Is a band a group or a single entity?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I've noticed from reading music press from the UK and America that the British will consider a band as a group of individuls, ie. "Radiohead ARE great", whereas Americans think of them as one thing, ie. "Radiohead IS great". Why is this? Who is right?

― Nick H, Sunday, 2 March 2003 16:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

They're both wrong. Radiohead suck/sucks.

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Sunday, 2 March 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think that's more a matter of bad grammar than some sort've reference to the band being one unit.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Sunday, 2 March 2003 16:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

Alex, there are different conventions for handling this in British and American English. I don't have the appropriate grammar/usage books available at my finger-tips, but I have seen this discussed.

― Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 2 March 2003 16:41 (twenty-one years ago) link

i can't stand the American format i.e. single entity, although ironically i think they're probably right to wage war on silent letters as they have done

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 2 March 2003 17:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

What about a collective name for a single entity? Like, would you say The Streets IS rubbish, or The Streets ARE rubbish?

― kate, Sunday, 2 March 2003 18:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

are

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 2 March 2003 18:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

There's been a thread on this before. I think we decided there was no US/UK divide, and it really just depends on the context of the rest of the sentence. I would say "Radiohead is a band," but I would also say "Radiohead are sometimes really great," depending on whether there is a collective noun referring back to the subject yadadada

― Adam A. (Keiko), Sunday, 2 March 2003 19:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

i'd class The Streets as a singular entity because that is how the act is perceived and presented as - essentially a one man show

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 2 March 2003 19:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

Gramatticaly, it's the same in both places: it's a singular entity. No matter how correct it is to read The Smiths is blah blah blah, tho, it just sounds awful. Some pubs go with what is right, some with what reads better.

― bucky wunderlick (bucky), Sunday, 2 March 2003 20:33 (twenty-one years ago) link

of course, that would sound better if i could spell better...

― bucky wunderlick (bucky), Sunday, 2 March 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

i thought it al matters to what you're reffering to, if you say The Streets is rubbish you reffer to their music, but using are meant a refferance to the induviduals, say like they're preformance is rubbish.

― rex jr., Sunday, 2 March 2003 20:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

say like they're preformance is rubbish.
oops, type-o. i meant: say they're preforming badly.

― rex jr., Sunday, 2 March 2003 20:59 (twenty-one years ago) link

I do remember an earlier discussion, on ILE rather than ILM maybe. But regardless of earlier conclusions, I maintain that there is a fairly strong UK/US divide (sorry to leave the rest of the english speaking world out of this snapshot) -- and it extends to realms other than music, too, mainly the corporate world.

In the UK it seems standard to refer to a band, or a business, or any group of people with a collective name, in the plural: "Virgin Records proudly declare that Atomic Kitten are the most exciting band of the new millenium." In the US, a singular name behaves like a singular noun and a plural name refers to a plural noun, regardless of how many people these nouns reference: "Rolling Stone takes issue with claims to the effect that Atomic Kitten has any redeeming qualities."

― Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Sunday, 2 March 2003 21:19 (twenty-one years ago) link

larger numbers of people are singular entities throughout the world though e.g. corporations and nations - curious

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 2 March 2003 21:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

This are pointless.

― mrat, Sunday, 2 March 2003 23:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.