Bands: 'is' or 'are'?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

For example:

U2 IS a shitty overated Irish rock band

or:

U2 ARE a shitty overated Irish rock band

Yanks tend to favour the former, and Brits the latter. But which is correct?

― chap who would dare to violate the least amount of laws of physics (chap), Sunday, 23 October 2005 00:50 (twenty years ago)

I hate that shit. I just wrote a little thing about Animal Collective and I was going back and forth the whole time.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 23 October 2005 00:59 (twenty years ago)

is if you are american are if you are british

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

"Pavement is..."

"The members of Pavement are..."

"The White Stripes are..."

"The members of the White Stripes are..."

simple and THE RULES.

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

I think the Yanks have us to rights on this one

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:01 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but it gets really hinky with the third-person pronouns. If you can't say "they," wtf do you say?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:02 (twenty years ago)

if you've established that you're talking about the band members in the graf, then "they" is fine. ie. "The members of Pavement are all white. They are..." otherwise no.

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

"Band" is a singular noun. I don't understand the British wrangling of the word that produces "the band are in the studio recording their next album." That's total wrongness. (xpost)

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

U2 is
Stones are
Who could go either way

― jim wentworth (wench), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:05 (twenty years ago)

Go YANKS!

― Wiggy (Wiggy), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:05 (twenty years ago)

this is associate press style i am going by here, so its fairly standard us journalese. i get paid to correct this sort of thing every week, though i am constantly guilty of fucking it up myself.

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:06 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, they got swept by the Angels. Do keep up, Wiggy. (xp)

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:06 (twenty years ago)

Thinking about, the American way is absolutely right, grammatically speaking. I still find it a bit weird, though.

― chap who would dare to violate the least amount of laws of physics (chap), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:09 (twenty years ago)

The UK usage gets me in trouble with my boss all the damn time because I tend to use it in reference to companies (ex "Pho3nix are going to deliver that job early"). It's probably a terrible habit and I know I picked it up from UK internet types but I like it because it feels silly to talk about a company as a single entity, incorporation or no incorporation. Come to think of it the pl. is probably truer to other forms, too, because if you have to choose a pronoun for a band or assembly you use "they", not "it", (ex "Metric/They are playing tomorrow").

But then I also prefer punctuation OUTSIDE the quotation marks when the question arises, just for consistency's sake.

Hm, huge XP.

― Laurel, Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:12 (twenty years ago)

Bands are people. Bands are doing things. Bands are playing shows. Bands are recording records. Americans are dumb.

― Ally C (Ally C), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:14 (twenty years ago)

Or are you to assume this flexibility, that if you use "...they are playing..." you're automatically referring to the multiple members and not to the ensemble?

― Laurel, Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:15 (twenty years ago)

the american way is grammatically correct but wrong

― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:17 (twenty years ago)

Ally, hahahaha!

― chap who would dare to violate the least amount of laws of physics (chap), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:19 (twenty years ago)

Come to think of it the pl. is probably truer to other forms, too, because if you have to choose a pronoun for a band or assembly you use "they", not "it", (ex "Metric/They are playing tomorrow").

Laurel and Ally C OTM.

You refer to, say, a corporation as 'it' because you're talking about the company, not the people.

You wouldn't say "The group of people is doing something", so you shouldn't say "U2 is doing something".

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:20 (twenty years ago)

But you would, because isn't "group" singular? So the question is really: when you use a band's proper name, do you preference the plural or singular nature, ie does the band's collective identity take precedence over the fact that the band is made up of multiple people?

― Laurel, Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:24 (twenty years ago)

good lord people this really isn't rocket science.

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:33 (twenty years ago)

No, but it's kind of fun! Anyway, have to go, I'm already late.

― Laurel, Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:37 (twenty years ago)

Err, yeah. I fucked up there. I'm right even if the example I gave isn't, though.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:38 (twenty years ago)

What if you're talking about that band that had Levon Helm as the drummer? By UK logic, one would say "The Band are re-releasing The Band."

And that sounds retarded.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:42 (twenty years ago)

That sounds beautiful in in zen-like way.

― chap who would dare to spy on his best mate's ex (chap), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:45 (twenty years ago)

if you've established that you're talking about the band members in the graf, then "they" is fine. ie. "The members of Pavement are all white. They are..." otherwise no.

Right, but that's the problem, this requirement to insert "the members of" somewhere so you have a suitable referent for the third-person plural. It's awkward and leads to weird sentences.

Sports teams create similar problems.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 23 October 2005 02:16 (twenty years ago)

But what pronoun *do* you use if not "they"? "Pavement is finishing up a European tour before *it* heads back into the studio" just doesn't sound right (mot to mention that it sounds like the tour is what's heading into the studio)

― Hurting (Hurting), Sunday, 23 October 2005 02:17 (twenty years ago)

Pavement is finishing up a European tour before heading back into the studio.

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 23 October 2005 02:24 (twenty years ago)

Strongo is an explosion in a fresh air factory on this thread.

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 23 October 2005 02:27 (twenty years ago)

And he's right too, but he's making it sound easier than it is, because the problem comes in when you have to write more than one or two sentences about the same band. There's only so many times you want to say either "Pavement" or "the band," "the group," whatever. Eventually you're going to want a pronoun for either concision or to avoid repetition, and then you're faced with either using "it" -- which sounds weird -- or working in "the band members" or something that you can refer to with a "they."

But I think there's actually an out for this. I don't have my AP guide handy, but I think there's an allowance for singular subjects that can take plural pronouns. I'll check when I'm back at work next week.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 23 October 2005 02:34 (twenty years ago)

A lot of threads is already addressing this subject.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 23 October 2005 03:05 (twenty years ago)

"The band are" - Why is British grammar invading the US?

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 23 October 2005 03:13 (twenty years ago)

There is such a thing as a collective noun - which is to say a noun that colectively refers to a set of individual instances or members. One example would be "rice" as it refers to a mass of rice grains. One syas that "the rice is underdone" rather than "the rice are underdone."

A band is a collection, or group of individual members, but when I was using the terms "band" or "group" as the subject of a sentence, I would use a singular verb form, as for example "When the band broke up, it was already a failed enterprise.".

However, if the name of the band or group is plural (i.e. "The Fugs") and if I were using the band's name as the subject of the sentence, I would also use a plural form of the verb, as for example "The Fugs were rarely sober."

― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 23 October 2005 03:37 (twenty years ago)

this thread (and the other one) make my brain hurt.

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Sunday, 23 October 2005 03:52 (twenty years ago)

or... this thread makes my head hurt
ARRRHAHAHRAHRAADFWEQWEQUIEY

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Sunday, 23 October 2005 03:53 (twenty years ago)

Feel the burn!

― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 23 October 2005 04:01 (twenty years ago)

Americans is crazy with their grammar.
Britain are crazy too.
Wait...

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Sunday, 23 October 2005 04:04 (twenty years ago)

b-but that's coz the fugs is plural! compare "reo speedwagon was a fuckin great band!" romance languages are so great for this tho coz they can rilly deal with it. the reflexive plural is one of my fav. constructions of any language.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 23 October 2005 07:54 (twenty years ago)

Us Brits are right, you Americans is wrong.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Sunday, 23 October 2005 09:26 (twenty years ago)

Aimless' explanation seems all very well using the examples there, but how to apply it to a non-plural band name? You could say that U2 (that's the name U2) is a catch-all term for a collection of people, much like "rice" is the term for a collection of rice grains.

I can see when you are referring to the band as a band, as in this example, "When the band broke up, it was already a failed enterprise" how you can get away with using it, but what if you are referring to U2, specifically meaning "Bono, The Edge, Larry Mullen and Adam Clayton", and what they (that's THEY, not IT) do. "When U2 released "Zooropa" THEY went on tour" vs "When U2 released "Zooropa" IT went on tour. U2 is not used to signify a band as an entity, it is a word used to represent something - it's pretty much shorthand for saying "When Bono, The Edge, Larry Mullen and Adam Clayton released "Zooropa" THEY went on tour".

Isn't it? (note: I am not any sort of linguistic or grammatical expert, but this is the way I've always seen it. Also, I'm in the UK, as if that weren't obvious.)

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 23 October 2005 09:43 (twenty years ago)

dude, just avoid the use of pronouns with singular band names! i do it almost unconsciously.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 23 October 2005 09:50 (twenty years ago)

"U2 scheduled a tour coinciding with the release of Zooropa." Usually lots of impersonal pronouns makes for bad hazy writing anyway. everywhere where there's a toss up between "it" and "they" just put "the band" or "the group" or get even more creative and make every spot an opportunity for some adjectival play -- "With u2's release of Zooropa, the members of this walking musical abortion took it to the road."

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 23 October 2005 09:55 (twenty years ago)

Yes, OK, you can get round it with writing, but do the "rules" (ha - like we've sussed what they are) apply when you are speaking also? Because you don't actually talk like that (I assume, though fair play if you do, I guess).

(note: I don't talk about U2 very much, but if I were sad enough to discuss them and their tour I would probably say "they went on tour")

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 23 October 2005 10:01 (twenty years ago)

WHY THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER ?
this kind of niggling does nothing to the article, and i dont think many readers will notice or give a flying fuck about it...

― anthony, Sunday, 23 October 2005 10:47 (twenty years ago)

every once in a blue moon I miss being an editor, then something like THIS THREAD comes along and corrects my nostalgic vision with memories of decade-old headaches and mazelike circular arguments.

uhm, thanks a lot and ROFFLE

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 23 October 2005 10:53 (twenty years ago)

ILX are a great site, don't you think? Any given school of thought are able to find their expression here.

― moley, Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:05 (twenty years ago)

what about capitalizing "the?" is it "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"?

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:41 (twenty years ago)

British? American? I've never noticed anyone saying "are" for singular nouns in the UK, whether bands or companies or anything else.

― beanz (beanz), Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:51 (twenty years ago)

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

Shite like WE ARE PREGNANT always makes me fart.

― GENERATION BLANK, Sunday, 23 October 2005 12:00 (twenty years ago)

Uh maybe I'm not registering it. I guess when I see it I think "I'd change that".

― beanz (beanz), Sunday, 23 October 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

anthony the reason people "care" is because "grammar" makes things easier to "read." if anyone responded to an edit with "why the fuck does it matter?" they'd be hittin the bricks.

― strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 23 October 2005 13:27 (twenty years ago)

WHY THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER ?
this kind of niggling does nothing to the article, and i dont think many readers will notice or give a flying fuck about it...
-- anthony (anthony.easto...), October 23rd, 2005 12:47 PM. (later)

Anthony, you wonder why this thread (magazine feature edits ) came about? Editors aren't just there for the hell of it, you know...

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 23 October 2005 15:14 (twenty years ago)

jesus fucking WEPT, everybody. get one house-style book for the publication you're writing for. and that's it.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:00 (twenty years ago)

What if you aren't writing for a publication? What then, eh?

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:05 (twenty years ago)

get one of these:

http://sparky.thehold.net/pix/care-o-meter.jpg

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:11 (twenty years ago)

Oh, OK, the decline of the English language can continue unabated. See if I care.

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:14 (twenty years ago)

i only care between the hours of 10am and 6pm, monday-friday (plus the usual unpaid overtime on monday and tuesday, boo).

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:16 (twenty years ago)

I prefer to think of myself in terms of the royal 'we,' ergo 'are' it is.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

Ned are confusing me now.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 23 October 2005 21:25 (twenty years ago)

Ned, have you named your tapeworm?

― kingfish neopolitan sundae (kingfish 2.0), Sunday, 23 October 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

Who hasn't?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 October 2005 23:13 (twenty years ago)

(1) "Members of the band" sucks. How could anyone write such a phrase?

(2) I used to always do singular: "The band sucks." And I would always follow with "they" as the pronoun, which made me inconsistent.

(3) But not as inconsistent as I am now. Upon my return to writing for the Voice in 1999 I though hard about this issue when composing my first piece (Nazareth); my solution was always to find a plural form of the band's name when verb inflection was at issue. So I avoided "band" or "Nazareth" (or Slade or Creedence) as a sentence subject, and the couple of times I couldn't, I referred to the "Nazarenes" and to the "Slade people." But my pronoun policy remained: I would use the singular "band" or "Nazareth" to be the antecedent of the plural "they" or "them." But since due to my careful policy, at least this plural pronoun didn't jar against a singularly inflected verb immediately preceding it. After Nazareth I decided not to give a shit, and just stuck the singular verb form after "band" or singular group or band name no matter what was going on with the pronoun farther along in the sentence or paragraph. Except that this consistent (if only quasi-grammatical) practice got further screwed up because my editor, Chuck Eddy, likes the plural verb form ("You know that Public Enemy are punk rockers, 'cause they bitch about rock crits and airplay so much"); not that he tells me to use it, but I'm now so used to his use of it that I've gotten into the habit of using the plural verb form, when I remember to, except I usually forget. The copy desk evidently has a policy of throwing up their (!) hands at this hopeless question. Rather, we ponder a more crucial matter: Taking sides, asshattery vs. ass-hattery!

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 24 October 2005 01:47 (twenty years ago)

Er, and here at ILX when I type quickly and then half revise a sentence, grammar gets mauled: "I would use the singular 'band' or 'Nazareth' to be the antecedent"

I use to be a good writer.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 24 October 2005 01:51 (twenty years ago)

The sheep is loose. Hang on, the sheep are loose.

― snotty moore, Monday, 24 October 2005 23:47 (twenty years ago)

Another style question:

This is a complete sentence (and this parenthetical is also a complete sentence).

This is a complete sentence (and this parenthetical is also a complete sentence.)

― Leeeeeeeeeee (Leee), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:13 (twenty years ago)

The first - never ever do the second. The only stops you can use before closing a parenthesis are the mood ones, the question and exclamation mark. And the rest has to work grammatically if you remove the brackets and all their contents, so you need the stop as in the first version.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:19 (twenty years ago)

I was pretty certain that the first one is correct, but an article I wrote was changed to the second one. I think I have enough for a lawsuit now.

― Leeeeeeeeeee (Leee), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:36 (twenty years ago)

Band are.
Football team are.
The government is/are.
Company is/are.

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:39 (twenty years ago)

"This guy I sort of know, m'lud... well, over the internet, but he says the first way is right, and he's a... um... something to do with computers I think..."

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:44 (twenty years ago)

On the radio today, I heard a newsreader say that "26 million pounds were stolen from a bank" and that sounded wrong as well. I would be tempted to say that it would read, and therefore sound, better as "£26 million was stolen from a bank" since you are saying "a certain amount of money was stolen" rather than trying to convey that they actually took 26 million items, which would allow the used of "were" rather than "was". In my mind anyway.

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:49 (twenty years ago)

Unless it was 26 million pounds of U.S. livestock excrement.

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 23:55 (twenty years ago)

But even then, when it's a pluralised amount of something, you could (or I'll try to, at least) argue that the [pluralised amount of thing] = a thing in itself. Like 26 million lbs of cowshit = a big pile of cowshit. Which would lend itself to "was" rather than "were".

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 3 November 2005 00:00 (twenty years ago)

Yes, I agree really. Look at the cooocaaiiinneee thread and my comment might make slightly more sense.

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Thursday, 3 November 2005 00:04 (twenty years ago)

What about this?

This is a complete sentence (and this parenthetical is a complete sentence, too. In fact, both are complete sentences.).

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 3 November 2005 00:16 (twenty years ago)

You may as well have just flung dung onto my computer monitor.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 3 November 2005 00:31 (twenty years ago)

This is a complete sentence (and this parenthetical is a complete sentence too omg lol ;)).

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 3 November 2005 05:32 (twenty years ago)

Martin (and gypsy m), you have just made my morning. Someone (authoritative) once told me several years ago that periods went inside the parentheses in such a case, so I've sort of been using weird logic and sometimes putting them in there and sometimes out. Now they will always go out! It's only right.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Thursday, 3 November 2005 14:54 (twenty years ago)

jaymc, lose the final stop within the brackets, and all is well.

Ailsa, think in terms of quantity or enumeration - that's just about what you're saying. A million pounds is a quantity, a million pound coins are enumerated.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 4 November 2005 00:04 (twenty years ago)

So I'm right and the BBC are wrong then? It's not "26 million pounds were stolen from the bank" at all, is it?

― ailsa (ailsa), Friday, 4 November 2005 00:15 (twenty years ago)

I think Nick nailed it on the other thread with

Would you say "White people is buying the Outkast album"?

or some such

― Si.C@rter (SiC@rter), Friday, 4 November 2005 00:45 (twenty years ago)

No, that's "White people be buying the Outkast album!" and well you know it :)

― ailsa (ailsa), Friday, 4 November 2005 00:53 (twenty years ago)

"the band are."

"the band is" sounds really stupid. also it seems to suggest you're talking about a commodity/product. of course if that's how you think of music, carry the fuck on saying "is".

end of.

― emsk ( emsk), Friday, 4 November 2005 15:37 (twenty years ago)

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