Talk:Steve Taylor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which came first?[edit]

Did Swaggart write about Taylor before Taylor wrote the song about him or was it the other way around? Dates would be helpful. --Walter Görlitz 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Guilty By Association" was on his original demo tapes, I would suggest that there is little chance that Swaggart knew about Taylor before this song was written and as such the song predates the book and as such the reference should change. --Walter Görlitz 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the research. According to, an interview by Taylor the book in question is Religious Rock 'n' Roll - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (ASIN 0935113053) and was published in June 1987, at least two full years after the release of Meltdown (1984). Rev. Swagart was reacting to Taylor's jab, not the other way around. --Walter Görlitz 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discography: Singles[edit]

In the discography, would a subsection of singles be of interest? Steve released some 12" dance singles ("Meltdown" and that multi-single with Sheila Walsh come to mind) and I know there were two or three CD singles with Chagall. I'll go dig up the info and add it if I don't hear anything to the contrary. Mitchell k dwyer 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whelchel connection?[edit]

I know former Facts of Life star Lisa Whelchel appeared in Taylor's Meltdown video, but I remembered reading something about his writing a song (I believe the one referenced was "Good Girl") for her All Because of You album later in 1984. Am I correct on the latter point?

205.244.108.112 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked on the Christian Music Archive site [1], checked the pages for both Taylor and Whelchel's album, and it doesn't say anything about that.

WAVY 10 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the CCM Encyclopedia at a Christian bookstore this morning which says Taylor contributed "Good Girl". WAVY 10 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Suggestion[edit]

I submit that the Chagall Guevara article be merged into this one. Basically, Taylor made a "band" out of Nashville session musicians, seeking to crossover into secular music. They made one album that nobody bought. The only people who care about this "group" are Taylor fans, as the band was an extension of the performer. Yakuman 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Another issue: Why did a Christian performer, who created an image of iconoclastic urban prophet for himself, name his "band" after a Communist revolutionary who believed that Christianity is the opiate of the masses? Yakuman 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself less inclined to take this merger suggestion seriously, since you used more space for trolling than actually supporting your recommendation. Chagall Guevara was heavily Steve Taylor's creation, but not exclusively. I recommend they remain separate, as the other band members did contribute, and all but one have their own articles. Sxeptomaniac 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do anything artistic? Why write "Jesus Is For Losers" (lyrics) and expect to sell it to Christians? Some reacted very poorly (see here), others see the value of the work. No, CG its a seperate project, hearing Steve talk about it and his goals make that clear. Dan, the CowMan 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll third the "no" vote. How the band was formed and their goals aren't really relevant; they were clearly a separate artistic group. "The only people who care..." doesn't seem like an appeal that has any place on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if nobody cares, but whether it meets the notability guidelines. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know; my point is that just because "nobody cares now" is not a valid reason in itself to not be included.
The "Another issue" you raised is not relevant to the merger discussion. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 05:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an old topic, but I think I might bring up my point in case this comes up again. Steve Taylor and Chagall Guevara are not the same. That's like saying Tom Araya should be merged with the Slayer article. Steve Taylor is a musician IN Chagall Guevara. IronCrow (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

"Squint Entertainment lost its financial backing in 2001 and Taylor was forced out of the company."

What does "forced out" mean? Was he fired or did he resign voluntarily? I don't remember it having a separate existence except as another failed vehicle for Taylor's brainstorms. Yakuman 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"separate existence"? It was a subdivision of Word Records I believe, and there was a restructuring of that label which led to Squint being folded. That's what I recall from an interview I read, it's been a while though; I'll try to find it. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, record companies are endlessly restucturing. That's the business. The point is Word, which I assume was controlled by Gaylord, gave Taylor an office, a brand name and some capital to create some product. What he created was yet another of his projects that didn't go anywhere. So Gaylord/Word pulled the plug, which would mean he was fired. That's a POV read of history, but so is not letting Taylor be blamed for his failures. The demise of Chagall Guevara was blamed on "restructuring" too. What a coincidence! I notice that the article for The Second Chance doesn't mention box office receipts, so I wonder if this project followed the trend as well.Yakuman
I have been researching this lately, it seems he had a conflict with an exec at Word. See here. Dan, the CowMan 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And according to this article, Chagall Guevara's breakup was more due to internal conflicts and an attempt to be released from their contract with MCA. So, barring more information from somewhere else, the "financial failure" angle isn't exactly right, either. Chagall Guevara didn't sell well, but the artists on Squint records (Sixpence None the Richer in particular) were actually quite popular.
So, it's not exactly "weasel words" as much as an oversimplification of a complicated series of events. There also weren't many details being sent out at the time. Sxeptomaniac 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, have much of an axe to grind against Steve Taylor? Heh. I don't really care that much, I was just clarifying what you meant, or the point you were trying to get across. It seems you want the article(s) to point out how repeatedly he has been a failure? Ok, as long as it's well sourced. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From the article...

"Taylor is currently working full time as a film maker and has directed music videos for Fleming and John, Rich Mullins[citation needed], Sixpence None the Richer, Newsboys, Guardian, and two video albums for himself. "

Does this mean that there is a citation needed specifically for the fact that he directed videos for Rich Mullins - and not the other artists? Seems strange to single out one artist and request a citation... especially when he directed an entire video collection of videos for that particular artist.. Audiori 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heading is "2000s" and Rich Mullins died in 1997, so this did stand out for me. It's possible Taylor did one or more videos for Mullins' music (and from your comment that's apparently true), but obviously not by working with Rich Mullins in the 2000s. Maybe it's the timing that's wrong? I see the source for that sentence dates from 1995, so I'll move the sentence up into "1990s". --Chriswaterguy talk 12:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboys[edit]

I think this article rates more in-depth information on Steve Taylor's relationship with the Newsboys. Steve wrote the lyrics for most of their big hits, but all we get is one vague sentence saying he worked with them? Capmango 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Taylor wrote lyrics for various artists: Newsboys and Guardian in particular, but others as well. I don't know the details, nor do I have a comprehensive list, but that, perhaps in a separate section, is just the kind of information I want from Wikipedia.71.56.153.169 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:IPredict1990.jpg[edit]

Image:IPredict1990.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SteveTaylor3.jpg[edit]

Image:SteveTaylor3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Lyrical Themes[edit]

Steve had a few recurring subjects or points over the course of his songwriting career, among them hypocrisy, especially by Christians, and self-deprecation and disdain for the elevated status of Christian performers by portions of the Christian community. This article's comments express a very limited part of his work, biased more towards the popularity of the personalities referenced than towards his major points.71.56.153.169 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add content. It would be even better if you had a reference for the themes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath?[edit]

I attempted to start a separate page for this album and to add it to the discography, but my work was deleted and instead redirected here? Does anyone know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual soul (talk • contribs) 07:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. What you wrote didn't have any references.
Please revert and add the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attention, however, respectfully, if you have such references you are adding here, why aren't you also editing/adding them to the article in question, instead of criticizing this editor and the start of article? You reverted the initial article within minutes of it being started. I only offer that you may want to allow a bit of breathing room for new editors/content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual soul (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because, 1) I'm a volunteer and I prefer to do other things. 2) I've spent a lot of my evening fixing your mistakes and I haven't had time to read the material I found to extract material for the article. 3) A personal reason that I'm not going to share. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a volunteer. I'm volunteering to contribute/compiling information on something - in this case an album and artist I like. If Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, being so immediate on criticizing someone else's work or reverting an article start neither feels very welcoming or necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual soul (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual soul - I'm also working on creating an article for Goliath on my sandbox. You are welcome to edit as much as you like there. When it meets requirements, we can copy the content into mainspace. I can supply references for you when I get home from work tonight.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3family6 - Cool! Well, the article is already started but can be addedto/edited here: Goliath. It would be nice to get a pic of the album cover included.Virtual soul (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Taylor&oldid=1211960897"