Talk:Capitol Steps

The China controversy

I really think it's inaccurate to discuss the Capitol Steps without acknowledging the controversy over their 2001 skit. (They later actually had to issue a formal apology over it.)

http://asianweek.com/2001_04_20/opinion1_voices_amyleang.html

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/1936/on-the-other-side-of-hurt-and-anger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.83.11 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I've fleshed out the article quite a bit, drawing primarily on the Steps' official book, Sixteen Scandals. However, the book was published in 2002; it doesn't really give a lot of information on what the Steps are up to now, other than saying that, at the time, they consisted of four troupes. (Their website doesn't seem to indicate exactly how many they have now.) If someone could find a source with more current information, that would be very nice. --LostLeviathan 02:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notable or not?

There are apparently some editors who don't feel that the group and their albums are particularly notable (probably largely because they are not widely known outside of the United States, mostly because of their political humor). In addition, the group does NOT publish sales figures (at least not that I've been able to find easily). So that said, what counts here? A Google search for reviews, discounting allmusic.com and capsteps.com DOES lead to several reviews printed on blogs and a couple of other sites. Altavista shows over 13,000 websites that link to capsteps.com, the troupe's home page. There are also a few "customer reviews" for each album on sites like Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Is that notable, or not? --JohnDBuell 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the relavent criteria is WP:BAND, and they seem to qualify under multiple criteria... They have a 30 or 60 minute special they do 4 times a year that gets played on National Public Radio (criteria 12), have a quite a number of reviews out there (criteria 1), they have multiple nationwide tours usually going on (criteria 4), arguably is the most prominent representative of a notable style with political satire, and probably second only to "Weird Al" Yankovic for parody (criteria 6), and so on. They have more than enough albums, but since they seem to self-publish, that doesn't fit. - Fordan (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Funny?

posts removed, Wikipedia is not a forum and debate over whether this group is funny or not has no place here LazyBastardGuy 07:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly idiotic. Regardless of whether one thinks it is funny or not, this evaluative judgment has absolutely no place here. _Nacre_10

Weird Al reference

I removed the reference to Weird Al and non-political parody artists, because: A. Weird Al does not seem to be listed in the actual decision as having filed an amicus. B. The court decision quite specifically protects non-political parody artists as well. I mean, the case is about 2 Live Crew parodying "Pretty Woman" with lines like "Hairy Woman" and "Bald headed woman" - I hardly think that qualifies as political. and C. Weird Al makes all his money from parodying music, why would he want to make it harder to parody things? But I admit I don't know caselaw very well about parody and sampling in general, so if there's been a shift from the Court's 1994 position I wouldn't know about it. Adoubleplusgood (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)