Talk:The Violet Burning

Introduction
I just reworked the introductory paragraph; the sentences seemed too long and disjointed, connected by too many commas. It also seemed to repeat the independent nature of the band more than was necessary. For example, mentioning that they've sold X independent albums doesn't really need the qualifier "despite never signing to a major label" since they're... independent albums. :) Just my thoughts. &mdash; gRegor 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the dates and made things correct. please leave them alone. our first cd was released in march of 1990. not in 1989. the artwork has a mis-print on it.

thank you, michael pritzl the violet burning

Collaborated / Other projects
"Other projects these musicians have been involved in" seems quite the long section heading, and I'm not too keen on "Musicians collaborated with The Violet Burning" either. Not sure what to change them too, though. I'll be thinking about it. &mdash; gRegor 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious influence and the Violets influence on praise music
I think the current description of the Violets only hints at the religious aspects on their music and the article is lacking without discussing it directly.

Included in this discussion would be how the Violets influenced Vineyard praise and worship, the resulting split with Vineyard and the bands continued spiritual attributes.


 * Go for it. Myself, I'm not familiar enough with the history to write anything like that. [ gRegor 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ]

General theme
Is it just me or does this page sound a little too much like propaganda for the band?

The active involvement of the artist to edit out material he disagrees with has left the resulting article bland and lacking.

The message here is too controlled.


 * Well, it's Wikipedia. Be bold and edit it.  It doesn't strike me as propaganda, though maybe could be a bit more encyclopedic.  I don't see anywhere where Michael edited out something he disagreed with... he corrected dates and a number, and yes threw in the bit about the album getting good reviews and the band kicking ass live, which he also removed.  Other than that what has he done that makes this article bland?  [ gRegor 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ]


 * I think that it could be a little more encyclopedic, especially the part about the album getting great reviews and being available in stores. That is why I put the NPOV notice on there. Somebody had to, so I just went ahead and did it. Later!!! Chili14 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. :) gRegor 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael Pritzl wanted me to inform anyone making critical comments about his policy on correcting misinformation on Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," that he would like you to endeavor to see his show where he will politely take you out back and smite you with heavenly fire. He won't even raise a fist.  LordKrump 05:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

=Bandname= Does anybody know if the name "The Violet Burning" has any deeper meaning? --92.207.18.111 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (langhaarschneider in the german wikipedia)