![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Incorporated lots of additional band info that was on The Pretenders (album).
This is still a bit disjointed, and has some stuff that may not be NPOV. SO it could some more cleanup.
Econrad 17:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed:
Pat Benetar and Joan Jett at minimum contemporaries of Chrissy Hynde (The Runaways debuted in 1976). Econrad 15:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is supposed to be a "The" before the name "Pretenders"? Are they "The Pretenders" or just the "Pretenders"?-- Lironos 12:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
As a result of Auto movil's edits, the number of things attributed in this article to unsourced "critics" went from 2 to 11. While Auto is an entertaining writer, the suspicion that these "critics" and Auto are often one and the same is hard to resist. Wasted Time R 18:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the current content violates NPOV (IMO), and is not 'encyclopedic' in style, and includes peacock terms. Again, IMO.
One example:
"We'll return to this tale in one moment"?
Econrad 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Econrad, sectioning is a good idea but I would do it a bit differently. Have Early years, then Original band (including the singles before the first album), then Pretenders carry on (84-86 as you have it), then Pretenders resume (94-present). The idea is for the section titles to tell the story of the epochs of the band, which album titles don't quite get across. Also, I don't see a need for a separate Recent history section, as what's happening now is more of the same from the 94 resumption. What do you think? Wasted Time R 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The band's 1st album is properly called Pretenders (no 'The'), and is shown that on the all major sources, and the album itself. 2 album pages existed, with and without the 'The'. I merged the 2, created a redirect, and fixed the links on all linking pages. Econrad 00:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"As a result of Auto movil's edits, the number of things attributed in this article to unsourced 'critics' went from 2 to 11. While Auto is an entertaining writer, the suspicion that these 'critics' and Auto are often one and the same is hard to resist. Wasted Time R 18:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
I didn't see anyone jumping in when the article was filled with gross factual errors. If you want to go through my garage (or yours) and look up the 'critics say' cites in old NME, Creem, and Musician magazines, be my guest. If you can find one that's inaccurate according to relevant sources, you win ten bucks via Paypal Auto movil 04:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well. Of the 11 'critics' assertions in your version of the article, 6 still remain. Regarding the 5 that were pulled:
So if you can find sources for some of your assertions, they can be put back in. Wasted Time R 12:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And to the more general point of your version of the article: Yes it corrected some blather in the prior version, and yes it introduced some excellent points, and yes it was entertaining. (I have a higher tolerance for 'entertaining' than many NPOV-obsessed WP editors; music articles that are dry recitations of album dates, song titles, and chart positions, will give no clue as to why the artist was so popular in the first place.) But, your version suffered from:
Wasted Time R 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, never mind. Another editor has come in and tossed things further about, and some of what I wrote above no longer applies. Such is Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the Pretenders were a British band, and concentrating on the US reaction to the records, critically and otherwise, gives a skewed picture.
Another is that critical consensus doesn't necessarily show up in the standard reference books -- the Christgau guides, etc. What you get in those books is what Christgau, or Dave Marsh, or Anthony DeCurtis (etc) thinks. The All-Music guide is generally more fair, but I worked as a rock critic for awhile, and it's sheer folly to rely on these books for anything but names, dates, personnel, and other dry facts. They're simply wrong much of the time. You can see this in the way the Rolling Stone Guide is rewritten every edition: The reviews are changed from top to bottom to reflect current tastes. You never get a sense of what a record meant at the time it came out, or how perceptions have evolved.
A third point is that it really gets dispiriting having female musicians parsed according to their 'sexuality' and looks. No matter what, there's a magnetic appeal to pointing out that Chrissy Hynde (for instance), or Chan Marshall, or Corinne Tucker are sex-sex-sexy -- while male musicians are evaluated in terms of their, you know, music. Maybe it's appropriate and maybe it isn't, but I don't think it was a glaring omission to leave out the fact that Hynde had bangs, etc. This is a woman who spent almost her entire early career wearing long-sleeved, high-necked outfits without an inch of extra skin showing, to avoid such things. Auto movil 17:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm remembering that 'Middle of the Road' got a lukewarm reception in the UK weeklies, which might just speak to my biases in sourcing. But there wasn't much in the way of single reviews in the US at the time. My osmosis read on the single was that it was seen as slick, trying to recapture the flavor of the old band (to the point of having backup singers imitate Honeyman-Scott and Farndon's voices -- compare the backup vox with 'Brass in Pocket' or 'Private Life'). These things get blurry as time passes. The article is probably great the way it is. Auto movil 18:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: current lead -- the performance charisma of the band came from Hynde; indeed, the lead should summarize the whole article and since it has always been Hynde's band (more so as time went on) it's silly to keep changing it to make it more "democratic". Find a citation that describes any other member's performance in a way that can be characterized as "charismatic", and I'll grant the point. Jgm 03:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why would you say that? That's a lot of silly talk. 1) The lead is there to introduce the topic, not to summarize the article. 2) The original Pretenders were one of the tightest and best-regarded rock ensembles in the world. You might as well say, "The performance charisma of the Rolling Stones came from Mick Jagger, and unless you can prove otherwise using a cite with the word, 'charismatic,' I will not grant the point that the other members were important." 3) Watch the live videos. Auto movil 18:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Ok, if you want to get pedantic, then I insist you summarize the article in the first paragraph, like you said. Make sure to get everything in there.
Also, you must justify focusing on 'charisma' above songwriting, musicianship, tonality, performance, and other factors, and then produce a citation saying that Hynde "provided the charisma" in the band, beginning in its first incarnation. "Read any review of the band" is not a citation.
Kidding aside, I suggest writing an article on Hynde. This is an article on the band, 'The Pretenders.' Auto movil 23:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added "[numerous personnel changes ...] with Hynde as the sole constant" at the end of the intro. This should make it clear that it has always been Hynde's band, without detracting from the merits of the original lineup. Wasted Time R 18:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The" should be removed from all instances. The band's name is "Pretenders" withtout "The".
This is untrue. The original edition of the first album, "Pretenders", in the UK, had a fan club address under the phrase "Write to The Pretenders:" . The name also comes from The Platters' song, "The Great Pretender", with the "Great" omitted. It's always been The Pretenders. ~ G Pearce, 14:47, 18th September 2006 (GMT)
Shouldn't there be some info about "If There Was A Man", part of the soundtrack of "the living daylights"?
{{tone}} and {{advert}} tags from: 20:12, 14 August 2006 Mdbrownmsw (Far too many unsourced opinions...)
"Hynde's subsequent attempts at continuing the Pretenders never recaptured the Herefordshire band's original intensity."
Sez who? I've removed this silly statement, as it's strictly POV.
Is there any way to make the figures in the table central for presentations sake as much as anything thanks..
Is this term clear? its makes them sound like they're a white power band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.160.34 ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am removing this term unless someone can justify its inclusion. -- Driscoll ( talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
About 'Brass in Pocket', the artice says: "the last regarded as a somewhat tame and commercial song compared to the rest of the band's early output, which nonetheless cracked the American market for the band". Regarded by whom? Who thinks or thought this? I am removing it. APW ( talk) 06:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Pretenders/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The Pretenders ARE NOT a British band, and to identify them as such is inaccurate and misleading. |
Last edited at 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Incorporated lots of additional band info that was on The Pretenders (album).
This is still a bit disjointed, and has some stuff that may not be NPOV. SO it could some more cleanup.
Econrad 17:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed:
Pat Benetar and Joan Jett at minimum contemporaries of Chrissy Hynde (The Runaways debuted in 1976). Econrad 15:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is supposed to be a "The" before the name "Pretenders"? Are they "The Pretenders" or just the "Pretenders"?-- Lironos 12:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
As a result of Auto movil's edits, the number of things attributed in this article to unsourced "critics" went from 2 to 11. While Auto is an entertaining writer, the suspicion that these "critics" and Auto are often one and the same is hard to resist. Wasted Time R 18:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the current content violates NPOV (IMO), and is not 'encyclopedic' in style, and includes peacock terms. Again, IMO.
One example:
"We'll return to this tale in one moment"?
Econrad 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Econrad, sectioning is a good idea but I would do it a bit differently. Have Early years, then Original band (including the singles before the first album), then Pretenders carry on (84-86 as you have it), then Pretenders resume (94-present). The idea is for the section titles to tell the story of the epochs of the band, which album titles don't quite get across. Also, I don't see a need for a separate Recent history section, as what's happening now is more of the same from the 94 resumption. What do you think? Wasted Time R 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The band's 1st album is properly called Pretenders (no 'The'), and is shown that on the all major sources, and the album itself. 2 album pages existed, with and without the 'The'. I merged the 2, created a redirect, and fixed the links on all linking pages. Econrad 00:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"As a result of Auto movil's edits, the number of things attributed in this article to unsourced 'critics' went from 2 to 11. While Auto is an entertaining writer, the suspicion that these 'critics' and Auto are often one and the same is hard to resist. Wasted Time R 18:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
I didn't see anyone jumping in when the article was filled with gross factual errors. If you want to go through my garage (or yours) and look up the 'critics say' cites in old NME, Creem, and Musician magazines, be my guest. If you can find one that's inaccurate according to relevant sources, you win ten bucks via Paypal Auto movil 04:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well. Of the 11 'critics' assertions in your version of the article, 6 still remain. Regarding the 5 that were pulled:
So if you can find sources for some of your assertions, they can be put back in. Wasted Time R 12:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And to the more general point of your version of the article: Yes it corrected some blather in the prior version, and yes it introduced some excellent points, and yes it was entertaining. (I have a higher tolerance for 'entertaining' than many NPOV-obsessed WP editors; music articles that are dry recitations of album dates, song titles, and chart positions, will give no clue as to why the artist was so popular in the first place.) But, your version suffered from:
Wasted Time R 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, never mind. Another editor has come in and tossed things further about, and some of what I wrote above no longer applies. Such is Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the Pretenders were a British band, and concentrating on the US reaction to the records, critically and otherwise, gives a skewed picture.
Another is that critical consensus doesn't necessarily show up in the standard reference books -- the Christgau guides, etc. What you get in those books is what Christgau, or Dave Marsh, or Anthony DeCurtis (etc) thinks. The All-Music guide is generally more fair, but I worked as a rock critic for awhile, and it's sheer folly to rely on these books for anything but names, dates, personnel, and other dry facts. They're simply wrong much of the time. You can see this in the way the Rolling Stone Guide is rewritten every edition: The reviews are changed from top to bottom to reflect current tastes. You never get a sense of what a record meant at the time it came out, or how perceptions have evolved.
A third point is that it really gets dispiriting having female musicians parsed according to their 'sexuality' and looks. No matter what, there's a magnetic appeal to pointing out that Chrissy Hynde (for instance), or Chan Marshall, or Corinne Tucker are sex-sex-sexy -- while male musicians are evaluated in terms of their, you know, music. Maybe it's appropriate and maybe it isn't, but I don't think it was a glaring omission to leave out the fact that Hynde had bangs, etc. This is a woman who spent almost her entire early career wearing long-sleeved, high-necked outfits without an inch of extra skin showing, to avoid such things. Auto movil 17:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm remembering that 'Middle of the Road' got a lukewarm reception in the UK weeklies, which might just speak to my biases in sourcing. But there wasn't much in the way of single reviews in the US at the time. My osmosis read on the single was that it was seen as slick, trying to recapture the flavor of the old band (to the point of having backup singers imitate Honeyman-Scott and Farndon's voices -- compare the backup vox with 'Brass in Pocket' or 'Private Life'). These things get blurry as time passes. The article is probably great the way it is. Auto movil 18:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: current lead -- the performance charisma of the band came from Hynde; indeed, the lead should summarize the whole article and since it has always been Hynde's band (more so as time went on) it's silly to keep changing it to make it more "democratic". Find a citation that describes any other member's performance in a way that can be characterized as "charismatic", and I'll grant the point. Jgm 03:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why would you say that? That's a lot of silly talk. 1) The lead is there to introduce the topic, not to summarize the article. 2) The original Pretenders were one of the tightest and best-regarded rock ensembles in the world. You might as well say, "The performance charisma of the Rolling Stones came from Mick Jagger, and unless you can prove otherwise using a cite with the word, 'charismatic,' I will not grant the point that the other members were important." 3) Watch the live videos. Auto movil 18:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Ok, if you want to get pedantic, then I insist you summarize the article in the first paragraph, like you said. Make sure to get everything in there.
Also, you must justify focusing on 'charisma' above songwriting, musicianship, tonality, performance, and other factors, and then produce a citation saying that Hynde "provided the charisma" in the band, beginning in its first incarnation. "Read any review of the band" is not a citation.
Kidding aside, I suggest writing an article on Hynde. This is an article on the band, 'The Pretenders.' Auto movil 23:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added "[numerous personnel changes ...] with Hynde as the sole constant" at the end of the intro. This should make it clear that it has always been Hynde's band, without detracting from the merits of the original lineup. Wasted Time R 18:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The" should be removed from all instances. The band's name is "Pretenders" withtout "The".
This is untrue. The original edition of the first album, "Pretenders", in the UK, had a fan club address under the phrase "Write to The Pretenders:" . The name also comes from The Platters' song, "The Great Pretender", with the "Great" omitted. It's always been The Pretenders. ~ G Pearce, 14:47, 18th September 2006 (GMT)
Shouldn't there be some info about "If There Was A Man", part of the soundtrack of "the living daylights"?
{{tone}} and {{advert}} tags from: 20:12, 14 August 2006 Mdbrownmsw (Far too many unsourced opinions...)
"Hynde's subsequent attempts at continuing the Pretenders never recaptured the Herefordshire band's original intensity."
Sez who? I've removed this silly statement, as it's strictly POV.
Is there any way to make the figures in the table central for presentations sake as much as anything thanks..
Is this term clear? its makes them sound like they're a white power band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.160.34 ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am removing this term unless someone can justify its inclusion. -- Driscoll ( talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
About 'Brass in Pocket', the artice says: "the last regarded as a somewhat tame and commercial song compared to the rest of the band's early output, which nonetheless cracked the American market for the band". Regarded by whom? Who thinks or thought this? I am removing it. APW ( talk) 06:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Pretenders/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The Pretenders ARE NOT a British band, and to identify them as such is inaccurate and misleading. |
Last edited at 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)