Talk:Anti-Flag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Anti-Flag. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

	Anti-Flag is part of WikiProject Pittsburgh, which is building a comprehensive guide to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. Editors are currently needed to tag Pittsburgh-related articles with {{pghproj}}.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Flag article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Merchandising and socialism 2 critique 3 biased 4 Relax 5 World Can't Wait 6 Left Wing 7 why a wing? 8 criticism 9 Baseless critisisms 10 Singles 11 lebo 12 Albums 13 Sellouts? 14 Someone changed the genre... I'm nonplussed 15 revamp 16 Pat Thetic. 17 Genre 18 No introduction. 19 vegetarians

[edit] Merchandising and socialism

Perhaps the largest criticism of Anti-Flag is that while they claim to have far left-wing ideals, perhaps akin to socialism, they are happy to sell their merchandise and records at a price. It's a tad hypocritical, when they've aimed songs at money greedy corperations previously, yet they have no qualms with making money themselves.

Anti-Flag is the only major-label band I know that sells its albums and T-shirts for $10 at their concerts. This contrasts strongly with the prices at most concerts, where sleazy merchandisers charge more, knowing that fans will be so excited about the concert that they'll pay inflated prices. Sylvar 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that practice sleazy though? You're exploting a hole in people's reasoning? More power to you. Rational consumers will wait until later to buy something. It's the same as any convenience store or supermarket with magazines and such near the cash register, they're exploiting impulse buyers. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] critique

'In 2005 Anti-Flag announced that their new album will be released early 2006 under RCA Records. The band said that they want their music to be heard. RCA is owned by Sony BMG, one of the largest corporations in the world. Many fans find this decision hypocritical due to Anti-Flag's previously overt anti-capitalist lyrics.'

Yes while it can be said that Anti-flag signing to this lable is hypocritical, some punk bands like The Sex Pistols argue that they are not afraid to break into the mainstream ie; appearing on Top of the Pops, signing to a major lable, because it is the best way to get their ideas into the mainstream, which considering that punk is a potential pollitical idealolgy is important within pollitics and gaining movement for the punk scene.--Snowy Mcintosh 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That (among other things) is why the sex pistols are an aweful band. I don't think the sex pistols had any kind of ideology beyond reactionary nihilism. The fact of the matter is, anti-flag has not only signed on to mainstream labels but also toned down their lyrics and music over the years to more mainstream levels. They went from "kill the rich" to "power to the peaceful". They went from "...and they still had the nerve to ask who I was voting for" to supporting punkvoter. Their old stuff was good, but over the years they clearly sold out.

If you want to spread an idea, do it by engaging the general public in a decentralized manner, don't think a few catchy slogans played on the radio will make a huge difference.The Ungovernable Force 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They've always been political infants, and the fact they even sell CDs (as opposed to giving them away) is hypocrisy. Signing to a major record label is ridiculous in terms of their supposed beliefs. GreatGatsby 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have enough money to obtain, make and then give away cd's without starving to death, then yes. I don't think there is anything wrong with selling cd's, but it should by DIY and no more than a few bucks a pop to cover expenses. Profiting off of revolutionary ideas is clearly selling out. I guess the best way to do revolutionary cd distro would be to shoplift tons of blank cd's for burning, but that is kinda risky. The Ungovernable Force 04:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hardly hypocritical. You can work within the capitalist system while attacking it.

True. Look at Chumbawamba. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, signing to RCA is hypocritical after taking an anti-capitalist stance. The difference between Anti-Flag on a major label and the Sex Pistols on a major label is tht the Pistols never took an anti-capitalist stance or released an album about being on an indie label (Underground Network). Also, I agree with .The Ungovernable Force somewhat, because I think that worldwide change starts with individuals, not musicians. I think that an indie label can better promote real change than major labels because I think people who listen to music on indei labels, especially punk, tend to care more about the ideas, as opposed to the typical mainstream listener, who usually is only looking for a catchy beat to dance to. So the indie labels get to the listeners and the listeners carry it out into the world. Also, if some people believe that a major label can better promote ideas than an indie label, maybe it's true. But, Anti-Flag have featured their songs on several video game soundtracks. If anyone thinks THAT isn't profiteering, i strongly disagree.--User:Mitchbradt

If "many fans find this hypocritical" or anything like that is going to be in there, it better be cited. It's a completely speculative statement otherwise, despite the theoritical basis for any accusations of hypocrisy anyone might have. And it'd be nice if someone could phrase it without using weasel words. Cheeser1 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biased

This article needs to be changed to a non biased pov. It seems the author has just put his opinions down in place of an actual article.

• care to elaborate? Fightindaman 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph is clearly biased. It states "Many fans find this decision hypocritical" was there a survey, is there anything that can back that statement up? It sounds like some pretentious fan boy is upset that his favourite band signed to a major lable. So i am removing the "many fans...." statement, as there is no evidence to back that up. Jacknife737 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Flag's announcment of their deal with RCA includes the statement that "shit talkers will talk shit." Obviously they'd been getting flak for the decision (since rumors had been circulating around the net for some time). You are correct in saying that "many" is hard to back up, but "some" is not. Fightindaman 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relax

Every now and again, people from all walks of life decide that what they are doing has been fruitless to that point and seek to change how they go about their business.

I.E. trying to promote change WORLDWIDE while being on an independent label. Anti-Flag made a calculated gamble to take on people who are going to accuse them of being sellouts in order to reach a larger audience. I'm sure in their minds, having a couple of hardcore fans who already get the message pissed off at them is a small price to pay for getting their point of view and information to the masses. For every "true fan" that is going to be choked by them being on RCA, they may create 100 new fans who all of the sudden realize what a travesty the government of the USA is.

That's my opinion anyway.

[edit] World Can't Wait

I removed this because I don't really feel that it's worth our time to post every piece of activism that the band's involved with in the article. The person who added this, by looking at their contribs, clearly has an agenda, and since this hasn't been a particular major thing for the band I don't really see any reason to include it. Also, external links should pertain directly to the subject of the article. Fightindaman 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left Wing

• In what world are the politics of this band "left wing". They are at the most extreme liberal centrist with attempts at shocking lyrics.Tombride 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain? Because songs like "Kill the Rich" "We Want an Anarchy" "Free Nation?" "Police State In the USA" don't really sound like centrist views to me. I wish some of them would be, but they aren't. Also, they have claimed to be socialists in the past, and I think that immediately excludes them form the general "Liberal" label. 70.181.139.64 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I say left-wing. They are fairly reformist though. Maybe use progressive/left-wing as a compromise. And I agree with the idea that they are out for shock value, but I don't think they can be seen as liberal, at least not their old stuff. Old anti-flag was pretty good, now it's just lame. The Ungovernable Force 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Progressive/left-wing" would be fine by me. 70.181.139.64 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said before. Their politics are liberal with random attempts to appear dangerous or radical through sloganeering in a effort to project an image that sells records to their fan base of pre-teens. They've also advocated burning down librarys. So, unless you think that's part of their left wing beliefs...Tombride 17:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that they are just trying to sell an image, and if you can source that criticism you could (and I would fully support you on this) make the criticism in the article. But it should say that they at least try to seem left-wing/progressive/socialist/whatever we agree on. The Ungovernable Force 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When did they advocate burning down libraries? Also, they have referred to themselves as socialists before. I think its just easier to say left-wing rather than try and categorize them. Especially since most of their fans wont agree with you.

P.S. Sorry about reverting your changes without disscussing first. My bad. 70.181.139.64 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I found this on their website

"Question: what is anti-flag's political affiliation?

Answer: The members of Anti-Flag tend to prescribe to progressive, far left leaning political ideology. Anti-Flag have backed a number of political candidates in the past but overall tend not to back specific candidates. " http://www.anti-flag.com/GO50.php?offset=15

So that seems to be their offical word on it. 70.181.139.64 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright. For lack of a better source from me that's going to be how it stays then.Tombride 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Progressive" and "far-left" are two totally different things. Progressive is universally applied to liberals (left-of-center), not people on the radical end of the spectrum. It's like someone trying to say we "prescribe to conservative, fascistic political ideology" in order to make their ideas seem less crazy. GreatGatsby 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why a wing?

in my oponion you are wrong gatsby. SEE POST ABOVE "LEFT WING". i think that AF is trying stop the "left wing" "rightwing" way of thinking. the seem to support more radical ideas but acctuly their retoric sounds a liltle like communism.

Razor romance

Communism == radical left-wing. You lose. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

Should it be noted that there is alot of criticism within the punk scene that Anti-Flag doesn't know what they ar talking about, and that most of there lyrics are just meant to be shocking, or just ramble on about how the government is run by "facists"?

What the fuck are you talking about?

whoever wrote that statment has two problems with that statment 

1 it is not the porpouse of wikipedia to determin if a band "knows what they are talking about" and 2SIGN YOUR FRIGGIN WORK!!! Razor romance 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

--Criticism from arrogant snots. What do they mean anti-flag doesn't know what they are talking about? Anti-Flag is probably the only political punk band I've run across that backs nearly everything they say up with some form of evidence or at least cites resources. Plenty of punk bands go on about the government being run by fascists but don't back it up. At least anti-flag backs it up. 12.156.166.47 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How is a band supposed to back things up? I've never heard 'footnote one!' at the end of a line, and then have them expound that point at the end of the song....sure, I suppose you could cite resources in your CD art, but consider the ratio of the number of people that buy the CD, versus how many people hear the songs? The lyrics are ultimately all that matter. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baseless critisisms

"Perhaps the largest criticism of Anti-Flag is that while they claim to have far left-wing ideals, perhaps akin to socialism, they are happy to sell their merchandise and records at a price. They've aimed songs at money greedy corporations previously, yet they have no qualms with making money themselves."

I deleted this because Anti-Flag have never stated that people should not be able to profit from their work.

Also, they do give large amounts of money to very important causes. The African Well Fund, for example. I just had to add that.

[edit] Singles

There should be a singles section

[edit] lebo

haha, if you think mt lebo is affluent... oh boy. upper middle class, sure, but affluent? ha.

[edit] Albums

Someone should put together a Albums section. There's quiet a few.

Hey. It's the wikipedia. If you care about it, you do it :) 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sellouts?

I don't really own for blood and empire, so I can't say whether or not they sold out with it. But I do know that The Terror State is a shining example of what a deftly political punk album should be. It cites problems in the world, gives evidence to support these problems, presents the message in an angry yet intelligient manner, manages to have catchy lyrics without being wishy washy, and gives us a little direction as to what to do about the world. It is one of the best punk albums I've picked up in a while and has some of the best lyrics I've ever seen, from any genre of music.

Whoever says anti-flag watered down their lyrics by going from "kill the rich" to "power to the peaceful" is a moron. Either you haven't actually heard the song or you are just a war mongering rebel without a clue. What's wrong with a little pacifism? Must all punks be violent rebels? Can't we have some punks that believe in a little peace and unity?

I also see little problem with switching to a major label or making money off the cds. A poor person can do little to change the world, especially if he is starving. Look at Black Flag for crisakes. They were highly DIY and they practically starved to death their entire careers! On the other hand, signing to a major label allows you to broadcast your views to a wider audience. You can call it hypocritical that they denounce capitalism and then take part in the system, or you can call it ironic that they are seeking the collapse of the system that has latched on to them. To destroy your enemy, get close to him right? As for making money off their junk, even highly DIY bands like Against All Authority and Black Flag charge circa 10 bucks per cd. It's impossible to cover cost of manufacture and feed yourself if you charge less than that! It's not like they live in mansions or drive corvettes or anything! It is especially hard to hand out cds for free or charge small amounts of money if you are trying to circulate your material among a wide audience like Anti-Flag is.

Also, let's be fair. Anti-Flag is anti-corporate, but corporations are a lot larger than a group of musicians making money of their music. Anti-Flag's money is money earned for a job well done, not money stolen, like the giant corporations tend to do, which is what anti-flag speaks out against. Learn the difference between earning and stealing. It's crucial. 208.191.84.241 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Punk rock extraordinaire

Yeah, I don't think they're sellouts either, really. If Justin's words were true, that's the kind of contract I'd like to see all artists getting. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone changed the genre... I'm nonplussed

Someone changed Anti-Flag's genre from 'political punk rock' to 'political rock'. This seems more than a little pointless since Anti-Flag's genre isn't even under debate. Maybe labelling a disputed band like AFI that way, but Anti-Flag? I think everyone can pretty much agree that anti-flag is a punk rock band. I reverted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.191.86.76 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Once again, I will revert. If someone doesn't know what punk is, they can wiki it and find out.

Ok, further. I can understand saying Anti-Flag are a little more pop-oriented than other punk bands, but to call them pop/punk is childish. They fit none of the musical requirements for pop-punk. The biggest difference between pop-punk and 'true' punk is that pop-punk is 100% non-political. Any band that even begins to approach political issues begins to shed the label pop-punk. As clearly political as anti-flag is to call them pop-punk is just plain stupid. Thus I am removing the pop-punk label under the genre box.

--I think Anti-Flag could definetely be classified as melodic hardcore in addition to being political punk...feedback? - Razorhead

"Pop punk" and not "Punk Rock". That's my opinion. --154.20.58.130 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revamp

HI guys, I recently saw this article needed a huge revamp. So i decided so set up some sound sample, a new lead, and a references section. If you guys could join in that would be great. Also, the references seem to be unfunctioning. Does someone who knows how to make these refs work step up? It would be immense help. Thanx --Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑ 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Thetic.

Can nobody find any information on him? The other members each have a page, but his redirects back to the band's. Cheers, Crassic! 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He definitely needs a page, or else he might cry himself to sleep at night. I don't know enough about Anti-Flag to make a page on him, but someone must...

EDIT:I can't seem to find much info on him with Google. I see why no one's made a page. Hmmmm.... CrayZsaaron 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

I changed streetpunk to political punk because they signed onto a major label so they arent street

I don't see how that's a reason to remove that label. See also Chumbawumba=anarcho=signed to a major. --Cheeser1 18:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of political punk as a subgenre- punk tends to be political in nature. I am tempted to change it back.Kurasuke 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What you've heard of isn't really how we write things on Wikipedia. I've heard of it, it's a label generally applied to such bands (e.g. Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, etc). See also [1] for an example of use in journalism. --Cheeser1 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Political punk isn't a genre. Streetpunk is, but Anti-Flag are by no means it. In fact, even "Punk Rock" and "Hardcore Punk" are stretches... I think "Pop Punk" is the only term which accurately describes them. --154.20.58.130 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To me pop-punk is more blink-182/sum 41/green day/new found glory/simple plan like. I don't think Anti-Flag quite falls into the category that those bands fall into because there stuff seems to have more aggressive vocals, drum beats, and lyrics, though I do have to agree that some of their newer stuff has been more like pop-punk. According to All music guide they fall into the Punk Revival, Hardcore, and O!l styles[2]. Its important to note here that we are discussing subgenres. I think maybe the infobox should be changed to reflect that. As far as other sources I have seen anti-flag listed as everything from Rock & Alternative by AOL [3] to Rock/Pop by some site which was selling the "A new kind of army" CD (looking for the link, just had it up a minute ago.) --Nn123645 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No introduction.

We should add one, the article looks like a talk page. Zazaban 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vegetarians

THREE of the four guys are vegetarians. The article says all four are and I keep editing it but someone changes it back. Look at the citation, christ. I'm going to change it again and if anyone puts it back I kindly ask you to edit it for me.

Daniel willems (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)