US/UK collective noun band name singular/plural schism

are you sure about this?

garry wills says that before the civil war, ppl said "the united states of america are" blah blah; after, "is"

so perhaps it's a similar deal?

No, it's true. I find myself slipping between the two usages on a constant basis. All that reading of Melody Maker in tender years has warped my language!

Smashing Pumpkins is touring!
- Is it?

You whacky yanks.

Stranger still: "Yes are touring". And this is the usage I have adopted. When I replace the "are" with "is", it sounds odd -- even though it should not!

I don't know that I've heard such a ridiculous generalization from an ostensibly intelligent source in years. Bad informal usage is universal. And, for the record, we Yanks are just as likely to say "Pavement are touring," which is no less formally incorrect.

I thought about this for a second and realized that I do usually use the singular, and I am a Yank, so I guess that is evidence for this theory. I'm not sure which is more correct, although it does seem a bit strange to me to use the plural. For instance, you would say "The group is on tour" - not "The group are on tour" - even though the group consists of more than one person.

I tend to use 'are', treating a band/group as a 'they'.

Does anyone have an AP or U of C style guide handy? (What is the UK equivalent?) I would think that technically any group is supposed to be a collective noun, which in the U.S. should always be singular (right?). Even if a word (e.g. Pumpkins) is plural in its most common use, if it denotes a unit, a collection, a group of people or whatever, it should be considered a collective noun, I’d think.

Even if that is true, of course, this wouldn't mean that the formal rules aren't often abused or ignored in speech and/or print.

As far as I know, AP style doesn't rule on this (I looked). Where I work, we forged our own ruling which is bands with singular names require singular agreement, bands with plural names plural agreement. Thus: "Smashing Pumpkins are touring; Pavement certainly isn't going to be opening for them."

The more I think about it, I think that Lee is correct. His example is also true of athletic teams. ("Even though the Chicago Fire was the best team in MLS last year, the San Jose Earthquakes were Cup champions." Heh,)

But another potential problem would be if a musical group is being referred to as a unit. Would there be this differentiation in those cases: Despite Ned’s protestations, the Smashing Pumpkins was not a very good band. ;) The Smashing Pumpkins are on tour.

(the difference being that in the first example, the Pumpkins are being referred to as a "unit" and in the second, they aren’t necessarily.)

Alternately, this is probably just nonsense and is complicating matters.

Not strictly related to music I know, but when I lived in Tokyo it used to bug me sometimes that the Japan Times (the English language daily) would headline the sports pages with "Manchester United wins again" (which annoys me anyway - them winning, not just the semiotic rule). Btw, I'm not American-English bashing at all - it was just an observation that used to annoy my TEFL-tastic mind in Marine-mungous Tokyo.

scott p is korrekt: collectives take singular or plurular verbs dep. on how together the collective is: viz the team is surging up the pitch like an avenging army VERSUS the team are all going home in separate taxis

"are" is ok in the first, but it destresses the teaminess a bit

("Even though the Chicago Fire was the best team in MLS last year, the San Jose Earthquakes were Cup champions." )

Switch the position in the sentence: Even though the San Jose Earthquakes were the best team in MLS last year, the Chicago Fire was Cup champion...? (I think Chicago Fire were cup champions sounds better.)

I think there really is no "proper" way - it depends upon whether you choose to personify the group (e.g. "Pumpkins is") or treat the group as a band of individuals ("Pumpkins are")

Despite Ned’s protestations, the Smashing Pumpkins was not a very good band. ;)

*looks up from listening to Glastonbury 97 performance of "Tonight, Tonight"* I'm sorry, what?

Total pet obsession of mine.

Where I work calls for a singular verb in all instances, which makes either for weird things like 'The Chemical Brothers is...' or crazy contortions to avoid such awkwardness. Also means pronouns stand as 'it' rather than 'they,' which drives me up a wall.

But I'd say the majority of U.S. publications allow for some flexibility there. Even some of the stodgier daily newspapers grin and bear plural verb/pronoun stuff when it sounds absolutely wrong otherwise.

I think your theory is bunk. I asked myself how I would say it and I replied to myself "the Smashing Pumpkins are touring". What an odd sentence that was. Then just to make sure I asked my brother how he would fill in the blank "the s.p. -blank- touring" and I put my fingers on the screen so he couldn't cheat. He said the s.p. are touring.

You wacky Brits.

By the way, I'm an American (as is my brother).

Emma B: "i have never had a problem wiz my hairs, zey are beautiful"

Well, just to reiterate, I've heard the 'is' from Yanks several times, hence the thread, but can never remember hearing it in this country, whether it's a plural band name or not (eg never heard a Brit say 'Pavement is touring' either). The one exception I can think of might be PJ Harvey, but that's different. I mean she's different. I mean they're diff- oh forget it.