Talk:Virtual band

Musical chipmunks

'Chipmunks, ... and now playing their own instruments'

Somehow I doubt that ;) Morwen - Talk 08:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You know wht I mean! They play their own instruments the same way Gorillaz or the Archies play(ed) their own instruments. --JB Adder | Talk 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

(Removed mistaken post. Tony 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem

Weren't they puppets and not animated characters? Sorry if I'm being dense here... --Dvyost 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they were. --JB Adder | Talk 05:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So does that put them outside this article's purview, if the definition is "any group whose members are not flesh-and-blood musicians, but animated characters."? --Dvyost 05:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, that is what is being discussed in the peer review, among other points, especially since some sources (printed, mostly) define puppetry as a form of animation, and others do not. --JB Adder | Talk 05:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese virtual Idoru?

The article should probably mention the Japanese virtual idoru pop stars.

Please sign off your comments! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon band?

I had only ever heard these bands referred to as "cartoon bands", so I had difficulty locating this article. I only found it by first going to the Gorillaz page. Is there any support for creating a page for "Cartoon band" which redirects to this one? DavidMann 11:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that when I originally created the article. I'll get to it right now. --JB Adder | Talk 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Archies = The Monkees?

Either this page is totally wrong, or The Archies and Sugar, Sugar are wrong. The latter pages seem pretty convincing, so I would suggest this page be editted. -- TheMightyQuill 13:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The source in question, from which I got that information, is a television program called Dancing in the Street (I think that's the one). If anyone would like to check what is being said there, they are free to. --JB Adder | Talk 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but using a TV show as a source when you aren't even sure of the title doesn't seem very wise. Maybe the information should be removed?

It's not the title I'm unsure of; it's the show. There were two shows out in the 90's that talked about world popular music: Dancing in the Street and Walk On By. I remember watching both, however I can't remember which one the info came from. Can I suggest someone watch both shows and giving the reference in the article? --JB Adder | Talk 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you could watch both and also confirm through a secondary source *before* adding it. Crazytonyi (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

the greasy moose

i felt as though the greasy moose, which is one of my favourite flash toons, deserved a mention, particularly because of the mocumentary "my penis is evil". I'd even say they take the concept of virtual band a bit further than most, as they try to develop their characters beyond a mere gimmick.

Binky / Arthur TV Show

There was a virtual group called Binky on the childrens' / PBS show Arthur

Redefining Virtual Bands

I think "cartoon band" should have a separate entry from "virtual band". While a "cartoon band" is considered "virtual", it is only one of the several type of virtual bands that are now present on TV or the Internet. Several of the bands stated here are presented in several forms other than two-dimensional illustations while being perfectly "virtual" in nature (e.g. Mistula, Bratz Rock Angels, Crazy Frog). The term "Virtual group" is also vague, as it may refer to a group who may not be musical in nature.

The terms in this article should be redefined for it to be a proper resource material.

Interestingly enough, that is one of the points that has been brought up on the cleanup page. I insist everyone who comes here have a look at it and contribute. --JB Adder | Talk 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the article has been rewritten. Feel free to comment on it, and tell me what you think of it. --JB Adder | Talk 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Potentially a Neologism/Original research - lack of references

Disclaimer: Please go easy on me, since I'm not trying to troll; at worst, start a debate. I'm a wikipedia noobie, so I could be totally off base ;)

There are very few references cited that, as I understand it, can be construed as establishing a reliable/creditable history. The Guiness Book entry seems to be the only one out of the list, and one might argue against it's credibility in establishing history - I think it is more of an auxillary reference.

Additionally, parts of the descriptions on the page leave the concept extremely open to interpretation. Particularly in offense are the groups chosen to be cited as references, and the part about the term meaning "bands that collaborate over the Internet". What is the definition of a band? Animation? Virtual?

Should Daft Punk be counted, since they always in disguises/costumes that hide their identity? How about "The Beets" on the TV show Doug, should they be considered a band? How about Spinal Tap, are they a band? Does a virtual band have to have it's members be far-spread (members across the country/world), or can any normal band be virtual, through animation, etc (animation, etc)? Does a virtual band have to always exist in a virtual form or pretend that the virtual form is the only form, or would a dual form/occasional virtualization suffice (e.g. the Beck puppet shows)? Can a band be virtual if any one of the members is hiding their identity (e.g. the propensity for cross-dressing in Visual Kei)? Can a band be virtual if all the music performed on studio albums are created by one musician, and the remaining credited musicians only fill in during live shows (e.g. Boston, allegedly The Smashing Pumpkins, maybe NIN - not sure)?

I admit that several of my points and examples are far-fetched, and several also don't fit every one of the criteria listed at the top section of the page. However, they make a point of how flexible the definition can be if it isn't strictly defined, or if examples cited don't strictly fit (e.g. Crazy Frog, The Monkees).

Due to the lack of creditable references cited, seeming lack of factual history, and the broad definition given, the Virtual Band concept seems to fit the definition of a neologism. Much of the entry also seems to be (at least partially) original research. Is the concept of a "virtual band" just a marketing scheme for the band Gorillaz, and maybe a limited few bands before them?

At the very least, I think the article should be cleaned up to remove speculation/original research. Maybe it should instead define the concept, then cite it as a marketing scheme, possibly citing which bands have actually used it, and removing references to bands that fit the definition, but have not used the term. I would tag it, though I'm not sure how to do so, or confident in exactly which tags should be used =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.34.241 (talk • contribs) 21:1, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

I understand your concern, and I'll answer the various questions you posed here and now:

• The definitions of 'band', 'animation' and 'virtual' are catered for in various articles: 'Band' in Musical group and Band (music) (and also in WP:MUSIC and the associated Wikiproject), 'animation' in it's own article, and 'virtual' in this article itself (although maybe not to its full extent).
• The Internet collaborations are dealt with in a stub: Internet band
• A discussion about what bands could be included in the article was started some time ago, and it was determined that, whgile some bands, such as Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem (who appeared on a television show, like 'The Beets' that you mentioned above) could be counted, the decision was made to exclude them from the article's 'Notable bands' section. However, some were completely discounted because they didn't release any known material in the real world; this criteria covers the Beets.
• When the article was originally written, it had a disambiguation section between 'virtual' and 'virtualised' bands. The definition for this given in the article was 'any flesh-and-blood band who appeared as animated characters in video clips' (although this definition is not strictly correct). 'Virtualised bands' was a neologism created by me, used to serve as a means of differentiating the real-life bands (like The Dissociatives and Daft Punk, as you mentioned above) from the bands that were purely animated creations (like those given in the article). So, in a short answer, no, Daft Punk are not virtual, and no normal band can be virtual under any circumstance. (However, as a side note, your posing that question does bring up a very good question: are deceased musicians considered virtual if material is released under their name posthumously?) Additionally, the band's virtual form must their only form.
• Finally, 'Virtual band' is not a neologism. Like many others, I came across the term when Gorillaz were introduced (and, indeed, the Wikipedia article, which was created before this one, used the same term). It was first spoken on radio station Triple J, then the media subsequently snatched it up. Prior to this, the Bots (or, more strictly, the Bot Brothers) used the term to describe the band as well. However, to say that it is a marketing ploy is complete folly: the term may be a recent creation, but the process is not in relation, as the article proves.

I hope this answers your questions. Thank you for asking them. You brought up some very good points. --JB Adder | Talk 12:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Frog is not a Virtual Band or Group

A virtual band... is any group whose members... etc

Crazy Frog, being only one character, and having no other "virtual band" members clearly doesn't fit into the classification or description of a virtual band. The people behind the Crazy Frog music (Bass Bumpers) are a duo/group but they're real, not virtual, so that still doesn't make the Crazy Frog a group. 172.142.62.222 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the point you're trying to make, but I feel I must ask a couple of questions:

1. Crazy Frog is not the only character that is portrayed in the clips, and, moreover, some DJs are referred to as bands, despite their singularity. So does Crazy Frog qualify as a band now?
2. Because Damon Albarn and Dan the Automator are real-life artists, does that mean Gorillaz are not a virtual band?

I don't mean to war with you, but it does seem that the point you're trying to make has a weak base. --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Slightly patronizing reply, "the point you're trying to make"? No, I managed to make my point successfully, thanks. You might not agree with my point though, which is fine.

Gorillaz are indeed a virtual band because there are 4 animated characters, it makes sense including them in this article. Crazy Frog is not a virtual band because he is only 1 animated character. The amount of CGI characters in Crazy Frog's videos is irrelevant, that's like calling Justin Timberlake a group because he has dancers/backing singers/extras in his videos.

If a DJ has ever been referred to as a band then that would also be an incorrect use of the term "band". I've known instances where that's happened and it's usually because a DJ doesn't appear in promos, so some people wrongly assume there is more than one person involved. Doesn't make it right though, especially to carry that misconception into a Wikipedia article. 172.207.129.45 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

...And I do it again! Thank you for picking that up, and yes, you have made your point very clear now.

I admit, it is an inaccuracy to include a single virtual artist as a band, as you said (twice!), because, in full accuracy, he isn't a band as such. However, having said that, I will still keep him in the Notable bands section, for one very good (at least in my opinion) reason: if a Virtual artist/musician/singer etc article is created, it may automatically end up being wiped and redirected to this article, because of the synonymity that exists between the terms. --JB Adder | Talk 05:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

GA

• Images are missing fair use rationales and sources (where you got it from) copyright problem there
• See Internet band for more information on this phenomenon. Phenomenon is POV, Statements like this "see blah blah" shouldn't be in the text
• Well written? not with these statements 'A virtual band (or virtual group), in music, is any group whose members are not flesh-and-blood musicians, but animated characters.' Try: 'A virtual band (or virtual group), is a group of animated characters that represent musical performers.' (as suggested in the FAC)
• refs come after punctuation - .[1]) should be .)[1]
• Don't wikilink years by themselves (2005)
• the very popular ringtone - POV
• References are missing details such as publisher, retrieved date. Check {{cite web}} for more info
• Some titles are poorly worded 'The' should be removed from titles per WP:MOS, An example shouldn't be a title also work that paragraph into the text. M3tal H3ad 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Virtual Live Band

I'm a member of the band VLB (virtual live band). I think we are a better example of a virtual band because we are not in the same place when we play. After reading this, i wonder if we are the only band that does this on a regular basis...see - Virtual Live Band for more info on us and let me know what you think...i wanted to edit this article but didn't think it would be right talking about a band i'm in. I do wonder if another article should/could be written with the title "Virtual Live Band" ??? That's what i searched in Wiki and how i found this article. I did leave links to our band. If anyone wants to write a new article i would be more than glad to help.

Jokerwitht 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Joker

Hi there, Jokerwitht. Re: your band, VLB, while it is true that the members are not in the same place when you play, I'm afraid that is not the only criteria to be considered a virtual band. Please refer to the subhead "What isn't a virtual band", particularly these lines:

"Some bands...have used animation and cartooning techniques in clips and related media, depicting themselves as cartoon characters (in your case, avatars in secondlife). While their appearances in these forms of visual media can make them seem virtual, the fact that they are animated representations of real-life people immediately discounts them from being a true virtual band."

Your band would more properly belong to the entry "internet band" where "members collaborate online through broadband by utilizing a content management system and local digital audio workstations...without ever meeting face to face." I see your band is already listed on that separate Wiki entry, so it's all well and good.

Thanks.

--Mister Kwiki 08:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can Strong Bad fit under virtual band?

I mean, he's not as mainstream as say the Gorillaz, but he has released a music CD, and had a song featured in Guitar Hero II. In addition, The Cheat and Strong Sad have done work for real bands like TMBG.--Fang Teng 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be covered under "virtual bands", but the same criteria for its listing under the Notable groups section is the same as given for all the music style articles; see WP:MUSIC for info about this. Additionally, it must also fit the criteria given in The members of a virtual band. --JB Adder | Talk 09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A great source for this article

Is the book "Rocklopedia Fakebandica". Chubbles 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Green Jelly (aka Green Jello) mentioned on this page?

Were not they one of the biggest bands to fit this description? I always thought of Gorillaz as kind of following the lead of Green Jelly. Also, unrelated, another virtual band not mentioned here is Gem, but since they were really just a Saturday morning cartoon, I'm not sure if they'd fit the definition. Green Jelly, though... seems like they should be a prime example, no? TragiCore (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The 1980s

The 1980's were largely free of virtual groups. It wouldn't be until the early 1990's, when the Chipmunks, updated to fit with the more contemporary setting, and now playing their own instruments, released a CD of covers to accompany the new show, that virtual bands would begin to make a comeback.

This paragraph mis-states the fact that the updated Alvin and the Chipmunks Saturday morning cartoon actually ran through the 80s and started going to direct-to-video movies in the 90s. It also overlooks such groups as Jem, the California Raisins, and Kidd Video, all of which ran during the 80s. And I know I'm forgetting a few others. Granted, the Raisins and Kidd Video (if memory serves) almost exclusively did covers, but so did the Electric Mayhem. And starting with the 1983 show, so did (and still do) the Chipmunks.

I know there's a difference between "largely free" and "completely devoid." But that's the message this paragraph puts across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.19.75.25 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I had a look at the California Raisins and Jem articles; they were restricted exclusively to advertisements and television (respectively). I haven't had a look for Kidd Video yet, and they may actually be the group which causes this paragraph to be reworked. But until then, it stays. --JB Adder | Talk 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (Edit: I checked Kidd Video; doesn't count for the same reason Jem doesn't count. 09:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Removed the second link to Internet Band

See Internet band for more information on this phenomenon.

I think it is redundant to have this link on the page a second time. Although I can see how it nicely fits into the article, it still doesn't look right there. I removed it for this reason. If someone feels that it needs to be there it could be put back. Although, I think if this is done it should be done in a more aesthetically pleasing manner,

Perhaps the sentence could be re-written so that the article could be linked to in the sentence itself rather than coming after the sentence? Zell Faze (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried an inline link, but it might actually be overkill, along with the hatnote.
  Given this article has been tagged for cleanup, I might have to archive the original cleanup page so we can discuss a second round of collaborative cleanup. Man, it's been so long...--JB Adder | Talk 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

b.o.o.n et r o c k not relevant?

Nothing against Christian contemporary music but it looks like a mom and pop indie shop. If there is such a thing as the first Christian virtual band it could be the cast of Veggie Tales I suppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look at the reference page for Boon et Rock and VeggieTales. VeggieTales is more along the same lines as Gem and Josie and the Pussycats, while Boon et Rock is purely a band for music's sake. (That said, though, the Pussycats are listed here despite their popularity as a show first and a band second, so the claim is contendable.) Again, it's one for the cleanup. --JB Adder | Talk 02:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comic Strip Bands

I know of one band, Deathmøle - currently listed on the List of fictional music groups page, that only exists in the songs the cartoonist (Jeph Jacques) releases and as referenced (not appearing) in his comic strip Questionable Content. Does this count as a virtual band? Blackfyr (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If the songs don't exist in the real world, then no, it doesn't count. --JB Adder | Talk 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As noted, the songs ARE being released by the author as he creates and records them. Given this as the gating mechanism, I will be moving the act to the proper page. Blackfyr (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And the band will remain listed, although you might want to write up a small something for them under the New source media header. --JB Adder | Talk 05:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are not animated bands that appeared in Japanese Animes and video games mentioned on this page?

There are long history of the animated groups/singers in Japan,and numerous groups/singers commertially succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatreshkaB (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Find an virtual group from Japan, and see if you can include them in the article. The Revival section will most likely be where they go, unless they predate 1980, in which case they'd most likely go into the one before it. (But, remember the little note: unless they released material into the real world, they aren't included.) --JB Adder | Talk 05:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What's with the "upcoming" section?

It lists one band, and has no reference. The text is "*MAY* to be released on Winter 2018". It's not even proper english. Should this really be here? 24.180.6.18 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Why only animation?

I think that the medium of animation (or puppetry) is not as relevant as the idea that the band is a fiction, but the music is not. There are a number of bands that are cartoons that make music, but the music being "trapped" inside the story rather than promoted as in-real-life music, like DeathKlok and Limozine (they have limited album releases, so I suppose it's up for debate), and there are bands in live action fictional format who sell albums in the real world. Examples that immediately come to mind:

• The Monkees (at their first album)
• Todd Gaines
• Spinal Tap (and The Folksmen)

Bands that don't fit as well are ones where the personas are exaggerations of the real band members or aren't completely fictional and confined to the fictional world. Bands like Flight of the Conchords and Tenacious D.

Basically it's virtual if the band's history and personalities are fictional constructs that allows these fictional characters to seem real to the audience listening to the music outside of the in-world context. Crazytonyi (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)