Jump to content

Talk:Anohni and the Johnsons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who are the Johnsons?

[edit]

Who are the Johnsons? Obviously, they're Antony's backing group - but why the Johnsons. Are the Lyndon B's family or something?

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 23:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the 'johnsons' was adapted from marsha p. johnson, a famous nyc drag queen. this page should probably mention that or link to his/her page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_P._Johnson

Quality music or dreadful, pretentious noise?

[edit]

stage 1

I have now removed a POV addition by 195.93.21.37 twice. Needless to say it should be removed if posted again. -TheCardinal 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

stage 2

"Needless to say"


Well, Cardinal, is "Antony's voice seems to channel Nina Simone and Bryan Ferry, and he has many celebrity admirers such as Philip Glass, Marc Almond, Lou Reed and the guest vocalists on I Am a Bird Now, Boy George, Rufus Wainwright and Devendra Banhart" an opinion?

Yes, of course it is.

But people like you won't admit anything to the contrary. The noise is reminiscent of Nina and Bryan and has admirers, is all that is allowed. They can say it's a lovely noise. No one else is allowed to say it's not.

Explain the rationale behind your thinking. Or do you think at all? Go and listen to the rubbish. Cringeworthy, it is. But of course The Cardinal knows best.

I have removed the opinion that says we are listening to the likes of Nina and Bryan. Okay?

--

stage 3

28/3/06 - Some guy called Fabrice Rossi of Paris has just reinstated my deletion. I have deleted it again.

I go to Fabrice Rossi's page and find he's busy compiling pages for the French wiki, including the paragraph: "La voix d'Antony est parfois perçue comme une fusion entre celles de Nina Simone et de Bryan Ferry. Parmi les admirateurs déclarés d'Antony, on compte Philip Glass, Marc Almond et Lou Reed, ainsi que Boy George, Rufus Wainwright et Devendra Banhart qui ont tout trois chanté sur I Am a Bird Now." No great surprise to find the same comments being parroted there.

This is called "translation", amazing, isn't it?

Basically one of the most serious problems with Wikipedia is that the very people who choose to amend particular pages are likely also to be the same people as have personal agendas with the subject matter they are amending. They are attracted to Wiki pages about their pet subject because they have interests in it, and strong views about it. So the content isn't going to be objective. It never will be. They will tend to manipulate the content, consciously or unconsciously, to suit their own agenda or implant their own strongly held opinions in some way or other.

In fact, I'm paid by Antony to edit wikipedia. Cool job.

The agenda of the Cardinal and of Fabrice in this case is to say that the noise that Antony and the Johnsons make is not only good but excellent. =It is supposed to be like Bryan and Nina, and it has many admirers. They know what their reasons are for wanting to plant that view on the page: no one else does. That is an opinion designed to make the reader think that the warblings of this particular person are excellent and couldn't be anything other than excellent. But it isn't true. If you gave a CD of Antony and the Johnsons to anyone, nine people out of ten would say it is dreadful noise, and it would probably transpire that the tenth person is deaf.

Wonderful original research. Please give us a reliable source. Oups, of course, you are a reliable source, aren't you?

This is a somewhat minor instance in what I regard as a major problem about Wikipedia, and one which will prevent it ever being a reliable source: that the information is compiled by individuals with agendas and strongly held attitudes to the subject matter they are busy composing, not by neutrals who are aiming at objective truth on each page.

--

stage 4

I won't start an edit war for such trivial matters, however you should try to understand the basic principle of wikipedia NPOV. Give a source for you harsh comments on Antony's voice and they will become an acceptable POV. Currently, there are yours and nobody cares (wikipedia is not the place to publish original "work"). The POV you're now trying to remove is well documented (see e.g. here) and Antony has indeed celebrity admirers. Fabrice Rossi 08:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

stage 5

The link you have hilighted isn't a source for the statement "Antony's voice seems to channel Nina Simone and Bryan Ferry, and he has many celebrity admirers such as Philip Glass, Marc Almond, Lou Reed and the guest vocalists on I Am a Bird Now, Boy George, Rufus Wainwright and Devendra Banhart". It is only a source for the bit that says Lou Reed likes his voice. Would you care to try again, Fabrice?

Chris Salmon, music editor of Time Out magazine: "he's got a beautiful voice". Laurie Anderson: "my favourite band in the whole world right now" and "When he sings it is the most exquisite thing that you will hear in your life". Beth Gibbons: "I Am A Bird Now is my favourite album this year".
See also here: "it should be very clear to even the most unaware newbies that Antony has an amazing Nina Simone/Brian Ferry/Jimmy Scott vibrato, a multi-octave siren that would sound painfully lovely no matter what he was saying". See also here which includes quotations from Rolling Stone and Mojo. I consider collaboration as an endorsement of the quality of the work, so I won't provide anything about Lou Reed, Boy George, Rufus Wainwright and Devendra Banhart.


Any source for your comments?
Fabrice Rossi 09:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

stage 6

But the music people back one another up, Fabrice. Like novel writers. They always did and they always will. They don't give honest opinion. They are in the business of saying nice things about one another, because next year it will be their turn to be analysed and they don't want to make enemies.

I had a couple of minutes hunt for you on Yahoo, Fabrice.

http://www.metacritic.com/music/usercomments.jsp?id_string=1845:8jik0RYR9yQMVuBr2u9Pjg**

Some comments by the general public here:

Belvedere H: “If you can ignore the excruciatingly awful vocals, the songs are quite nice.”

Willy P: “Tiny Tim is alive and well, and scraping his nails down a chalkboard! I refuse to believe this music isn't a prank of some kind.”

Kristana P: “Is this what passes for music nowadays?! Antony's singing is whiny, his lyrics are short and stupid, his songs are either cut abruptly or drag on and on. If he wants the damn transexual operation then he should just get it instead of crying to listeners about it! This is nothing but TRASH! I WANT A REFUND!!!”

Scott Y: “Original...perhaps. Disappointing...definitely. Whoa...nothing on this disc jumped out at me. I lasted for 3 songs, my wife made it through 1, and the two friends I lent it to didn't get much farther, either.”

Jonathan: “Everybody has an understanding of the concept of originality. You take something that is different to many other albums, take a new spin on things, then try to get it published. However, many people fail to draw the line between originality and total lack of talent. I am trying to emphasise that too much emphasis is put on this in the field of people who believe in real music. If i was to release an album consisting of a mere collection of sounds strung together would this mean i was talented? No. I can honestly say i am disgusted that originality is so overemphasised in today’s supposedly, in my opinion, very much musically-informed society. Don’t get me wrong. I do not conform to the traditional ways. If i like a song, i like it - simple as that!! However, I can honestly say that i have never, in my long life, ever, ever, seen a better example of originality overrated by genuine talent than Anthony and the Johnsons. I will be forever sickened that a band like this could win such a prestigious prize as the Mercury. I sincerely hope that an utter, utter, travesty like this disgrace will never, ever, ever, happen again.”

Chaz N: “Don't know what everyone is getting excited about?? This idiot is almost as folorn and self indulgent as damien rice!!!!! Can someone tell me what is so good about him??

Jonny W: “The fact that this bunch of seemingly no-hopers managed not only to make it to the top but also deprive the excellent kaiser chiefs of the mercury music prize is a fact that i, like many i am sure, will take a very long time to get to grips with. Utter, utter trash!!”

Blisterfish Café: “Here we have it! The perfect album! Put this masterpiece on and plunge headlong into suicide. I listened to this CD while driving in my car. By the time I reached song 6, I began punching myself in the face in order to quell the pain in my ears. Thank goodness I had pulled off the road. Lord help us...Thinking of buying this CD? Picture Tiny Tim on acid talking about gender issues that you don't really care about. A mid-tempo nightmare from start to finish. Mono-tone vocals that should be used for crowd control or prisoner torture. 'Everyone loves this CD.' If this is a joke, I didn't get the memo.”

Jason S: “I don't get the love for his voice - sounds like he was kicked in the crotch and someone recorded the crying. Truly awful.”

Tom A: “Its so whiney and painful to listen... i've never been a bully and in fact i was one of the kids that got picked on in school... but if i heard someone sing this crap, i would want to punch him in the face.”

Leonardo (giving it 0 out of 10) “Mommy, I want to be Nina Simone.”

Aaron S: “A laughably bad disc. Next to M.I.A., this is the most overrated album of the year! The guy sounds like Tiny Tim. I simply can't believe this is getting good word of mouth. Simply awful.”

Eric M: “This disc is as overrated as they come. Aaron S. got it right when he noted this disc and M.I.A. are the worst discs to get good reviews all year. Melancholy vocals aren't always a good thing, folks.”

E Bow: “For the life of me I don't understand how anyone can listen to this. This is some of the worst music I have ever heard.”

Matthew W: “This music is laughable. I played this album for my mother and brother and they couldn't stand it. The guys voice sounds like he pinched his adam's apple and moved his hand in a vibrated fashion. Truly awful sounding. I don't understand the talk about his emotion through his voice. He sounds horrendous, i could without a doubt sing the same way. Critics and apparently people alike seem to like this which boggles my mind. This is TERRIBLE music.”

Lenny D: “Shockingly dull and highly overrated. Very reminiscent in style of Mick Hucknall, Simply Red.”

DF Nicholas: “Vastly over-rated. The vocals become anoying about halfway through the first song and by track 3 you want to strangle the usually reliable reviewers who convinced you to buy this lousy CD.”

Sissy: “monotonous (emotionally and musically). really dull.”


There you go, Fabrice. These are ordinary members of the public, saying what they truthfully think based on the evidence of their own ears, Fabrice. Not people in the music world with their own You-Love-Me-and-I’ll-Love-You-Back-Next-Year agendas to fulfil.

If I hunted around for a couple more hours, I have every confidence I could find another thousand statements quite easily, saying, what an awful noise and pretentious nonsense.

But the good people of Wikipedia only see fit to include the, he sounds like Nina and Bryan and has so many admirers POV, not its opposite, a view which exists too. So much for the search for objective truth.

Saying someone has many admirers is not a point of view. Saying he sounds like Nina Simone or Brian Ferry is somewhat more subjective but it is perfectly okay to include this if it has been mentioned in numerous sources. Equally, it is not okay for you to call the music prententious noise, however it is okay for you to say that, "while it received a large number of positive reviews, it also received some negative reviews", if such is the case. Your point that music journalists back each other up is redundant. If they do then it is still the role of the wikipedia to reflect the colour of their reviews in its entries. Additionally, I do not have any agenda. I do not even particularly like this band. Upon hearing of the band I came to the wikipedia to see if I could find out a little about them. Your line at the end was obviously POV and unsourced so I removed it. It is such edits that keep the quality of these entries at a somewhat reasonable level. -TheCardinal 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

stage 7

Then at 11.36, the whole thing gets reinstated by Sam Vimes, with an extra bit added in. "For some, Antony's voice seems to channel Nina Simone and Bryan Ferry [1]. He has many celebrity admirers such as Philip Glass, Marc Almond, Lou Reed and the guest vocalists on I Am a Bird Now, Boy George, Rufus Wainwright and Devendra Banhart. However, the Village Voice magazine criticised Antony for not coupling the extreme emotion with irony or humor [2]."

The trouble with Wikipedia is that anyone can come along to any page and delete, or chuck in, whatever they want. Then if someone else disagrees, there's a big argument and a battle of wills.

Anyone visiting a page is expected to take what is there as truth, but there is insufficient quality control over who puts what there, their reasons for doing so, or the veracity of what they choose to insert. It's a very unsatisfactory way of sorting out what goes on a page. The process is flawed.



What a stupid edit war that could've easily been avoided by just saying "has a voice that has been compared to..." instead of "channels." I mean, Jesus Christ. It's like a libido-waving contest in here.

Here's what I think happened: Some guy who didn't like Antony's music decided to start a fight here for the great cause of objectivity, but really was a front for getting across the point that he didn't really like the artist. Choose your fights more wisely in the future, and sign your posts. There's nothing worse than someone who has decided to be passive aggressive in their editing style like this.

You should be ashamed. - Stick Fig 02:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Durnar has proposed a merging between a band, Antony and the Johnsons and a person, Antony Hegarty. I think that is an extremly silly idea, that would be like incorporating George W. Bush in the article about the United States (Ok, that was an extremly silly simile, but hey). I vote for an immediate removal of the {{merge*}} tags. NisseSthlm 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for the same reasons. I've removed the tag. :bloodofox: 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band itself is mainly a solo project, with the band having little overall input, and its often cited as such in magazines etc. And normally Id be all for having a seperate article, but when you look at the Antony Hegarty article its nothing but text copied over from this page. It doesn't add anything, and as very little is known of him that isnt included here, seems to me its just a vanity artcile and might as well redirect here. Durnar 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the band and the person isn't the same thing. The relation between Hegarty and his band is the same as Conor Oberst and Bright Eyes IMO, and I wouldn't dream of merging those. NisseSthlm 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band and the person aren't the same thing - but I suppose the lack of information on his own page makes it seem like a "good idea". (It's not really.) But the lack of info makes it cruddy. --Reedoo 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose any merger. The band and the person are not the same thing. In the same way Nick Cave has a seperate page from Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. One is a band and one is a person. The article needs improved, not merged.    Codu    talk    contribs    email   13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few extra photo's?

[edit]

With the request for the photo's you might be able to ask the guy who runs Always on The Run; http://www.alwaysontherun.net/antony.htm as there are a few others on their website, and it also include a Biography from the offical label, and quite a few quotes from Anthony himself?

--Reedoo 12:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New abum?

[edit]

Is there any news on any new album coming out?

transgender

[edit]

Antony is himself transgender; while physically a man, he identifies as a woman.

I'm sure this isn't accurate, though I'm not enough of a fan to be able to cite sources - I've read/heard things a while ago (so it's possible I may be misremembering) saying he wants to avoid ANY talk of gender identification at all, and certainly doesn't identify with "woman" in the normal transgender sense - he's come across as more ambiguous, genderqueer if you will. I DO remember mention that his songs aren't directly autobiographical. I'd love someone with the right sources to come along and clarify this. 87.113.19.132 12:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong UK album chart peak

[edit]

'I am a bird now' didn't peak at #5 in the UK but #16 as can be seen by searching at www.everyhit.com. So i've changed it Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antony and the Johnsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antony and the Johnsons. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antony and the Johnsons. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official Website

[edit]

Their "Official Website" (antonyandthejohnsons.com) is no longer active and has been taken over by a spam site. I am unable to change it, and it looks like several other people have tried and failed as well.

Maybe someone with better skills than I could have a go at it?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anohni_and_the_Johnsons&oldid=1256749469"