Talk:John Maus

Untitled

I propose that the profession "Professor of Philosophy" be deleted from this page. Although he may have received his doctorate by now, "professor" is a job title that one holds at a particular academic institution. If he hasn't been appointed to a post somewhere that comes with that title, he's not a "professor".

Schneider (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He's still active as far as I know. He tends to have periods of inactivity but putting the year ending 2011 while having a pic of him performing live in 2012 makes no sense. He has not made any kind of announcement that he was retiring from music and it's not like he's a band that can break up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.148.13.101 (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Dubious Discography?

I don't understand. It says in this article that Maus has had some underground releases coming out since 1991, but given that he was born in 1980, that would have made him 11 years old at the time. I find that hard to believe, especially given that I can't find any information about these releases ANYWHERE else on the Internet. Can someone explain where this information came from? PoprocksCk (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I also checked at mausspace.com which is an extremely devote fansite of Maus and it only mentions I want to live (2003), Love letters from hell (2000), Snowless winter (whose date is unknown according to mausspace) and the 2011 Demos as unofficial/minor releases. In absence of a better source I proceed deleting the current content of the section "underground releases" and replacing it with the releases I mentioned above. Also I have doubts about the relevance of the section "compilation appearances" but not having found guidelines about that I'll leave it 79.18.23.8 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Underground Releases section now has releases listed as early as 1984. Given that John Maus was born in 1980, this seems unlikely to be correct information. Please provide citations to support the section.Catwizzle (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but, at the very top of the entry, there's a statement which reads "…for the musician born John Maus, see John Walker" and, SURELY it's not beyond the wit of man to click/tap that link and see that John Walker (né Maus) was one half of the Walker Brothers, a duo who released a string of hit singles in the '60s and, therefore, to conclude that the 'underground releases' section has been appended to the wrong article (it's been tagged nearly a YEAR, FFS, HTF has NOBODY thought to put 2 and 2 together and realise that the John Maus who's the subject of THIS entry could not POSSIBLY be releasing material from the age of FOUR…?! I'm sorry, but to plop a section within an entry without checking to see if it's correct and/or appropriate (especially as you've to scroll past the personal info to GET to the discography) is, frankly, the height of fuckwittery!

I have COPIED the erroneous info, and I'll now go paste it into the entry for John Walker (I've not cut it in case I fuck it up (which, given my previous attempts at editing Wikipedia entries, is more than likely…).

But, PLEASE PEOPLE, exercise a modicum of common-sense when editing! But ya know what they say about common-sense… <SIGH> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margolotta (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 May 2014‎

Rather than haranguing other editors in BOLD, and making unproven assumptions about what you believe to be the case - but is in fact untrue - it would be better if you did a modicum of research yourself to find out the true facts before taking action. You assumed that the list pertained to John Walker (born Maus), when it doesn't. I have no idea who or what the list relates to. It's totally unsourced, and it would be best if it were not included in either article. Thank you for identifying the problem - but please don't make such assumptions in future, and please learn to sign your posts using four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Keyboard player

I've seen nothing anywhere ever about Animal Collective using a keyboardist other than Doctess so I've taken that bit out for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.226.122 (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Maus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawl (talk · contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this. — Zawl 12:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I failed to locate any issues with the grammar and spelling.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with the manual of style guidelines. I couldn't find any issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is sufficiently sourced with reliable references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The reliability of Weirdo Music Forever is questionable but it can be discussed elsewhere (e.g. talk page).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The discography section contains no sources but a WP:BEFORE check shows the information to be valid.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Two paragraphs of text are copied directly from the source and are used as quotes but it is acceptable per fair use as the usage is minimal, have contextual significance and is not replaceable with free text.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It stays focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is written neutrally without editorial bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring since the beginning of the year.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with their copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suitable captions exist.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is written properly and passes the Good Article criteria.

Philosopher??????

Someone my reverted my removal of the adjective "philosopher" from the lead. They say he has published papers on philosophy. I can't find any. He has a Ph.D. in Poly Sci. Can someone find a citation to a philosophy paper (or some other philosophical writing) he's published?? Danski14^(talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There are mentions of Maus in RS as a "philosopher", but I am not sure it should be included. Philosopher is thrown around very lightly. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's anything published beyond his dissertation and a short book that he wrote with Adam Harper. Many articles refer to him as a musician and philosopher (Google "John Maus" "philosopher"). Whether he actually should be considered a philosopher is debatable. He performed lectures at the University of Hawaii, and at one time he saw academia as his only viable career. His interviews are notable for the long-winded answers he gives. I can't think of much else. What would it take for him to be a "real" philosopher? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Joy Division

There are some obvious HEAVY influences from Joy Division, why no mentions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Because John was not influenced by Joy Division. Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Low effort bait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

From who, me or John?

[...] my introduction to music was via things like NIRVANA, who were mainstream in the 90ies, and they had this hatred of synths. Later, when I came to L.A., I met ARIEL PINK and he introduced me to all sorts of musical genres. [...] it's funny because people make a comparison with the baritone voice in my music. But I usually respond by saying that Ian (Curtis) had probably the same heroes as me, like Jim Morrison... [...] I knew who Stockhausen was before I knew who JOY DIVISION was. I was going to music school and I hadn't heard anything beyond what classic rock stations or MTV would have played. (source)

In other words, John listened to psychedelia, prog, and classical. So did every other "arty" new wave band in the '80s. It's not ridiculous to suggest that he would arrive to some of the same musical avenues as them. Joy Division did not invent baritone singing or contrapuntal melodies, and John was very familiar with art songs, medieval harmony, Bach, etc. for a while before meeting Ariel Pink.

There is a 2006 interview that reveals a lot about John's background. Almost every artist he cites was active prior to the 1980s: half being 1960s groups, and the other half being classical/avant-garde composers. There is zero mention of any new wave/post-punk artists, let alone Joy Division. Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal life claims about Kika Karadi and Trump

What do we think about these two claims in the Personal Life section:

• [Kika Karadi] and Maus reconciled in the summer of 2020.
• In 2020 she joined her husband in donating in support of the Republican Party.

Seems like both should be cut, the former because it's totally unsourced and the latter because there's no third-party coverage of the donations. I thought I'd open it up to discussion, though, before taking any action. NASAvegas (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely the Trump donation not be stated as fact, as John Maus is a quite common name and there is no actual evidence it's him. There are two different people named 'John Maus' in the Trump donations alone, from different states. Citing a donation from someone named 'John Maus' in his state is not enough in my opinion. It's still just opinion as to whether it's him. 81.134.50.26 (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: this content has been deleted, so we can consider this matter resolved!

• Later the same year, they both donated to the Donald Trump reelection campaign.

Surely the Trump donation not be stated as fact, as John Maus is a quite common name and there is no actual evidence it's him. There are two different people named 'John Maus' in the Trump donations alone, from different states. Citing a donation from someone named 'John Maus' in his state is not enough in my opinion. It's still just opinion as to whether it's him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.50.26 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Outsider artist

Outsider artist? What is the basis for that? Does the person who contributed that mean to say 'experimental' or something more along those lines? I don't see what's 'outsider' about a musician who studied experimental music at Cal Arts. I certainly don't see what's 'naive' about his approach since he's possibly overly self-analytical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4479:5902:9700:9528:E630:D3D6:5CA2 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)