Talk:Gnarls Barkley

Vandalism

Hooray. Could someone revert it to the previous version?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.57.42.230 (talk • contribs) .

seriously, im pissed!

Costume Gimmick

I think that costume thing they do should be mentioned on here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.122.86 (talk • contribs) .

Picture

I dont think a pic of them dressed up as Clockwork Orange peeps should be at the top. Its not reprasentative of them, in general. -- 130.216.191.184 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the most spread publicity shot of them and as such is the image with the best fair use claim. So unless we find a free image I think we should stick with this one. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Crazy" and UK singles chart

All that stuff about "Crazy" being deleted, dropping off the chart from number five, the UK singles chart rules, etc., etc...... very interesting reading indeed but I'm wondering if it should instead be moved to the "Crazy" article and/or the "UK singles chart" article? Seems like most of the article that is supposed to be about this band is instead discussing intricate UK singles chart rules. Any opinions? -- eo 12:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The bit about why the regulations were changed should definitely be moved to the UK Singles Chart article (and sourced by the way), as it is not really about the band or the song. Much of "Crazy"'s charts performance is already included in the "Crazy" article, so I think that bit could be tweaked in this article as well. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As the writer of "all that stuff about "Crazy" being deleted, dropping off the chart from number five etc." although I think there is a valid point to be made about how "Crazy" gained from one chart rule change and later suffered from another, I agree that the article was becoming a bit top-heavy with it and that it should be condensed or moved. Am working on it. (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so please bear with me!)

Although this is not really the right forum for discussing it, there is a wider issue here. As the chart becomes subject to more and more tweaks in the rules about what can and can't be included, so it becomes an increasingly inaccurate reflection of how songs are really selling, which must surely diminish the chart's integrity. As someone who has followed the charts, pored over statistics and tried to be fairly well informed about the music scene for nearly four decades, regarding it as a labour of love for most of the time, I view the current manipulation of the chart with mounting dismay. After years of critics trying to tell us what we should and shouldn't like, now we have industry bigwigs and retailers dictating to the chart compilers what discs to include and omit, regardless of sales. And there have been one or two spectacular shootings in the foot - at the time of the eighteen Elvis re-issues early last year, the first one came in a presentation box designed to hold all the others as well, which made it ineligible for the chart (WHY?) So when industry figures publicly speculated "will Elvis have eighteen number ones this year?" were they aware that chart rules had already prevented that from happening, even before the first discs hit the shops? Any comments (friendly ones please!)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.211.169 (talk • contribs) .

Charts

Crazy was also number 1 in Switzerland and New Zealand Bobo6balde66 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put it in the article. Ras Billy I 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Excessive chart table

Any objections to cutting down the chart positions table in the discography? It is getting really large and all the information can be found in the single articles. I think we should just keep a few (I'd suggest U.S., UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada) and add something like "For detailed chart listings, see single articles". Wikipedia:Featured Music Project also suggests that "if the performers have charted in many countries, consider splitting off more detailed information to an appropriate subarticle;" --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We don't need so much info for each single here.... So far the two songs have their own articles, there's nothing wrong with moving all the chart info/countries. As they release more singles, that table's gonna get a bit overwhelming. -- eo 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy sounds incredibly like Moby

Is there any connection?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgr94 (talk • contribs) .

No, not as far as I know. -- eo 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

what is this song really about??? what is the meaning?? --216.189.182.64 06:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

well. read the lyrics, you'll understand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.164.227.242 (talk • contribs) .

Songs don't have meanings, there just a bunch of words put together and stuff. Canderra 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Canderra, that's like saying your sentence has no meaning because it's just a bunch of words put together and stuff. Jowan2005

In all seriousness, Green has stated in an interview along with Danger Mouse that much of what they've produced in fact has no meaning, or at least no formula, that supports any kind of deeper connections than what is literally stated in the song. Blackwallswhite 22:13, 31 March 2016

Gnarls Barkley is not a Hip Hop group

Stop putting it in this category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.164.227.242 (talk • contribs) .

actually they are, experimental Hip Hop, just like Outkast and Gorillaz—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.19.182 (talk • contribs) .

Wouldn't Gnarls/Gorillaz collaboration be something else? --194.125.54.25 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah probably, but I was thinking about a Gnarls/Andre 3000 collaboration.... In a way, Andre 3000 preceded Gnarls when he started doing vaguely-hip-hop-related-but-not-at-all-hip-hop-still songs like Hey Ya as well as some other more 'experimental' work. And a collaboration would be interesting. --A-ixemy 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they should do a collaboration with Hot Chip, their like an indie/electro group with a little Hip-Hop feel. Andre 3000 and Gorillaz would be cool too.

Actually, aside from Crazy, none of their stuff is really "hip hop" or even experimental hip hop. I don't have a source, but there was a Virginia music newsletter than did an article on them, and they quoted Cee-Lo as saying something alongs the lines that he didn't like the image of hip hop and considered that their music wasn't hip hop and didnt want to be lumped into that category. They're stuff is actually more alt. rock. They have a backing band and everything, not the typical hip hop instrumentals. Sunshine 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many dates?

I just unwikified many links of the form: Month XX, 2006. It made it hard to read, and there isn't really any relevant information about the particular days. While the year is relevant, only the first 2006 needs to be linked to, surely?

If there's any reason to keep them, please say so here.  :) --Starwed 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn it, and I even searched the Wikipedia domain for "dates" and "dates style" in case something like this existed. ^_^ I now see that I neglected to uncheck the MediaWiki/Template talk domains, resulting in enough noise that I missed the policy. In any case, the page Wikipedia:Date_debate explains the situation nicely. It's a pity that, becuase of a technical issue, the Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context policy has to be excepted. --Starwed 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New singles?

• According to the band's myspace blog, they're currently working on videos for Go Go Gadget Gospel and Who Cares. Does this mean it's safe to assume they're going to be released as singles? --[kazikame] 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pull out your titties"

Why are you removing it? i think it was controversial, since it falls under the lines of sexual horassment. Why do you keep removing it? Karrmann 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore?

Danger Mouse was born in Baltimore, but he hasn't lived there in decades. He's lived in Los Angeles for the past three years. Can someone change this? Infamous30 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vinyl Record"

Is a tautology. Reccomend shortening it to just "Vinyl". Pedantics aside, the similar term "Compact Disc" is not directly comparable. "Vinyl Record" is more like "Compact CD" 59.167.109.4 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do they come from? Where do they live?

Hi Everyone, I am maisey21286 and this is my first time posting anything, so please forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to make my posts. I'm not trying to edit anything, I just have a question for anyone out there. I am confused here. Can anyone who really knows what they're talking about, please shed some light on where Gnarls Barkley members, Cee-Lo and Danger Mouse live or originate? I've read many different places and now I see that they live in Maryland and that they are listed as Maryland musicians. Is that accurate? Thanks, --Maisey21286 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have articles on Danger Mouse and Cee-Lo Green. Go there for things like that. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Live Show

I know this is POV so I didn't put it in the article, but I wanted to say it anyway: I saw them open for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in D.C. two days ago, and they were HORRIBLE. An acquaintance of mine saw them the next night in Charlottesville, VA, and he said the same thing. WHY IS THEIR LIVE SHOW SO BAD? From what I've heard to St. Elsewhere, its not that bad, especially Crazy, so what's up with their live show?Sunshine 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw them play as well for the Chili Peppers in Dallas. I didn't think they put on a bad show, I dont believe they had access to the same speakers as RHCP so they didn't sound very loud or clear. (70.232.71.234 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Link Farm?

Anyone else think that's an excessive amount of links? I doubt they are all needed... --These7enthprophet 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially for such a shitty band. Change it, if you want. You've got my support.Sunshine 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Costumes

They dressed up like santa claus on Jimmy Kemmel's show I think one time.--Playstationdude 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative

Can someone PLEASE tell me how these guys are alternative rock?! Titan50 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Three of their songs charted on the Billboard Modern Rock (Alternative) Chart. That's how. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and they won the Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

His Age??

What type of Wikipedia article does not tell the man's age and birthday?? Somebody out there better get it or I will!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.0.168 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to provide us his birthday. Addition: The birthday for both of these guys are inside their own articles. See Danger Mouse (Brian Burton) and Cee-Lo Green EliAS 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you took a second to look at the article, you would have seen that Gnarls Barkley is a duo, not a person. --Soetermans (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Barkley Namesake

The last line from the end of the introduction to the page doesn't seem right to me. "Despite the obvious similarity, the duo's name was not taken from that of former NBA player, Charles Barkley."

Then the fourth paragraph of the Career section states, with a reference: "Burton explains the collaboration's name came from friends, "making up fictional celebrity names like Prince Gnarls and Bob Gnarley." When Heavens' Josiah Steinbrick came up with Gnarls Barkley, Burton wrote it down."

It sounds to me like their name was definitely inspired by Charles Barkley. --24.145.0.210 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)MC Iky

Thanks fantasic! Absolutely wonderful! Splendid, even! Superb one might say. Sheer brilliance. Outstanding! Great. Nice. Pretty! Well done!

Oh no wait! Your opinion alone doesn't matter... --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cee-Lo and Danger Mouse First Meet

Just posting this to say that according to the Cee-Lo page, they met in 1998, but the Gnarls Barkley pages says they met in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.29.147 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre(s)

Please provide reliable sources when adding genres, otherwise you are carrying out original research. Please develop consensus for any additions and/or changes to genres, on any Wikipedia articles. I have removed genres from the lead pending consensus here. Adabow (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Ki Ki"?

So, an article about Gnarls Barkley begins by talking about "Ki Ki" without any connection presented to the subject matter. I'm confused. What is Ki Ki, why is it called that and what does it have to do with Gnarls Barkley? -- 84.248.218.89 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)