Talk:Mae

Caption request

Could we get a caption on the photo, ID'ing the members of the band? gracias... --24.126.254.91 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Classification

If Copeland isn't classified as Emo, this really isn't. I'd say their genre is just Indie Rock. (Although its really progressive power pop, maybe with a touch of emo here and there. But its really not emo.) Also, in an interview, when asked about being classified emo, he said "I don't really like the term emo". If anybody has any complaints, please reply. -- TheJosher

I agree that they're not emo, but by no means are they indie rock either. I quote the wikipedia article on power pop:

Power pop ... is characterized by strong melodies, crisp vocal harmonies, economical arrangements and prominent guitar riffs, with instrumental solos kept to a minimum, and blues elements largely downplayed.

Based on this definition, I can't really think of a much better classification for Mae. I am going to change the article to reflect this. Jesusjonez^Talk 03:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. But they are an indie band. -- Underwater 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Being on an independent record label does not make you an indie rock band. The term "indie rock" is contemporarily used to describe a genre of music, not a bands record label status. I'll agree that they're an independent band, but not an indie rock band. Jesusjonez^Talk 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They are a Christian rock band. Plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.165.229 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 February 2006.

No. No they are not. -- Underwater 14:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree... they're not Christian rock. They may be Christians, but its not explicity a Christian band. In an interview, Dave said "As far as religion goes, I don't know... we're not a Christian band. We're Christian guys but I guess we just write about life and songs people can identify with." -- Josh 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not on an independent label, nor do they play "indie rock". Editing to reflect this. 71.37.27.128 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply but you've got to be kidding. At the time of this posting Mae had been off of Capitol Records for around a year, and off of Tooth & Nail at least 2. They are emphatically NOT "christian rock" as this is a mislabel dealt with by many many Tooth & Nail alumni (ie The Juliana Theory and MXPX) due to the label's origins in christian music. the band itself has stated many times they are not christian rock, and the only "sources" provided by whoever keeps changing it are postings from religious websites that label ANYTHING Tooth & Nail as christian. If anything Mae is, as stated before, somewhere in between powerpop and emo. Not quite either, but definately on the borders of both. --Miikro (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i think they are definetely not powerpop. they have plenty of instrumental soloing and when compared to other power pop bands sound absolutely nothing alike. 69.29.119.21 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be cake.

I guess I didn't listen to my songs all that well. It's understandable that I'd miss Tisbury Lane's religous overtone (I've only had the b-sides for a week). Still, I don't think it's near enough to call them "Christian". Nikkelitous 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch the Christian euphemisms either, and I have their discography. It's sort of debatable, but if the board categorizes them into a Christian listing, then the article isn't giving any false information. Tvaiello (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Small Question

Why did Dave change his name? I'm just curious Jubella 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That was asked directly to him on the message boards a while ago... he responded that it was just changed for personal reasons, meaning it's pretty much none of our buisness. Oh, well. I'm going to go add that information to the articals now! Underwater 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition

Hey, I'm thinking we should add a section to this page, just about Mae's touring... the first and second paragraph have a lot of information that's constantly changing about their tours and doesn't seem to fit too well there, so how about adding another section for it? Just wondering.... Underwater 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Link on the main page

I'm asking all members who edit this page, there is a link that i believe should be taken off, as it is just one individual posting his own reviews and it doesn't seem to really serve any purpose of being there except to promote his own website. I'm not here to start an edit war on that link, but I want to get the general feeling of what people think. It's the brief review of singularity on the album project link. -- GoDawgs^(T) 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian rock

I have removed one of the sources because it was from a website that would make purely subjective lists based on the nature of their website. It seemed inappropirate to use this as a reference. For example, if a website about satanism music listed Mae, it dosn't mean their music is about satanism, it just means it's being listed there based on the opinions of that website. I think something needs to be done about the genre issue though because as it stands, it contradicts itself...which makes us at wikipedia look silly.

Seraphim ^Whipp 13:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  I noticed that the article contradicts itself. In the genre section, it says "Christian Rock," whereas, farther down into the article, there is a quote from a statement from the band saying that "while band members are Christian, Mae is not a 'Christian band.'" Both have citations, so my question is, which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.212.130 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to add the "Indie rock" label, and add (disputed) to the Christian Rock label.. One of the sources [1] cited for Christian Rock is an article questioning what "Christian Rock" really is... therefore the article is pretty much moot for the purpose labeling the band as Christian. The other source [2] acknowledges that the band is not a Christian band, and states that the lyrics are not directly Christian, but could be interpreted in such a way. --Varco (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How bout: Indie rock, Emo, Alternative, Christian Rock (disputed). (I'm User:Saksjn, I just forgot to sign in.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.224.68 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't label them as emo or Christian rock. I think the biggest proof that they aren't a Christian band is the AP.net interview with Dave where he states himself that Mae isn't a Christian band. That should count more than when other sites label Mae as. Christian rock should be taken off. (The interview link is under Mae's references). --SebastianAreI (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

the closest thing to christian affiliation is ...he described it very eloquently as 'the ultimate unknowable in science... the interface between the natural and the supernatural.' We realized through those conversations that there is so much more for us to learn and to understand and these ideas inspired us to question everything," from their site's band bio. if a band were christian or wanted to be affiliated with a church, it would probably mention it there.. thus, i'm removing christian from their genre list. HantaVirus (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody PLEASE tell Hoponpop to quit labelling it subjectively as Christian rock. He justifies it with his unwarranted self-importance.

Why? I'm the only person here who is actually sourcing genres, unlike you people who add five genres with zero sources.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So a band saying flat out in several interviews that they're not a specific genre isn't good enough compared to subjective sources that say otherwise? This is ridiculous. It would be better to disregard genre than to list them as an incorrect one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.11.110 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed it back to Christian again. I would edit it but I am not familiar with editing Wikipedia but I have 3 sources where they say they are not a Christian band.
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/print-article-7671-print.html 3rd paragraph from the bottom.
http://www.hybridmagazine.com/music/0906/mae.shtml 9th paragraph down. "As far as our intention in writing, we don't really go for a specific genre or anything like that."
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=28085 14th paragraph down
They also list themselves as being Rock on their YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/maevideos?blend=1&ob=4
Both of the sources that the person put down when changing the genre to "Christian" have no proof at all. They are both sources where the writer made assumptions. There was no interview, there was no solid proof, just what the writer had thought. The 3 links I provided and what some other people have said here should be more than enough to keep the Christian genre away. --Tennisplyr3515 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It matters jack shit what the band says on their youtube channel. It matters would sources say, and if you have a problem with my sources take it up with this [3]. Unless the people there discredit these sources I will continue to add them.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet they have stated in multiple interviews that they are not a Christian band. Leave this page alone if you don't want to accept the truth. Stop being ignorant. I WILL NOT let them be listen as a Christian band considering that they have said themselves that they are not. One of my main reasons is because a lot of people come to Wikipedia for information. Having mae labeled as a Christian band will have people look away and not even bother checking them out.

And because you obviously continue to blow my sources off, here is a quote from the AbsolutePunk interview:

"Roze: Tooth & Nail is a Christian label, what role does your religion have in your music?

Dave: Actually what I heard is that they're not a Christian label anymore. When they approached us we asked them if we'd get pigeon-holed as a Christian band because we'd be on their label and they said they're mainstream market, but you can still buy our CD at Christian bookstores and we've sold like 2,000 units at those stores but at the same time we've sold like 4 times that much in regular stores. I guess for me it's just coincidental that we're on a label that is or used to be a strictly Christian label. We didn't even meet the label until after we signed with them. They didn't even hear all of our songs before they signed us. As far as religion goes, I don't know... we're not a Christian band. We're Christian guys but I guess we just write about life and songs people can identify with."''

--Tennisplyr3515 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I happened to come across this:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2007/singularity.html

The same website you use as a source, basically says that the band themselves have said that they are not a Christian band.

7th paragraph down:

Though some of the band members are inspired by their Christian beliefs, Mae has emphatically stated they're not a "Christian band." --Tennisplyr3515 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob and Mark left.

So yeah. Official statement can be found here.
http://081407.com/
Rob and Mark left, I moved them in the article. Anyone else thinks it's necessary to make any notes about it....go for it.
Browzilla 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
are you sure? cause they're still showing up as band members on their website and their myspace. Fenderplaynkid 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the controversy over their genre be added to the article?

I know my friends and I have also discussed what their genre is, and I think the fact that it's hard classifying them into a genre is a notable characteristic of the band, and something that should be added to the article. The fact that they are mislabeled as a "christian rock band" (something that has been discussed here) is also a fairly common mistake and should probably also be stated somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzendugan (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to (a)fternoon?

I don't know if the whole world went retarded or if I did, but everywhere I look, including here, it says that (a)fternoon was supposed to be released in September, but that never happened, and I can't find any answers as to why this project just seemed to kind of drop off the face of the earth. Does anybody know what happened, and could you please write it into the article, or maybe into the article for (a)fternoon, which, as of this writing, does not exist?

Toolenduso (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The limited edition scratch and sniff CD that was sold on their tour was released in September, at their shows of course. The one that you can buy on iTunes, Amazon, and in stores should be released sometime before the (e)vening tour so expect it sometime in January. --Tennisplyr3515 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

mae

mae is have a different meaning--203.177.166.10 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC) thumbnail|alden›‹‹‹‹‹‹‹⟨⟨ ⟩⟩›››››››

Re: Page Move

I have moved the page as I believe this band is not wp:notable enough to be wp:primary. So I ask that we work together to fix as many incoming pages as possible so that Mae (disambiguation) can be merged with MAE (disambiguation) and the Mae page redirect to MAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Gadget Geek (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted you per BRD. It is common that the lowercase Mae and the upercase MAE go to two different places. I ask that you open up a discussion before changing this again. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Guerillero. Below is the discussion as you requested:

Requested move 19 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There are reasonable positions on both sides, and both sides have sufficiently similar levels of support that there in no consensus. Monty₈₄₅ 01:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Mae → Mae (band) – The band is not notable, and it would easily be confused with the other meanings of Mae at Mae (disambiguation). At the same time the dab page should be merged with MAE (disambiguation), which Mae should redirect to. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Mae the band is not the primary topic of 'Mae' - The name 'Mae' is also a given name, which I know somebody with the name Mae. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @CookieMonster755: see my links to the view statistics for the name below. It obviously is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support move Mae (disambiguation) to "Mae" and merge MAE (disambiguation) into the new "Mae" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I know of no reason to suggest that the band is not the primary topic. Note also WP:DIFFCAPS separates Mae from the all-caps version MAE. Red Slash 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - User:Red Slash what Google Book search did you do to arrive at your conclusion? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself, I feel no need to justify every claim by Google Books. Not everything is well captured there; there's a strong systematic bias towards certain topics. Note that all the named people are partial title matches, and I'm not sure what claim the names themselves have to primary topic. Red Slash 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you find any reference to this band at all in reliable sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Do any of these work for you? AltPress, Tuscon Weekly, AllMusic, Relevant Magazine, Jesus Freak Hideout Reviews, The AU Review, The Phantom Tollbooth, PunkNews, HM, Albany Times Union, Virgina Pilot 2 3 4, Courier Post/USA Today, The Aquarian, Hybrid Magazine, Paste Magazine or Their Charting Album --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What about "mae is" in Google Books? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support - The first 4-5 hits on both Google and Bing are for the band, so I think there's at least an argument that they're notable enough/the primary topic. I don't see much harm in moving it if there's disagreement, though. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The given name has a very low view count; same as the last name. I strongly reject the idea that all three letter words be considered an acronym first per WP:DIFFCAPS. (I suggest the nominator reread WP:N because the band has been covered by secondary sources) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment put band at (band), we already have some surname and given name pages 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are only two other articles called just "Mae", capitalized in this way, and they don't approach the band in page views or use in reliable sources. The band got 11,574 page views in the last 90 days, compared to 822 for Mae (given name) and 260 for Mae (surname). Neither song has more than a single mention on the linked articles (if that), and none of the people with "Mae" in their name appear to be known as just "Mae".--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A relatively obscure band does not have long-term significance, but a common given name does. Since each of the two subjects meets one of the two criteria for primary topic, we can split the different and put the disambiguation page at the primary topic spot. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  the band has 125 incoming links while the first name has 3 incoming links and the last name has a single incoming link. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  "common given name" teeheehee Red Slash 05:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Red Slash and Guerillero. Cavarrone 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The jury's still out on long-term significance. In my mind this Herb Alpert song is primary topic for the name. The Tijuana Brass were heard more in my house in the mid 60s than The Beatles. I see, the article says, "In 1966 over 13 million Alpert recordings were sold, outselling the Beatles." Wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050328234322/http://www.purevolume.com/mae/ to http://www.purevolume.com/mae
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207060805/http://freshzive.com/index.php?p=get_content&id=414 to http://freshzive.com/index.php?p=get_content&id=414

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215042444/http://mae.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=193 to http://mae.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=193

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)