Talk:The Residents

Untitled

"Given that their members speak only through their work, however, even their attitudes can only be inferred." The Residents have given interviews, so this is quite untrue. Google will find you several and Tape Op ran one a year or so ago. I suppose technically the interviews often are attributed to Cryptic Corporation spokespeople, though in one online interview the interviewer said "So, the theory of obscurity is over?" or somethiing to that extent, and the interviewees (the two HF's) concurred.Xproudfoot 21:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

stolen eye mask

"Backstage at a show on Christmas of 1986, one member's eyeball mask was stolen, so it was replaced with a giant skull mask. The eye was returned in 1985 by a devoted fan who discovered where the thief lived and stole it back."

-Umm, is this a typo or is time travel now part of The Residents mythology? A mask is stolen Christmas '86 and returned in '85?

Benjamin Ickies

        Yes, you're right. It was stolen on December 26th 1985, I'll fix it.

I also believe that the incident about the stolen eyeball should not be under "early history". The mid-80s is certainly not early history for the Residents. I think it should be moved in a new category, something like "various information" or "various myths" etc. but I don't know how to do it. Thank you for your time. - Thehar

Was the mask actually stolen? If so, were the police involved over this theft? After all, these are not cheap props that the Residents wore on their tours, these were costly. It is my opinion (and I'm willing to listen to anyone who can prove this to me otherwise) that this is part of the urban legends that The Residents use to promote their act. It's not a bad thing, it's even kind of fun, but it shouldn't be promoted as history if it is, in fact, just farce. - David Fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.93.154 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was stolen. It was stolen by a guy named Jeff and stolen in turn from him by another fellow named Biff. Biff returned it to the band who apparently thought it was he who had stolen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.197.10 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Secrets

The Residents are not actually mentioned in the book "Big Secrets", it's just that the author who's famous for these books, has had a go at this secret as well. So I changed that back. Juryen 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not in William Poundstone's Big Secrets, but one of the two sequels; namely, either Bigger Secrets or Biggest Secrets. All of which are a great read, I might add.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Biggest Secrets", pages 37-40, to be exact. 66.215.206.85 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (Kubikajiri)

River of Crime

Could someone please add the info for river of crime? Thank you.

Cromagnon

When ZYX Music reissued the album Cave Rock by the 60s psychedelic rock group Cromagnon in the mid-90s, there were rumours that members of Cromagnon later went on to form the Residents. There is some discourse on that here and also here. Morganfitzp 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should definitely add something about cromagnon and the rumours surrounding, because after all, there isn't an article about cromagnon itself. (anonymous user – please sign your posts with 3 or 4 "~'s!)

Where would this rumour go in the article? It doesn't fit with the alleged events that led to the group's formation in the late 1960s. Morganfitzp 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think It could go in its own section. Perhaps a "Alternate history rumors" section.67.165.80.5 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the group Cromagnon, since it's just a minor, disproven speculation and doesn't contribute to anything to the article. Contents were:

Some believe that psychadelic 60's avant-rock group Cromagnon (Who released Orgasm/Cave Rock) went on to become The Residents. This opinion is enhanced by the sound of Cromagnon, one that resembles that of The Residents. However, the belief is hampered by Cromagnon being based in Connecticut, a far cry from the California coast, and a lack of familiar-sounding vocalists.

So you see, it's just a rumor and doesn't deserve its own section. You can add a sentence about it along with the other rumors at the end of the second section if you want, but don't add it as its own section. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 08:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please verify the addition about the Dutch band? I've never heard this rumor before...67.165.80.5 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There probably never was any such rumour around – before the contributor made it up, that is. I removed it. Can't believe it stayed in the article for a year! --Bwiki 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of bands that have been rumored to have gone on to form the Residents is quite long. IMHO nothing makes Cromagnon special enough for mention here.Funkeboy 09:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some years before the Cromagnon LP was reissued on CD I received a taped copy of it from Trevor Faull (English Residents expert) which had the liner-note remark: "Snakefinger reckons it's the Fab 4 [i.e., The Residents] - what do you make of it all? I have my doubts." Since it had the nod from Snakefinger I thought there might be something to it. But, to this day: DUNNO. I should also note that I walked backstage after The Residents' show in London and stared the singer in the face. I had a camera in my fist, did nothing and I turned on my heel. Elias Nebula (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Handicapped Resident

I was looking through the third reich n roll booklet and saw that one of the residents in the pictures has crutches or some walking assistants,anyone know anything about this.

---

Yes, it's nothing more than an illustration. The Residents are not disabled.

Are you crazy? All four of them are blind in one eye. 223.133.119.240 (talk)four tildes —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

I was at the Demons Dance alone concert in Chicago. One of the musicians (a Resident?) had a clear limp. One was a woman (and I'm not talking about Molly. So, it's hard to say if a Resident is or is not handicapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Residentfan (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry put my tag in the wrong place again, it was menat for herea nd I put it in Timmy--DitsyDaisy 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at the Demons show in Falls Church, VA. I also observed a Resident (Hardy Fox, I assumed)with a distinct limp. I also agree that one was a woman, and NOT Molly Harvey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booshmen (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge Timmy (The Residents) in to this article.

• I'm undecided between merging that article into this one, or just moving for it to be deleted as it's just a copy/paste quote. TS1 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We may be able to expand and convert it into something worthwhile. And by we, I mean you guys, as I've never played Midway and details on it are scarce.--Agent Aquamarine 02:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article to avoid copyvios. I think we should keep it as a separate article, as it is another project by the Residents and all other projects have their own articles. Seems notable enough for me. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 03:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start, mate. Perhaps a bit more information on what goes on in Midway. (But for all I know, nothing of note actually happens to Timmy)--Agent Aquamarine 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The boy next door with the amber hair and mother is handicapped too, but he is pure evil as well. I slipped in the shower this morning and my head is buzzing. He is in the bedroom trying to get into all the drawers and my children are very ill. Something needs to be done immediately. Can you advise me please.--DitsyDaisy 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Identity

The comments about Copyright law and the BMI royalties arrangements in the article are incorrect. I am an intellectual property lawyer. The Copyright Act requires that the actual authors of the compositions be listed in the application as "authors." The "claimant" line is separate, meaning that the claimant to the copyrights can be different from the "author(s" but the "author(s)" must still be specified. Now, an "author" may register a copyright under a pseudonym, but when this is done, the application must indicate that the author's contribution is pseudonymous. The copyright registrations for the Residents compositions were not obtained under a pseudonym and the "authors" are a matter of public record. This is the one "mistake" the Residents made, and unfortunately could do nothing about (other than "spin" it, as reflected in the article 801greg 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(Identity of The Residents removed by the same person who posted it. The below response is correct. It's more fun not knowing.)

Could it be a logical theory that the Residents is simply a collective name for a number of musicians who would like to expand their knowledge of music?- Count. Oldlesnare

Doesn't matter who they are. We play along, it's just more fun that way. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would add that you can never really be sure. For instance, it has been said that Homer Flynn is the singer. Yet in some DVDs from tours he can be clearly seen shooting a video with his camera, while the singer is on stage. Ergo, he cannot be the same person, except if he is a wizard (which wouldn't surprise me coming from the Residents...)--130.235.141.174 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again, the guy who keeps changing his mind about whether or not the time is right to be explicit about the identities. I don't mean to be rude, but one can be sure if one knows them. :-) The singer has always been the same man. Please bear in mind that the group loves playing with expectations and identity-hunters. The actual Residents musician(s) never actually play live, and if I understand correctly, have not since at least the early 1970s. Only the singer actually plays live, BUT he sometimes has other people play "the singer," just as the musician(s) do.

It may be more "fun" not knowing, but isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge, and not myth? I understand a fan wanting to protect their artist's integrity... but again, I do not think that this is the place to further a myth.. it is a place to look for fact. - David Fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.93.154 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the keyboard player/midi controller also plays live. There are two Residents (at least presently), and both are almost always on stage. Also, where does the article get Slidell, Louisiana from, as the residence of the Residents? Both of the primary (and current) Residents went to Byrd High School in Shreveport. Publicly available database records also reveal that their parents lived and died there, and the Residents did too. They also appear on a rare album compilation (first released on cassette) entitled, "It Came From Shreveport," which has all local bands. I am not sourcing these discussion points, nor adding them to the article, because, to prove what I have just said, I would have to reveal their identities, and I will not.801greg 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Friends, what is this fuss all about? The answer regarding the identity of the Residents is simple (and given in the Demons Dance Alone project): there are no Residents; and on the same time the band has remained completely unchanged. I think the answer to that riddle is obvious: There are no Residents outside the studio and outside the stage. It is the creative spark within us all that these people (whose names are irrelevant) let manifest in whichever way it deems appropriate and they let it speak of its own. That is the true Resident, and it exists inside us all. With honor, --Theoharis 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• In the the spirt of "it doesn't matter," I think this portion of the article needs to be moved to the bottom. It distracts from what's most important about The Residents: their body of work. And darn the thing, I've worked with them on more than one occasion and they still won't fess up :) - Purple Penguin 143.229.178.135 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded; the Residents are much more than the (speculated) sum of their parts. This section should be moved closer to the bottom of the page (or, at least, somewhere other than the very top). Kubikajiri 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Settle Down and Do Some Research

The Residents are one of those things (or groups of things, rather) that should be researched extensively before writing about it. Anyone who's been reading articles on them over the last thirty years should be shaking their head at this article and the changes that have been made to it. I think maybe people should have to be certified in Residential lore before being allowed to alter this page. The rumors are part of their history (and their art, sometimes).

The point is, the article seems to be trying to be too specific. It's the Residents--anyone writing anything in this article should know that everything s/he is typing might be total bullshit--and that should at least be somewhat reflected in the text, unless we want to lose our readers.

One writer (after trying to write an article on the Residents and finding it very difficult) once said that he got the impression that journalists and music critics were supposed to make part of the lore up as they went along, since neither the Residents nor the Cryptic Corporation liked giving complete answers.

That having been said, there is one "fact" in this article that is grossly incorrect: "They formed in 1972 and released their first record that year..." Now read the Early History section. How could they have formed in 1972 if they got their name based on a rejected demo tape from 1971? Then, they even performed and released another "pre-album" under the name "Residents" before their first official release, Santa Dog, even came about in 1972.

I would rewrite it, but all this typing has made me tired.

Funkeboy 10:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New Section

I'm thinking of a new section about the constant collaborators of the band (the "R-Band" as some have called them). But where would this section go? Suggestions? Objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santa Dog 72 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

they did a cd with the Sun City Girls once... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.156.111 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words, POV, and lack of citations plague this article

This article reads like it was written by the Residents or their publicist. Lots of "probably" and "one might say/speculate/infer" etc. Also, there are no citations to many of the factual assertions... eg.:

  "Much of the speculation about the members' true identities swirls around their management team, known as "The Cryptic Corporation." Cryptic was formed by Jay Clem, Homer Flynn, Hardy Fox, and John Kennedy in 1976, all of whom denied having been band members."

Where is this speculation happening? Is it being written down somewhere? I assume there is speculation on fan pages, etc. which could be documented.

Lots of this speculation is/was presented on the Smelly Tongues email list.

Where do we get the info about the formation of Cryptic and its members? Articles of Incorporation are public record. In what state is Cryptic incorporated?

Where do Hardy, Fox, and Kennedy deny being band members? Answer: In person, should one have the opportunity to ask. (Kennedy was a member of Cryptic Corp but was never a Resident.) The only two people who have ever been the actual Residents will tell you that they are the Residents' "engineers," which is a nice way of telling the truth without explicitly indicating "band membership."

The tone of the entire article is like this. DougRWms 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking or just trying to make a point? There are tons upon tons of articles from the 70s that play back and forth with the Cryptics admitting and then denying that they're the Residents. I can't cite them because I can't find them. They were from publications like Melody Maker and New Music Express. Funkeboy 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"One might speculate..."

"One might be inclined to speculate that The Residents feel artists do their best work without the influence of an audience, should only be judged by their work, and that a band members' genders, ethnicities, line-up changes, personalities, and daily life outside of the band should be irrelevant to listeners."

I've edited this out twice, and it's been put back in twice, so maybe I'm just doing it wrong... This is just blatant speculation (at best) or Residents lore (at worst) with no basis whatsoever. One might also speculate that the Residents hide their faces because they're ugly, because they are aliens, or because they want to hide their herpes sores. One might speculate that the Residents hide their faces because they think it's a cool gimick. One might speculate that the Residents went to the top of mount Siani, where God appeared to them in the form of a burning bush, and ordered them to go forth and put on rubber eyeball masks and make albums...

Eclipsed Moon, who has re-added the "One might be inclined to speculate" quote each time I've removed it, leaves me the note "Come on, N. Senada's Theory of Obscurity" The N. Senada article says... "Theory of Obscurity" Senada's "Theory of Obscurity" states that an artist can only produce pure art when the expectations and influences of the outside world are not taken into consideration. Senada and his theory are referred to exclusively in connection with avant garde musical group The Residents.

But N. Senada is apparently a fictional character created by the Residents... If there's really a theory of obscurity, then the article shouldn't say "one might speculate"...

N. Senada is presumed to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Captain Beefheart. The home the Magic Band lived in together and rehearsed Trout Mask Replica for a year in, was located on Ensenada Drive in Woodland Hills, California. Also, Beefheart used a "fake name," thus connecting him to the theory of obscurity, though, in reality, he did not hide who he was to the extent the Residents try to do. Beefheart's real name, -- Van Vliet (actually Vliet) provides the German connection, leading the Residents to refer to N. Senada as a Bavarian composer. It's all in fun. 801greg 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing of this article should be restricted, and the article culled to remove the ubiquitous uncited assertions. That would basically leave us with the discography, since the rest of the piece is wrought with (probabally intentionally) contradictory information.DougRWms 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Residents openly claim to follow this Theory of Obscurity. If N. Senada is a fictional character is irrelevant, since they justify their mystery with this theory. So, one might speculate may be a bad way to put it, but the point remains unchanged, and it is in no way a reason to completely remove that from the article.

Also, mystery and speculation are key aspects of The Residents lore, and the official information known is contradictory and deliberately made obtuse and wrong. It's no wonder the article looks wildly inaccurate, because that's just like it is with anything about the group. We could use some sources, though, but sourcing rumours (and that's as good as it gets) is quite a hard task. — Kieff 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Residents claim openly to follow this theory, then the passage should read "The Residents claim to follow the Theory of ...." etc. Saying "well, everything about the Residents is obscure" doesn't make the lack of citation and concrete information excusable. Wikipedia is not supposed to be Encyclopedia as Performance Art; the criterion for citations and NPOV should be consistent across articles, and that quote is simple speculation, and as such inappropriate to Wikipedia.DougRWms 09:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I quite agree with you, but what should Wikipedia do in the case of artists deliberately lying about themselves and playing little rumor games with everyone? All we can do is mention these facts and the official (how would we even confirm that?) information with explicit warnings of possible nonsense. As I see it, that's the general aim of the article, though it's far from optimal (no sources and etc.) My writing skills aren't par for that sort of work, though, nor is my knowledge on Residents lore (which is a bit, but not a lot) — Kieff 10:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Borat, Harry Potter, and the school that educates Harry Potter have their own articles, so as far as I'm personally concerned, N. Senada, the Theory of Obscurity, and the Theory of Phonetic Organization are all valid subjects for articles, as well as sources for valid opinions and/or speculations on the Residents in this article. Most official text on the Residents that you'll ever read uses words like "speculate," "allegedly," etc. all over the place, because there are NO FACTS concerning the Residents. None. Thus, opinions and speculations by fans are almost more factual than anything said by the Cryptic Corporation or N. Senada, which in turn is probably more factual than anything said by a Resident. If you want facts, you should be writing an article on the Cryptic Corporation (which isn't a bad idea). Funkeboy 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no one denies that it's appropriate for fictitious persons (Don Quixote, the Easter Bunny, James Bond, etc.) to have articles! But there ARE FACTS about the Residents, like the facts that they have released certain albums, etc.

Anyway, that's not why I removed the "one might speculate" comment which has been re-inserted twice, and which I have given up trying to correct. It's just so blatently weasel-word and non-NPOV, but since no one cares or even seems to understand the concept at issue, screw it.

Kieff, you are right to compare the writing in this article to the kind of self-serving crap that stars and celebs have their publicists write on Wikipedia. Maybe an "encyclopedia" which allows anyone to write, edit, and in effect control articles can never really be anything but a half-assed version of MyPage. But in answer to your question "what should Wikipedia do" about such, I would answer "We are Wikipedia." We can edit the articles in question to remove non NPOV language and (at least) redflag uncited assertions or speculation.

Anyway, I'll go correct the spelling in a stub or something, and forget about this article. I'm sure the Residents will continue to get along just fine without me.DougRWms 08:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoo, only seven months late to say that I only re-added the "One might be inclined to speculate" quote the second out of the two times it happened, only because I agreed with it. This contributes nothing to the long-dead argument I just think it's important to get one's facts straight. —Eclipsed Moon 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

does not need to exist to be real

the influence N. Senada had on my work has proven effective. I'm now somewhat famous in China, by following through with the ideas presented. N. Senada's influence and the validity of this theory of obscurity as a means of producing effective artistic expressions is terribly important and should be considered as a thing in itself, outside of the residents. this article should not be merged. I feel pretty strongly about this, strongly enough that I'll jump into the discussion with only the barest understanding of this whole wikipedia thingy. -wu

You've become somewhat famous by adhering to the Theory of Obscurity...?DougRWms 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding N. Senada

copied from the main article

My name is Steve Crabtree. In 1982 I met Snakefinger at a solo show at JB's Underground in Kent, Ohio. Mr. Finger was an American. He was definately not of european descent and I asked him about N. Senada. He told me that he had never met N. Senada in peraon, that Mr. Senada had only sent the band tapes. Snakefinger died a few years later of a heart defect and we will miss his strange guitar. At the show in Kent Ohio he was polaying a guitar neck attached to a sheet of plywood, he used a slide and introduced his band as the "Dead Residents." This was after the release of bhis second album. Les Claypool was conspicuously absent. -- User:75.163.134.138

---

Mr. Crabtree, Snakefinger, Philip Lithman, was English, not American. If you had met him, this should have been obvious to you, as he never lost his accent or UK manner of speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.157.228.170 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I played several shows with Philip Lithman in San Francisco in the early 80's. The sax player in my band played on a few Residents tracks. Philip came to our rehearsal space on Evans Street a few times. I recall playing with him at the Chi Chi Club on Broadway in San Francisco in the early 80's. He was most definitely English.

Philip Lithman was part of the British pub rock scene in the early '70s. I'm sure this is covered on his own page. As for N. Senada, from what I have read he was mainly a made up character, but had characteristics of Harry Partch (especially inluencing the group to build their own instruments for [i]Eskimo[/i]) and from one of the people who lodged with them in the late '60s / early '70s. I think at one point the group did say that the Theory of Obscurity came from this guy. - Ezreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezreal (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Formation date

I've changed the infobox and introduction to read "late 1960s" for two reasons: 1, the article itself contradicts the 1972 date in the early history section (which indicates that, while uncertain, a late-60s formation is likely) and 2. the compilation album Stranger than Supper includes a Residents recording dating from 1971 which renders the 1972 date incorrect in any case. 23skidoo 11:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not even going to try to revert it anymore, because it's some confusing point that I don't understand where Hardy Fox claims that if there's a starting point, it's 1972, even though apparently Baby Sex was 1971 and had them named as the Residents, and that they played together before then even earlier on The Warner Bros. Album, and this is stuff that isn't even up for debate. Some people know some things, some people know no things, and everyone must cover the truth. If I don't know, then I'm not going to just take everything that Fox says on hearsay. --Eclipsed Moon 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Moving triva section here, lets try to work some of this into the artcle, if you can't do that it really should not be here.

• Simpsons creator Matt Groening (who wrote a mostly fictional article about the band's history) and journalist Jim Knipfel are fans of the band.
• Les Claypool is a fan of the band, and they are a main influence on Claypool's musical trio, Primus who covered "Sinister Exaggerator" on their Miscellaneous Debris EP, as well as "Hello Skinny" and "Constantinople" on the re-release of their album Frizzle Fry.
• Claypool also made reference to The Residents in the song The Air Is Getting Slippery with the lyrics "Now if you want an encore, you might hear Is it Luck, but me I'd rather play The Residents because I don't give a fuck."
• The eyeball mask theft from the Hollywood Palace show is referenced in the Cracker song "Ain't Gonna Suck Itself".
• The cover of The Residents' LP Eskimo appeared in a Spanish TV commercial of Fnac.
• The Residents were to work on a Bad Day on the Midway television series with David Lynch, but said series was too strange for the networks.
• Eskimo was considered for a Grammy Award, but not nominated. The Residents were still invited to the ceremonies, and shared a table with Donna Summer.
• In the afformentioned Groening article, it is mentioned that they called themselves "The New Beatles" for a brief period of time, before "The Residents".
  • Eskimo was for a time going to be made into an opera, but the project was abandoned.
• In the episode Showdown at Cremation Creek (Part I) of Venture Brothers, the character "The Alchemist" holds an eyeball-looking orb up to his head, saying "Look, I'm in the Residents!"
• On the Penn & Teller tape "Cruel tricks for Dear Friends" after one of the segments, the video "Act of Being Polite" plays.
• For their 10th Anniversary special they locked Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) in a hotel room for 6 days with nothing but their albums and paid/forced him to record his thoughts as he listened to them. The result was a limited edition cassette that was later re-released as a CD.

It is also on vinyl. I have a copy that was given to me by them.

• After recording an entire album of songs that were one minute long in 1980, The Commercial Album, the group purchased one minute advertising spots on San Francisco’s most popular Top 40 radio station and had the entire album, all 40 songs, played by the station over a period of three days. Billboard Magazine wrote an editorial about it questioning whether it was advertising, payola, or art.
• The Residents are often credited with inventing the form of the music video. Five of their earliest videos are in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
• In 1991 The Residents released their album, Freak Show. In a show of media strength it came out as an LP, CD, soft and hard bound graphic novels, video, award winning CD-ROM, and a live production that ran for 21 performances at the Archa Theater in Prague, Czech Republic. The live performances were conducted by Czech musician Miroslav Wanek and performed by an expanded version of his band Uz Jsme Doma.
• The Residents, in 1993, wrote a ten hour score for The Discovery Channel nature show, Hunters.
• They have also scored 5 shows of Pee Wee’s Playhouse and assorted programs for MTV.
• Two years in a row, they won awards from Entertainment Weekly magazine for top computer entertainment software. 1995: Freak Show CD-ROM, 1996: Bad Day on the Midway CD-ROM.
• Marlboro cigarettes commissioned a performance piece for a German promotion in 1997, Disfigured Night. Paranoid that the group was making fun of them, Marlboro asked that there be no appearance by Residents’ regular, Mr. Skull.

Ridernyc 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mtv and MoMA

The last paragraph of the Album Era section needs to be moved someplace else. Not sure where maybe a new section.Ridernyc 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is questionable whether their videos were in HEAVY rotation on MTV. I was in charge of playing the music between bands at a nightclub a year after MTV launched. Part of the job included keeping on top of what music videos were played on cable. The confusion over airplay on MTV might be from a 1/2 hour episode of USA Network's Nightflight (TV series) dedicated to The Residents. The only time I ever caught the Residents on MTV was 1 interview on music news and playing the video for It's a man's, man's world following Michael Jackson's Beat it at 4:30 in the morning in 1986. Playing the two videos next to each other was weird.22yearswothanks (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Performance Era

This section needs major work. How can there not even be a single mention of Cube E? Also no mention of the scale of the live shows, costumes, back drops, etc...

Ridernyc 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Over 100 Albums

I just counted each album on their discography page, because I knew they had released more albums than sixty, and this is what I got: Audio (1972-1980) 19 Audio (1981-1986) 24 Audio (1987-1994) 30 Audio (1995-2004) 26 Audio (2005- ) 10 and, by my count, that's 109. I may change the front page thing from almost sixty to over 100, because this is ALL albums, even the new ones, and even the underground limited-release ones. Feel free to change this if you prove me wrong. 65.12.134.148 12:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Headings in article

The way the headings are layed out in the article is a bit messed up IMO. I'd like to suggest a new order, and perhaps from there we can get the article a bit more organized. Structure is based from the presentation on Residents.com. I also just copied and pasted some original text to give an example on how it would look in the new structure.

I put the example on my Sandbox page. I am going to use it as a sketchpad so I can re-build the article at my own pace. Please take a look and let me know what you think. If it's to everybody's liking I'm prepared to re-format the article, change a few misspellings and add more content. And don't worry - I'm not gonna re-write the whole darn thing, many things there are very good indeed.

All the best
Numb Erone (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

There were numerous instances of incorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation on the page; I've cleaned up as many instances as I found, but there may be some I missed. 72.184.120.177 (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

your work with vocoder

don't know enough about this - it's a kind of costume,too Prisms and rain (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Many fans continue to pretend..."

The following line in the introduction needs revision (or removal): Despite the fact these identities are well known, many fans continue to pretend band members have managed to remain completely anonymous throughout the group's existence

The main problem is that this just doesn't belong in the intro. The sentence refers to a handful of fans on this talk page who have essentially said "it's more fun not knowing". This is hardly worth mentioning in the introductory paragraph for the entire article. It's hardly worth more than a footnote anywhere in the article at all.

Also, whether it's intentional or not, the sentence sounds condescending. Furthermore, it's weasel-wordy - and the reference link goes to the WP talk page!

I would suggest removing it entirely, but if someone wants to come up with better wording, better placement, and better sources, feel free! Just my two cents.

--PNB (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no one cared enough to respond one way or another, I've taken the liberty to remove the sentence from the intro myself. I assume no one objects. PNB (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Residents' identity

I just went out of curiosity through the sources which "solidly establish" the identity of The Residents and it is crystal clear that they establish nothing. One is an article that has pasted wikipedia material, one is on the actual website of The Residents and says nothing (of course), and the third is a thread about their costumes, with comments below offering opinions. The other three sources (the "band's own publicity efforts") are interviews of Homer Flynn, where nothing pertaining to the actual identities of The Residents is being discussed. And one is actually some sort of mailing list (!) of Residents fans... What is clearly established through these "sources" is that the Cryptic Corporation was indeed created by the four people the article mentions. But nothing on the identity of The Residents. I propose we re-word it.--Theoharis (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely second this. There is nothing anywhere near "solid establishment" of the identity of the Residents in any of these articles - there's not even an attempt at circumstantial establishment that I can find in a single one of them. I haven't been too involved with the Residents Wiki article and thus I don't feel right coming in and changing it myself, but I would really encourage someone else to, because it (in my opinion) comes across as very weak in its argumentation with such bold and controversial claims that have no reinforcement or defense in their alleged sources. Too often I see Wiki content survive simply on the basis of the fact that it's reinforced with multiple references, where no verification of the content of these references has been undertaken. Let's not let this happen with such an interesting and open-ended subject as the Residents' true identities. The claims in the opening paragraph are unsubstantiated and should be completely changed. Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree also. We need better sources for those types of claims. Thanks for cleaning the intro up for us. PNB (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A friendly word for the editors and seekers: You will almost certainly never find verifiable citation of the Residents' true identity that suits Wikipedia's criteria, because those of us who know are generally disinclined to say, and because so many inaccurate claims have been made with feigned authority. I suspect that the misdirection already offered was done so intentionally. Although in the early 1980s there was an issue of The Face magazine (UK) that more or less revealed the secret, I don't remember exactly what year, volume, or issue that was, and if I did, would decline to advise because I am one of the fans and friends of the band who believe the reasons for public anonymity are to be respected. However, there's a broad clue for you, should anyone truly need to pursue it. For good or ill, The Face got it right. For what it's worth, when I asked one of the Residents how they felt about that revelation, he just smiled and shrugged his shoulders. What really matters is the creativity, and that's always been the case. It's the point of the anonymity. To eschew the celebrity that adulterates the art. If anecdotal entries like this are forbidden, I apologize for the transgression. - Someone in San Francisco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.202.231 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing Notable fans sections

They are growing out of control and pretty much just turning into giant lists. Ridernyc (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Eskimo - The Residents.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eskimo - The Residents.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:The residents Eskimo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The residents Eskimo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hardy W. Fox

I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention that, according to the Texas Birth Index records here, Hardy Winfred Fox Jr. was born in Gregg County, Texas on 29 March 1945. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition to the article

Shouldn't we mention the fact that The Residents are working with Don Hardy on making a documentary on themselves and that members of Ween, Primus and Devo among others will be interviewed and discuss the Residents' influence on they're style? 96.224.71.102 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

if you can find a reliable third-party source for this information (excluding IMDb), then sure! if you are not comfortable or have doubts about making the edit yourself, feel free to put the information and citation on this talk page with an edit request. ~ Boomur [☎] 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Drummer

The Residents have confirmed on their Facebook wall that Chuck is the drummer https://www.facebook.com/TheOfficialResidents 24.44.75.217 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Um hello is anyone gonna respond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.67.156 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should take that with a bit of salt, and that the caption is a bit of a joke. Chuck is playing what appears to be a Korg Wavedrum, which is really a kind of MIDI controller in the form of a drum. It's another way of doing what he (or someone like him) has done in the past using a computer or a keyboard, and not "drumming" in the usual sense. DaveSeidel (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request on May 31 2014

May someone please add information on Theory of Obscurity the documentary The Residents are currently working on. 24.44.75.217 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Is anyone gonna respond? I'm starting to get annoyed 71.167.61.50 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is not protected, so there's no reason why you can't add it yourself. But, has the documentary been covered in outside sources, independent of the band? If not, it really shouldn't be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a reason I can't add it myself I don't have a computer at home and even if isn't covered by outside sources it should still be added if Ween said they were releasing a new album would you include it? Next time think before you talk down to someone 71.167.69.173 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not "talking down" to you, but if you can add text to this page why can't you add text to that page? Anyway, I've now had a duck stab at adding something. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am currently using a tablet which I am somewhat struggling to use plus the wi fi keeps on going in and out like Glenn Quagmire I'm more equipped to using a desktop computer not this cheap dime store piece of Adam Sandler's latest movie sorry if I was rude but I can't handle the shape certain articles are in which does not include the residents article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.173 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead Links

Since Allmusic seems to have taken down everything about The Residents I say we should delete the links to reviews relating to The Residents on Allmusic.com as they are no longer there thoughts anyone? 24.44.75.217 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind turns out my computer wasn't working properly. 24.44.75.217 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal or amendment of "Identity" section

It's no news to almost any long-time Residents fan what the supposed identities of the foursome are.

Since this wiki page is the second result that comes up on Google when you search "The Residents," and one of the highest 'go-to' pages there is on the internet, (especially for newcomers,) I think it seems fair, and courteous to the band, to keep the anonymity alive as much as possible. If not just for the band, to more so keep the mystery alive.

It seems pretty lame to me that any new and discovering fan can search for the band and immediately find names/identities attached to an anonymous band. That just seems like ruining the fun to me, and rather disrespectful to the band members, who wish to remain in obscurity.

It's easy enough to find that information for people who actually want to try to figure out their supposed identities, without it being readily available on the first informative page that comes up in a search.

However, to even see the "Discography" section via scrolling, you have to scroll past the "Identity" section. I know I can't be the only one who's thought of this.

Thanks in advance for any replies or changes made, if you want to message me personally, you can find me on Facebook under Tyler Gween.

97.84.127.187 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is NOT to "support the fans," whether longterm or newish or just idly curious.

If "the fans" don't like that this article is ranked so high, then (IMO) they aren't carrying their weight online.

And anyone at all familiar with WP knows that an article's sections can be reached directly via the linked Contents entries — no "scrolling" necessary. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Discography Page

It would be beneficial to have a discography page. Just looking for concensus on the matter. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

terrible article

I am totally in awe of The Residents. However, this is a truly ghastly Wikipedia article, stuffed full of chattiness, fanboyism, and hype. It reads like a string of posts taken from an "appreciation" fansite. Phrases such as According to official Residents lore pointedly exemplify how non-encyclopedic this is. As well, this is certainly NOT the place for budding rock reviewers to be practicing their supposed craft. Changes may soon happen.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It's a fansite, almost in-universe. tedder (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hardy Fox

Even though it's pretty obvious who The Residents are, I only just now noticed that on Hardy Fox's website it officially states him as being the "primary composer, producer for The Residents from their beginning until 2015", with his own name being attributed rather than "Charles Bobuck".

As the post before mine says this is a pretty weak article full of fanboyisms, but this new fact does at least have substance with the Identity section of this article, with this article of information being on an official Residents article of media.Jpmcruiser (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What "The Residents" are, and how this article may be improved

"The Residents" are not a real band. Hardy Fox (in character as Chuck Bobuck) admitted as much in an interview[1]. They are a fictional construct, in the same way Goofy or Donald Duck are fictional; their records, the art & advertisement/copy/press releases surrounding the records, the performers hired to portray them (even if said performers are also the creators, they are still "performers," in this case hiring themselves), should be approached similarly, and by taking this knowledge into account I feel this Wiki article may be vastly improved, exiting the realm of band-mythology and attempting to approach "reality" (a rather difficult and contentious notion in and of itself, as The Residents' mythology was manufactured [I think] to point out).

Walt Disney voice acting Mickey Mouse does not mean Walt Disney IS Mickey Mouse; hence Homer Flynn providing most of the voice(s) of "The Residents" on records (esp. after 1977), creating "their" lyrics, etc. does NOT mean he IS a Resident, because "The Residents" are an entirely fictional construct. Similarly, Hardy Fox coming out as "composer for The Residents" is no different than the fact that Mark Mothersbaugh was composer for "Rugrats" -- the key difference is that "The Residents" declined to credit individual contributors and purposefully sought to blur the line between fact & the media-manufactured fiction to which audiences had become accustomed via television, radio, merchandise (inc. LP's, singles, etc.), etc., whereas most productions credit all individuals clearly & decline to play such media games.

Interestingly, the guy wearing the Donald Duck costume at Disney World has been instructed to never disclose the fact that he "is" Donald Duck. He's told to tell friends/relatives/etc that he is "friends" with this aforementioned fictional icon. Very similar to "The Residents," which are a production of The Cryptic Corporation.

The goal, I think, of Homer Flynn, Hardy Fox, & the others involved in manufacturing "The Residents," was to intentionally blur the lines between fact and pop-culture mythology, as a sort of commentary on the relationship between art & business (called "Siamese twins" by Homer Flynn, in a lecture from the early '90's -- a reference to "God in Three Persons") and the audience which consumes its products.

We now live in an era where music and artist images are manufactured to market towards specific preexisting, risk-free demographics, readymade and pretending to "realness," when in actuality fictional & prefabricated. The "Pre-fab Four" were a clever commentary on this trend, already emergent in the early '70's when "The Residents" were first dreamed up. Press material is drawn up to be repeated by a vast network of online "influencers," which together generate the illusion of popularity and relevance to the consumer base; similarly (and in a much more crude, DIY, and relatively primitive/low-budget/tongue-in-cheek fashion), the creators of "The Residents" frequently wrote mythologized articles and reviews under false names to create the illusion that "The Residents" were real and worthy of attention (see: liner notes of "Third Reich n' Roll" release from 2011, review of MtR by "Harvey Sox" found on "The Residents 1972-1982" Facebook page, etc). A very interesting project.

[1] http://www.oregonmusicnews.com/charles-bobuck-hardy-fox-residents-interview -- "The Residents concept is completely malleable. It doesn't have to be associated with music. It could become an iPhone app design company. That is the remarkable aspect that sets the Residents apart from 'bands.'" Please note that both "Will Rothers" and "Charles Bobuck" are pseudonyms of Hardy Fox, who -- in this press release masquerading as an interview -- is "interviewing" himself. Since the very beginning of "The Residents" concept, this sort of manufactured, misleading media game-playing has been utilized to playfully (?) whet interest in this essentially fictional "band" amongst Cryptic's intended demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:a51:1b0:7126:f415:96c8:19cd (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's all interesting commentary, but I can't see how it would help improve the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the faults within this article stem from a root lack of understanding of the nature of "The Residents." This article buys into Cryptic's mythology wholesale & does not adequately represent reality. For instance, "The Residents" are NOT a "band"; they are a fictional band at best (or perhaps a "virtual band" like Gorillaz). The Residents are NOT "anonymous"; how can they be "anonymous" when it is now known that "The Residents" are a fictional construct, a marketing tool, an illusion? They are not even an "art collective"; more like a "fictional art collective." Basically, I feel that in order to improve this article, it needs to reflect reality; "The Residents" are a production of The Cryptic Corporation; there are no real "band members," any more than "Alvin & The Chipmunks" have real band members. There ARE composers, graphic artists, performers, producers, marketers, web developers, directors, etc. who create the illusion of "The Residents" existing, and perhaps many of these individuals have not identified themselves as responsible for Cryptic's various "Residents"-brand products/productions (though hopefully they have been paid for it), but "The Residents" are NOT an "anonymous band / art collective" as this article claims; that is fundamentally incorrect and this entire article ought to be restructured bearing these facts in mind... imho.

Homer Flynn once said "I think that to tell this story, we should, at every point... try to undermine the credibility of it." The Cryptic Corporation intentionally sought to create a "false reality" wherein "The Residents" existed as a caricature of pop stardom & celebrity, then sell this false reality to the public via the traditional tools of the mass media (the LP, video, interviews, promotional material, MTV "appearances", performances, internet presence, etc.). Long story short, it worked, and this Wikipedia article presently stands as a testament to the triumph of Flynn/etc's manufactured false reality / voodoo hocus-pocus marketing dimension.

TL;DR This page should be treating "The Residents" less like The Beatles and more like Gorillaz (whose page could even serve as something of a template for this one). -- "2600:1702:a51:1b0:7126:f415:96c8:19cd" again... July 14, 2018

Gorillaz have always been presented as a virtual band, not a real band. The Residents have usually been presented as a real band with anonymous members. Your opinion as to the Residents' nature is interesting and may be valid, but it's still an opinion, and I don't think it represents the balance of reliable sources - which is what we report here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a known fact at this point that if there are "Residents", Homer Flynn & Hardy Fox are/were the primary creators (perhaps among others). Fox has publicly admitted to being the "primary composer" while Homer Flynn is obviously the primary vocalist (esp. in "So Long Sam," viewable on YouTube -- he's not even wearing a mask). Additionally, it is well known that Flynn is the primary graphic artist and that "Pornographics" (etc) is essentially a pseudonym synonymous with Homer Flynn; Flynn was also the head of marketing & advertising for Cryptic, which means he was most responsible for press releases, image, presentation, mythology, misinformation etc. Fox & Flynn are best known as officers for The Cryptic Corporation, and frequently deny being "Residents." This position makes sense when you take into account Hardy Fox's statement that "there are no Residents"; hence, "The Residents" is a fictional construct, a production of The Cryptic Corporation, an illusion, a commentary on the media itself & pop culture. His statements would be perfect to cite in a restructured article; there are plenty of other citable sources which reinforce my perspective presented here.

As for the multiplicity of sources citing "The Residents" as a real band, when in fact they are not: I have presented to you an "interview" between "Will Rothers" and "Charles Bobuck," both of which are fictional pseudonyms of Hardy Fox (if you check his website, it clearly lists these as pseudonyms). This sort of thing is incredibly common in "The Residents" history; hence any number of articles citing them as a "real band" are fundamentally misinformed & are NOT reliable as you claim; they are lazily parroting Cryptic's misinformation, usually because that publication simply does not care or cannot be bothered to investigate or reflect upon the reality; far easier is just to relax & accept the lie. Just because there are tons of articles to cite does not make this lie any more true; it only demonstrates the sheer scope & success of Cryptic's misinformation campaign.

Here is a very quotable line from the "Charles Bobuck" interview that I have already linked, very citable & quite clearly attributable to Hardy Fox (who, being a retired Cryptic officer, is as reliable a source as you could get), and which clearly denotes the truth of the matter, clearly stating that "The Residents" is NOT a band, that "they" are a conceptual illusion, & that this illusion is a production of The Cryptic Corporation:

"Despite how difficult it is for people to accept, The Residents is a concept, not a band. Concepts are free to take various forms, even ones that superficially seem like a band. Touring requires the *illusion* of a band. Basically the organizing team assembles the resources required to make a concept work. As dry as that sounds, it is what producers do, and The Residents is a production. There is no Randy, Chuck, Bob, Carlos, or Rico. Just assembled resources.

WR. Who is the 'organizing team?'

Well, now that Hardy is gone it is primarily Homer Flynn, the only remaining original Cryptic guy. But Cryptic has two newer corporate owners too. So there are three inputs with Homer being the primary one. The Residents concept is completely malleable. It doesn't have to be associated with music. It could become an iPhone app design company. That is the remarkable aspect that sets the Residents apart from 'bands.'"

I feel that this source alone is enough to *at least* call into question the false premise on which this Wikipedia page is based -- there are other sources as well if you look in the right places, and these together ought to be used *at least* to present "both sides" of the matter regarding whether "The Residents" are a "real band" or a "concept" / virtual band. -- "2600:1702:a51:1b0:7126:f415:96c8:19cd" again... July 14, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:A51:1B0:952B:BD14:102C:AA48 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hardy Fox's death

There have been previous reports of his death, on "official" Residents' web pages, and even yesterday it was being claimed on social media that premature announcements of his death had in fact been placed by Fox himself. However, a post by his sister on Facebook in this thread (https://www.facebook.com/groups/CrypticCorporation/ - see post by Diane Fox Pasel) now does appear to give the necessary confirmation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Also this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Homer Flynn

It seems to me that - given Hardy Fox's death and the associated gradual removal of the mystique surrounding The Residents - that the time has come to mention, in the lead section, Homer Flynn as the co-founder. It's now becoming attested in independent sources like this: "...Fox was ultimately revealed as, along with Homer Flynn, one of the founders and primary composers of the group....". We are an encyclopedia of record, and Fox is correctly mentioned in the lead - there seems little point now in unduly obscuring Flynn's equivalent involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Question: How important are the Residents in the scheme of musical things!?

Truth be told, I do not know much about this group the Residents. I was informed about them about two years ago by a colleague in California. But I am wondering how important the group is in the scheme of musical things. Apparently the Residents made many albums, videos, and other musical projects. But how successful were any of their endeavors? How many total copies were sold of the Residents' records? I would be surprised if it was more than 50,000. So why do their followers think so highly of the Residents? Who can explain this to me!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:C700:AD0:F41F:AF0F:A2DC:6FE7 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A Wikipedia talk page is not the place to discuss the merits of the article subject - it's for improving the article. But what makes you think that sales of recordings are relevant to any musicians' "importance" in "the scheme of musical things"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, this doesn't really explain his question. It's answering a question with another question. And as he asked, how important is band's influence in music as a whole? (This is coming from a person who knows a good number of underground bands and i never heard about The Residents until i stumbled upon this article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.95.101.28 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This really seems a non-issue. The fact that you never heard of the band until relatively recently says nothing about their musical importance. At the very least the Residents long ago achieved the cult status of musicians like Sun Ra, Diamanda Galas, Tom Waits, and Moondog -- all of which have their own Wikipedia articles.

Artists who have cited The Residents as an influence include: Pere Ubu, Throbbing Gristle, Eugene Chadbourne, Fred Frith, John Zorn, Devo, Tuxedomoon, PiL, Suicide, Talking Heads, Cabaret Voltaier, and Renaldo and the Loaf -- among others -- all of these have Wikipedia articles as well.

And come to that, Wikipedia is certainly host to plenty of articles about less influential musicans and groups, among them Crucifucks, and GG Allin.

74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Influence section

I'm admittedly not very good at getting in detail on the subject but this article desperately needs a section detailing the Residents' influence on the music world, cause the person above me is making a good question: sure, the Residents have a billion albums and CD-ROMs or whatever, but why should people care? It would greatly benefit the article if there was a section explaining the outside world's influence from them, the artists and bands inspired by them, etc. I may make an attempt at writing such a section in the future, but I'm currently busy putting some actual information in the history section. Moonlordress (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Moonlordress