Talk:Beastie Boys/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Start Fresh

I have archived the previous discussions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Change

• I personally hate the main image for this article and I was wondering if anyone would be bothered if it were changed, preferably to something more recent?Jimmyjrg 13:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't love the image, but if anything I'd say use an image from them in their prime. Aroundthewayboy 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• That image is terrible, it looks like the kind of poster a 90's bong-head would have stuck on their wall, I'd prefer one of them in their intergalactic outifts... but then again, that's just me PeterPartyOn 13:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I like that idea, or of them in concert. Aroundthewayboy 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are all right. This image needs to be changed. It's almost embarassing to the Beastie Boys. We should put an "old school" b-boy pic up or something like that.

• hey i was thinking that somebody should post a pic of every era in every section that discusses that era. like in the hello nasty section post a pic of the boys from the hello nasty days?

The point of Wikipedia is to provide free information. Restricted-use images are to be avoided. I realize that the CC-licensed photo I uploaded is not the best, so please try to find a better one; but do not replace it with an unlicensed, copyrighted photo. The tag for the previous image specifically says that the image is only to be used "[w]here no free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). That certainly isn't the case here. Come on folks--go bring your cameras to their shows and get a better shot. —Chowbok 15:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also sent an e-mail to their people asking if they could release a publicity photo under an acceptable licence. I'll put something here if I hear back. —Chowbok 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Right Right Now Now

Pretty sure this was released as a single off the "5 Boroughs" album. There's a video for it. --Scaryice 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mullet

From the section on Grand Royal Magazine: 'The 1995 issue of the magazine contained the first print reference of the expression, "mullet," to describe the hairstyle.'

This is untrue and there is no proof that the Beasties coined the term "mullet" to describe that particular haircut. Nor is there any proof that Grand Royal was the first publication to print the word "mullet" in reference to that (there needs to be defnitive proof, and there really is none. Just saying you can't find any referenced before that 95 issue of the mag is not enough).

I've removed that line from this article before, but someone else who seems to be adamant about the B-Boys association with the mullet keeps putting it back.

I am removing the line again. If you want to say that the B-Boys constantly joke about mullets (as evidenced in their song "mullet head" and a feature on mullets that appeared in Grand Royal magazine) that's fine, because it's true. But to say they somehow originated the name, the idea, or popularized it as a comedic haircut is not accurate.

As for proof that the Beasties coined the term "mullet," the Oxford English Dictionary supports it, and that trumps every other source on etymology as far as I'm concerned. The OED says: "Apparently coined, and certainly popularized, by U.S. hip-hop group the Beastie Boys (see quot. 1994)" A PDF version of the entry is available at [1]. See definition #9.

I'm putting the claim back in. Anson2995 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually am going to dispute the Oxford English Dictionary's claim that the Beasties "coined" the term. I will concede they did "popularize" it, but if you look on the actual wikipedia page for the mullet, it points out that the term "mullet-head" is used in the film "Cool Hand Luke," George Kennedy's character uses the term to describe Southern men with long hair with short sides. So I think the OED actually got that point wrong (note that they say "apparently").

I believe the fact that the term Mullet is used in "Cool Hand Luke" in reference to a character's haircut means that the term existed before the '95 Grand Royal magazine article. I do think there is ample evidence to say that the Beastie's popularized it, or put it on the cultural map. But they didn't come up with the term.

The term "mullet-head" is used three times in Cool Hand Luke, once in reference to Luke (Paul Newman) and twice in reference to Koko (Lou Antonio). Both men have crew cuts, so it's obviously a term of gerneral derision, not a reference to their haircut. The Random House Historical Dictionary of Slang says that the term "mullet-head" was first mentioned in print in 1857, meaning "a stupid ignorant person." Clearly, that's the context in which Geroge Kennedy's character (Dragline, fwiw) uses it in Cool Hand Luke. The question here isn't about the use of the term "mullet-head" or even "mullet" as a general insult, but the use of the word to describe a particular hairstyle. I vigorously dispute the claim that it was used that way in Cool Hand Luke.

Also, in the interest of remaining cordial, could you please sign your posts? Thanks. Anson2995 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even really sure how to sign my posts, but in the spirit of cordiality, I'll just say that I concede the point. Even though I think the Beasties didn't make the name up (it seems to me like the name already existed but the Beasties had a wide audience who learned about it from them first), I can't find anything that verifies they didn't.

I guess I don't disagree with your point that the term wasn't originally invented by them, that the term was probably a bit of existing slang that they picked up on. But I do think the evidence suggests that they were the first one's to use it in mass media or in some published form, and as you say, it's hard to dispute that they popularized it. I think that both points are important and should be conveyed here, and I'd be interested in whether you think what we've done that adequately.

And to sign your posts, just enter four tildes ~~~~, and your post will be signed and date stamped. That helps so that in the course of a discussion like this, I can understand whether I'm talking with the same person or several different ones. Makes me feel like less of an idiot. :-)Anson2995 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

and it also let's other people know when the last post was, not knowing if something is out-of-date is not a good idea. --Sam 07:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly Hip Hop

Kudos to the person who had the balls to change the genre from "rapcore" to "hip hop." Although they may occasionally experiment with rapcore, and were a great influence on rapcore, the group is first and foremost rap. Putting down just "rapcore" as the band's main genre shows how ignorant people are of the Beastie Boys' influence in the hip hop community and secured place in hip hop history. The Beastie Boys were one of the very first popular rap groups, along with Run-DMC. Both Run-DMC and the Beastie Boys are responsible for shaping rap music into what it is today, both musically and lyrically. And for all new schoolers, the Beastie Boys profoundly influenced gangsta rap (along with Schooly D, the Beastie Boys were the first rap group to talk about guns, drug and alcohol use, car jacking, and gang activity. Just listen to "Licensed to Ill" and "Paul's Boutique!") Just because they are white and experiment with punk, metal, and alternative music does not make them a rapcore group. That is absurd. Yes, they have played rapcore-like music in the past. But so has Run-DMC. Are the Beastie Boys and Run-DMC rapcore bands? Hell no.

Do you actually know anything about hip hop or gangsta rap? To say they inlunenced gangsta rap is totally ignorant. Schooly D even tried to sue them for sampling Gucci time. Go back to school frat boy!

agreed, but they're genre-benders - between alternative, hip-hop and funk - and they don't really fit into any real category. I mean do musicians who are 100% Hip-Hop get #1 songs on the Modern Rock charts? Doc Strange 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

mmmm? NWA using Beastie Boys beats sounds "gangsta" to me, or was NWA not "gangsta " rap?Jonpatton73 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Image removal

Please explain why you're removing an image before you do it (here) or at least in the edit summary. Ziggur 00:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) so i just want to talk about the boys and to doc strange about how i am old and how

i listened and loved them in my time.. but now i FUCKING LOVE THEM  i haven't had the lovliness until yesterday when i watched their fan appreciated documentary and i got not only to groove to thir hits but listen to the some new stuff (well to me) about after 9/11... that shit was ....welll really groovyyyyy..... i dont't care what u all say ...these guys are WHAT MATTERS..... THEY are beautifully the beasties.... i hope they do a new tour ...cuz i willl be there......stop complainin'
and listen.....Yahhhhh   oh and love......THE BEASTIES!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.162.239 (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 

Billy Joel as "fifth Beastie Boy"

I have heard that Mike D once crowned Billy Joel "the fifth Beastie Boy." Can anyone explain the rationale? J21 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike D christend Joel as the fifth Beastie in a 1995 article for their 'zine called "BILLY JOEL: He DID Start The Fire, And If He Didn't, Then Who The Hell Did" It's still available online[2] and all I can say is that after reading the article, I have no idea of how to answer your question :-) Anson2995 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Influenced?

"The band was also a leader in the use of sampling techniques—with Paul's Boutique being notable for its effective use of samples. The influence of this album can be seen on Beck's 1996 Odelay album (also produced by the Dust Brothers)."

These albums were both produced by the Dust Brothers. Soooo...the Dust Brothers influenced themselves? --24.205.251.41 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

F'ng Beck fans. This section is pretty useless, we need someone with a firm hand. --Es-won 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The main image

The first image in the article should illustrate the topic at hand in a clear and complete manner. The freely licensed picture is garbage for that purpose. It's blurry, underexposed, and you can't even see Adrock's face. See the fair use rationale on the image page. I am aware that if a freely licensed image is available it should be used, but this one is just not up to the cut. Ziggur 17:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I already addressed this: please see my comment above. —Chowbok 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see it. That topic was a bit old and unrelated. But really, the free image is free but it is seriously garbage. It doesn't even do its job. Just because it's free shouldn't override the fact that it is almost worthless encyclopedically. I guess I have to restate the point that you can't even see one of the member's faces! The other faces are muddied and one is partially obscured. Imagine if all the fair use pictures on Wikipedia were replaced by bigfoot-esque poor quality, but free-use, photographs. That would certainly do more harm than good. I'm dissapointed that you reverted back to the poor picture without taking into account these concerns, and I'm not going to change it back to the fair use picture without further discourse. Ziggur 01:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There's really two issues here. One is whether it's okay (legally and according to Wikipedia policy) to use the publicity photo, and the second is whether the CC-licensed concert photo is too poor-quality to use. As I said before, I don't see how we can use the publicity photo; especially see point #2 of the template, which states it's only okay to use if "...no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". This would apply to something like the photo of Robert Johnson, of whom only two photos exist, and obviously no more can be created. It is certainly not true of the Beastie Boys, as anybody can go to one of their concerts and create a new, CC-licensed photo. I just can't see how using that photo is acceptable in this case. You seem to be arguing that it's better to have copyright-infringing, high-quality photographs than legal, amateurish photos; by that logic we could take every poorly-written article and replace it with a verbatim Encyclopedia Britannica entry.

The other point is that the current photo is crappy. I think you overstate it, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a photo. As I've argued above, I don't think going to the previous photo is an option. So... is this photo so bad that it would be better to have nothing at all? I think that just like with articles, we should start out with something sub-optimal if we have it, and wait for somebody to improve upon it. I'm sure if we're just patient somebody will upload a decent, properly-licensed photo (it's also possible that Nasty Little Man Productions will respond to my request for an unencumbered publicity photo). However, if you feel strongly about it we can remove this picture and leave it blank. —Chowbok 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see here. I think that's worse than the one I uploaded, but you can see all three of them. —Chowbok 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So because a free equivalent photograph could in theory be created of every living person, and even some dead, all of the fair use photographs of these people (musical groups as well) should be removed from Wikipedia? I just don't follow that logic. Of course I agree that if a free equivalent picture is available it should be used, but what I argue is that the free picture in question is not even near equivalency to the fair use picture for reasons already given. I commend you for asking to use a publicity photo under a free license, but it should not affect whether or not we use a free or fair use image for the moment.

Also, the fair use photograph that I uploaded is low quality which I explained on the image page under its fair use rationale. Ziggur 05:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most of the fair use images on Wikipedia are, in fact, in violation of the terms, and should be removed. You don't seem to understand that the quality of the picture I uploaded in no way affects the copyright status of the photo you uploaded. I don't know how to make this any clearer. It says right in the tag that you can't use that image if free images exist or can be created. This fails on both counts. The point of Wikipedia is not to provide pretty pictures. It's to provide a freely redistributable encyclopedia. Instead of devoting your energies arguing that it's okay to use that publicity photo when it clearly isn't, why not spend your time helping me find an acceptable unencumbered picture?

I'm sorry if I sound snotty, I'm not trying to--I'm just pretty sleepy as I write this. But there's got to be a photo out there that will satisfy both of us. The Beastie Boys themselves have released music under the Creative Commons; if somebody can get through to them it's not inconceivable that they'll put a photo under it as well. —Chowbok 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good news! Nasty Little Man got back to me, and they said all the publicity photos at [3] are free to use "with no strings attached". One of those is the photo you uploaded, so I've moved back to that (also replaced it with a higher-resolution copy). —Chowbok 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Ziggur 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Error

Quote:

The Beastie Boys are a hip hop group from the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan. The main members are (from left to right on the photo) MCA (Adam Yauch), Mike D (real name Michael Diamond) and King Ad-Rock (Adam Horovitz).

However, on the photo that is nearby, one can clearly see that the order from left to right is rather Mike D, Ad-Rock and MCA, not MCA, Mike D and Ad-Rock. 88.222.177.11 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (Carnifex)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —Chowbok 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

videography

I have moved this in here for the momment from the Videography as I feel it would be better suited for the DVDs page:

To promote the film, as well as their hits album, the Beastie Boys performed a medley of classics from "Three MC's and One D.J." to "So Whatcha Want" on The Late Show with David Letterman on February 8, 2006.

To promote the film's DVD release they performed "Root Down" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien on July 22nd, 2006 --Jimmyjrg 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad Rock

Ad Rock redirects here but isn't mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.253.162 (talk • contribs)

Uh, Ad-rock is one of the three members of the Beastie Boys. He's listed as "King Ad-Rock" in the infobox at the top of the article. The second paragraph about the early days says "John Berry left the group (later forming Thwig) and was replaced by Adam Horovitz (Ad-rock)..." -- Plutortalkcontribs 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

I love how everyone mentions John Berry formed "Thwig" even though it's a nothing band no one's ever heard of outside of reading a Beastie Boys biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.88 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

The Best Mixtape

I've added information on the Beastie Boy's greatest mixed album "New York State of Mind", courtesy of DJ Green Lantern. It really shows the New York influences in the rap industry, and has an hillarious adition from Busta Ryhmes. You're welcome Millm0w 11:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

Okay, doesn't anyone else think the line "They were the first white (and the only partly-Jewish) rap group of any importance..." is not NPOV? --C.travis 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed that part, you're right, it wasn't in a NPV. Feel free to change it back if I'm wrong. Patmagroin1289 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet it's TRUE.. I just noticed that the sky is blue. Got any problem with THAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.123 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Who deleted the New York State of Mind album

ok, who was. i put that album, not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and now somebody has deleted it. it is a great album, and i want a reason NOW!!! Millm0w 15:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why not create a seperate article for that album and link it on the Beastie Boys article, it's more likely to stay then.--Jimmyjrg 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it's humor, but

On Futurama, the seven albums were probably because of The Beastie Boys taking time to count their money. Anyone else think that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.133.196 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2006

Good Article Nomination

I've been making an effort to assess some of the 700-odd articles that need assessment as part of WikiProject Hip Hop. This article may not be FA-status, but I believe that it has enough content and value to earn GA status. As such, I have nominated it for review.--NPswimdude500 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, there are no citations, bar seven external jumps. Wiki-newbie 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Too true. I'm working on it...--NPswimdude500 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Brass Monkey

I'm not sure who thought up of the quote "Their song "Brass Monkey" was referenced in the Lucasarts adventure game, "Escape From Monkey Island", in which there was a small brass monkey powering a furnace. When examined, the line, "Brass Monkey, That Funky Monkey" can be heard."

This is completely false information. Brass Monkey did not come out until Liscense to Ill which was in the 1980's. The first Monkey Island Game to ever come out came out in 1990 so there is no way that this information is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Number17 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC).Number17 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. If LTI came out in 1986, why coudn't a reference to it be made in a game published in 1990? AMProSoft 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You made a mistake, Number17. Licensed to Ill was realeased in 1986, and Monkey Island came out in 1990. 8 < 9. -71.188.51.58 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing Contributing Performer

I didn't see Eugene Gore listed as a contributing musician anywhere on the page. I see him listed as the violinist for the CD The In Sound From Way Out released in 1996. He was featured in the song Eugene's Lament. I went ahead and added him in.

whenyoure_strange 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

BEASTIE name

An anonymous user [[User:167.90.23.216|167.90.23.216] removed a sentence about the origin of the band's name with a comment in the edit summary which said: "site reference please, that's not true afaik." The editor removed a sentence which said: "The name "Beastie" originally stood for "Boys Entering Anarchistic States Towards Internal Excellence," and the initials B.B. intended to mimic Washington DC punk band Bad Brains." I added a cite, as requested, but I wanted to note two things. First, a google search on the phrase turned up 40,000 hits, so the acronym is fairly well reported. However, I could not find an official source which confirmed it. It's certainly possible that this is a backronym invented by fans, and the false story has just been repeated over and over. I think that we should leave this in the article until we can find a quote from one of the band memebers or something from their website to give a definitive answer. Anson2995 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to followup, in the Beastie Boys 2007 interview with Charlie Rose, Mike Diamond mentioned that it was a backronym. Anson2995 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The initials B.B. to mimic the DC Punk band Bad Brains, is discussed in the documentary American Hardcore by an early manager of both bands. (unsigned)

OK, two points:

• Beastie Boys = B-Boys = B-boys = break-boys = breakdancers; so the band name is an obvious play on breakdancing
• "beastie" was Valspeak for ... I don't know what, but it was featured in Zappa's Valley Girl song ("he called me a beastie, he was so blitzed"), so I guess it has been around earlier, meaning something along the lines of possibly bitch, or mean person?

I'd REALLY appreciate it if someone could sort this conundrum out! Maikel (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Mike D explains that B.E.A.S.T.I.E. is in fact an acronym for Boys Enter Anarchistic States Towards Inner Excellence, in the liner notes of Scientists of Sound for the song B.E.A.S.T.I.E.. I've also heard them say it in interviews. Thye were trying to make the stupidest name possible. I've also heard the Bad Brains mimicry. You are correct anonymous user.

I've also seen Iceman call Beast (both of X-Men fame, "Beastie Boy" was back in the 5th or 6th issue. The one with ka-zar and the savage land Jbriggity (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Why the drastic changes?

208.63.48.34 deleted huge sections of the history and some other band info not too long ago. I couldn't find any discussion or given reasons on why this was done. Unless anyone sees a reason why not, I will re-instate the old sections of the article. swidly 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. 205.179.157.62 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beastie Boys - Some Old Bullshit.jpg

Image:Beastie Boys - Some Old Bullshit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beastie Boys - Solid Gold Hits.jpg

Image:Beastie Boys - Solid Gold Hits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beastie Boys - Aglio e Olio.jpg

Image:Beastie Boys - Aglio e Olio.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

cover art

All of the cover art in this article should be removed. The images aren't fair use in this article. -- Mikeblas 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nysombeastieboys.jpg

Image:Nysombeastieboys.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

History

= This article, especially the history section, reads like it was written by an eighth grader. For example, the fifth paragraph of the section on Paul's Boutique states, "The Beastie Boys owned Grand Royal Records until 2001 when it was then sold for financial reasons."

Really? A business was sold for financial reasons? That statement says nothing. Most business are sold for "financial reasons." And this sort of non-sensical, pointless writing is found throughout the article.

Can someone with at least a high school level writing ability and some knowledge of this band take a stab at rewriting the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.201 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some businesses get sold because the owner(s) grow tired of dealing with douchebags, or they've simply lost their passion for the undertaking, and the juice is no longer worth the squeeze. You took three paragraphs to make a point. Why didn't you just edit the article? Would you like to buy my business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.123 (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I put the history of the band from a previous version back up. I could find no reason why it was deleted. UnFan 05:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back through the history, I find that the section on the band's history was deleted by 208.63.48.34, who committed several acts of vandalism to the article which were only partially reverted, and for which he never received any warnings. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This person might also be the reason the terrorist attacks mentioned in reference to their 5 boroughs album was listed as the Sept. 12th terrorist attacks. The link was correct, though, which is just plain unusual. Anyway, I fixed that - the link AND text are now correctly dated. - Erd

The Mix-Up/The In Sound from Way Out!

OK, so The Mix-Up and The In Sound from Way Out! are both all instrumental albums. But, Mix-Up is with studio albums, and The In Sound from Way Out! is with compilations in the discography section.

Shouldn't one be moved? And if so, which one?Jimmypop1994 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TISFWO! is a compilation because all the tracks are from previous albums, with the exception of 'Drinkin' Wine. Schrödinger 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sales

Why isnt the fact that they are the 3rd best selling hip hop/rap act of all time(only beaten by 2pac and eminem) here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirty Footer in your Face

Is this album notable for being the album the track College girls (are easy) was originally released on (apparently by Jesse Jaymes but I'm no music historian)?

If it meets WP:MUSIC can someone look at removing the {{notability}} tag?

Thanks,Garrie 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish" Hip Hop Group?

I'm not sure if they should be labeled a jewish hip hop group - Yauch's religion aside, of course they are all of jewish ancestry, but wouldn't "American" or "New York based" be more appropriate than jewish?

DNForever (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The categories aren't mutually exclusive - all that apply can be applied. MFNickster (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If American, Jewish, and New York are the categories of which you speak, I think it more relevant to label them an American hip hop group. I think more than one category is not necessary, as the whole issue of them being Jewish has always been kind of a by-the-way type of thing, and more fit to be mentioned as such. DNForever (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that they're not black?? Maikel (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Censored

Does anyone think it worth mentioning they were the first act to be censored on American Bandstand? Gr8white (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Beastie Boys are hip hop

Whoever keeps writing that the Beastie Boys are "alternative rock" or whatever you need to label them as to justify that you're listening to a couple of guys whose discography is 85% rap over break beats (but they're white guys so it's fine) should really stop and think about what he's doing.

"They started out as a hardcore punk rock group in 1979 and have, since their switch to rap (though they kept a rock vibe in their music)"

Dear god, who wrote this? Should we label Miles Davis as "rock" because he made Bitches Brew too? Maybe John Lennon is an electronica musician because he made those shitty albums with Yoko Ono? Sure, they've experimented with different styles over the years, yet everything the Beastie Boys has made (since abadoning shitty punk, of course) has fit within the frames of hip hop (not always perfectly but it never really does when it comes to talented artists).

For the love of god, their magnum opus is a pure hip hop album. Not that you assholes know about it. Go listen to "Sabotage" again.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They're both hip hop and alternative rock as shown by their Billboard Chart Singles page. The song "Ch-Check It Out" hit #1 on the Modern Rock Tracks chart, the main chart for alternative rock music and failed to hit the Rap Charts at all. In fact their last single to chart on either the rap or r&b chart was "Get It Together" back in 1994. And since the Modern Rock Chart's inception, most Beasties songs hit it. They're both rap and rock and you should leave it at that. They can be both. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre debate

Beastie Boys
Genres	Hip hop, punk rock, rap rock

Guidelines suggest "Aim[ing] for generality". Rather listing a variety of (possibly inaccurate) sub-genres and styles, try this instead. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

That would be a mistake as neither funk or jazz are genres that they play. adding them witout any sources is original reasearch, and the Aim[ing] for generality rule doeas not mean we should be as general as possible.68.63.157.181 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• How about this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Beastie Boys
Genres	Hip hop Rap rock Hardcore punk

This (the second infobox) was listed before, and I didn't see any problem. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sourcing. Leave the specific genres to the main albums and keep it general for the Infobox. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Funk and alt hip hop genres

Currently, these to genres are up, and they reallty sould not be. Funk is pure OR and not a genre regulary used for the band. And aly hip clearly goes against the generality guide line. Also, rapcore should be changed to rap rock as the term is more general and rapcore redirects there anyway.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bestie Boys' photos

I'm writing the page of the beasties in the italian wikipedia. I need some free images in the years 1981:2000. Dya have some??Thanks. Contact me in my discussion page. 30 July, 08.47Sconvolpi74 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.78.179 (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scared Stupid

A Beasties movie of this name was mooted in the spring of 1987 - essentially a haunted house comedy caper. At least that's what the NME said. Were they bullshitting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.89.91 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ Hurricane Tour DJ vs Album DJ

Hurricane was the Beastie Boys tour DJ from late Licensed to Ill period to just before recording Hello Nasty. He never recorded as the Beastie Boys DJ. So I took out the part under Hello Nasty that says they changed their musical style due to Hurricanes departure. At the moment I am without specific citation, but I'm positive it's mentioned in both the Beastie Boys section of the book Check the Technique and the liner notes of Scientists of Sound, their anthology. The point is he didn't have a lot to do with their sound. He's given writing credit on a few songs "Finger Licking Good" and "3 MC's and One DJ" but that is ad-rock on Finger Lickin' [ Mike D says "My man Ad Rock cuttin' it up on the turn tables"] and obviously Mix Master on 3 MC's.

Ad-Rock and MCA did the majority of scratches with the Dust Brothers doing a bunch on Paul's Boutique and Rick Rubin doing some on Licensed. I can't recall but I'm guessing the Mix Master didn't do 100 percent of the cuts on Hello Nasty. Both MCA and Ad Rock have rhymes about cutting records on that album.

hope this helps.Jbriggity (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling them the "Beasties"

Several times in this article they are called the Beasties. Is that okay or does anyone think all such instances should be changed to "Beastie Boys" or "the group"? Belasted (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Beastie" is unencyclopedic & should be changed. --BlackMath77 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alernative hip hop

Shouldn't "alternative hip hop" be listed in the genres? Seems like an obvious choice. --BlackMath77 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they would be closer to hip hop in its purest form. Belasted (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Alternative hip hop" is a subgenre of hip hop. See Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Discography

The discography already has its own article. This article is long enough, maybe we don't need that recent addition of the limited discography by SellYourSoul. I would have simply reverted it, but I thought I'd get some input from others first. Belasted (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The discography section should only list full-length releases/studio albums. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC))