When talking about bands, is it used with "are" or "is"? I am confused.

It’s a preference and it’s usually split between UK and US English. American English would prefer “Radiohead is” to refer to a collective group but neither is wrong.

Either. Generally speaking, British people use *are* more than American people for entities like sports teams, bands, government agencies, and words like family, staff, etc. But really it's not a big deal either way. Both forms can be found to an extent in both dialects, "our staff is/are always happy to assist you!" It's not just about is/are, either. It affects any verb in present simple (have/has, eat/eats, etc.)

British English prefers to refer to bands with “are” and American English tends to prefer “is” instead. Either one of these is fine and both are correct. This particular distinction is one of those little things where you can tell if someone learned one version or the other.

In British English it’s more common to use “are” for collective nouns, even though they’re singular.

People are saying Americans only use "is" for collective nouns. This is untrue. If the name of the brand is plural, then it's conjugated plural as well. "The BBC is releasing a documentary" but "The New York Mets are having an off season".

If we re talking about Radiohead, we should use only a word depression.

It's kind of funny, the answer is in the pictures you posted, Radiohead are an English... and Steelheart is an American...

Depends on where you are and what dialect you're speaking. In the US, we would say, "Radiohead is," but in the UK, one would say, "Radiohead are." I'd default to whichever is more common where you are, but I don't think either would be strictly wrong. In the interest of clarity, the first article uses one and the second uses the other not because of where each band is from but because of where the writers of each article (who are likely from the UK and the US, respectively) are from. As far as why this is different, I honestly don't know. I rationalize it as American grammar emphasizing the overarching unit of the group and UK grammar emphasizing the multiple individuals within the group, but I'm not sure if this is where the difference actually comes from.

‘Are’ is the plural of ‘is’ He is … They are … The group *are* a band. So we should use the plural.

I would usually say "is." The band itself is singular, even if it is made up of multiple people, in the same sense that a national congress or a school is singular. It's possible that Radiohead itself, or one of its members, prefers "are," as this tends to emphasize the individuality of its members or highlights the fact that a band is a group. I think most people would consider "are" an idiosyncratic use.

I like to use the word 'is' because there is only 1 Radiohead. Others will say it should be 'are' because Radiohead is a group of multiple people.

That article is supposed to be edited in British English; that explains it.

I would say “Radiohead is a band” but either sounds OK. It sounds more natural to say are if the band name is more of a plural though the noun is singular: * The Rolling Stones **are** a band * The Dallas Cowboys **are** a football team If the name is singular then is sounds more correct to my British/New Zealand English dialect. * Chelsea **is** an English football team. * Miami Heat **is** a basketball team

Companies, organisations, brands, institutions, administrations, bands, families, teams, staff, universities and schools are treated as plural by most Commonwealth English speakers. Examples: 1. The Boris Johnson administration are making moves to considerably reduce immigration. 2. My family are of Scottish extraction. 3. Oxford University are contemplating the limitation of foreign student applications. 4. The City of London are divided when it comes to the approval of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Americans and speakers influenced by them tend to view collective nouns as only ending with s, although there are many exceptions. 1. The police are searching for more meaningful evidence. 2. The Ronald Reagan administration is known for its anti-union stance. 3. Harvard is very prestigious for locals and aliens alike. 4. NATO is searching for members who can increase their respective output in terms of military expenditure. There is quite a lot of subjective interpretation on both sides.

Honestly, neither sound wrong to me, it really is just a matter of preference. I would probably stick to “are” personally

British vs. American

Nobody would raise any eyebrows over either usage. Outside of a possible styleguide mandate, either is fine.

Fantastic question! Never really thought of this before, I think either works though. I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if I heard either one. I don’t necessarily think it’s an British/ American divide because I’m British and my wife is American and we both use “are”. But if the band’s name is pluralised (the Beatle*s*, the Arctic Monkey**s**, the Sleeping Soul**s** etc.) you’d definitely use “are”.

There is a clear distinction to make between an organisation as 'a group of people', and 'a distinct individual entity' While both clearly exist in both countries, this regional language distinction emphasises one view over the other. In a sort of Sapir-Whorf way, i wonder if this contributes (however slightly) to the US legal system making decisions aligning with this leaning (e.g. Citizens United - 'Corporations are People')

Everybody knows it's "Thom Yorke and the Radioheads"

RADIOHEAD MENTIONED RAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅

A music band is a singular noun and I refuse to consider any alternative.

It is ALWAYS singular when talking about an entity (band, business etc). The Wiki page is incorrect but you can correct if you wish. I am referring to actual proper British English. What the USAsians do is up to them as the only use “simplified English”

I am British and while I see many people claim it to be an absolute US/UK split, I had to use singular plural for work for many years and now do so in education. However I will use the plural form as well. So I will use: Radiohead is a band. Radiohead are playing tonight. Yay, waves Union flag while smiling like Wallace and sweating like something from Mr Lovenstein.

In American English, a collective noun like this can be treated as either singular or plural.

"Are" is plural, and Radiohead can be considered a plural noun. Like "British Airways", "The Miami Heat", the CIA, and so on. That's more British use though; American considers those as singular nouns. Thinking about this gives me The Bends.

US English a group is considered one unit so we use "is" UK English a group is considered multiple units so they use "are"

"collective nouns", like these, could go with either. \-British English tends to refer to collective nouns as plural (Radiohead are...) \-American English looks at whether the word or phrase is grammatically plural ("Radiohead is...", but "the Smashing Pumpkins are...".)

Funny enough, the answer lies in the first thing said in the sentence after what you're asking about!

By the way, in British English, these band rules don't apply when it comes to companies. When you view a company as a whole, you would always use singular "is". Like "the company is located in London". But when you're talking about its employees it becomes plural. Like "the company are out celebrating their new client acquisition".

In American English, an organized group of people is an it. A company, a band, these are things. In British English an organised group of people is a they. You speak of them as people.

“Are” sounds more natural.

The Beatles are a good band. Nirvana is a good band. I tend to go with whether the band name is plural or not. (Canadian)

This doesn't answer the question, but you will find a debate about this on the talk page of almost every wikipedia page about bands, and sometimes it gets nasty. Consensus on wikipedia is to just leave it how it is to prevent edit wars.

American English used the singular. British English uses the plural. This works for sports teams, too, when you're using the city name. For instance, talking about the Red Wings in the US, you'd say "Detroit is on a hot streak and won 6 games in a row". In England, talking about Chelsea FC, you'd say "Chelsea are in great form and won 6 matches in a row."

By simple construction "is" is the appropriate verb. Band is singular, "is" is the singular form of be. Open and shut case. British English *loves* unspoken omitted wording. When British English says "band" what they mean "the members that comprise band" and so it's obviously plural, members is plural. Thus "are" pairs with "members." Sounds crazy but there are many examples. "How many are The Rolling Stones" is a perfectly normal British English sentence. But 50% of Americans use "is" with plural nouns so it evens out.

I'm pretty sure the use of "are" or "is" is dependant on if the band takes the singular or plural form; The Beatles are... Radiohead is... The Doors are... Led Zeppelin is...

Considering the original of both bands, this is likely a regional issue. I have always heard "is" in the US and using "are" does sound like some BS the British would say to be different.