of them have at times even identified Oberst as "the next Dylan". Most regard such comparisons as spurious, however, on account of Oberst's youth and relatively narrow fan base.

Hi, I just wanted to fix up this badly worded sentence "At fourteen years of age, Oberst was singer and guitarist of Commander Venus, an indie rock band, in 1994." Will remove the ", in 1994" as this is evident from his year of birth stated at the start of the article.

Hola there! Just fixed up the incredibly bias and unnecessary comments added here about Conor by some random knobjockey. These comments include "They're obviously a bunch of morons", "His current project is Bright Eyes (of which he is the only constant and worst member)", "he sounds like a goat", "Oberst was singer and guitarist of Commander Venus, an indie rock band, in 1994. The world wept" and "But who cares, anyway"

Hey, someone added "loves Laura" after Conor's name at the start. Just removed it 'cause this "Laura" obviously is not awesome enough to deserve the love of Conor. End transmission.

i have taken it down before and i just did it again: where does it anywhere say conor is bisexual? this is a serious article please treat it as so. if there is an actual credible source that says it besides some scene girl's myspace, then let me know.

also, i removed the catagory vegetarians because he now eats fish. also there were two catagories with the word 'american' in it so i figured people were trying to make that a point.

I just deleted a section concerning Conor and anorexia. To me, the section was poorly written and was irrelevant to the rest of the article.

I placed him back into Vegetarians. Just because the man eats fish doesn't mean he isn't a vegetarian. That's simply being elitist with the definition, IMO.

A vegetarian is a person who doesn't eat animals. Fish are animals. Therefore, people who eat fish are not vegetarians. That's about as simple and easy to understand as logic ever gets. To call it elitist is mind-boggling. I take it you would like to be known as a vegetarian, but you would also like to continue eating some animals, and you're bitter that those two things aren't compatible, so you tell yourself it's just elitism? What if I want to say Conor is an astronaut, and then someone points out that he's never been in outer space or even trained to go to outer space? Is that elitism? thoreaubred 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. Step away from the computer and take a breather there, buddy. No need to get all huffy over nothing. In my opinion, it is elitist. I consider myself a vegetarian in spite of the fact that I, too, eat fish from time to time. Why? Because I don't eat meat, poultry, and avoid anything with fur or leather. I know of many vegetarians that neglect to wholly "abide" by the unwritten rules of vegetarianism. If people really take it that seriously, well, I think a thorough psychiatric evaluation might be necessary. As for me, I'll continue considering myself a vegetarian regardless. And despite your clever analogy with the astronaut bit, I highly doubt eating vegetables and going to outer space constitute as adequate comparisons.


 * If you found what I wrote "huffy", maybe it's you who needs to step away from the computer and take a breather. I made a simple, logical point, no drama involved.  You consider yourself a vegetarian.  Okay.  But you're not one, and you're wrong to consider yourself one.  Why do you insist on calling yourself something you're not?  If you feel so guilty eating animals (fish) that you simply must be thought of as a vegetarian, then stop eating fish and be a vegetarian.  Until then, get over it.  You put "abide" in quotes and refer to "unwritten rules" like this is some diabolical conspiracy to defame eaters of fish.  Actually, the rules are NOT unwritten, they're written in something called the dictionary.  Vegetarians are people who don't eat the meat of animals.  Fish are animals.  I already said that last time, so why do I have to repeat myself?  And if you believe the astronaut analogy is flawed, tell me HOW it is flawed.  The point is that things have definitions.  An astronaut is someone who goes into space or is trained to do so.  A vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat (and if fish is not meat, what is it?)  I can "consider myself" an astraonaut all I want, but that doesn't make me one. thoreaubred 06:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, anyone reading what you previously wrote would almost certainly come to the same conclusion as I had: you're being an anal-retentive jackass that needs to chill out. MY point is that not everything fits so perfectly into neat little categories -- a fact of life I thought everyone was aware of. Evidently I was mistaken. Furthermore, you took it upon yourself and claimed: "[I] would also like to continue eating some animals, and [I'm] bitter that those two things aren't compatible, so [I] tell [myself] it's just elitism." Miss Cleo would be proud! I never met anyone who has presumed so much from absolutely nothing. So, indeed, you were being huffy and continue to be. If you don't comprehend why your analogy is flawed, to be frank, that's tough tits. I'm not about to "explain" how that is when it speaks for itself. If you wish to endeavor in inventing a new term that encompasses the apparently un-vegetarian like behaviors of people such as myself and Mr. Oberst, be my guest. Until then he's/I'm a vegetarian.


 * Actually, anyone reading this will see clearly that it is you who is getting "huffy" and needs to chill out. Relax.  Anyway, I'm not gonna go all the way to the right side of the page with you on this, but I am gonna correct you point by point one more time, as you happen to wrong on every single count.  Not EVERYTHING fits into "neat little categories" (again you're choosing your words so as to make things sound like some elitist conspiracy againt you when in fact they are not), but SOME things do (a fact of life I thought everyone was aware of.  Evidently I was mistaken.)  "Oh my god, someone just denied that Conor is an astronaut, they must be anal-retentive and think that everything in life fits into neat little categories!      in' elistist bicthes."  See how useful that analogy is?  It works not only as a counter to your denial of simple facts but also to your tendency toward fallacious arguments.  For your next point you accuse me of presuming that you're a fish eater who would like to be known as a vegetarian.  What a crazy presumption for me to make when just a few sentences later you admit it yourself, referring to "the apparently un-vegetarian like behaviors of people such as myself and Mr. Oberst."  I didn't make a presumption, I made a completely reasonable deduction--one that you then confirmed to be true.  As for my analogy which is in no way flawed, I like the way you evaded explaining what you would like to pretend is flawed about it.  People reading this are totally gonna fall for that!  Nice work.  As for a new term for people who only eat certain animals (I was unaware that fish were the         of the animal kingdom.  What are they, three fifths animal?), how about "picky carnivore."  Or you can think of your own, as you're the one who seems to think that as a fish eater you deserve your own little fantasy cateogry in which fish apparently aren't animals.  Until then, and forever after then, you are NOT a vegetarian. thoreaubred 04:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If it prevents you from going into cardiac arrest, remove Conor Oberst from the list. Whatever. I was highlighting the fact that numerous vegetarians make the occasional exception. Note that I wrote that I eat fish from time to time, not constantly. You make far too many presumptions. As for fish being the "      " of the animal kindom, riiight. You're stubborn demeanor prevents you from seeing the whole picture, but I can't say I tried.


 * HOW CAN ONE PURPORTING TO BE AN ASTRONAUT AND PROFESSING TO BEING A VEGETARIAN POSSIBLY COMPARE? Therein lies the flaw in your little analogy. If you cannot understand that, I surely haven't the energy to explain.


 * Also, I never requested a category for myself. I suggested that if you wanted to create an alternative definition (as you seem so adamant that I am an imposter vegetarian), do so. I couldn't care less because I already know I'm a vegetarian. :D


 * Two things. 1)  Clearly you have no idea how analogy works.  2)  Every single vegetarian on the planet knows you're not a vegatrian.  Actually, every carnivore knows it too.  Pretty much the only people who would ever think you're a vegetarian are other eaters of fish who wish they were vegetarians who are in the same denial you're in.  Period.  The End.  thoreaubred 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, I know full well how analogies function. Your analogy, however, is too ludicrous to ever consider. Like comparing apples to watermelons. The End.


 * Once again you clearly demonstrate that in fact you have asbolutely no understanding of how analogy works. And no, it's not like comparing apples and watermelons.  Using apples and watermelons in an analogy wouldn't make for an effective analogy because they are too similar:  they are both fruits, both part of the same category of object.  The WHOLE POINT of analogy is to choose two subjects that are DIFFERENT, to make you step back from your attachment to your incorrect conception of "vegetarian" and see what would happen if you applied the same logic to something else.  If you said, "I consider 'apples' to be an 'animal', and confining 'apples' to the 'neat little category' of 'fruits and vegetables' is elitist!" I wouldn't say, "What if you applied that reasoning to watermelons?  Is it elitist to confine watermelons to the 'neat little category' of 'fruits and vegetables'?"  That wouldn't be an effective analogy for demonstrating what would happen if your logic were applied to something else, because "fruits and vegetables" is what you were already talking about.  If you don't understand that "apples" belong in the category of "fruits and vegetables" rather than in the category of "animals", then prompting you to apply the same logic to "watermelons" probably won't elucidate the problem for you.  What I would do instead is apply your logic to something completely different, like, say, parts of speech.  I would say, "What if I want to consider the word 'zebra' a 'verb' rather than a 'noun'?  Would it be 'elitist' for someone to tell me that 'zebra' is not a verb, and confine 'zebra' to the 'neat little category' of 'noun'?"  By choosing something completely different from fruits, in this case parts of speech, the objective is to make you see what would happen to something else (a part of speech) if it were subjected to the same reasoning to which you subjected "apples".  (Of course, then you would come back and say, "Your analogy is ludicrous!  How can you compare apples to the word zebra?!")  Yes, "apples" and "the word zebra" are DIFFERENT, just like "vegetarians" and "astronauts" are different.  That is the POINT of analogy.  I hope you learned something here today. thoreaubred 19:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Thoreaubred on this one. A vegetarian doesn't eat animals. The very definition of the word states this; there are no gray areas. And may I also compliment Thoreaubred on his/her excellent debating skills. Kudos.


 * "Like comparing apples to watermelons" = analogy.


 * Although a vegetarian who also (occasionally) eats fish might be an oxymoron in your world, in mine it's the same damn thing insofar as the individual interprets vegetarianism. I called your analogy clever, recall? I didn't need a lesson on your point (although I applaud you on such a seemingly exhaustive endeavor). To repeat myself: I just never took yours (as in [ludicrous] analogy) into serious consideration.

conor and i share a birthday!!!! that means im also the coolest person ever... n/r its jsut an honor to have the same bday as my god!!!

CONCON ISNT A VEGETARIAN OK GET OVER IT YOU    ER. AND HES NOT BISEXUAL. OK!?

The lyrics of some Bright Eyes songs strongly hint at bisexuality...Read them sometime.

I would just like to point out, if it makes anyone sleep better at night, that there is a term for people that eat only fish and vegetables; they're called pesco-vegetarians.

According to the article on wikipedia about Vegetarianism, "A purely vegetarian diet does not include fish - a major source of Omega 3, though some plant-based sources of it exist such as soy, flaxseed, hempseed, pumpkin seeds, canola oil and especially, walnuts." Hence for consistency, I'd have to agree with Thoreaubred. I don't believe that individuals' definitions should be used to define terms. However, I think it's a fairly daft argument overall. Perhaps someone should start a List of pesco-vegetarians and place Conor's name on it. Or maybe you two should get out more and stop arguing over insignificant factors. -- DeShark --86.2.11.128 18:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

how did he 'spark controvery' when he played when the president talks to god on the tonight show?

Well the lyrics aren't exactly pro-Bush. ~Luke

Reiver 04:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Conor Oberst is bisexual, it's common knowledge that he is, he has not only hinted at it in his lyrics but has publicly admitted it. Reiver 03:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If he has stated it publicly, someone should provide this simple proof and this eternal edit war over whether he is bisexual can end. I don't know whether he's bisexual, whether he's stated publicly that he is or is not, nor have I watched the talk page and the edit history of the article to know every explanation that has been given for asserting that he is, but my intutive impression thus far has been that the people who believe he is bisexual believe so based solely on his lyrics.  These people fail to understand that many (most?) artists write lyrics that are not autobiographical, just as a heterosexual author might write a novel with a bisexual character.  There is no reason to believe that references to bisexuality in Conor's lyrics mean he is bisexual.  If he is indeed bisexual, someone should be able to find the proof and settle this matter, but people need to stop citing his lyrics as evidence.  thoreaubred 04:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Conor writes his lyrics in the first person, the lyrics people are referring to are from the song "Lover I Dont Have To Love," which contains these two lines: "I want a lover i dont have to love, i want a girl whos too sad to give a    " and "i want a lover i dont have to love, i want a boy whos so drunk he doesnt talk." As far as him publicly admitting to be bisexual, he didnt release a frickin press release or something about it! And the subject of sexual orientation almost never comes up in interviews... Almost all of Bright Eyes' albums have been autobiographical, Fevers And Mirrors was about his depression and how he dealt with it, it was also supposed to be about people in general, and how they deal with problems, with refrences to scales standing for our attempts to deal with stuff quantatively. The song was kinda his way of coming out. And im pretty much just babbling now, but yeah, i think i made my point. It really is just common knowledge that he is bisexual. anyways, i found the following while searching the internet, it isnt much, but it may help my case: Reiver 04:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the same song, there's also something about "sad singers who just act tragic", which i think is a pretty clear reference to the fact that a lot of his songs are stories and not biographical. I mean, if he did as many drugs and drank as much as he sings about, when would he have had the time to release four albums in 2005 alone? -peace out

Just because he sings about something in the first person, doesn't mean that it refers to him. In 'bowl of oranges' he sings about miraculously healing a stranger he meets in the street. Do you think that actually happened? Don't believe everything you hear.


 * YES IT DID HAPPEN. I was there. Conor has MAGIC EMO HEALING POWERS +4

Dude, "Padriac My Prince" is about a boy who kills himself after his mother drowned his baby brother in a bath-tub. Conor has repeatedly stated that his songs are not autobiographical pieces, but more like short-stories in lyrical form. ~Luke

His comments about John Peel and subsequent apology has been added, substantiated and linked.

just a little addition, alot of his songs are not autobiographical, and im not just blabbing, listen to his song attempt to tip the scales, after it is over, wait about 30 seconds, and conor is talking in an interview manner, which i think was scripted, but still gives some insight into his lyrics. and maybe he is bisexual, maybe he isnt, maybe he isnt, but does it really matter? it's his life and if he wanted us to know, he would probably tell us.

Vegetarian
"CONCON ISNT A VEGETARIAN OK GET OVER IT YOU    ER. AND HES NOT BISEXUAL. OK!?" <-- you shouldnt talk about what you dont know.

Calm down.

http://www.timmcmahan.com/desa2.htm

''Who decides where you're gonna eat when you're on tour?

Dalley: Denny's was the consensus. We also eat at Taco Bell a lot because their bean burritos are vegetarian. Denny's has a be--A Sunshade Lust 18:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)tter variety. Conor is the only vegan among us. The Rilo Kiley guys are vegetarian, too. I'm whatever.''

http://www.peta2.com/outthere/o-conoro.asp '' "My vegetarian.. veganism started when I first 'cause I didn't like to chew on flesh.. it made me uncomfortable. And so and so I stopped it. And after a while I realised that even though I can't be totally seperate from it I like to pay the little I can.. hum.. in certain industries that I find.. (?).. the meat industry... and--A Sunshade Lust 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC).. and dairy.." '' I wrote down this part of the video but Oberst doesn't speak very clearly or continously in the video.

This is enough. If one of his bandmates says he's vegan.. and he says so himself in a video.. we can consider this a fact. I will add this to the page and hopefully it will not be edited out, as there is solid indisputable proof.

--A Sunshade Lust 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Edited the article to fit with the source that shows that he eats fish (and is not a pure vegetarian/vegan. Renaming the section to 'Diet' and making the section clearer (as it was obvious that the section was written by two different people with different opinions (as my older one was showed wrong).

I have also removed the not specified tag, as pretty much everything seems cleared up, if someone wishes to place it back please specify why here. And if something seems to be important enough to need a source and it does not have one, either remove it (by explaining the changes here) or make changes to the article.

--A Sunshade Lust 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that an anonymous user deleted the "Diet" section. If there is a valid reason to do so please post it here, with your signature, so we may discuss it, but for now I am putting it back up.

--A Sunshade Lust 18:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is RIDICULOUS. Like 1/3 of the article is about him being or not being a vegetarian. WHO CARES? Its almost irrelevent to the article, and should be mentioned in passing if at all. Theres not nearly enough here about his music, lyrical style and personality. But a huge paragraph about his friggin diet? Give me a break. ~Tever &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.127.128.2 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * I agree, but that's as a result of the disagreement on this talk page as to whether he's vegetarian or not. If you could help to redress the balance by adding to the more pertinent sections, that'd be great. --Sanguinus 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well for my opinion I think Conor Oberst is great becuase he sings everything from the heart, that why alot of his fans and people who never heard of him are touched by him.

OKAY HE MENTIONS ARIENETTE IN LIKE EVERY SONG.i just need to know.'

About the section of Brigt Eyes, It refers to Bright Eyes as his stage name. I might be wrong but I thought that Bright eyes was just the name of the band.Dlime16 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Soul Song (For the New World Order)
Some one added a comment to the New York section of the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest article about the single Old Soul Song (For the New World Order)which appears on Conor Oberst's I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning cliaming it contains the lyrics; "We walked the forty blocks to the middle/Of the place we heard that everything would be/And there were barricades to keep us off the street/But the crowd kept pushing forward/'til they swallowed the police/Yeah, they went wild/Yeah, they went wild..." and that they are about the demonstration in NY. This sounds pluasable, however the poster provided no ref's. Can any one here confirm that these are the lyrics and that they relate to the event in question. Thankyou. --JK the unwise 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

the lyrics in old soul song for a new world order "we walked the forty blocks to the middle/ of the place we heard that everything would be" almost certainly are reffering to the book the Catcher in the Rye, where the main character, Holden Caufield (sp?), walked forty blocks to central park.68.233.140.140 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that it is not about the NY anti-war rally or just that it has multiple layers of meaning?--JK the unwise 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm saying that while the song might be referring to that event, more likely the song is about an existential alienation from society. 68.233.140.140 04:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can confirm that Mr. Oberst said this song publically was about the anti-war protest in addition to the article, at a 2004 fall benefit for the RNC Protesters fund who were locked up. This was at Northsix and other singers included Kevin Devine. If someone wants to reinsert whatever might have been taken out that would be accurate. Any myself publishing this here as someone who had a first hand account of the concert is as accurate and credible as any other web link which allows someone to self publish information.

I dont know how much this helps, But I was there when Conor stated at a winter 2005 concertin atlanta ga that the song was about a protest in NY. so I'll agree with this previous guy here saying that it is literal.

Rise to fame
how did he get so famous so quickly? ~Lydjä

well, every now and then, people who are very talented, try to use their talents, and a few realy good people, and some crap people, get lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) and they become famous.

Famous is a relative term, though. He's on the same level as Ryan Adams or Dar Williams in terms of fame. He's well known among the alternative rock and folk communities and the music critics love him, but he's not a huge star. Although, that's probably a lot better for him since a lack of fame kind of coincides with his beliefs.

Should this page have a link to long song titles like this?
==See also== -- Gbeeker 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * List of songs with particularly long titles

-hm. yeah, this type of thing should go under an album.

bob dylan?
"whose knack for social commentary and philosophy have garnered him countless comparisons to Bob Dylan, although his darker themes of depression, anxiety, and alcoholism are much more reminiscent of Leonard Cohen and Simon Joyner."

unless there is some sort of source to back this up I think it should be removed. It isn't exactly NPOV. I hardly think this guy should be compared to Leonard Cohen or Boby Dylan. His music doesn't sound anything like either of them, nor is his influence anywhere near on par. Rizla 04:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Rolling Stone review for Lifted..., they compaired him to Dylan. However, please see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_compared_to_Bob_Dylan for any inclusion along those lines.  In album reviews, critics rip off each other all the time and the Dylan comparison is no big whoop.  T K E  04:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement doesn't not say that Conor Oberst sounds like or is as influential as Bob Dylan. It states that he has been compared to Bob Dylan on several occassions, which is a fact. Just do a google search for "indie Bob Dylan" and see how many Conor Oberst/Bright Eyes references come up. Citing them all would be rather redundant. Elvrum 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)