![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Paul McPike filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Green Day claiming that he wrote the song "American Idiot" almost 15 years ago. He alleges that he performed the song at a high school and a recording of the song made it into the hands of Green Day. McPike is currently seeking a share of the album's profits. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Cooney attempted to dismiss the case last week, but is expected to allow McPike to file an amended lawsuit, with additional evidence.
Kinda hard to believe considering that there are clear references to modern events in the song. If it was written 15 years ago, surely it would reference to 15 year old events? Anyway, this guy just sounds dumb. He's trying to say that 15 years ago while the trio were on tour he performed the song at his highschool, they just happened to be at his high school when he performed it, they then stole a copy of the music while they were there, and then waited 15 years to change the words up a bit and make an entire album based around the song.
When Green day are going to make a new album? I know that Green Day are always late on albums, so would we wait until 2008
Actually just recently it was released that they were in the studio with U2 for the single they're doing; a remake of a song by the Skids. After the promotion of that single, Green Day will be back in the studio again. They're taking small breaks from time to time to do some promotion and events here and there.-- Jude 05:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what's up with the removal of the citation. Here's where I got it from: [1] WesleyDodds 09:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
ok i just watched south park episode about downloading music and such and how bands are in it for money(some) well i mean for american idiot billie got into fights with his wife cause he was always working on it and mike got divorced cause of same reason. this shows me that they actually really care about their music and they love their fans so much that making the album means more than their wives. i probably sound dumb but hey i really respect them for that, really shocked me when i first found out about it.
This has what to do with the article? Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
Isn't about time for another archive? This one's getting hard to scroll through and find updates. Can someone archive this page? I don't know how. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
Why isnt Bullet in a Bible under the discography. It was there before, and then removed. I later added it again, and its gooone now ... whats happening ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 September 2006
I added a Live section to the Discography. Discography's should contain all album releases, not a select few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2006
??????
Nope on VH1 Billie Himself claims that He was high on weed, and originally it was a song called Green Day about being high, and there drummer Before Tre Cool had it on his jacket so the name just stuck. Billy claims its the worst band name in rock and roll
The word "Green Day" supposedly came from an episode of Sesame Street, and was said by Ernie of Ernie & Bert, hence Ernie being on the back cover of Dookie. The phrase was used amongst Berkely teens to describe an entire day spent smoking pot. Acording to original drummer Al Sobrante durring a radio appearance on KLAX in 1989 (which is available on bootleg), he wrote "Green Day" on his jacket. Then, he and Armstrong and Dirnt decided that it would make a better band name than "Sweet Chidren". The band name was also changed to avoid confusion with fellow Gilman St. scene band "Sweet Baby". I have added this information to this the main artice many times only to have it deleted and replaced with false information. - Insomniac186
Proof that John Kiffmeyer was in the band when they were called "Sweet Children" lies here: http://www.greenday.net/basement/livermore.html. This is an interview with Larry Livermore, founder of Lookout! Records. Read the first two questions. Then about how Green Day got their name is at this link: http://www.greendayauthority.com/TheBand/didjaknow.php?section=general. This is the quote from that page (including original grammar): The real origin of the name Green Day. Ernie from Sesamy Street said the frase Green Day in one of the shows and it kinda was funny for the guys smoking pot and all. So it became an inside joke with Green Day meaning a pot-filled wasted day. Then came the song Green Day and also Al Sobrante wrote Green Day on the back of his jacket and it kinda caught on from there and they decided to use it as their band's name - Insomniac186
No. Green Day describes an entire day spent blazing.
I heard (or might read) years ago that the name comes from the Bruce Sterling short story 'Green Days in Brunei'. May be a folk-etymology though.
The fact that the genre of "punk" is disputed is certainly true, but do we need a disclaimer in the genre listing of the main page? Supposedly, a consensus has already been met, plus we have the criticism section that covers this dispute in detail. I've removed the disclaimer for now, as it seems terribly redundant, and the standard practice with this issue has been to discuss it on the talk page first. Furthermore, there are specific instructions on this page regarding the genre listing. "Green Day's genres: Pop Punk, Punk Rock, and Alternative Rock have been decided upon through community concensus. Any changes to the genre list will be reverted." Theplanetsaturn
It is in noway redundant, as you say "The fact that the genre of "punk" is disputed is certainly true"... I don't know a single punk who thinks Green Day are a "punk rock band"... and even artists lower down in the article, debate it too... other bands who have genre disputes such as; Cradle of Filth and HIM have the word "debated" in their genre box, as Green Day is in a similar situation, so should they.
Also, I'm going to put "pop punk" above "punk rock (debated)" in the genre listing, as that is the order you claim was decided upon by "consenus" although, Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy. - Deathrocker 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've linked the debated section to the apropriate part of the article. Whether Green Day claimed that they were "punk" is irrelevant, the style of music they were playing was not what is described in the punk rock genre box... if you read the supposed concensus section it says Green Day began as a pop punk band... anyway that discussion is for another part of the talkpage. As I showed with the other band examples that have debated genre classifications, a "debated" note is needed... it may also stop people removing certain genres fully, so it puts it on a NPOV stance. - Deathrocker 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Gilman" "punks", sorry but that in itself is very debatable. There was no result as part of concensus not to include the tag. My case has been stated here, clearly... you however, after agreeing that their classification is debatable have not put up a reasonable case as to why it shouldn't be include. - Deathrocker 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is debatable, as the bands who are part of the movement are debated as to whether they're punk or not. For you to suggest other wise, shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. That's understandable, you weren't likely part of the movement in 1977 when punk rock was around.
In your POV, perhaps. Though that certainly isn't a view shared globally or within the punk scene. Infact I'm tallying up the "genre dispute" section and so far MORE people have said "no, Green Day are not a punk rock band", than otherwise. - 07:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As shown here on the genre dispute page; the number of people who out right stated one way or another in regards to their genre. Are as follows;
Thus, having Green Day's genre as "punk rock" is not concensus at all, infact it goes against it, so it should be removed in acordance to concensus. - Deathrocker 09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You haven't stated your opinion on the genre disputes page (where the concensus was compiled from), and its not entirely clear; while you have made it your mission to defend Green Day as some sort of "punk gods", you have also said they have pop punk music.. feel free to go and put your opinion on there in the apropriate section.
When Jacknife737 made a clear statement in regards to which genre he felt they belonged in he said "I personally consider Green Day to be ' pop punk', a perfectly acceptable and widely used term.".. he did not say that he "considers their genre to be punk rock"....
The "unsigned" quote you are refering to, does not feature in the "Not Punk Rock" section - Deathrocker 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Deathrocker, I can understand where you are coming from, and I know you and I have generally seen eye-to-eye on discussions on the heavy metal music talk page, but I feel you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of evaluating this article. There are a number of sources that link Green Day to a revival of punk rock in the mid-1990s. They have been called punk or pop punk by a variety of music publications, including major ones like Rolling Stone, SPIN, and NME, just to name a few. Their sound has been compared to certain punk bands, and they have claimed bands such as the Ramones, Clash, Dead Kennedys, Husker Du, the Replacements, and Operation Ivy as influences. Hell, they played Ramones songs at that band's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. They emerged from the Gilman Street scene in Berkeley, an unequivocal punk venue (I work at a college radio station near there, and so I generally look up the band lineups for my fellow DJs so they know who's touring. And what do I see about 95% of the time? Punk rock bands). This is the place were Jello Biafra got assaulted back around 1995 for being a "sellout". Do I like Green Day? Yes; back in high school they were my favorite band. But that doesn't mean I like everything they do or view them unobjectively. I'm also quite familiar with the history of rock music, particularly punk, post-punk and alternative rock, so I'm able to view them in the greater scheme of thing. I've also read a great deal of material on the band in order to work on this article, and nothing I've seen has ever debated the band's genre classification aside from comments by John Lydon, Steve Diggle, and Lee Ranaldo and Thurston Moore. That's about it. Unless you can cite a source or twelve that states Green Day should not be classified as punk, then I feel you have little argument. WesleyDodds 10:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
.
pop-punk dude. It's pretty much that simple. I own all their cds expect kerplunk and it all fits under pop-punk, even american idiot which is leaning a little more towards alt rock, but the powerchords (staple of the punk genre) are still there, so it is still punk. Maybe you could call american idiot post-punk, but I don't think so. When you think about it, punk has an incredible variety of sound. It isn't as constricted in its sub-genres as say, metal is. So as long as it uses powerchords and has simple melodies it is generally punk of some sort. And punk CAN be slow. It's not ALL fast. For example the Clash, lots of their music was actually slow. But today, in general they are considered a punk band. A big part of being punk is the attitude and Green Day definitely have it. Their music, in my opinion resembles that of the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Just listen to them both and then Green Day and you'll see it is all the same style. Any Green Day song from any album could be a song on one of those records. They are a punk band.
[2] Whoa. Insomniac was more sucessful than American Idiot. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
Okay, if this article failed at being a featured article twice, we should start at a lower standard. I'm nominating this article for a good article. Sc r umshus Talk to me 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was the gallery discography removed? It looks cleaner, displays all info., plus many Good or Featured Bands have layouts like this. I'm putting the gallery back. Sc r umshus Talk to me 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a picture in order for it to become a good article. DJJJ 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Additional comments :
Lincher 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the protection of this articel? Already people are vandalising it. I had to fix and edit having th band as "Green Gay". Already. Sc r umshus Talk to me 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing trivia at 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Reason: irrelevant information, lack of encyclopedic (I hope I got the spelling right) value. We are trying to make a good article here. -- Alexignatiou
Can't they be consider emo?
When?
I think user means when will green day be in the hall of fame.
Sources, please. I've googled, and there's no mention of this. I'm reverting the edit.-- Jude 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
SOURCE: a meeting with Billie Joe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YesMapRadio ( talk • contribs) .
I think this needs to be taken off ASAP because of it's lack of proper sources. As it is right now, it looks just like a rumor, not a fact. Even if it is true, you can't just start posting stuff and letting readers believe it's true without proof of confirmation. -- Scatteredbomb 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed deletion on this article again, as it has been recreated and still without a source just like the last time it was created. There is no reliable official source that says that this is the next Green Day album, so that is why I proposed deletion so to not spread rumors or create hoaxes. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently seen the two first albums in a few shops, does this mean they've already been re-issued? If so the article should be updated, but I'm not that good at finding stuff out. Kokiri kid 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The CD's will be reissued on December 19th on Green Day's current label, Reprise. Billboard.com Article -- Scatteredbomb 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find a good picture of green day? DeeJayJayJay 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
http://wallpapers.diq.ru/wallpapers/84/Green_Day.jpg This one is good
I removed some graffiti left by the user User:Darktrax577, and left him/her a warning on his/her user page. Davi 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed graffiti as well, although I forgot to look at who left it. 198.212.224.1 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened? Somehow, all of the other bands have great photos and we have but one. Try using the band's website or something. I just don't understand that other band articles can use photos from thier wwebsites but Green Day can't. With some photos, this articel just might make it sc r umshus Talk to me 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just put up a new picture, it's actually my picture. I took a picture of a picture, so I don't think that's violating any copyright laws. They did it on the page for The All American Rejects, and that pic has been there for a while. DavyJonesGSB
The picture on now is terrible. There must be a better picture whih isn't protected. -- James P Twomey 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks ALOT better now Scrumshus, great images. Only problem is, I don't really know if the Ramones tribute album cover is necessary. Other than that, great! I'm going to renominate this for good article. DavyJonesGSB
I'd like to have the fact of 30 milions of copies sold well documented, I know RIAA is a little bit sloppy, but the ammount of units sold by Green Day isn't justifed anywhere in the article, so I reverte d it to 22 millions of copies, according to RIAA, which is maybe not the most accurate, but at least VERIFIABLE source. Broken soul 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Broken soul ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
No! I checked them out and there wasn't anything relevant mentioned in them! Broken soul 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Or do you mean it's mentioned within this book? Then specify chapter and page, just to sound reasonable, because without it, I don't feel convinced at all Broken soul 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Same as title. It was verifiable, useful and interesting info that could help the article. sc r umshus Talk to me 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on, that's really not that clever. I had to go back to the older edit and paste it back here. So please don't blank it again. DavyJonesGSB 13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to change the size of the main image, as it was hard to spot all three members of the band, and it has become ridiculously large. And now no matter how many times I try to change the size to a reasonable one, it does not change. Please, someone with a better knowledge of editing images revert the edit. Sorry. DavyJonesGSB 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Album information | ||
---|---|---|
1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
|
Singles Released
| |
Kerplunk! | Singles Released
| |
Dookie
|
Singles Released
| |
Insomniac
|
Singles Released | |
nimrod.
|
Singles Released | |
Warning: | Singles Released
| |
American Idiot
|
Singles Released |
Made this discography table. Looks better than the current one, but is awfully similar to the one on their own discography page. Whattya think? sc r umshus Talk to me 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This is great, much better than the current one, more complex with the album covers, but simple and easy to read. I suggest you place it on the article. DavyJonesGSB 2:26 26, December 2006 (UTC)
It's good. I made a little edit to it, which I think that's what you were trying to achieve. I italicized the No singles released. Otherwise it just said "No singles released. I would say add it, it looks very nice. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good, this is what I'd recommend for a pass:
Wiki-newbie 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, by introduction to that article is to simply take the main points of that article and write them out as well as introducing the main article. A reader does not want to click on another article to get some basic facts. It's like a giant 'See also' section. Take The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Production Design as an example of my own work. Wiki-newbie 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Wiki-newbie, I think we're ready to take this off hold (or whatever I should say, on hold, off hold, sounds right), we've got the introduction and the fair use rationale. This article is starting to rise from the ashes in my opinion. DavyJonesGSB 23:56 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Sorry. Speaking of additional edits, earlier I was editing quite a few grammar/spelling errors that I had never noticed. DavyJonesGSB 2:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If Good Riddance was a hit, how come it never got a Grammy nod?-- Kingforaday1620 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Who wins the grammys is quite dependent upon who's record company has the most money to pass around and who's record company is wanting to promo their band. It really is a joke.
Last night I bought the new Green Day biography Nobody Likes You and I'm going to be using it to work on the page for the next few days. If there's anything in particular you want me to work on or if you have questions about my edits, please post them here. Additionally, in order to get the article up to guidelines, I'd really suggest the intro say "Green Day is an American rock band". I think we're past genre debates now, and all the genres Green Day is listed under are subgenres of rock music anyway. WesleyDodds 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to choose something ambiguous like "rock" since it's always in such dispute either what kind of punk they are or if they're even punk at all. piper108 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well done. Keep up the good work. Wiki-newbie 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
YES! WOOHOOO! This article used to be so horrible and vandalized all the time and now it's a GA! YAY!! The Guy Who Nominated This For A Good Article 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Is 86 about them not being able to go back to Gilman Street or a one night stand that Billie had?-- 69.113.131.124 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Pop punk is a sub-genre of punk characterized by bare-bones stripped down simplistic instrumentation (huh, I believe Green Day has that), softer more melodic and catchy melodies than other styles of punk (also Green Day) and a lack of strong political ethic even if politics are approached minimally or peripherally (also green day, huh, we seem to be noticing a trend). Also, its worthy to note that since Green Day's very very first album they have been claiming to be pop punk, and nothing more or less. I think the evidence is rather damning. Pop punk it is. Quite frankly, why that would even be disputed is beyond me. It seems rather obvious to someone who actually knows a lick about music. Anyway, I changed the page to reflect this. DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK TO ROCK. Rock is way too broad of a term. You might as well call Lamb of God or Black Flag simply rock. Too broad. It doesn't help to clarify anything for people who need clarification. 12.156.166.47 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Punk Rocker
It's necessary to classify them as a rock band first and then go into subgenres like pop punk because the general reader may or may not have a proper frame of reference. WesleyDodds 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What about them being 'punk'? Ethanjp
I find the idea of labelling them as rock to be redundant, since we can be rather assured that pop-punk is a subgenre of rock. You might as well call Cradle of Filth rock. It's just as redundant. The point of wikipedia is to provide accurate and as specific as possible information. Just because a bunch of fanboys can't agree on the flipping genre, doesn't take away from the fact that it is the job of this site to provide ACCURATE information, NOT popular information. I won't revert it again, because every time I do, someone just reverts it back. Do take it in to consideration though.
Does anyone besides me think its redundant to say that people might not know what pop-punk is, and thus we should classify them as simply as possible? If they are to stupid to know what pop-punk is (anybody with even slight music knowledge can infer that), then surely they could just wiki the term and find out? Why don't you just say they are pop-punk at the top of the page, for the sake of being specific? Knowledge should always be specific, not broad. A rock is a rock, but don't call an amathyst merely a rock. A mop is so much more than a 'household item'. Red is much more than just a light wavelength. The point I'm making is, rock does not in any way sum Green Day up. Anybody with half a brain who is looking up Green Day knows they are a rock band. If they are looking up Green Day, they obviously want to know more beyond that. Also, yes pop-punk is listed as a genre, but not everybody immediately looks over in that direction. Many people unfamiliar with wiki usually just read the articles and don't notice the side information.
Is the new awards sectioin nessecsry? we already have the seperate album / song awards worked into their own sections, and it makes the article a bit redundant. sc r umshus Talk to me 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Will the network come out with another cd?-- Kingforaday1620 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Same band.-- Kingforaday1620 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does he say "don't want to be an american idiot" he just say don't want to be bush it means the same.-- 69.113.131.124 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The song is about way more than G.W. dude. And please stop posting inane questions.
what's a malakite?-- Kingforaday1620 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the "punk rock" genres have been changing recently to "pop punk", and while I'm not arguing with it, I am arguing that in the article it should say that they popularised "punk rock" [7] for the following reason:
Through their "pop punk" music, more people were interested in the punk culture and dug deeper to find punk rock bands, and that is how they popularised the INTEREST in punk rock.
The sentence states:
"As a result, Green Day was widely credited, along with fellow California punk bands The Offspring and Rancid, with reviving mainstream interest in and popularizing punk rock in the United States."
No one said they were punk rock in that sentence. I'll change it back every time someone else changes it unless there's a good argument for it. So bring it here if you've got one.-- Jude 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nirvana introduced punk and alternative rock to the mainstream three years before Green Day reached any kind of international fame. If anyone deserves the title it's them. Even Billie Joe said that green day could not be where they were without Nirvana. If someone could find the source for that, it would be great.
does the part in the criticism section referring to noel gallaghers problems belong?
This claim can be seen as ironic as Gallagher himself faced problems when it became apparent that the Oasis single, "Shakermaker", had used the melody from "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". Gallagher's unlicensed use led to Oasis being successfully sued. A similar case happened to him in 1994, when members of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, successfully sued him on the basis that a substantial part of the melody of Oasis's, "Whatever", was taken from their song "How Sweet to be an Idiot".
This has nothing to do with Green Day, or anything relating to it sc r umshus Talk to me 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Do they sing that ^^?-- 69.113.131.124 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I just heard this today and the guy singing sounds nothing like Billie, Mike, or Tre. So why do people thing that they it then?-- Kingforaday1620 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we add a "singles released" section to the discography? James P Twomey 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Green Day are pop punk with some punk rock songs.Please let pop punk first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.63.235.157 ( talk) 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, and since pop punk is a subgenre of punk, couldn't it be said that it is both?--JJ
Souldn't it mention Dookie as 69th best selling album? Thesnoo 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Somebody has mercilessly vandalized this page and im too lazy too fix it Thesnoo 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
couldn't this be considered trivia? I think these facts should be worked into thier body paragraphs so we can avoid using trivia, which prohibits this article from being a FA. sc r umshus Talk to me 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be made into its on article. For example on the metallica page there was a huge trivia section related to metallica references or songs in popular media, so I made it into the article Metallica in the media as to not interrupt with the normal article.
i noticed there's a lot of vandalism on this page. can someone protect it? oh, and i noticed that these two IP addresses seem to be the ones vandalizing lately: 212.32.89.47 and 82.11.205.182 Greendayrox 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just removed someone's recent edit about the "New Album". -- Scatteredbomb 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Green Days generes are still Punk? I thought they were going to be put as alternative? Not Pop Punk Or Punk Rock?- Migospia 09:09, February 14 2007 (UTC)
They began as a pop-punk band but now they're just pop-rock.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerpin taxt ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2007
didn'd dookie sell 20 mil. worldwide? the sales figures in thef irst paragrph are for thier US riaa certifications. im gonna change is to "sold X many of copies in the US alone to reflect the data change. sc r umshus Talk to me 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Paul McPike filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Green Day claiming that he wrote the song "American Idiot" almost 15 years ago. He alleges that he performed the song at a high school and a recording of the song made it into the hands of Green Day. McPike is currently seeking a share of the album's profits. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Cooney attempted to dismiss the case last week, but is expected to allow McPike to file an amended lawsuit, with additional evidence.
Kinda hard to believe considering that there are clear references to modern events in the song. If it was written 15 years ago, surely it would reference to 15 year old events? Anyway, this guy just sounds dumb. He's trying to say that 15 years ago while the trio were on tour he performed the song at his highschool, they just happened to be at his high school when he performed it, they then stole a copy of the music while they were there, and then waited 15 years to change the words up a bit and make an entire album based around the song.
When Green day are going to make a new album? I know that Green Day are always late on albums, so would we wait until 2008
Actually just recently it was released that they were in the studio with U2 for the single they're doing; a remake of a song by the Skids. After the promotion of that single, Green Day will be back in the studio again. They're taking small breaks from time to time to do some promotion and events here and there.-- Jude 05:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what's up with the removal of the citation. Here's where I got it from: [1] WesleyDodds 09:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
ok i just watched south park episode about downloading music and such and how bands are in it for money(some) well i mean for american idiot billie got into fights with his wife cause he was always working on it and mike got divorced cause of same reason. this shows me that they actually really care about their music and they love their fans so much that making the album means more than their wives. i probably sound dumb but hey i really respect them for that, really shocked me when i first found out about it.
This has what to do with the article? Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
Isn't about time for another archive? This one's getting hard to scroll through and find updates. Can someone archive this page? I don't know how. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
Why isnt Bullet in a Bible under the discography. It was there before, and then removed. I later added it again, and its gooone now ... whats happening ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 September 2006
I added a Live section to the Discography. Discography's should contain all album releases, not a select few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2006
??????
Nope on VH1 Billie Himself claims that He was high on weed, and originally it was a song called Green Day about being high, and there drummer Before Tre Cool had it on his jacket so the name just stuck. Billy claims its the worst band name in rock and roll
The word "Green Day" supposedly came from an episode of Sesame Street, and was said by Ernie of Ernie & Bert, hence Ernie being on the back cover of Dookie. The phrase was used amongst Berkely teens to describe an entire day spent smoking pot. Acording to original drummer Al Sobrante durring a radio appearance on KLAX in 1989 (which is available on bootleg), he wrote "Green Day" on his jacket. Then, he and Armstrong and Dirnt decided that it would make a better band name than "Sweet Chidren". The band name was also changed to avoid confusion with fellow Gilman St. scene band "Sweet Baby". I have added this information to this the main artice many times only to have it deleted and replaced with false information. - Insomniac186
Proof that John Kiffmeyer was in the band when they were called "Sweet Children" lies here: http://www.greenday.net/basement/livermore.html. This is an interview with Larry Livermore, founder of Lookout! Records. Read the first two questions. Then about how Green Day got their name is at this link: http://www.greendayauthority.com/TheBand/didjaknow.php?section=general. This is the quote from that page (including original grammar): The real origin of the name Green Day. Ernie from Sesamy Street said the frase Green Day in one of the shows and it kinda was funny for the guys smoking pot and all. So it became an inside joke with Green Day meaning a pot-filled wasted day. Then came the song Green Day and also Al Sobrante wrote Green Day on the back of his jacket and it kinda caught on from there and they decided to use it as their band's name - Insomniac186
No. Green Day describes an entire day spent blazing.
I heard (or might read) years ago that the name comes from the Bruce Sterling short story 'Green Days in Brunei'. May be a folk-etymology though.
The fact that the genre of "punk" is disputed is certainly true, but do we need a disclaimer in the genre listing of the main page? Supposedly, a consensus has already been met, plus we have the criticism section that covers this dispute in detail. I've removed the disclaimer for now, as it seems terribly redundant, and the standard practice with this issue has been to discuss it on the talk page first. Furthermore, there are specific instructions on this page regarding the genre listing. "Green Day's genres: Pop Punk, Punk Rock, and Alternative Rock have been decided upon through community concensus. Any changes to the genre list will be reverted." Theplanetsaturn
It is in noway redundant, as you say "The fact that the genre of "punk" is disputed is certainly true"... I don't know a single punk who thinks Green Day are a "punk rock band"... and even artists lower down in the article, debate it too... other bands who have genre disputes such as; Cradle of Filth and HIM have the word "debated" in their genre box, as Green Day is in a similar situation, so should they.
Also, I'm going to put "pop punk" above "punk rock (debated)" in the genre listing, as that is the order you claim was decided upon by "consenus" although, Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy. - Deathrocker 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've linked the debated section to the apropriate part of the article. Whether Green Day claimed that they were "punk" is irrelevant, the style of music they were playing was not what is described in the punk rock genre box... if you read the supposed concensus section it says Green Day began as a pop punk band... anyway that discussion is for another part of the talkpage. As I showed with the other band examples that have debated genre classifications, a "debated" note is needed... it may also stop people removing certain genres fully, so it puts it on a NPOV stance. - Deathrocker 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Gilman" "punks", sorry but that in itself is very debatable. There was no result as part of concensus not to include the tag. My case has been stated here, clearly... you however, after agreeing that their classification is debatable have not put up a reasonable case as to why it shouldn't be include. - Deathrocker 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is debatable, as the bands who are part of the movement are debated as to whether they're punk or not. For you to suggest other wise, shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. That's understandable, you weren't likely part of the movement in 1977 when punk rock was around.
In your POV, perhaps. Though that certainly isn't a view shared globally or within the punk scene. Infact I'm tallying up the "genre dispute" section and so far MORE people have said "no, Green Day are not a punk rock band", than otherwise. - 07:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As shown here on the genre dispute page; the number of people who out right stated one way or another in regards to their genre. Are as follows;
Thus, having Green Day's genre as "punk rock" is not concensus at all, infact it goes against it, so it should be removed in acordance to concensus. - Deathrocker 09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You haven't stated your opinion on the genre disputes page (where the concensus was compiled from), and its not entirely clear; while you have made it your mission to defend Green Day as some sort of "punk gods", you have also said they have pop punk music.. feel free to go and put your opinion on there in the apropriate section.
When Jacknife737 made a clear statement in regards to which genre he felt they belonged in he said "I personally consider Green Day to be ' pop punk', a perfectly acceptable and widely used term.".. he did not say that he "considers their genre to be punk rock"....
The "unsigned" quote you are refering to, does not feature in the "Not Punk Rock" section - Deathrocker 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Deathrocker, I can understand where you are coming from, and I know you and I have generally seen eye-to-eye on discussions on the heavy metal music talk page, but I feel you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of evaluating this article. There are a number of sources that link Green Day to a revival of punk rock in the mid-1990s. They have been called punk or pop punk by a variety of music publications, including major ones like Rolling Stone, SPIN, and NME, just to name a few. Their sound has been compared to certain punk bands, and they have claimed bands such as the Ramones, Clash, Dead Kennedys, Husker Du, the Replacements, and Operation Ivy as influences. Hell, they played Ramones songs at that band's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. They emerged from the Gilman Street scene in Berkeley, an unequivocal punk venue (I work at a college radio station near there, and so I generally look up the band lineups for my fellow DJs so they know who's touring. And what do I see about 95% of the time? Punk rock bands). This is the place were Jello Biafra got assaulted back around 1995 for being a "sellout". Do I like Green Day? Yes; back in high school they were my favorite band. But that doesn't mean I like everything they do or view them unobjectively. I'm also quite familiar with the history of rock music, particularly punk, post-punk and alternative rock, so I'm able to view them in the greater scheme of thing. I've also read a great deal of material on the band in order to work on this article, and nothing I've seen has ever debated the band's genre classification aside from comments by John Lydon, Steve Diggle, and Lee Ranaldo and Thurston Moore. That's about it. Unless you can cite a source or twelve that states Green Day should not be classified as punk, then I feel you have little argument. WesleyDodds 10:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
.
pop-punk dude. It's pretty much that simple. I own all their cds expect kerplunk and it all fits under pop-punk, even american idiot which is leaning a little more towards alt rock, but the powerchords (staple of the punk genre) are still there, so it is still punk. Maybe you could call american idiot post-punk, but I don't think so. When you think about it, punk has an incredible variety of sound. It isn't as constricted in its sub-genres as say, metal is. So as long as it uses powerchords and has simple melodies it is generally punk of some sort. And punk CAN be slow. It's not ALL fast. For example the Clash, lots of their music was actually slow. But today, in general they are considered a punk band. A big part of being punk is the attitude and Green Day definitely have it. Their music, in my opinion resembles that of the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Just listen to them both and then Green Day and you'll see it is all the same style. Any Green Day song from any album could be a song on one of those records. They are a punk band.
[2] Whoa. Insomniac was more sucessful than American Idiot. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑
Okay, if this article failed at being a featured article twice, we should start at a lower standard. I'm nominating this article for a good article. Sc r umshus Talk to me 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why was the gallery discography removed? It looks cleaner, displays all info., plus many Good or Featured Bands have layouts like this. I'm putting the gallery back. Sc r umshus Talk to me 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a picture in order for it to become a good article. DJJJ 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Additional comments :
Lincher 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the protection of this articel? Already people are vandalising it. I had to fix and edit having th band as "Green Gay". Already. Sc r umshus Talk to me 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing trivia at 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Reason: irrelevant information, lack of encyclopedic (I hope I got the spelling right) value. We are trying to make a good article here. -- Alexignatiou
Can't they be consider emo?
When?
I think user means when will green day be in the hall of fame.
Sources, please. I've googled, and there's no mention of this. I'm reverting the edit.-- Jude 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
SOURCE: a meeting with Billie Joe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YesMapRadio ( talk • contribs) .
I think this needs to be taken off ASAP because of it's lack of proper sources. As it is right now, it looks just like a rumor, not a fact. Even if it is true, you can't just start posting stuff and letting readers believe it's true without proof of confirmation. -- Scatteredbomb 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed deletion on this article again, as it has been recreated and still without a source just like the last time it was created. There is no reliable official source that says that this is the next Green Day album, so that is why I proposed deletion so to not spread rumors or create hoaxes. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently seen the two first albums in a few shops, does this mean they've already been re-issued? If so the article should be updated, but I'm not that good at finding stuff out. Kokiri kid 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The CD's will be reissued on December 19th on Green Day's current label, Reprise. Billboard.com Article -- Scatteredbomb 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find a good picture of green day? DeeJayJayJay 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
http://wallpapers.diq.ru/wallpapers/84/Green_Day.jpg This one is good
I removed some graffiti left by the user User:Darktrax577, and left him/her a warning on his/her user page. Davi 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed graffiti as well, although I forgot to look at who left it. 198.212.224.1 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened? Somehow, all of the other bands have great photos and we have but one. Try using the band's website or something. I just don't understand that other band articles can use photos from thier wwebsites but Green Day can't. With some photos, this articel just might make it sc r umshus Talk to me 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just put up a new picture, it's actually my picture. I took a picture of a picture, so I don't think that's violating any copyright laws. They did it on the page for The All American Rejects, and that pic has been there for a while. DavyJonesGSB
The picture on now is terrible. There must be a better picture whih isn't protected. -- James P Twomey 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks ALOT better now Scrumshus, great images. Only problem is, I don't really know if the Ramones tribute album cover is necessary. Other than that, great! I'm going to renominate this for good article. DavyJonesGSB
I'd like to have the fact of 30 milions of copies sold well documented, I know RIAA is a little bit sloppy, but the ammount of units sold by Green Day isn't justifed anywhere in the article, so I reverte d it to 22 millions of copies, according to RIAA, which is maybe not the most accurate, but at least VERIFIABLE source. Broken soul 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Broken soul ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
No! I checked them out and there wasn't anything relevant mentioned in them! Broken soul 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Or do you mean it's mentioned within this book? Then specify chapter and page, just to sound reasonable, because without it, I don't feel convinced at all Broken soul 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Same as title. It was verifiable, useful and interesting info that could help the article. sc r umshus Talk to me 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on, that's really not that clever. I had to go back to the older edit and paste it back here. So please don't blank it again. DavyJonesGSB 13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to change the size of the main image, as it was hard to spot all three members of the band, and it has become ridiculously large. And now no matter how many times I try to change the size to a reasonable one, it does not change. Please, someone with a better knowledge of editing images revert the edit. Sorry. DavyJonesGSB 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Album information | ||
---|---|---|
1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
|
Singles Released
| |
Kerplunk! | Singles Released
| |
Dookie
|
Singles Released
| |
Insomniac
|
Singles Released | |
nimrod.
|
Singles Released | |
Warning: | Singles Released
| |
American Idiot
|
Singles Released |
Made this discography table. Looks better than the current one, but is awfully similar to the one on their own discography page. Whattya think? sc r umshus Talk to me 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This is great, much better than the current one, more complex with the album covers, but simple and easy to read. I suggest you place it on the article. DavyJonesGSB 2:26 26, December 2006 (UTC)
It's good. I made a little edit to it, which I think that's what you were trying to achieve. I italicized the No singles released. Otherwise it just said "No singles released. I would say add it, it looks very nice. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good, this is what I'd recommend for a pass:
Wiki-newbie 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, by introduction to that article is to simply take the main points of that article and write them out as well as introducing the main article. A reader does not want to click on another article to get some basic facts. It's like a giant 'See also' section. Take The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Production Design as an example of my own work. Wiki-newbie 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Wiki-newbie, I think we're ready to take this off hold (or whatever I should say, on hold, off hold, sounds right), we've got the introduction and the fair use rationale. This article is starting to rise from the ashes in my opinion. DavyJonesGSB 23:56 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Sorry. Speaking of additional edits, earlier I was editing quite a few grammar/spelling errors that I had never noticed. DavyJonesGSB 2:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If Good Riddance was a hit, how come it never got a Grammy nod?-- Kingforaday1620 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Who wins the grammys is quite dependent upon who's record company has the most money to pass around and who's record company is wanting to promo their band. It really is a joke.
Last night I bought the new Green Day biography Nobody Likes You and I'm going to be using it to work on the page for the next few days. If there's anything in particular you want me to work on or if you have questions about my edits, please post them here. Additionally, in order to get the article up to guidelines, I'd really suggest the intro say "Green Day is an American rock band". I think we're past genre debates now, and all the genres Green Day is listed under are subgenres of rock music anyway. WesleyDodds 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to choose something ambiguous like "rock" since it's always in such dispute either what kind of punk they are or if they're even punk at all. piper108 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well done. Keep up the good work. Wiki-newbie 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
YES! WOOHOOO! This article used to be so horrible and vandalized all the time and now it's a GA! YAY!! The Guy Who Nominated This For A Good Article 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Is 86 about them not being able to go back to Gilman Street or a one night stand that Billie had?-- 69.113.131.124 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Pop punk is a sub-genre of punk characterized by bare-bones stripped down simplistic instrumentation (huh, I believe Green Day has that), softer more melodic and catchy melodies than other styles of punk (also Green Day) and a lack of strong political ethic even if politics are approached minimally or peripherally (also green day, huh, we seem to be noticing a trend). Also, its worthy to note that since Green Day's very very first album they have been claiming to be pop punk, and nothing more or less. I think the evidence is rather damning. Pop punk it is. Quite frankly, why that would even be disputed is beyond me. It seems rather obvious to someone who actually knows a lick about music. Anyway, I changed the page to reflect this. DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK TO ROCK. Rock is way too broad of a term. You might as well call Lamb of God or Black Flag simply rock. Too broad. It doesn't help to clarify anything for people who need clarification. 12.156.166.47 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Punk Rocker
It's necessary to classify them as a rock band first and then go into subgenres like pop punk because the general reader may or may not have a proper frame of reference. WesleyDodds 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What about them being 'punk'? Ethanjp
I find the idea of labelling them as rock to be redundant, since we can be rather assured that pop-punk is a subgenre of rock. You might as well call Cradle of Filth rock. It's just as redundant. The point of wikipedia is to provide accurate and as specific as possible information. Just because a bunch of fanboys can't agree on the flipping genre, doesn't take away from the fact that it is the job of this site to provide ACCURATE information, NOT popular information. I won't revert it again, because every time I do, someone just reverts it back. Do take it in to consideration though.
Does anyone besides me think its redundant to say that people might not know what pop-punk is, and thus we should classify them as simply as possible? If they are to stupid to know what pop-punk is (anybody with even slight music knowledge can infer that), then surely they could just wiki the term and find out? Why don't you just say they are pop-punk at the top of the page, for the sake of being specific? Knowledge should always be specific, not broad. A rock is a rock, but don't call an amathyst merely a rock. A mop is so much more than a 'household item'. Red is much more than just a light wavelength. The point I'm making is, rock does not in any way sum Green Day up. Anybody with half a brain who is looking up Green Day knows they are a rock band. If they are looking up Green Day, they obviously want to know more beyond that. Also, yes pop-punk is listed as a genre, but not everybody immediately looks over in that direction. Many people unfamiliar with wiki usually just read the articles and don't notice the side information.
Is the new awards sectioin nessecsry? we already have the seperate album / song awards worked into their own sections, and it makes the article a bit redundant. sc r umshus Talk to me 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Will the network come out with another cd?-- Kingforaday1620 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Same band.-- Kingforaday1620 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does he say "don't want to be an american idiot" he just say don't want to be bush it means the same.-- 69.113.131.124 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The song is about way more than G.W. dude. And please stop posting inane questions.
what's a malakite?-- Kingforaday1620 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the "punk rock" genres have been changing recently to "pop punk", and while I'm not arguing with it, I am arguing that in the article it should say that they popularised "punk rock" [7] for the following reason:
Through their "pop punk" music, more people were interested in the punk culture and dug deeper to find punk rock bands, and that is how they popularised the INTEREST in punk rock.
The sentence states:
"As a result, Green Day was widely credited, along with fellow California punk bands The Offspring and Rancid, with reviving mainstream interest in and popularizing punk rock in the United States."
No one said they were punk rock in that sentence. I'll change it back every time someone else changes it unless there's a good argument for it. So bring it here if you've got one.-- Jude 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nirvana introduced punk and alternative rock to the mainstream three years before Green Day reached any kind of international fame. If anyone deserves the title it's them. Even Billie Joe said that green day could not be where they were without Nirvana. If someone could find the source for that, it would be great.
does the part in the criticism section referring to noel gallaghers problems belong?
This claim can be seen as ironic as Gallagher himself faced problems when it became apparent that the Oasis single, "Shakermaker", had used the melody from "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". Gallagher's unlicensed use led to Oasis being successfully sued. A similar case happened to him in 1994, when members of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, successfully sued him on the basis that a substantial part of the melody of Oasis's, "Whatever", was taken from their song "How Sweet to be an Idiot".
This has nothing to do with Green Day, or anything relating to it sc r umshus Talk to me 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Do they sing that ^^?-- 69.113.131.124 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I just heard this today and the guy singing sounds nothing like Billie, Mike, or Tre. So why do people thing that they it then?-- Kingforaday1620 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we add a "singles released" section to the discography? James P Twomey 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Green Day are pop punk with some punk rock songs.Please let pop punk first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.63.235.157 ( talk) 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, and since pop punk is a subgenre of punk, couldn't it be said that it is both?--JJ
Souldn't it mention Dookie as 69th best selling album? Thesnoo 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Somebody has mercilessly vandalized this page and im too lazy too fix it Thesnoo 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
couldn't this be considered trivia? I think these facts should be worked into thier body paragraphs so we can avoid using trivia, which prohibits this article from being a FA. sc r umshus Talk to me 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be made into its on article. For example on the metallica page there was a huge trivia section related to metallica references or songs in popular media, so I made it into the article Metallica in the media as to not interrupt with the normal article.
i noticed there's a lot of vandalism on this page. can someone protect it? oh, and i noticed that these two IP addresses seem to be the ones vandalizing lately: 212.32.89.47 and 82.11.205.182 Greendayrox 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just removed someone's recent edit about the "New Album". -- Scatteredbomb 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Green Days generes are still Punk? I thought they were going to be put as alternative? Not Pop Punk Or Punk Rock?- Migospia 09:09, February 14 2007 (UTC)
They began as a pop-punk band but now they're just pop-rock.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerpin taxt ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2007
didn'd dookie sell 20 mil. worldwide? the sales figures in thef irst paragrph are for thier US riaa certifications. im gonna change is to "sold X many of copies in the US alone to reflect the data change. sc r umshus Talk to me 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |