Correct form when writing: It is "The Beatles" not "the Beatles" when written!
The Lone Star
to The Beatles in print NOT to capitalize "the" and to write "the
Beatles".
Even saki chimed in to make the claim that to say "the Beatles" was
correct form.
I disagreed and so did a few other such as Stephen in England.
I notice while reading The Beatles Anthology that it was always
written as "The Beatles" so I think that the case is closed on this
argument!
At least as far as The Beatles are concerned.
brilton
And then there's the classic Ludwig bass drum head, with the "The"
capitalised.
Mick Jaggoff
Phew!
Glad that's cleared up!
Now I can sleep at night again!
!
who?
I totally agree with you Robert, although it doesn't help
to keep reminding people of this. They'll just continue
to do it the other way to get a reaction.
brilton
>
> And of course it's capitalized on the drumhead.
I already said that, Rosie.
Bernie Woodham
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
> Of course, being an Utter Lunatic, you're quite uninhibited about
dictating reality.
> CNN, September 2010
>
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/07/lennons-killer-denied-parole-for-s
ixth-time
> "the Beatles"
> New York Times, August 2010
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/arts/music/15seventy.html
> "the Beatles"
> "the Sex Pistols"
> "the White Stripes"
> "the Strokes"
> "the Supremes"
> "the Velvet Underground"
> "the Monkees"
> "the Miracles"
> "the Arcade Fire"
> Los Angeles Times, September 2010
>
http://www.latimes.com/technology/sns-ap-us-music-video-resurrection,0,
4035023.story
> "the Beatles"
> "the White Stripes"
> Rolling Stone biography
>
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/the-beatles/news/artists/1484
5/93022/150968
> "the Beatles"
> "the Rolling Stones"
> "the Everly Brothers"
> "the Quarrymen"
> "the Moondogs"
> "the Silver Beetles"
> "the Beat Brothers"
> "the Hurricanes"
> "the Pacemakers
> "the Dakotas"
> "the Searchers"
> "the Dave Clark Five"
> "the Kinks"
> Also note:
> "the Far East"
> "the Bahamas"
> "the Order of the British Empire"
> "the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame"
> "the Queen of England" (The preceding cases are not bands, but it's
the same principle. You Beatle
> nuts want special grammar rules just for the Beatles alone!)
> You can find examples of both styles, but uncapitalized is the
preferred, more common choice. And
> only a Complete and Utter Lunatic would contend that writing "the
Beatles" is somehow a display of
> "disrespect." God, get a grip.
> And of course it's capitalized on the drumhead. That's not a
sentence...it's a title. Just like
> you'd have to look pretty hard to see someone refer to the group's
1968 album as "the Beatles"
> rather than "The Beatles." Now THAT is wrong.
Thanks PR. I believe Robert renewed this argument because he saw my
return. That he would nurse this petty grievance so long testifies
to his character.
Where I wanted to take up the argument with him, I'm now using a web
phone to browse this group and really wouldn't have the time to if it
were not for the fact that I happened on a newsreader for the phone.
Anyway, anyone who wanted to dig up the ancient history on this
discussion would find WaMu's reasoning far more persuasive than
Robert's.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>The Lone Star <from_me...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
I'm not certain.
Take McCartney for instance. His title is Sir Paul McCartney, and you
would not write, I like sir Paul McCartney and his band.
But let me point out to you, sir, that it's only written in lower case
when it's not a proper title (or the first word in a sentence).
They called themselves, "The Beatles", and as was pointed out, that's
what is on the drum head. But it could just as well have been
"Beatles" (without the "The"). Had it been the latter, then I would
agree with your reasoning.
You wouldn't write, "One of my favorite books is _the Three
Musketeers_." It's a title just as "The Beatles" is.
The general rule is not to capitalize articles unless it is the first
or (unlikely) last word of a title. In this case it's the first word.
I have to go with The Beatles on this one.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Take McCartney for instance. His title is Sir Paul McCartney, and you
>> would not write, I like sir Paul McCartney and his band.
>
>That's not a valid comparison.
Why not?
>> But let me point out to you, sir, that it's only written in lower case
>> when it's not a proper title (or the first word in a sentence).
>>
>> You wouldn't write, "One of my favorite books is _the Three
>> Musketeers_."
>
>Of course not.
>
>> It's a title just as "The Beatles" is.
>>
>> I have to go with The Beatles on this one.
>
>Two questions for you:
>
>1) Why do you think CNN, Rolling Stone and major newspapers disagree
>with you?
They may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. I cringe at some
of their gaffes. Follow the leader? (even if it's wrong).
I would wager that if you asked the editors why they do it, they
wouldn't know - other than to say that it's always been done that way.
Doesn't mean it's correct.
>2) If a music group's name is a title, and no different from a book
>title (or album title, or song title, or film title, etc.), why is that
>professional writing typically puts album/song/film/book titles in
>italics or quotation marks, but nobody puts the name of rock bands in
>italics or quotation marks?
I can't address this question because I don't know if your information
is accurate, and it would be very difficult to prove your points.
However, I think The Beatles is a title and "The" ought to be
capitalized regardless of what others do.
It's a thorny question, and the best thing is to be consistent.
Bernie Woodham
<birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Anyway, anyone who wanted to dig up the ancient history on this
> discussion would find WaMu's reasoning far more persuasive than
> Robert's.
Ack! WaMU should have read Saki. That's the thing about typing on
this phone: it wants to "correct" words it doesn't recognize.
Edvado
> Take McCartney for instance. His title is Sir Paul McCartney, and you
> would not write, I like sir Paul McCartney and his band.
His title is Sir James Paul McCartney. And the "Sir" is Capitalized.
RichL
news:prose9-37E8A0....@reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.example.com...
> Of course, being an Utter Lunatic, you're quite uninhibited about
> dictating reality.
> You can find examples of both styles, but uncapitalized is the preferred,
> more common choice. And
> only a Complete and Utter Lunatic would contend that writing "the Beatles"
> is somehow a display of
> "disrespect." God, get a grip.
You're right with the substance of what you're saying, of course. But can't
you once in your life attempt to make a point without casting aspersions on
the person with whom you're disagreeing?
Good grief. It's even worse when you're in ultra-lurk mode and only emerge
from your batcave to fling poo.
marcus
I have always used "The Beatles" in everything I've written(reports,
articles, essays, books) since The Beatles were still together. I do
it out of respect because there is only one group like them. I don't
think about whether it's grammatically correct or not...I really don't
care what the NY Times or anyone else says...I'll always do it.
I should note that it's so natural for me to write "The Beatles" that
until someone brought up the question in this newsgroup, I never
thought about it...it's a given.
If you ever see anything I've written with the lower case "t" in the
word "The" before "Beatles" it's a typo.
The Lone Star
speak of The Beatles the "the" is ALWAYS capitalized.
To use the argument that since the major print outlets use a lower
case "the" in referring to The Beatles, and other entities, it must be
correct is erroneous.
Notice how the major TV networks ALWAYS use a lower case EVEN on the
days of the week and the months of the year: monday, tuesday,
wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday and sunday, etc... unless they
capitalize ALL of the letters when advertising their shows.
That does not make it right, and it does a terrible disservice to
students in the world who are supposed to be learning the
capitalization rules correctly, and who WILL BE held accountable for
correct capitalization on standardized tests.
Eric Ramon
there's been a change over time. Groups back then always capitalized
the word. It looked good on posters too. Once groups like Talking
Heads dropped the word you could refer to "the Talking Heads album"
but not "The Talking Heads". As more and more groups did away with the
word "The" it was a normal enough thing to put less emphasis on it.
So if you get in a time machine and go back to 1964 you'll want to
write The Beatles, The Animals, The Beach Boys, but it's an old style.
marcus
>
> This thread was started by a manic-depressive Beatles zealot whose concern with this issue
> has nothing with general grammar, and everything to do with believing he needs to defend
> the Beatles' honor. Because he believes it's "sacrilege" (I believe he did use this word!)
> to leave "The" uncapitalized. In theory, his take on the issue isn't much different from
> Marcus gnashing his teeth about '60s hits being used in commercials, and not giving a damn
> about commercial use of music from other eras. (It's hardly coincidence that Marcus is the
> RMBer who is second-most insistent about using "The Beatles.")
I can't speak for Lone Star, but my take on this "The" or "the"
argument is that I have always used it as "The" and always will, but
where you paint me incorrectly is this, I don't have a problem with
people who use "the", I am not insistent on people using "The"...I
don't really care.
Re: the commercial use of music, I have always maintained that I am
concerned about music and lyrics that are significant to me used for
commercials and ads. However, if someone is upset or insulted because
"Row Row Row Your Boat" or "I've Gotta Get A Message To You", or "Puff
The Magic Dragon" or "As Time Goes By" or the "Howdy Doody Theme
Song", or "Layla" or "The Volga Boat Song" or "Toot Toot Tootsie
Goodbye" is used to advertise, then it is their right to object,
boycott the product being advertised etc. I might not be interested
in getting involved in their "fight", because I have my own.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Take McCartney for instance. His title is Sir Paul McCartney, and you
>> >> would not write, I like sir Paul McCartney and his band.
>> >
>> >That's not a valid comparison.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because your argument is based on the premise that "The Beatles" and "Sir Paul McCartney"
>are grammatically equivalent. And since my position is obviously that they *aren't*, it's
>illogical to base an argument on a disputed premise.
>
>And again: You'd have to look high and low to find an example of a published work which
>didn't capitalize "Sir" in that context. So, it's up to you to explain why "Sir" is
>commonly capitalized and "The" isn't. And offer some sort of reasoning beyond lamely
>shrugging "Hey, maybe they just never thought about what they were doing."
>
>> >1) Why do you think CNN, Rolling Stone and major newspapers disagree
>> >with you?
>>
>> They may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. I cringe at some
>> of their gaffes. Follow the leader? (even if it's wrong).
>>
>> I would wager that if you asked the editors why they do it, they
>> wouldn't know - other than to say that it's always been done that way.
>
>They would say exactly what I and others say. And they would point out all the awkwardness
>which would arise if "the" started being capitalized before every proper noun or noun
>phrase. Or the inconsistency which would result if folks started making cherry-picked
>exceptions.
>
>Do you really want to write "George Washington was The President of The United States"?
>Really? That doesn't clank for you?
>
>> >2) If a music group's name is a title, and no different from a book
>> >title (or album title, or song title, or film title, etc.), why is that
>> >professional writing typically puts album/song/film/book titles in
>> >italics or quotation marks, but nobody puts the name of rock bands in
>> >italics or quotation marks?
>>
>> I can't address this question because I don't know if your information
>> is accurate
>
>Of course you do. God, it's like some people in this newsgroup have never actually read an
>article or book about music. Just TRY to find a Web example of someone putting "the
>Beatles" (OR "The Beatles") in quotes or italics such as is done with other sorts of
>titles.
>-----
>Next, "The Beatles" went to London to record. "The Beatles" were in the studio until
>morning. Later that day, "The Beatles" ordered seafood for dinner.
>-----
>You really don't know whether the above is done or not?
>
>Maybe you'd have no problem with this sentence either:
>
>The group was known as both The Beatles and the Fab Four.
>
>Because the latter is an unofficial nickname. Or something. Sheesh.
>
>Now, go back and look at the Rolling Stone bio:
>
>http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/the-beatles/news/artists/14845/93022/150968
>
>Look at all the title phrases which get put in italics. Books. Albums. TV shows.
>Magazines. Movies. Even video games! And yet...not the band's name. Ask yourself why, and
>don't give yourself the easy cop-out of concluding that no one at the magazine has given
>the issue any thought.
>
>And your best argument is focused on the *drumhead*? So what, if the Rolling Stones had a
>drum marked "Rolling Stones," you think there should be no objection to writing something
>like "Some of the best '60s albums were released by The Beatles and the Rolling Stones"?
>
>The Magical Mystery Tour and Sgt. Pepper albums only say "BEATLES" on their covers. Did
>the group fail to properly identify themselves? Or is it time to concoct some shaky
>reasoning about why drumheads must be rated more credible indicators of band names than
>album covers?
>
>This thread was started by a manic-depressive Beatles zealot whose concern with this issue
>has nothing with general grammar, and everything to do with believing he needs to defend
>the Beatles' honor. Because he believes it's "sacrilege" (I believe he did use this word!)
>to leave "The" uncapitalized. In theory, his take on the issue isn't much different from
>Marcus gnashing his teeth about '60s hits being used in commercials, and not giving a damn
>about commercial use of music from other eras. (It's hardly coincidence that Marcus is the
>RMBer who is second-most insistent about using "The Beatles.")
THE BEATLES BIOGRAPHY
The group had finally settled on "The Beatles" just before their first
trip to Hamburg in August, 1960. Now John, Paul, George, Stuart and
Pete would head ...
www.sing365.com/.../the-beatles.../9b5665a6978fdf4b4825685d00067ce3 -
Cached
This is all I need to know and all I need to know, P.R.
marcus
> marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I can't speak for Lone Star, but my take on this "The" or "the"
> > argument is that I have always used it as "The" and always will, but
> > where you paint me incorrectly is this, I don't have a problem with
> > people who use "the", I am not insistent on people using "The"...I
> > don't really care.
>
>
> > Re: the commercial use of music, I have always maintained that I am
> > concerned about music and lyrics that are significant to me used for
> > commercials and ads. However, if someone is upset or insulted because
> > "Row Row Row Your Boat" or "I've Gotta Get A Message To You", or "Puff
> > The Magic Dragon" or "As Time Goes By" or the "Howdy Doody Theme
> > Song", or "Layla" or "The Volga Boat Song" or "Toot Toot Tootsie
> > Goodbye" is used to advertise, then it is their right to object,
> > boycott the product being advertised etc. I might not be interested
> > in getting involved in their "fight", because I have my own.
>
> rather than principle. Until you write "I have always maintained that I
> am concerned about significant music and lyrics used for commercials and
> ads" and remove the subjective bias, you're just an easily dismissed
> fanatic. A Palinista of a different color.
Why is what I've said about the commercial use of music any different
than the rationale approach most people have towards their free
speech...that I care if my free speech and what I have to say is
violated, but also understand why people whose speech about things
that don't interest me would also object to their freedom of speech
being violated?
Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
( Link deosn't work)
>This is all I need to know and all I need to know, P.R.
This is the full citation:
Paul contacted Pete and offered him the drummer seat, he took it. The
group had finally settled on "The Beatles" just before their first
trip to Hamburg in August, 1960. Now John, Paul, George, Stuart and
Pete would head off for Hamburg. At that time The Beatles weren't
considered to be the leading group in Liverpool and in most cases were
looked down upon. In Hamburg they pulled their act together musically.
This was caused by the fact that they had to play such long hours and
were bullied by the club owner Bruno Koschimider to "make a show". It
wasn't just Hamburg that made them special. The fact that Liverpool
had so many venues for local acts to play at, coupled with the rivalry
between more than 300 Merseyside groups, continued to forge The
Beatles until they were to be regarded as Liverpool's top band.
At the time, Pete Best was regarded as the most potent symbol in the
band. After Hamburg, Stuart Sutcliffe had left and now The Beatles
were a four-piece band and Paul took over as bass guitarist. John,
Paul and George were the three front-line guitarists and they
alternated as lead singers and also performed vocal harmony with
either John and Paul or all three. Pete Best played drums and
occasionally sang one song but he had developed a distinctive drum
sound called "the atom beat" which many other drummers tried to copy.
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/the-beatles-biography/9b5665a6978fdf4b4825685d00067ce3
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>> This is all I need to know and all I need to know, P.R.
>
>Yes, the "I knows what I knows, and that's all I knows" argument is your
>best option in this case.
Not quite, and the subject is closed. I posted my evidence, and I
believe that The Beatles is the correct form.
Not much point in continuing. I won't change my mind.
Cheers!
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the full citation:
>
>Yes, well, of COURSE one of the sleazeball lyric-spam sites should be
>regarded above CNN and the NY Times.
You may have missed the point. The fact is that the group settled on
"The Beatles" as the name (title) of their group. To put it another
way: "The" is their first part and "Beatles" is the second part of
their name.
I took a philosophy course at a university in Pennsylvania Dutch
country, and the professor was a Dutchman, himself, but he used to
rail at his fellow Dutchmen (who are particularly stubborn) and others
who took the attitude, "We do it this way because we've always done it
this way." He said that this attitude is the one of the greatest
bariers to progress in the world, and I happen to believe him.
I shall say no more on the subject.
Cheers!
The Lone Star
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:26:31 -0700, poisoned rose
>
> <pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is the full citation:
>
> >Yes, well, of COURSE one of the sleazeball lyric-spam sites should be
> >regarded above CNN and the NY Times.
>
> You may have missed the point. The fact is that the group settled on
> "The Beatles" as the name (title) of their group. To put it another
> way: "The" is their first part and "Beatles" is the second part of
> their name.
Exactly!
Very good!
Thanks for making the point perfectly.
Mack A. Damia
So that sometimes when you are referring to them, you don't have to
use their first name - as in PR's new thread on a favorite album.
It's okay to refer to call them by their last name in some
circumstances - such as when it sounds better.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's okay to refer to call them by their last name in some
>> circumstances - such as when it sounds better.
>
>I prefer to call them by their first name "The," in the same way I might
>refer to Elvis, Barbra or Madonna. Just seems more friendly and
>familiar, somehow.
If there are a whole bunch of groups with "The" as their first name,
you need to be specific, PR. Otherwise, your listeners will be
confused.
Similar to a classroom where there might be, say, three Johns.
Eh?
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>There's only one "The," as far as I'm concerned. They were the best.
Capitalized, too.
BlackMonk
The question is is whether or not "The" is part of the name or if it's just
being used to refer to the group, so we have "The Beatles, The Byrds, The
Beach Boys," but "Led Zepplin," "Traffic," "White Stripes," and while
there's not necessarily a reason to use "the" before those names, it should
be lower case if used.
Yes, sometimes those groups are referred to without the article before their
name-i.e. "I just got the new Beatles album,"-but that's a shorthand done
for convience's sake. It doesn't make their name "Beatles" any more than
someone referring to you as "Rose" or me as "Monk" would make those our full
screen names.
I suspect that sometimes the articles isn't capitalized as a matter of
policy because it's simpler than considering each name on a individual
basis, which admittedly could become time-consuming if one wrote about music
frequently.
BlackMonk
>>The group was known as both The Beatles and the Fab Four.
>>
>>Because the latter is an unofficial nickname. Or something. Sheesh.
>>
Correct. The name of the group is "The Beatles," not "The Fab Four."
>>And your best argument is focused on the *drumhead*? So what, if the
>>Rolling Stones had a
>>drum marked "Rolling Stones," you think there should be no objection to
>>writing something
>>like "Some of the best '60s albums were released by The Beatles and the
>>Rolling Stones"?
>>
I believe that would be the correct way to put it, no matter how awkward it
would look. While the group is generally called "the Rolling Stones," I
think their proper name is just "Rolling Stones."
>>The Magical Mystery Tour and Sgt. Pepper albums only say "BEATLES" on
>>their covers. Did
>>the group fail to properly identify themselves? Or is it time to concoct
>>some shaky
>>reasoning about why drumheads must be rated more credible indicators of
>>band names than
>>album covers?
My copy of Magical Mystery Tour says "The Beatles" on the spine, where the
name is unambiguously being used to identify the group and not as a
component in the cover art. It also says "The Beatles" on the label of Sgt.
Pepper.
BlackMonk
>> circumstances - such as when it sounds better.
>
> refer to Elvis, Barbra or Madonna. Just seems more friendly and
> familiar, somehow.
So what do you do when you're talking about The The?
Bernie Woodham
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's okay to refer to call them by their last name in some
> circumstances - such as when it sounds better.
How about we just call them by their first name? Calling pros by
their first name is a pretty customary thing, so from now on let's
call them "The".
Bernie Woodham
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
> I prefer to call them by their first name "The," in the same >way I
might
> refer to Elvis, Barbra or Madonna. Just seems more friendly >and
> familiar, somehow.
Ah, you beat me to it.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Here's a question for you Capitalmaniacs -- I honestly have no idea what you'll say.
>
>Which of these sentences do you like better?
>
>"I'm a big fan of The Beatles, and have stalked all of the Beatles' homes."
>
>"I'm a big fan of The Beatles, and have stalked all of The Beatles' homes."
The comma is incorrect. Also, you wouldn't say or write such a daft
sentence:
"I'm a big fan of The Beatles and have stalked all of their homes."
>It seems that none of you care at all about the appearance of grammatical consistency, but
>BOTH of these sentences seem screwy to process.
Of course we care. Your sentence is clumsy to begin with.
NaNu NewBie
<belly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:31 am, The Lone Star <from_me_to_...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> > A lot was made recently about how it was "correct" to when
referring
> > to The Beatles in print NOT to capitalize "the" and to write "the
> > Beatles".
> >
> > Even saki chimed in to make the claim that to say "the Beatles"
was
> > correct form.
> >
> > I disagreed and so did a few other such as Stephen in England.
> >
> > I notice while reading The Beatles Anthology that it was always
> > written as "The Beatles" so I think that the case is closed on
this
> > argument!
> >
> > At least as far as The Beatles are concerned.
> Phew!
> Glad that's cleared up!
> Now I can sleep at night again!
> !
I would always use The as it denotes the name as a title as well as
the way most of "the" world used to use to write about them
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Wow. Total non-answer. Why even bother replying?
>
>It really should dawn on you how much you have to "fudge," to get your
>rule to scan.
Fudge? What the hell are you on about now?
If the sentence is FORMAL writing, then the text would have to be
edited. Your sentence would never pass muster.
If it's informal writing, who gives a fuck?
Incidentally, please watch your ad hominem attacks. I'm not
attacking you. I'm attacking the sentence structure.
abe slaney
> And of course it's capitalized on the drumhead. That's not a sentence...it's a title. Just like
> you'd have to look pretty hard to see someone refer to the group's 1968 album as "the Beatles"
> rather than "The Beatles." Now THAT is wrong.
And actually, the whole word "THE" is capitalized on the drumhead. So
that example has even less bearing on the argument than it already
did, which was not much.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>You don't present yourself as someone to be respected.
More of your immature personal attacks. You're famous for them. Grow
up.
>> I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the sentence structure.
>
>Why bother replying? You're still dodging the question, and you've
>announced your final post on the topic two or three times now.
>
>Since you're going to be a complete nincompoop and concoct peripheral
>issues as a diversion, here is an alternate sentence for you.
>
>"I'm a big fan of The Beatles and also have stalked all of the Byrds'
>homes."
>
>"I'm a big fan of The Beatles and also have stalked all of The Byrds'
>homes."
>
>Which one do you like now? Please ramble another hundred words or so
>without actually answering.
Your reply was 101 words. My last message was 53. Who's rambling?
In answer to your question, though, I like NEITHER sentence, but
thanks for asking.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Yet another non-answer.
Only in your very limited intellectual capacity.
>WHY do you waste my time?
It's fun.
>It's just in-SANE how hard it is to get most RMBers to post with
>intellectual honesty. And then they wonder why I treat them with
>contempt.
You have some deep-rooted interpersonal problems, bub. It's got to be
your way or no way. Life isn't like that.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >"I'm a big fan of The Beatles and also have stalked all of the Byrds'
>> >> >homes."
>> >> >
>> >> >"I'm a big fan of The Beatles and also have stalked all of The Byrds'
>> >> >homes."
>> >> >
>> >> >Which one do you like now? Please ramble another hundred words or so
>> >> >without actually answering.
>> >>
>> >> Your reply was 101 words. My last message was 53. Who's rambling?
>> >>
>> >> In answer to your question, though, I like NEITHER sentence, but
>> >> thanks for asking.
>> >
>> >Yet another non-answer.
>>
>> Only in your very limited intellectual capacity.
>
>You're done now. Take your Disingenuousness merit badge, and emptily
>rage elsewhere.
Silly sod.
Read and weep:
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> >>The group was known as both The Beatles and the Fab Four.
>> >>
>> >>Because the latter is an unofficial nickname. Or something. Sheesh.
>>
>> Correct. The name of the group is "The Beatles," not "The Fab Four."
>
Are you claiming differently? I suppose you could, since there's no
official designation "Fab Four" or "The Fab Four." However, that's
irrelevant as to whether their proper name was "Beatles" or "The Beatles.
>
>> >>And your best argument is focused on the *drumhead*? So what, if the
>> >>Rolling Stones had a
>> >>drum marked "Rolling Stones," you think there should be no objection to
>> >>writing something
>> >>like "Some of the best '60s albums were released by The Beatles and the
>> >>Rolling Stones"?
>>
>> I believe that would be the correct way to put it, no matter how awkward
>> it
>> would look. While the group is generally called "the Rolling Stones," I
>> think their proper name is just "Rolling Stones."
>
> Ohh man. The arguments get wilder and wilder.
>
Too bad that they didn't have a Universal Naming Convention for rock bands.
If they had, they would have either used the article in all of their names
or none of them.
> Here's a question for you Capitalmaniacs -- I honestly have no idea what
> you'll say.
>
Why does the fact that some people might capitalize the "The" bother you so
much?
> Which of these sentences do you like better?
>
It's not a question of which I like better. It's a question of which is
gramatically correct.
> "I'm a big fan of The Beatles, and have stalked all of the Beatles'
> homes."
>
> "I'm a big fan of The Beatles, and have stalked all of The Beatles'
> homes."
>
Probably the first, since "the" modifies "homes" and not "Beatles" unless
you're referring to homes owned by them as a group.
> It seems that none of you care at all about the appearance of grammatical
> consistency, but
> BOTH of these sentences seem screwy to process.
I do care about consistency. When something is part of a proper name, it
should be capitalized.
>
>> >> It's okay to refer to call them by their last name in some
>> >> circumstances - such as when it sounds better.
>> >
>> > I prefer to call them by their first name "The," in the same way I
>> > might
>> > refer to Elvis, Barbra or Madonna. Just seems more friendly and
>> > familiar, somehow.
>>
>> So what do you do when you're talking about The The?
>
> I'd probably just change the subject to Magazine or Colin Newman.
>
> Hey Tom, I've got a film for you to watch (if you haven't seen it
> already):
>
> http://www.documentarychannel.com/movie.php?currID=2821&t=Everybody+Loves+the+Tinklers
>
> Ought to tickle your outsider-music fancy.
To be honest, I really couldn't get a handle on their music. I'd have rather
seen more performance and less commentary.
Guess that's what the internet is for.
globular
> A lot was made recently about how it was "correct" to when referring
> to The Beatles in print NOT to capitalize "the" and to write "the
> Beatles".
>
> Even saki chimed in to make the claim that to say "the Beatles" was
> correct form.
>
> I disagreed and so did a few other such as Stephen in England.
>
> I notice while reading The Beatles Anthology that it was always
> written as "The Beatles" so I think that the case is closed on this
> argument!
>
> At least as far as The Beatles are concerned.
It's a language thing really. You should be able to say the The Beatles.
The label is captilized, but a reference I make myself is more general.
But 'The' is part of the name so it can't be used so closely.
So much is re-invented and so much history is rewritten, this gets
through because it is so simple.
BlackMonk
>
> Wikipedia is hardly a reliable, consistent standard for grammar. The
> Beatles' page says "the Beatles." The Beach Boys' page says both "the
> Beach Boys" AND "The Beach Boys" within the same entry! So does the
> Rolling Stones' page. Etc. There is some TERRIBLE writing on Wikipedia,
> depending on where you look.
>
Actually, The Beatles' page uses both:
"After trying other names including "Johnny and the Moondogs", "Long John
and The Beetles" and "The Silver Beatles", the band finally became "The
Beatles" in August."
I believe Wikipedia tries to have a consistent usage, but due to their
nature, that would require constant editing.
Do you think "the" should be capitalized when the name is of the form "_____
and The ________?" How about when they use "Thee" instead of "The?"
Mack A. Damia
If you wrote, "Playing tonight - Johnny and the Moondogs", I would
think that it is one group with Johnny being the head honcho.
But if you wrote...."Johnny and The Moondogs", I might think that they
are two separate acts.
Don't know about "Thee". Give me an example.
Writing is communication, so phrasing is paramount. Again, a lot
depends on whether it is formal or informal writing.
BlackMonk
"Mack A. Damia" <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fco86heh76el9eec...@4ax.com...
Thee Midnighters
Thee Mighty Caesars
Tee & Thee Crumpets
It was used by a few band in the sixties and, starting in the late 80s, it
became a common affectation for garage revival bands. It got to be kind of
annoying but the last two don't bother me because in one, Billy Childish was
doing it before everyone else, and in the other, the name wasn't meant to be
taken seriously.
Mack A. Damia
Thee isn't an article; it's a pronoun, so it would be capitalized
anywhere in the sentence (as a part of a band's name).
If Lennon/McCartney decided to call themselves "The Beatles", then
nobody else has authority to change one iota of it including
capitalization. That is their legal name, and any deviation from it
is a mistake.
For example if a band decided to call themselves, "The?Whom", then
that's the band's name. Who are we to say that the question mark
doesn't belong there? It's their band and their name.
Same with capitalization. They didn't call themselves Beatles; they
called themselves The Beatles.
abe slaney
> Notice how the major TV networks ALWAYS use a lower case EVEN on the
> days of the week and the months of the year: monday, tuesday,
> wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday and sunday, etc... unless they
> capitalize ALL of the letters when advertising their shows.
>
> That does not make it right, and it does a terrible disservice to
> students in the world who are supposed to be learning the
> capitalization rules correctly, and who WILL BE held accountable for
> correct capitalization on standardized tests.
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_beatles/with_the_beatles/
Mack A. Damia
Literary license.
abe slaney
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:06:47 -0700 (PDT), abe slaney
>
Well, yes, I do get that. I just thought it was funny in light of the
little rant to which I attached it. As usual, Those Beatles can do no
wrong; networks, advertisers and other media can do nothing right.
RichL
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Of course, being an Utter Lunatic, you're quite uninhibited about
>> > dictating reality.
>>
>> > You can find examples of both styles, but uncapitalized is the
>> > preferred,
>> > more common choice. And
>> > only a Complete and Utter Lunatic would contend that writing "the
>> > Beatles"
>> > is somehow a display of
>> > "disrespect." God, get a grip.
>>
>> You're right with the substance of what you're saying, of course. But
>> can't
>> you once in your life attempt to make a point without casting aspersions
>> on
>> the person with whom you're disagreeing?
>>
>> Good grief. It's even worse when you're in ultra-lurk mode and only
>> emerge
>> from your batcave to fling poo.
>
> Wow....Rich is practically sobbing with gratitude that he finally found
> another argumentative post of mine which he could rub up against.
I wish I could have derived enjoyment out of reading you and Mack going back
and forth attempting to make mountains out of molehills. Gratitude it's
not, trust me.
Starting out from a rational position then inching away from it one post
after another is one of the down sides of your tendency to flame. Your
emotions take control of you.
As it wound up, there were so many flaws in both your and Mack's responses,
driven by your desire to "get" one another, that you both wound up losing.
Generally speaking, neither definite nor indefinite articles are capitalized
in the titles of books and articles, nor are most prepositions or
conjunctions. The exception is when those parts of speech are the first
words of said titles.
The same thing appears to apply to song titles (e.g., "The Long and Winding
Road").
I suspect there are no rules for band names, if we blindly follow the names
that the bands have given themselves.
Nothing to get hung about, really.
Stephen X. Carter
<from_me...@comcast.net> wrote:
>A lot was made recently about how it was "correct" to when referring
>to The Beatles in print NOT to capitalize "the" and to write "the
>Beatles".
>
>Even saki chimed in to make the claim that to say "the Beatles" was
>correct form.
>
>I disagreed and so did a few other such as Stephen in England.
Indeed. Except I'm in Australia.
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
Mack A. Damia
Oh, okay, Abe. I had to refresh my memory of your "little rant". I
wasn't certain where you were coming from.
Isn't it amazing as to what we can argue about in these forums? And
the spectre of rage that sometimes accompanies these debates?
Bernie Woodham
> > Notice how the major TV networks ALWAYS use a lower case EVEN on
the
> > days of the week and the months of the year: monday, tuesday,
> > wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday and sunday, etc... unless
the
> > capitalize ALL of the letters when advertising their shows.
> >
> > That does not make it right, and it does a terrible disservice to
> > students in the world who are supposed to be learning the
> > capitalization rules correctly, and who WILL BE held accountable
for
> > correct capitalization on standardized tests.
> http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_beatles/with_the_beatles/
You seem to be on my wave length here. I've been looking at the liner
notes on various Beatles' albums. On the UK release of "Please
Please Me" and "with the beatles", the notes used "The Beatles"
throughout. But on the first few US releases, (MTB, The 2nd and '65),
the convention was "the Beatles" throughout except where "The
Beatles" began a sentence.
If you look at the liner notes for the Pepper cd release, (written by
George Martin & Peter Blake), they use the same convention as the US
releases; "the Beatles" except where the band name begins a sentence.
The early UK liner notes were written by Tony Barrow who may, (or may
not), have used the capitalization to sensationalize: he was, after
all, a publicist.
But the key word seems to be "convention" - there is no hard and fast
rule.
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
No, certainly not, but there is a right answer.
What is the band's legal name? It's a title, too.
I'm a retired teacher - don't know if you knew that, and we teachers
can become mighty frustrated at others who "just don't seem to get it"
(or don't want to).
But it's a sign of the times: The Decay of Reason.
Cheers!
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Correct. The name of the group is "The Beatles," not "The Fab Four."
>> >
>> > Oh man.
>>
>> Are you claiming differently? I suppose you could, since there's no
>> official designation "Fab Four" or "The Fab Four."
>
> question of articles, proper nouns and titles.
>
If we're talking about proper nouns, then "official" does matter. We can
discuss whether their proper name is "Beatles" or "The Beatles." There's no
basis for making that distinction between "Fab Four" and "The Fab Four."
>> Too bad that they didn't have a Universal Naming Convention for rock
>> bands.
>> If they had, they would have either used the article in all of their
>> names
>> or none of them.
>
> I just can't believe the arguments which people are attempting. Never
> even dreamed that someone would contend that the rule should vary from
> band to band, when comparing names of the same "The Nouns" format.
>
That seems silly of you. Why would you assume that because John, Paul,
George and Ringo decided something, that Mick, Keith, Brian, Bill and
Charlie would come to the same decision? Surely, it's their call as to which
the proper name for their band is, not anyone elses.
> What do you say about "The Nouns"-type bands who have officially used
> their names with and without "The"? For instance, (The) Smashing
> Pumpkins and (The) Pretenders. Their monikers vary from album cover to
> album cover. Should we change the capitalization, depending on what
> album is being discussed? At what point does the complexity which you're
> imposing on the issue start to seem insane?
>
In the case of The Beatles, they've been pretty consistent about it.
Look at the records themselves. Not when the name might have been truncated
for aesthetic reasons, but on the label and the spine. Those are as close to
official documents as we have.
And remember, not every use of the article means it's part of the band's
name.
In the case of the Pretenders, I haven't followed them since their first
couple of albums, but I think they consistently used "Pretenders" as their
name then.
From their official website: "E1 Music is set to release a new, live CD/DVD
by legendary rock band Pretenders, "Pretenders: Live in London," on February
9th, 2010. "
I'd say that if their own website uses "Pretenders," which has
overwhelmingly been the way their name has been given on their albums, it's
pretty definitive. The only exceptions I saw were a greatest hits album and
a live DVD, both of which might have been packaged without input from the
group.
I have no idea about Smashing Pumpkins, but in truely ambiguous cases,
there's nothing to stop a writer from using whichever version he believes is
correct.
Since every studio release after Mellon Collie has "Smashing Pumpkins," I'd
guess that either they changed the groups name from "The Smashing Pumpkins"
to "Smashing Pumpkins" (which makes more sense if you consider "smashing" to
be a verb and not an adjective) or the article wasn't meant to be part of
the groups name on that album.
>> > Here's a question for you Capitalmaniacs -- I honestly have no idea
>> > what
>> > you'll say.
>>
>> Why does the fact that some people might capitalize the "The" bother you
>> so
>> much?
>
> It doesn't bother me that much,
You seem to be putting a lot of work into arguing against it.
>> > "I'm a big fan of The Beatles, and have stalked all of the Beatles'
>> > homes."
>> >
>> > "I'm a big fan of The Beatles, and have stalked all of The Beatles'
>> > homes."
>>
>> Probably the first, since "the" modifies "homes" and not "Beatles"
>> unless
>> you're referring to homes owned by them as a group.
>
> So that doesn't seem inconsistent to you. Very well.
> I don't think I even believe that "the" modifies "homes," but perhaps
> I'm wrong on that count. You could rewrite the phrase as "the homes of
> the Beatles," and you wouldn't say the second "the" modifies "homes" in
> THAT phrase.
>
Do you mean the homes of the group The Beatles or the homes of the members
of the group? There's a difference. It's not a home of "The Beatles" unless
the group itself lives there. If you were referring to Apple Studios, it
would be proper to say "The Beatles' studio" but if you were referring to
John Lennon's apartment in the Dakota (Is "The Dakota" the proper name or
just the way it's commonly referred to, as in "that's the Dakota building?")
then it would be accurate to say "One of the Beatles lived there.")
Perhaps it's a subtle distinction to some, but that doesn't mean it's
invalid.
>> Do you think "the" should be capitalized when the name is of the form
>> "_____
>> and The ________?"
>
> Of course not. It's the same principle.
>
>> How about when they use "Thee" instead of "The?"
>
> That's a little stickier...but in the case of "Thee" (or "Los" or
> "Les"), I would say the word should be capitalized. And again, that's
> what you see when you read music books and articles.
>
> "Thee" just about functions as a foreign-language word. It's pretty hard
> to get away with using "thee" in a sentence unless the entire sentence
> is written in that same Olde English style. And of course, everyone
> writes (for instance) "Los Lobos" and "Les Thugs." I don't think the
> alleged inconsistency of writing "Thee Hypnotics" is anywhere near the
> inconsistency of the policy which YOU are suggesting.
My alleged inconsistency is the result of a desire for accuracy. It seems
you want a simple rule of thumb to make things easier, which is
understandable, but what is your inconsistency based upon? Just that it's
common, so while "the" shouldn't be capitalized, any word used as a
substitute for it should be? What objective standard is that based upon?
>
>> To be honest, I really couldn't get a handle on their music. I'd have
>> rather
>> seen more performance and less commentary.
>
> It's too light on performance, I agree. Glib description: The Tinklers
> kinda sound like the Residents doing acoustic children's songs. You'd
> probably find them interesting to some degree. Some of their songs are
> creepy. Others are endearingly child-like.
>
> Their first album, Casserole, has 33 tracks on a single LP. My database
> tells me that I have just four other records (Wild Man Fischer/Nothing
> Scary, Jad Fair/Best Wishes, Naked City/Torture Garden, the
> Residents/Commercial Album) which have more tracks on one vinyl record.
marcus
my 11 years here.
Do you people have so little going for you...so little happening in
your lives... that you've devolved into a discussion so petty that
figuring out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin makes more
sense?
A pure example of why Usenet is on its way to obsolescence.
abe slaney
> OK, hands down this has to be the most inane thread I've ever read in
> my 11 years here.
>
> Do you people have so little going for you...so little happening in
> your lives... that you've devolved into a discussion so petty that
> figuring out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin makes more
> sense?
Yet a mere 12 hours ago you emphatically stated, in this thread:
------------------
"I have always used "The Beatles" in everything I've written(reports,
articles, essays, books) since The Beatles were still together. I do
it out of respect because there is only one group like them. I don't
think about whether it's grammatically correct or not...I really don't
care what the NY Times or anyone else says...I'll always do it.
I should note that it's so natural for me to write "The Beatles" that
until someone brought up the question in this newsgroup, I never
thought about it...it's a given.
If you ever see anything I've written with the lower case "t" in the
word "The" before "Beatles" it's a typo. "
-----------------
Are we to understand then, that the discussion only becomes inane once
you have weighed in with your opinion?
marcus
No...but in actuality, it did
marcus
> boundaries of "the Sixties"?
While reading this current thread, I found myself, and I know you hate
this term, LOL. There were you and the others( but, mostly you)
pontificating like this was the crux of the Western World's problems.
So serious and exacting, going on and on and on about bupkes.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> we teachers
>> can become mighty frustrated at others who "just don't seem to get it"
>> (or don't want to).
>
>You mean like CNN, Rolling Stone and major newspapers? Yeah, it's a
>shame such outlets don't "get it" like you, Sing365.com and cherrypicked
>Wikipedia pages do.
Who makes them God? You? Just because they have national exposure
doesn't make them right. CNN has buggered up a lot of news since it
went on the air. It has been acused of cropping photos, distorting
the news and factual errors. Just do a Google to find out the
details. Why should Rolling Stone have the defintive answer? Or
major newspapers? You're a fucking dreamer.
You're grabbing handfuls of air.
>Jesus. The shut-in self-absorption of RMBers is just incredible.
You're looking in the mirror and seeing your own reflection.
It's not pretty. Ask some of the others in here. If there's anybody
in here who's "self-absorbed", it's you, and you're pathetic.
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> If we're talking about proper nouns, then "official" does matter. We can
>> discuss whether their proper name is "Beatles" or "The Beatles."
>
> brief phrase)
> ending in "s," it will be VERY VERY VERY HARD to avoid having "the"
> attached to it by
> others.
>
That's exactly the point. Is the "the" part of the name itself or is it
attached by others?
I have no problem with people saying "the Pretenders" or "the Rolling
Stones" but if they're the ones adding the article, it's not part of the
name.
I do know of one moderately well known musician who does get upset over it,
but he tends to lose it over minor things.
> Saying "Beatles" or "The Beatles" was a choice (particularly back in the
> '60s!) is kinda
> like saying parents choose whether to give their son a name which will
> have "Mr." attached
> to it someday.
>
You can repeat that as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that
if something is a proper name, it's capitalized, nor will it change the fact
that the members of the group, or the record company in some cases, are the
ones to name the group, not Rolling Stone, the New York Times or you.
> I went through my whole large album database, trying to find bands who
> successfully
> branded themselves as one-word plurals minus "the." TOUGH. The best I
> could do: Bricks,
> Blackgirls, Kostars, Battles, Headlights and (best example) Sparks.
So?
If they say their name doesn't have a "the," then it doesn't regardless of
how many people get it wrong.
I'm greatly unsure
> that all of these bands even count, but at least they're borderline. So
> little has been
> written about the first two groups that the rule was barely even tested.
>
>> In the case of the Pretenders, I haven't followed them since their first
>> couple of albums, but I think they consistently used "Pretenders" as
>> their
>> name then.
>
> In the beginning, yes.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Tpltc.jpg
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Get_close_the_pretenders.jpg
>
Even with those, which I admit I missed, I think "Pretenders" has been used
often enough to consider those aberrations.As I pointed out, "Pretenders" is
the preferred usage on the official website.
>> Since every studio release after Mellon Collie has "Smashing Pumpkins,"
>
> That's not true.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/-TvtU9K6uup--tpVYTAMFw
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Image-Machina_II_-_EP1_Cover.jpg
>
>> I'd
>> guess that either they changed the groups name from "The Smashing
>> Pumpkins"
>> to "Smashing Pumpkins"
>
> It's actually closer to the other way around. No one said "The" during the
> group's initial
> rise to fame.
>
You might be right. I'm only basing this on a quick search of what was
available on Amazon. It appeared that they dropped the "the" after Mellon
Collie.
>> You seem to be putting a lot of work into arguing against it.
>
> Well, I figured my contribution would be over after I posted all the
> authoritative outlets
> who defied Robert's loony declaration of indisputable "fact." But as ever,
> I
> underestimated the RMB cracker box.
>
All you did was show that it's disputable, not that Robert's use was
incorrect. Now you seem to be arguing that not capitalizing the "The" is the
only correct way.
> As any RMBer ought to be able to tell you, my pet peeve is people making
> ferocious,
> belligerent assertions with scant reasoning to back them up. So here, we
> have exhibits A
> and B: Robert and Mack. Robert launches an in-yo-face thread, proclaiming
> "Case closed!"
> Mack scoffs at the policies of major media outlets, just because. Etc.
> They have nothing
> going for them but attitude.
>
I can't speak for them, but I think I've given reasons for my position. You
still seem to want to convince me that I'm wrong.
>> > I don't think the
>> > alleged inconsistency of writing "Thee Hypnotics" is anywhere near the
>> > inconsistency of the policy which YOU are suggesting.
>>
>> My alleged inconsistency is the result of a desire for accuracy.
>
> I still can't believe that you can sit there with a straight face and say
> you think the
> world should be using "The" or "the" on a band-by-band basis.
I do, just as I would want to decide whether to spell a name "John" or "Jon"
on a case by case basis.
Are you really arguing that accuracy should be ignored if it involves too
much work?
Like you want to open a
> magazine and see an announcement about a concert bill featuring "The
> Beatles, the Rolling
> Stones, The Oblong Boxes, The Marigolds, the Cosmic Codpieces, the Lambs,
> The Latchkeys,"
I don't have any particular desire to see it, but it wouldn't bother me.
But if the article isn't part of their names, why would it be used in the
announcement?
Would you have a problem with an announcement that said: The Beatles, The
Byrds, Love, Chocolate Watchband, Sir Douglas Quintet, The Beach Boys?
> etc. And you'll think that list reads clearly and smoothly, and won't make
> most people
> wrinkle their brows.
>
> But I guess this would be worth all the confusion for a fanatical
> trainspotter like you,
> because the "officially a The-band or not" issue is so crucially,
> crucially important.
Calm down. You're becoming irrationally belligerant over this.
Since you've posted on this more than me on this subject, I'm not sure why I
would be the fanatical one, but I'm sure you'll be happy to explain it.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> If we're talking about proper nouns, then "official" does matter. We can
>> discuss whether their proper name is "Beatles" or "The Beatles."
>
>Reality check: If you name your band with a pluralized word (or even a brief phrase)
>ending in "s," it will be VERY VERY VERY HARD to avoid having "the" attached to it by
>others.
>
>Saying "Beatles" or "The Beatles" was a choice (particularly back in the '60s!) is kinda
>like saying parents choose whether to give their son a name which will have "Mr." attached
>to it someday.
>
>I went through my whole large album database, trying to find bands who successfully
>branded themselves as one-word plurals minus "the." TOUGH. The best I could do: Bricks,
>Blackgirls, Kostars, Battles, Headlights and (best example) Sparks. I'm greatly unsure
>that all of these bands even count, but at least they're borderline. So little has been
>written about the first two groups that the rule was barely even tested.
>
>> In the case of the Pretenders, I haven't followed them since their first
>> couple of albums, but I think they consistently used "Pretenders" as their
>> name then.
>
>In the beginning, yes.
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Tpltc.jpg
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Get_close_the_pretenders.jpg
>
>> Since every studio release after Mellon Collie has "Smashing Pumpkins,"
>
>That's not true.
>
>http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/-TvtU9K6uup--tpVYTAMFw
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Image-Machina_II_-_EP1_Cover.jpg
>
>> I'd
>> guess that either they changed the groups name from "The Smashing Pumpkins"
>> to "Smashing Pumpkins"
>
>It's actually closer to the other way around. No one said "The" during the group's initial
>rise to fame.
>
>> You seem to be putting a lot of work into arguing against it.
>
>Well, I figured my contribution would be over after I posted all the authoritative outlets
>who defied Robert's loony declaration of indisputable "fact." But as ever, I
>underestimated the RMB cracker box.
>
>As any RMBer ought to be able to tell you, my pet peeve is people making ferocious,
>belligerent assertions with scant reasoning to back them up. So here, we have exhibits A
>and B: Robert and Mack. Robert launches an in-yo-face thread, proclaiming "Case closed!"
>Mack scoffs at the policies of major media outlets, just because. Etc. They have nothing
>going for them but attitude.
What do you have going for you? Please tell us, because all I see in
you is a bombastic way of arguing even in the face of truth. You have
to be right and the hell with accuracy.
This argument illustrates your dysfunctional approach to others. When
it suits you, you resort to name-calling, but when others do it, you
cry, "foul". Somebody presents you with evidence, and you dismiss it
as "attitude".
Get real, sonny. You're transparent.
Ringo Ono
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >You mean like CNN, Rolling Stone and major newspapers? Yeah, it's a
>> >shame such outlets don't "get it" like you, Sing365.com and cherrypicked
>> >Wikipedia pages do.
>>
>> Who makes them God? You? Just because they have national exposure
>> doesn't make them right.
>
>You are so crackers, it's hilarious. "I AM MASTER OF MY UNIVERSE!"
No, but "I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul."
Why do you conveniently snip the dirt on CNN? Doesn't fit your
agenda, eh?
>You may be surprised to hear this, but I actually don't believe CNN's
>and Rolling Stone's credibility depends on me. I'm quite irrelevant in
>the equation.
No, just irrelevant.
>> >Jesus. The shut-in self-absorption of RMBers is just incredible.
>>
>> You're looking in the mirror and seeing your own reflection.
>>
>> It's not pretty. Ask some of the others in here. If there's anybody
>> in here who's "self-absorbed", it's you, and you're pathetic.
>
>Someday when you're feeling a little more honest and a little less
>stupid, take note of how many of my arguments involve being more
>tolerant of other viewpoints and taking more account of the world around
>you.
I'm intolerant of ignorance and stupidity. And I see a good amount of
egotistical self-righteousness in you.
>How you manage to paint my stance in this thread as "self-absorbed," I
>can't imagine. I'm the one taking note of the world around me, not you.
Under the blanket in your bed with a flashlight and a jar of Vaseline
is not taking note of the world around you, P.R. Sorry to disillusion
you.
You have tunnel-vision. You only think you know everything.
Ringo Ono
Take 3
Ringo Ono
> "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I figured my contribution would be over after I posted all the
> > > authoritative outlets
> > > who defied Robert's loony declaration of indisputable "fact." But as ever,
> > > I underestimated the RMB cracker box.
>
> > All you did was show that it's disputable, not that Robert's use was
> > incorrect.
>
> "disputable." Because Mack understands what CNN doesn't!
>
> > Now you seem to be arguing that not capitalizing the "The" is the
> > only correct way.
>
>
> > I can't speak for them, but I think I've given reasons for my position.
>
>
> The rest of your post was too insane for me to further entertain. You're
> more able to defend yourself than Robert or Mack, but your position is
> so completely over the moon in this case that your intelligence does you
> no good. I can see someone insisting "The" should be capitalized when
> talking about music groups, but I never imagined that I'd see someone
> who wants capitalization to be used on a case-by-case basis, depending
> on some hypothetical process for conclusively determining whether a band
> uses "The" in front of its name or not. Just never would have dreamed
> that I would EVER see someone say this. You take the prize.
Cool.
Prize?
I thought all this was for free.
Like flatulence.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you have going for you?
>
>Most of the major media on my side, for starters? And an ability to
>debate?
Prove it. Put up or shut up. You have zero debating skills - I
promise you.
>> Somebody presents you with evidence, and you dismiss it
>> as "attitude".
>
>"Evidence"?
>
>Could you explain more about why CNN, Rolling Stone and major newspapers
>are not "evidence," but SING365.COM is?
Do you doubt them? Do you have the audacity to doubt that
Lennon/McCartney decided to call their band "The Beatles"?
It's their LEGAL name!
Don't embarrass yourself, P.R.
Show me Rolling Stone.....show me CNN......show me major newspapers. I
want to see what you're talking about. Not that it would matter, as
just because they have a "name" doesn't make them right.
Who the hell cares about this issue,anyway, except the gang in here
who have decided to make it an issue? I'm one of them. It's a slow
day.
Writers - typesetters - editors - why should they know what is right
just because they work for a fancy-named place? Have you ever really
"spoken" to people and listened to them? Most folks know very little
except what they are trained in - substance, not form.
That's "substance" and not "form".
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Well, I figured my contribution would be over after I posted all the
>> > authoritative outlets
>> > who defied Robert's loony declaration of indisputable "fact." But as
>> > ever,
>> > I underestimated the RMB cracker box.
>>
>> All you did was show that it's disputable, not that Robert's use was
>> incorrect.
>
> "disputable." Because Mack understands what CNN doesn't!
>
>> only correct way.
>
>
That doesn't make it grammatically correct, though.
>> I can't speak for them, but I think I've given reasons for my position.
>
> At least you've shown ability to reason, yes.
>
> The rest of your post was too insane for me to further entertain. You're
> more able to defend yourself than Robert or Mack, but your position is
> so completely over the moon in this case that your intelligence does you
> no good. I can see someone insisting "The" should be capitalized when
> talking about music groups, but I never imagined that I'd see someone
> who wants capitalization to be used on a case-by-case basis, depending
> on some hypothetical process for conclusively determining whether a band
> uses "The" in front of its name or not. Just never would have dreamed
> that I would EVER see someone say this. You take the prize.
And I never thought that a person would ignore one of the most basic rules
of capitalization and claim that it's irrelevant whether the "The" was part
of the band's proper name or not.
You ignored when I asked "Would you have a problem with an announcement that
said: The Beatles, The Byrds, Love, Chocolate Watchband, Sir Douglas
Quintet, The Beach Boys," so I'm guessing you would. I can just see you
writing an angry letter to the editor of whatever publication had that
announcement and insisting that, for consistency, they call those groups
"The Love," "The Chocolate Watchband," and "The Sir Douglas Quintet."
And, yes, I realize two of those groups are often referred to in that way,
but that's an informal usage. The article still is not part of their names.
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you conveniently snip the dirt on CNN? Doesn't fit your
>> agenda, eh?
>
>The credibility of an outlet's stories and its *style guide* really are
>not closely related, dear.
Dear? Don't be so forward; I hardly know you. You are begging the
question. I posted evidence of my (and others') position - that the
name of the band is "The Beatles". Plenty of biographies and accounts
will support that evidence.
On the other hand, you have provided nothing except mouth (or is it
"fingers" in this case?)
>While you're finding "dirt" on CNN, maybe you could dig up some of the
>mass complaints which have been launched against their ideas about
>capitalization.
>
>> You have tunnel-vision. You only think you know everything.
>
>Really?
>
>Here are our positions.
>
>PR: "Just check the major media."
>Mack: "They're wrong. I know everything."
I don't have to prove anything. It's already established that their
legal name and title is "The Beatles".
You prove otherwise. And while you're at it, PR, show me where I said
that "I know everything". We can add delusional to your list of
attributes.
Show me your "major media".
Mack A. Damia
<pro...@realitychex.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, you have provided nothing except mouth (or is it
>> "fingers" in this case?)
>
>I keep forgetting that the most of the world media being on my side
>means nothing. Because Mack knows everything.
Here's your game again. Denigrate the opponent. World media being on
your side? What on earth are you talking about? And prove it to me.
And prove that they know it is correct.
>> >PR: "Just check the major media."
>> >Mack: "They're wrong. I know everything."
>>
>> I don't have to prove anything. It's already established that their
>> legal name and title is "The Beatles".
>
>You're slanting your position in a dishonest way -- as if I'm denying
>the above. I'm just saying that typical media convention says to write
>"The" in small case for all band names. And that doing so eliminates a
>load of problematic inconsistencies which you can't really imagine
>because you don't have much experience reading/writing about such
>matters.
I would not disagree with what you say as I have no way of knowing the
typical media convention. I doubt that there is one, though. So
there is no slant and no dishonest way.
And how the hell do you know anything about me? There you go again
with your unfounded presumptions. Have you published anything about
music? Are you a universally recognized expert on the Beatles or
capitalization in English?
>> Show me your "major media".
>
>Oh, for god's sake. Are you completely insane?
Prove to me that your "major media" uses the lower case "the" - and
prove to me that they know it is correct. You can't, so all you can
do is call me insane. Check out my name. I don't deny it.
>I know, I know...CNN, the New York Times and Rolling Stone are nothing
>compared to Sing365.com. I know, I know, I know.
I doubt it. Have you checked out the website? They look pretty
thorough from a research standpoint, and I'm certain they check the
accuracy of their biographies.