Talk:Dani California/Archive 1

Archive 1

Music video

1. I cleaned up this section - it was formatted poorly and filled with speculation. I suggest that discussions pertaining to who the RHCP are emulating in the video be kept here in this discussion page. -- eo 22:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Yeah dude, why the hell is Prince on there????

3. It can't be Prince. Wrong time line. Also, RHCP are paying tribute to their influences. It appears to be The Jimi Hendrix Experience plus elements of Cream. Chad is Ginger Baker. But if Ant is The White Jimi... why is he holding a tamborine? -- RedManPlus 21:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Also... in the Funkadelic Part... can someone confirm that John is playing Jimmy Page... complete with the cheesy "special effects" from "Song Remains Same". -- RedManPlus 21:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Will this need Semi Protection?

The video part of the article apparently can't sit still for 10 minutes. I know its not vandalism per se, but unless we can specifically lock down who is being portrayed in the video, we need to do this differently. We need to either list all the possibilites or make definite choices, instead of having anons constantly turn up and decide what they want on it. So, semi-protection might be a tad excessive now, but it needs watching and sorting. Durnar 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it like it like I have it, I list all the choices

Please stop adding bands

Look, everyone. I'm a graduate music student, and I worked on the current list with a professor WHO TEACHES ROCK AND ROLL HISTORY AT A MAJOR UNIVERSITY. He wanted to show this video to his class, and we BOTH TOGETHER compiled the exact list of bands.

The bands are IN THE EXACT ORDER:

Elvis Presley

The Beatles

Jimi Hendrix with Cream

Parliament-Funkadelic

David Bowie with Gary Glitter

Sex Pistols

The Misfits

Nirvana

Unless you think you know more than a published doctor of music history, leave the band list the hell alone. We worked hard to compile it. There's no reason to "list all the choices" when a bunch of them are wrong. I researched it, posted the correct list, so why add a bunch of misinformation? ____________________________________________Just because you have a degree doesnt mean you're right. I have a degree in comedy but the crowd doesnt laugh because i have a diploma. For starters the second band is CLEARLY reminiscent of Hermans Hermits--the glasses, knees bobbling in and out, and the high placed guitar. Check out their youtube video Something tells me i'm into something good. However they do mimic the beatles in Scream and Shout when they shake their heads left and right, then the drummer shakes his head side to side like ringo.

You know there is a little thing called an OPINION. An encyoloppida is not bisaed. Are you a memeber of the band? NO so stop acting like it. Did I say these are defintly the bands mentioned. NO. So shut up ____________________________________________

Wait, is this opinionpedia? No, it isn't. You admit you DON'T know for sure what bands it is. Thats fine. I DO know what bands they are, BECAUSE I WORKED HARD TO RESEARCH IT, BECAUSE I AM A MUSIC SCHOLAR. and I was happy to amend the article to include the CORRECT INFORMATION. Enjoy the accuracy!

____________________________________________

Well done, your study of music definately gives you some kind of authority on what bands look like, thank goodness you and your doctor friend came along, to give us totally unconfirmed "facts" 130.88.171.98 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I cannot help but be a bit skeptical with this claim; you cannot just put up a list and ask everyone to take it as fact without any proof or links to actual signs in the video. If you and that professor got down and soughted out which band was which, then where is the irrefutable proof? please post this research and 'hard work' so we can all see. If you stand by your list you should at least justify the selection...personally i believe the nirvana set is the most obviously referenced because it reconstructs the famed mtv unplugged performance clearly identifiable by the candles and other objects in the scene, it also includes visual symbolism with the candle extinguishing signifying the end of cobain and arguably grunge with it...

---

Sorry, but Jimi Hendrix not holding a guitar? Hard to believe it... Oh, and FYI, this is the discussion page, so it's open for opinions... if u want ppl not to give their opinion, write a serious essay that no one but other scholars will read... And I forgot to ask: who's this professor, and what's the university?

---

We should wait for an official statement from the band. So far, they have been rather quiet on the subject. Anyone's speculation is just that - speculation. I would also like to see the "research" that was put into the above list and possibly some harder credentials, it's easy for anyone to call themselves an expert on the internet. And please, don't be rude, this is a discussion page, not a see who can yell the loudest page.

protection

This artcle needs protection now.

Yes, I agree. How about this. How about I post pictures PROVING that my list of 9 IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE, and we lock it on my list. Can a wikipedia mod or admin agree to that?

• first things first, can everybody actually SIGN your comments when you post them?. You can do this by pressing tilde (~) 4 times at the end of your comment. Secondly, this is getting into an informal edit war, so stop it all of you, especially since most of you are just using anon accounts to throw in your own opinion.

Next, whether or not your a music scholar whos researched this (which we have no way of verifying), theres a wiki rule about somewhere about No Original Research. Just because you assume you're right, it doesn;t necessarily make it true.

And honestly there is NO WAY they would portray Gary Glitter in this video, especially given that hes recently been convicted for being a paedophile. You just wouldn't put that in a video about musical greats.

I seriously think we should go back to just a list of possibilities as it was not long ago. Before anyone goes making mass changes again based on opinon, actually use this page to discuss it. If this doesn;t stop soon we'll need a mediator or something. Durnar 12:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

________________

Wait...so we can just fill wikipedia with all of our opinions now? Or should we maybe actually let people who know a bit more about a subject be the one who edits it?

No, that would make way too much sense.

That list is not my opinion. When I saw the video, I didn't form an opinion of what the list of bands was. I RESEARCHED it. Research is NOT opinion. The huge list you keep posting with AC/DC (Yeah, the band with blonde hair and makeup really looks like AC/DC) Green Day (HURRRRR)...that list is unresearched opinion. My list is something I actually put work into. Huge difference.

• Once again, SIGN YOUR COMMENTS. FOur tildes at the end of a comment, so we can actually tell who is saying what. And it *is* your opinion and its not as obvious as you think it is, because if it was then people wouldn't disagree with you. So can you all actually use the talk page to talk about this, rather than having anonymous people constantly pick and choose what they want here. I've put up an original research/unverified tag until this is actually resolved. Durnar 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think that everybody can agree that the first clip is supposed to be Elvis. The second clip seems to be the Beatles to me, and I don't see how Buddy Holly got in there, since the music video is in seemingly chronological order, and Buddy Holly died in the late 50s. The next one is hard to say, as I don't remember Jimi Hendrix ever having a tambourine. This could be a reference to Hendrix and Cream, but there is an appearance of John Lennon (the glasses), so it could be the Beatles later works like Sargent Peppers. P-Funk is obvious, as Flea's shades are an obvious Bootsy Collins reference. David Bowie is certainly in the glam band, as his mullet was a trademark, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I think that it's Iggy Pop and Marc Bolan though. After them, it seems pretty obvious to be the Sex Pistols, judging by the very prominent UK flag in the background and the band's wild-seeming hair and mannerisms. Furthermore, it is clear that Flea is impersonating Sid Vicious. The next band is The Misfits, distinguished from KISS by a) Anthony's devilock, and b) the lack of KISS's trademark facepaint. The hair metal band is highly debatable, but I guarantee you that it was not AC/DC. There were too many hair metal bands in tight pants to say, but what I can say is that they're only pointing out one, so Poison, Aerosmith, Van Halen and Twisted Sister are a no. The final imitation is unmistakably Nirvana, shown by the appearance of the members of the band and the seemingly buddhist decor (get it? Nirvana? Nirvana?). And, obviously, the end is the actual Chili Peppers.Jackson19808 23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"After them, it seems pretty obvious to be the Sex Pistols, judging by the very prominent UK flag in the background and the band's wild-seeming hair and mannerisms."...exactly even though it isnt the god save the queen poster which would put it out of doubt, it still signifies the british heritage of the band along with the fact Ant as the supposed iggy does have a shirt (unusual) and leans exagerrating maybe leading us to rotton's distinguishable hunching while performing he also sports a rather vicious hairdo but again this is all disputable until we have some official sourcing.

• See, now this is what I was talking about. Rational discussion of whos in the video, rather than going 'I'm very clever, I know what it is'. Durnar 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"...along with the fact Ant as the supposed iggy does have a shirt..." I think we're on a different page here. I think, and I'm not 100% sure, but I think that Iggy Pop was debatable because of the glam band clip, not the punk rock clip. There should be no question as to the fact that Iggy Pop is not the man in the supposed Sex Pistols clip, as Iggy Pop was born in Michigan, and would have little to no reason to hang a UK flag on the stage. But, we're getting off subject here. Can anybody offer any rational thought as to who these people are? 68.82.51.210 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

yes we are on a different page, i was referring to a previous page edit- "Some of the artists that are not parodied in the video, but are commonly mistaken for those above are Prince (who is often mistaken to be in the place of Hendrix), Buddy Holly and The Monkees (mistaken to be in the place of the Beatles), T Rex., The Sex Pistols (mistaken to be in the place of the Iggy Pop), Kiss (mistaken to be in the place of the Misfits), Aerosmith and Motley Crue (mistaken to be in the place of the Poison).

i agree there should be no question about it but there is it seems...

Whoever removed all of the porn...

• ...thankyou so very much.Now amybe I can finally stop watching this page and getting rid of rampant speculation. Hooray. Durnar 14:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

list of possible bands

There should be a list of who those bands could possibly be. I definitely agree with the Green Day identification. Miss Independent 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• It was tried before, and all it did was create an edit war and rampant speculation. Its much better like this. And Greenday? Seriously? I don't see where people get any of that from, other than Ant wears a tie Durnar 07:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• too right, that edit that got rid of the band list was brilliant, and green day? wtf?? --LeakeyJee 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• maybe we should set up some kind of public poll on this... 203.164.55.35 08:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think thats really how it works on wikipedia. Its a verifiable encyclopedia, not opinion formed by consensus. Plus, all that will happen is we do a poll, we find the results, then 10 minutes later somebody edits their opinion back in. Durnar 09:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• i know it is not wikis purpose to have a poll then put it up on the page as fact, but the video is up to interpretation since there is no official list, it would just be interesting to see and as a resource who the majority reckons is in the video clip that is all, is there already a poll on another public site that can be added to the external links? 203.164.55.35 11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• No, but the band's message baord has discussed it at length. And as I said, we had a list before, it didn't work and really it wasn't that necessary. So we can do without. Durnar 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• i guess, just thinking about people who come here looking for some information on the bands lampooned then become disappointed that wiki offers no information on the topic, but i guess unofficial info even if it has general consensus is misleading. It seems we are doomed to exist in this state of speculation until the band decides to enlighten everyone...203.164.55.48 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just noticed the possible bands above the styles of music, this was what i was looking for but thought it was taken off the site...this should be suffice i believe for anyone wanting that kind of info on the bands. 203.164.55.176 16:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dani califoria

i added the full lyrics today--JohnDoyle 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics should not be included in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Lyrics CloudNine 12:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the whole page, made it more readable and got rid of dubiuos looking material that I could find no info about anywhere else. Eg:

Bit dodgy: "Jantzen's claim was that he felt the song was "important" and "needed to be heard". This was even more remarkable because Jantzen claimed to never really have that strong of a liking for the band, but felt differently about this song. The band's drummer, Chad Smith, even heard about this, and called in and was interviewed for about five minutes."

Rather dubious: "(o)Y(o) this is the sign representing the double CD set, Mars and Jupiter."

Complete codswallop: "Also, a fan who claimed to be on his "death bed" emailed Jantzen to get him to play the track, as his last wish. It is believed that this saved that fan's life, because it was reported that his condition immediately improved and he was released from the hospital shortly thereafter." --LeakeyJee 11:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I don't really think it is a stub any more, any one disagree? --LeakeyJee 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not a stub anymore. That said, I added the information about the debut of the song on the rock charts.--Bloodyheartland 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says that "This will be the first song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers to be used as a film theme". I don't want to mess with the article myself, but what about "Love Rollercoaster"? Although it wasn't an original RHCP track but a cover, it seems important to me to point that out.-- gellerj 23:27, 13 April 2006 (Jerusalem time)

RHCP's 'Love Rollercoaster' was part of the Beavis & Butthead Movie soundtrack and had many references to the film within the video clip. 'Dani California' does not contain these 'film references' as such but contains intertextuality parodying other genres of rock in different eras. I do not think the issue lies in the filmic methods or material but rather in the subject matter of the content...Dani California contains a rock band motif not a ‘film theme’ whether the 'film theme' relates to the way the video is filmed or the fact it derives from a soundtrack. 203.164.55.121 17:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about what the user above you was saying. Unless it's actually me who is mistaken, he's not talking about the music video having a "film theme." He's talking about it being used as part of the soundtrack of a film.4.252.73.46 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to remove the part about how unreputable Pitchfork is. I would hardly call them that. --Bloodyheartland 16:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Band possibilities

Why hasn't anyone discussed the possibility of Anthony being Axel From Guns N Roses when he wears the white hat, sunglasses and white coat 65.8.200.152 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Bomb Chelle. I think it is because George Clinton of P-Funk dressed that way and did the move Anthony does at the beginning of the scene, and the rest of the scene does seem to be P-Funk. It wouldn't make much sense to pair Axl Rose with Bootsy Collins.4.252.73.46 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Misfits vs. Danzig

The band seem to be playing Danzig's former band the Misfits rather than his solo band. If you look at pictures of the Danzig-era Misfits and then pictures of the band Danzig, I'm sure you'll agree. 4.252.73.46 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

   I agree with you here, and I think it would be because the original misfits were far more influential for their time than the band danzig which came later.

person who started this topic is a cock sucker

I have a feeling that there are a few trolls that keep editing the article and writing infamatory comments in the talk page just to piss us all off. To the trolls: get a fucking life! --LeakeyJee 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah I think you should get a life, and don't fucking swear, its not nice!!

Taking out the list

I don't think the list should be completely removed, regardless of what Flea said. They may have taken bits and pieces from different people, but I don't think the Sex Pistols, the Misfits, Nirvana, or P-Funk could be any more obvious. I'm not going to edit it back in immediately, but I want to discuss.4.252.79.135 05:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think that we can ever come to a complete agreement on a list, because it's completely subjective, unless we could be sure that the list is correct - ie. a statement from the band or similar, I don't think it's relevent to include such a list on an encyclopedia.--LeakeyJee 12:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "The band play musicians from landmark eras in music, with similarities to bands like the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, the Misfits, and Nirvana." I agree that it is subjective and that some of them seem to be amalgamations, the 80's hair metal band in particular, and perhaps the psychedelic rock group, but they couldn't be much more spot-on concerning the four bands I listed.4.225.92.102 21:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds very good to me. Something like Flea was quoted as saying, "blah blah blah". Still, the musicans they dress up as all have several similarities with bands from landmark eras in music, such as the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, the Misfits, and Nirvana. Cine 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an interview at this address which answers a load of questions about the bands they are or are not and also rules out greenday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1KOLVVnNPg&mode=related&search=

Accusations of plagiarism

Shouldn't there be some sort of mention of the accusations of plagiarism (extreme similarity to the opening riff of Tom Petty's "Last Dance with Mary Jane") [1] [2] Perhaps annotate it as a speculation/rumor, but the accusations and similarities are definitely there EunuchOmerta 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what some guy on the internet thinks about something is worthy of a mention in an encyclopedic article. Otherwise there would be pages of stuff like 'Beck and Lathams latest Trial and Error'. When there is a reputable source and/or legal action, or a mention by Tom Petty himself or the band members, Then it should be worthy of addition. --Mincetro 08:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think what some guy on the internet thinks about something is worthy of a mention in an encyclopedic article." Said by a guy, on the internet, who frequently writes/edits encyclopedic articles. Hmmmm... Travis 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning it here. I myself was trying to find information about this very case when I looked up the article today. I've extended the part about it and changed the reference to point to WGMD's own editorial article about the case. The page offers an audio link to the show so people can make up their own opinion about the similarities. This might add some emphasis without sacrificing neutrality. What do you think? --Steer 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Walking in Memphis" by Bruce Hornsby is the same chords/progression, and even tempoish of everyone's least favorite song, "Heart and Soul". there are 7 notes in the average song-repetition is going to happen, and that DJ/producer/wannabe from Delaware with "350 original songs" is pretty much an asshat.

The resemblance to "Last Dance with Mary Jane" is undeniable. Anyone who defends this is a partisan hack. Partisan for a band. Eww. --Macarion

Ehhh, Tom Petty isn't that great, and besides, it's like the article states, the radio station sped it up and the chord changes are different. And I guess Tom isn't going to take any legal action. http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=149182 Jondy 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In one of the scenes where many say there is reference to Hendrix and Cream, there is an appearance of John Lennon (the glasses), so it could be the beatles later works like Sargent Peppers.

Is it just me, or does the guitar line also sound like "Fallout" from John Frusciante's To Record Only Water for Ten Days?

I removed the line about 'The drum parts being similar"... Simply because it's someones opionion, not a fact. And I don't agree with it at all.... Not to mention the fact that the terms used were not correct at all.

Could someone look at [[3]]? I added that part of the song resembles Dance Dance by Fall Out Boy. I'm not sure how much actual research is needed, maybe listing notes for comparison.

And.. About the radio station changing the key and tempo. Arguing that that's unfair is the same as saying taking a song, then changing the key and tempo makes it a new song. The change was done for comparison purposes. Most people can't even detect a minor key and temp change in a song without a direct comparison (that needs a citation). I'm just saying that I don't that the point that the DJ changed the tempo and key to match is valid. My $0.02.

Could people please stop adding their OPINIONS... This entire section is getting out of control. Anyone can say song X sounds like song Y... But it doesn't have it's place here. Unless there is a direct rip off, and the bands involved have announced this, it is not worth including. The Tom Petty issue has been cleared up by Tom Petty himself. He summed it up with "A lot of rock and roll songs sound similar". It should end there.

greenday?????

It isnt greenday, anthony always wears a tie. just like when they were on top of the pops on sunday.

Somebody else said something about anthonys gloves, shorts and tie. Well his worn them for years.

I'm pretty sure the last person was Avril Lavigne. It's her style of dress. I think they were themselves....but they wanted to mock the superficiality of bands over the years. And Avril Lavigne might have been the last one.

Anthony has dressed like that before... I don't think it's Avril or Green Day. None of the other band members are in costume in that scene, either.4.252.73.46 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• The last scene is them being themselves. You can't "imitate" Green Day anyway, nothing they've ever done is original. TheDavesr 20:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The chart position

Do we need that many countries, two or three is alright but theres seven there and its a bit too much. It looks messy and muddled. Maybe just have the UK US and World position. Or if not that then only the World position. Otherwise one can argue that every country in which it has been released should have its own table of position and sales. Behind the veil 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I think the only

Sweet home Alabama

am i the only one that thinks the opening riff of dani california (the main riff) sounds identical to the rhytm/background guitar in Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama"? Lord revan 21:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And I think it sounds like Aerosmith's "Dream On". 70.18.219.135 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the bands in the video is pbviously Cream. The lead guitarist is dressed exactly like Eric Clapton of 1967 fame, right down to his hand-painted multicolored Gibson SG, a famous guitar now owned by Tod Rundgrend, called "The Fool."

sorry to bring up green day, but...

no, i have nothing to contribute, just something to possibly quell the latent fury that rests at the gap of this topical rift. while I do not personally believe that they parody green day at the end, there are several things which I see that I could understand someone attributing to green day, as well as a reason for such a prescence in this music video.

firstly, there's the tie. they both wear ties. if i wear a suit, and bob wears a suit, but bob is known moreso for his suit in recent times, and we're both portly space accountants, chances are the suit will be associated with bob when people see me in their telescopes doing the taxes. I hope the analogy is understood. secondly, let's look to the giant sign. while it is the rhcp asterisk thingy, it shares the same color theme and grandoise prescence as the monolithic symbols green day placed behind themselves on their american idiot tour.

now, my reason for any justification of a green day prescence in this video; some people may not realize this, but green day has been a long standing prescence, whether you like them or not is irrelevent. sadly, the standard internet saavy person has the IQ and temperment of an eight year old, and any attempt to point out something from an unbiased standpoint usually ends with a lot of flame posts and ego wars. anyhoooo, with the release of green day's american idiot album, even if you don't like it, came the most recent of musical revolutions. it was a revolution for the group itself, it was a revolution in mainstream protest, and arguably one of the main driving forces in the definition of a new musical era.

in conclusion, while it would be logical for the video to posess a green day prescence given the theme of said video, that in no way means that there is, in fact, a prescence. it is my OPINION, that if they were to do a green day parody, they would have made the similarities more blatant and pronounced.

also, I feel that most of the parodies were meant to be "similar to, but legally distinct from" *insert band here* as representatives of various eras in the progression of rock. but again, that is an opinion, and they don't belong here, with the exception of an identifiably widespread shared opinion that is historically relevant, such as moon landing conspiracy theories, or the beliefs of 13th century french.

I am unfarmiliar with this site, and don't understand what the tilde thing is supposed to do. jaemin w deal 67.177.120.213 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bands in the video

• Elvis
• The Beatles (Flea using the Hofner bass and John using the Rickenbacker is a dead giveaway)
• Jimi Hendrix (He may not be holding a guitar, but I know it's him)
• Parliament-Funkadelic
• David Bowie
• The Sex Pistols (or maybe the Clash)
• Marilyn Manson (am I the only one who thinks so? I don't care if it's in the wrong period.)
• Bon Jovi (some hair metal band anyway)
• Nirvana (Anthony wearing a blonde wig? Couldn't be anyone other than Kurt)
• Themselves

Thanks man, you've come and solved it for all of us, I'll add this into the article now... --LeakeyJee 12:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this shouldn't be in the article, as know one can verify it, but this is my theory as to which bands are represented in the music video:

• Elvis
• The Shadows (check out JF's comparison with Hank Marvin)
• Jimi Hendrix
• Parliament-Funkadelic
• David Bowie
• The Sex Pistols (not The Stooges. AK is wearing a shirt)
• The Misfits (visual likeness)
• Not sure - JF's stripy guitar says Van Halen, but with the wrong hair. I'm not a fan of Hair Metal anyway...
• Nirvana (Painfully obvious)
• Themselves

I came up with.

• Elvis
• The Beatles
• Led Zeppelin
• Parliament-Funkadelic
• The New York Dolls
• The Sex Pistols
• The Misfits
• Motley Crue
• Nirvana
• Themselves (Even though it looks like Green Day. Also looks like My Chemical Romance.)

Infobox track chronology

Is there a way to change the infobox and make it so that it shows the chronology of both the band's singles AND the tracks on the album that the song is on? Rexisfed 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bands in the video

Elvis Presly, Buddy Holly, Prince, Alice Cooper and Elton John, The Sex Pistols, Sid Vicious, Van Halen, Motley Crue, Nirvana, AC/DC.

i think they did genres not bands it seems to me each band member just dressed as a diffent member of a diffent band in each genre

Theres a frankly silly number of bands listed as being portrayed in the video, far more than actual changes in the video would allow for. It needs some actual verified (or at least asolutley obvious) information on who they are, rather than just listing everything that come to mind. Durnar 14:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The top hat is a trademark of Marc Bolan of T Rex... who was #1 Glam Rock Star until Bowie surpassed him.This is clearly who Ant is caricaturing. RedManPlus 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Marc Bolan Top Hat Link

Anyone else think that when they're back as themselves at the end they kinda look like a parody of themselves? --AiusEpsi 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Slightly of the point but I thought the video was hilarious ;) MrDark 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see 10 overall scene changes, i.e not counting how sometimes the outfits are from different bands (e.g Gary Glitter, John Bonham, David Bowie). Even though I don't actually recognize all of these costumes, this seems to leave more than enough room for the bands currently listed in the article. You can watch the movie on the band's MySpace website for yourself - try it! JoachimK 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see John Bonham, myself... or Iggy Pop... but I could be missing them... and that's not Aerosmith, it's Motley Crue (with John playing an Eddie Van Halen guitar, but with blond hair, which I don't think EVH ever had). Also, I don't think Anthony wearing black with a red tie makes them Green Day.216.249.145.234 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John looks alot liek Iggy Pop to me. Especially in the way he moves and sings.

There seems to be a dispute over whether the glam-metal rockers featured in the video clip are members of motley-cue or poison (twisted sister anyone?), I myself thought they referenced a manifest of the glam-rockers of the era but that wouldn’t comply with the precedent set in each segment with the band clearly impersonating identifiable musicians of each era. Flea seems to have unique roles within each interlude...in the glam-metal segment he clearly adopts a role as a known character of that era, he seems familiar. Has anyone got any ideas who Flea is impersonating? 203.164.55.122 12:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The last scene isn't them dressed as themselves, but rather Green Day. Check Green Day's American Idiot video clip and compare.

The last scene is them, it's stupid to compare them to Green Day for numerous reasons. One, wearing a tie does not make you green day. Chad has his trade mark hat on. Last time I checked the bassist in Green Day whears's a shirt where as Flea doesn't. And Frusciante is wearing his usual flannel and slacks. Also, why would they do flash backs during a section about Green Day?

Agree. Green Day reference makes no sense. They are of no historical importance yet. John has his trademark flannel thing, Flea trademark bare-chested, Chad got that hat and kinda 60s burnout look, and Ant looks different every time. Any resemblance to current pop artists is coincidental. That's why they put a 20 foot friggin' RHCP logo behind them. Clue of the century.RedManPlus 16:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe they parody Greenday...it does not make sense in the context of the clip and the song itself why they would, also from the visuals-the fashion if anything is just coincidental. They *might* share similarities to Greenday another long-standing band who has had a string of modern hits but does that mean they are explicitly referencing them...I think not, with the other bands it is relatively clear-cut who they are meant to be 'taking off'. Any possible interpretation of them being Greenday is hazy. Are there any sources or reports from the band itself or related media to the list of bands being parodied?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhH8khjKI1I&search=still%20waiting The tie, the sign, the overall "setup", the dance. Imho the last scene is a clear reference to these "new" pop/punk-rock bands like Green Day, Sum 41, Blink 182 etc. But that's just me.Slipzen 15:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys sure the second band isn't Buddy Holly? He does have the glasses on.

I think it's a combination of both. Because the rest are definatley the Beatles but Anthony seems alot like Buddy Holly.

I agree, that struck me as being Buddy Holly and the Crickets (his band) more than the beatles

Yeah i would agree with you...it is reminiscent of the nirvana black and white parody in the clip for "in bloom"-(nirvana).

The last scene doesn't quite look like them being themselves to me - I think it is clear they are doing somewhat of a Green Day impersonation. For a start, the tie definitely does not fit - nor the giant logo in the background. Granted it is the RHCP logo, but it just doesn't seem to fit their style. Some official word on this would be nice though.

Either you are blind or a Green Day fan boy. If you're basing it solely on the tie, than it's probably Avril Lavinge. But it's not. All the bands in the music video are influences previously named by RHCP which don't include Green Day.

I just don't see Avril Lavigne. I thought the ending was a spoof of themselves. Because if it was Avril Lavigne wouldn't the band have to change looks like with every other change?

Woah you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I wrote, you may need to read it a few times.

Haha, I'm fairly sure the the person who said Avril Lavigne was simply saying that we can't judge the band they are imitating purely by the tie. I can tell you they are definitely not making a parody of Avril Lavigne. JoachimK 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The last segment is the RHCPs being themselves. Just so the slow among us can't can't figure this out... they HANG A HUGE RHCP LOGO BEHIND THEM (hint, hint). The Avril theory is completely nuts. RedManPlus 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They are more known before performing undressed. Not dressed though.

That is how Anthony normally dresses, look at photos of them in hyde park, shirt and tie, only white.

Why I think these are wrong:
The Beatles: The Beatles didn't wear glasses, and they definately didn't on the Ed Sullivan show. I believe it's Buddy Holly, but only Buddy Holly's band didn't have glasses, only him. So I'm really not sure.
Motley Crue: Vince Neil was the only member of Motley Crue with blonde hair, in the video, they all have blonde hair/Chad has light brown.
Parliament: Anthony is dressed NOTHING like George Clinton, but the whole spaceship thing fits.
Mark Bolan: Is not the guy with the top hat. To my knowledge he didn't wear that much make-up, and actually only wore the top hat for a short period of time. It's possible that John is actually Mark Bolan, though.
Iggy Pop: He isn't in this video anywhere. No one is shirtless other than Anthony when he was Glenn Danzig of the Misfits and Flea when they are RHCP, and Iggy Pop ALWAYS performed shirtless.
And to the person who said they're imitating Green Day at the end: that is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

   * Elvis Presley---referenced
   * Buddy Holly and the Crickets--not really, glasses maybe but that may just be a sixties band reference since              they all wear them
   * The Beatles--referenced
   * The Jimi Hendrix Experience--referenced
   * Cream--not at all
   * Prince and the Revolution--he is jimi there, not prince
   * Parliament-Funkadelic   ---yes, and flea is bootsy....and yes, if you watch old parliament videos, clinton comes from the mothership dressed like that
   * Iggy Pop and the Stooges -- yes
   * David Bowie (Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars)--yep
   * T. Rex -- enh.....mark bolan
   * The Sex Pistols-- yes
   * The Misfits-- yes
   * Kiss--no no no
   * Aerosmith---no no no
   * Motley Crue-- no nono    that band is poison
   * Nirvana - yes

green day not at all hope that clears up who is in it

The article currently states "in the June 2006 issue of UK Classic Rock magazine, Flea was quoted as saying, "We mainly did eras, not actual people: rockabilly, British Invasion, psychedelia, funk, glam, punk, goth, hair metal, grunge, and ourselves being the sum of all those parts"."

I think the music video relates simultaneously to: (a) eras; (b) specific bands and musicians; (c) specific videos, film and TV appearances by those bands and musicians; with cross-pollination between all three. Thus you have Flea dressed like Ziggy Stardust, but Flea is a bassist and Ziggy was not, so Flea/Ziggy plays a bass suitable for the glam era. Also in the glam era you have Anthony making some Iggy Pop moves, while dressed in a satin tailcoat reminiscent of Alice Cooper. In the British Invasion section Anthony in glasses could be a ref. to Freddie and the Dreamers, the rest of the band ref. The Beatles.

The Sex Pistols section seems based on a specific music video. The Nirvana section seems based on their MTV Unplugged footage. Maybe some visuals are from still photos. The military jacket that Eric Clapton wore in Cream, was that a photo shoot or a film/video? Are the Parliament and The Misfits sections referenced from specific video footage? --Design 09:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

Isn't that last band that they portray, Pearl Jam. From the way everyone jumps around...it seems to be exactally how Pearl Jam acted in the early 90's. Heck, even the guitarist looks how Mike McCready did, not to mention the bassist and stuff.

After the Grunge part it is them. Thats the way they are. Its not supposed to be a different band. Cdylan13 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

The image of the cover needs a fair use rationale; without it a GA reviewer might quick-fail the nomination. Errabee 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunatly I have had to fail it because of that. themcman1 _Talk 11:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review v2.

Sorry, it still quick fails GA, since it contains uses of the {{fact}} template. G1ggy! 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

Could anyone include an external link to a page with the right lyrics? I've been searching on the Internet and I've found many different versions of the song's lyrics --much of which are obviously wrong--, and as I'm not really a RHCP fan I don't know which is the right one. Pabletex (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd GA Review

Passed

The article would have passed both previous reviews save for some bureaucratic problems. Article hasn't changed much, and is well within the good article criteria. Just a few things:

1. The chart position table leaves a lot of whitespace on the right of it, maybe you should make is 4 instead of 2 columns.
   1. done Gary King (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Maybe find citations for the exact track lengths.
   1. done Gary King (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
3. In Criticism and Reception, 2nd paragraph, change the capitalisation of A Minor to A minor as per MOS:MUSIC and maybe mode should follow A Dorian. Also decide on a uniform capitalisation of the titles – either capitalise both Creation and Reception or neither.
   1. done Gary King (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Centy 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently under GA Review at WP:GA/R Thanks. themcman1 _Talk 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "billboard" :
  • {{cite web|title=Red Hot Chili Peppers Billboard Chart Performance.|url=http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:difrxqr5ldje~T51|accessdate=2008-03-30|publisher=[[All Music Guide]]}}
  • {{Cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=5507&model.vnuAlbumId=815996|title=Red Hot Chili Peppers: Artist Chart History|accessdate=2007-06-03|publisher=[[Billboard]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Released at 2000?

it was released at 2000 in latin america? and 2001 in uk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.176.32.149 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dani California/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some parts, particularly the end of the "Reception" section, contain too stubby prose, and there's an accumulation of cruft.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is a serious shortage of references, to the point where it is sometimes unclear what are the sources for direct quotes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is no section on composition. There is a short paragraph on the music under "Origins and character", but this is entirely lacking in references.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Funk/Parliament

I'm changing the picture comment to read honoring Parliament (band), the band, instead of funk because they are honoring that exact band, the outfits in the music video are infamous ones from Parliament and they even have a mothership in the background just like Parliament. It should be obvious they're imitating Parliament, if there is any problem with this please tell me, there are plenty of videos on youtube of Parliament that show the mothership and those outfits. - Patman2648 06:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a problem with this. Obviously the band is homaging Parliament-Funkadelic, but this isn't referenced in any secondary text on the video and so it counts as original research. Normally it wouldn't matter so much but for GA and FA articles the criteria for including material are stricter, and considering Flea's contention that the band are only doing eras, not bands, it's difficult to justify the inclusion. A few explanations of outfits were made by Mitch Michaels in the cited article, but he doesn't mention Parliament, only Bootsy. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's original research, if its as you say "Obviously...homaging Parliament-Funkadelic" then no original research is being done. If there is a music video where the whole band is wearing white, it's obvious they're wearing white but they never say in a comment anywhere that they're all wearing white then it should not be original research to say that they're wearing white. It's a basic common fact that they're wearing white. Why would I have to find a website that states they're wearing white to cite? I'm not proposing anything that is new theory (a an obvious fact), I'm not introducing anything that's original that I thought up, it's common knowledge what they're homaging Parliament-Funkadelic. Also with the bands wearing white, there is no alternative theory possible that disclaims that they're wearing white just like it's impossible to find another funk band that included bootsy collins where there was a mothership and the main singer dressed in a white fur coat. It is 100% guaranteed that it is Parliament-Funkadelic just the same as it guaranteed that my previous band allusion is wearing all white. Now if its 100% then there is no new theory or research or terms or definitions that is I individually have thought up and proposed (original research), it's basic common knowledge that anyone can tell, that's probably why Flea didn't saying this is Parliament-Funkadelic and that's why the all white wearing band wouldn't have tell someone in an interview that they're all wearing white.

If you would truly like a source, I can provide songfacts.com for a source where they say it's clearly no doubt parliament/funkadelic. - http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6168- Patman2648 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Songfacts is not a reliable source - that paragraph was directly lifted from an earlier version of this article, in fact. And, yes, original research includes the obvious. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing Error Hi, mi english isn't very good, but i think you should write in this article, that there is a writing error on the single. In Germany on the paper is written: 1. DC and 2. Million Miles of Water BUT on the single is just 1. DC 2. Whatever we Want 3. Lately... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.51.91 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Purple Haze

The long guitar solo at the end of the song is an (obvious) adaption of Hendrix Purple Haze. Maybe this should be mentioned in the "Origin" chapter. -- Käptn Weltall (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Link in ref #6 is broken

Link in ref #6 (YouTube video) is broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notveryactive89 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dani California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2006/06/28/tom-petty-to-chili-peppers-were-cool/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dani California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080207111523/http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx to http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_Show/list.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Not Beatles

It is obviously not The Beatles since none of them is left handed, Paul was left handed and since when the rest of The Beatles wore glasses besides John and John have always had grandma-glasses, not Rayban. It seems to be Buddy Holly and The Crickets on The Sullivan Show is definitely not The Beatles, many mistaken it to be The Beatles because it was a Ed Sullivan Show set up. AND...read the reference more carefully please... "Clip 2: British Invasion. The most noticeable nod is to The Beatles' appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show", with the stage and equipment set up exactly the same. But the Chili Peppers are NOT the Beatles here. When the hell did the Beatles wear glasses? The accessories, like the "Beatle" boots and the big black glasses, were typical of many of the British Invasion bands of the early to mid-60's, like The Animals, Manfred Mann and Herman's Hermits." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorxx (talk • contribs) 05:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Definately Hermans Hermits. Notice the Knees bouncing in and out, and awkwardly holding guitar high on his chest--Youtube Hermans Hermits i'm into something good. He has the black glasses on too! However, see Anthony Kiedis shakes his head left and right like if you look at beatles twist and shout 1964 youtube you'll see John, Paul and George shake their head left and right on the "wooooooo....". But clearly you have to include Hermans Hermits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.6.193 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dani California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725182817/http://music.yahoo.com/Red-Hot-Chili-Peppers/Dani-California/lyrics/32168326 to http://music.yahoo.com/Red-Hot-Chili-Peppers/Dani-California/lyrics/32168326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521194848/http://blogcritics.org:80/archives/2006/05/31/104324.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/31/104324.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035357/http://www.rockband.com:80/forums/showthread.php?t=225612 to http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225612
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926233942/http://www.411mania.com/music/columns/40881 to http://www.411mania.com/music/columns/40881

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dani California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/31/104324.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225612
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927030253/http://www.wgmd.com/SOUNDS/FEATURES/051706-petty.mp3 to http://www.wgmd.com/SOUNDS/FEATURES/051706-petty.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)