Talk:U.S. Maple

"Deconstructionists"
Does anyone else think this opening line that asserts that US Maple started out as the "deconstructionists" of rock music is a bit extreme? Considering that even Al Johnson has no idea what this term means?

I know a certain amount of ambiguity has attached itself to the term "deconstruction" since it arrived on American and British campuses in the 70s and 80s. But this hardly justifies the loose meaning it has attained in describing the music of US Maple. Couldn't any band that evaluates rock music and consciously comes up with a distinctive style be said to be doing the same deconstruction?

But the "deconstruction" ghost has always haunted US Maple. It's just an easier way to describe a band's style without actually getting into the music itself. And it gives it an academic sheen.

And for those who might have strong feelings in this regard: do you really think Derrida thought what he was doing was so meaningful that it could now be used as an approach to rock or any popular music? I hardly think the hermeneutic austerity that comes with such approaches to philosophy find a similar embodiment in US Maple... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

press release feel
The whole "deconstructionists of rock & roll" and "met at the corner of Grand and Western" thing came from band press releases that were written by Alan Johnson, and this article has somewhat of a press release feel to it in general. It could use somewhat of a rewrite... --38.112.23.58 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Documentary
Shouldn't the highly informative documentary about this band be mentioned? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)