Jump to content

Talk:Def Leppard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

confused (feedback)

Love bites was # 1,pour some sugar was #2. I have checked multiple charts on the internet that lsit #1 hits and also, a couple newspaper articles state that love bites was thier first (and only) #1 hit. I hope this clears some confusion.

--Activision45 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Activision45

guns'n'roses

Guns N' Roses wasn't really a 80's band. 20% of 80's years isn't comparable to a 80's band

TECHNICALLY INACCURATE. GUNS N' ROSES WAS FORMED IN 1985, MAKING THEIR 1980's TENURE HALF OF THAT DECADE.

Clunky

To original author(s): the contents box is entirely too damn big and clunky and lessens the impact of the opening paragraphs. Let's either cut down the number of sub-headings or fix the contents box or I'm going to. I love the article but the contents box is a fucking eyesore, so fix it please--Kwan-Trill 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

innacuracy

An innacuracy in the article:

Rick Allen replaced Frank Noon- not Tony Kenning. It was Frank Noon that replaced Tony Kenning. (Tony Kenning-Frank Noon-Rick Allen)

I fixed the innaccuracy. I'm adding my signature. Gringo300 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am finally glad somebody else caught the mistake!
Technically, they never intended Frank Noon to be a permanent member of the band, BUT they didn't go straight from Tony Kenning to Rick Allen. Gringo300 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

confused

I'm confused about the chart positions for Def Leppard and the confusion comes from an issue of Metal Edge, the leading hard rock magazine. I have a 1992 issue and in the Mail Bag section, a fan had written in to ask about the chart positions for the Def Leppard. Geri Miller, the editor for this magazine. Geri Miller was responsible for everything printed in this magazine and was the editor-in-chief in 1992. She provided the following information:

Love Bites #2 Pour some sugar on me #1 Hysteria as #3 Armageddon It #5.

I believe this information to be accurate. Can you please provide concrete evidence that Love Bites was #1. I'm not upset. Just confused.

I'm sorry for the errors- but I believe my information to be correct as this comes from the #1 hard rock magazine.

Check here. All of Def Leppard's singles' chart positions are listed ("Love Bites" #1, "Pour Some Sugar on Me" #2, "Armageddon It" #3, and "Hysteria" #10). They can also easily be verified by searching Billboard Magazine's web site. Confusion often results from reading different charts, but the correct overall pop chart is known as the Hot 100 chart (or the Pop Singles chart before 1983), but the abovementioned positions ("Love Bites" #2, "Pour Some Sugar on Me" #1, "Hysteria" #3, and "Armageddon It" #5) do not seem to match up with any chart. Hopefully this documentation will clear up the obvious confusion. DarkShattenjager 22:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)DarkShattenjager

classification

The band's classification as a cross between classic rock, glam rock and heavy metal is questionable - given the band's influences and the commonly associated bands with a similar sound, hard rock would probably be closer to the band's sound than classic rock. -- Phantompong

The above classification is a simple idea of the band based on the influences they have shown when they have played. That is why it is that way.

I think we need to add Glam Metal to the list, by trying to condense a band like this to one genre you aren't giving them justice, because bands almost always have influences and attributes of more than one genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeforhire (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos

We could use more photos, the one we have is a very early one, a selection showing the band as they evolved over the years would be good --Djbrianuk 09:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Phantompong

Photos restored, logo added

I've added the photos back in after they were removed by an anon IP, but moved them to the history section they're approximately from. Also added the Def Leppard Logo at the top. Djbrianuk 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Album sales figures

Any sources? The official site states Hysteria selling 16 million copies worldwide. --Lumijaguaari 08:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Check the Recording Industry Artists of America's searchable database of gold and platinum certifications. Note that these sales figures are the official figures for the United States, but the United States only. I do not know of an organization that provides such information for the rest of the world, other than there being some particular to their own countries, but there could be one somewhere. Also bear in mind that the RIAA awards certifications upon record labels' requests, so it is possible (ask The Fixx or John Denver) for an album, in actuality, to have sold significantly more copies than they are certified for having sold. Def Leppard's have gotten certifications recently enough that it does not seem likely that their sales are being ignored, but it is possible. Nielsen SoundScan is also a reliable source (and well-regarded by those in the industry, as evidenced by its use for the Billboard charts), but at least I do not believe it provides information to those outside of the industry.

Why do we have to keep changing the external links on the mailing lists? LepNet was around first. DefSolNet was formed afterwards for people that were sick of LepNet. Couldn't we have external links for both? --LanceManion1973

From one of the Many FAQ sites

Approximate worldwide sales figures (not checked with official numbers): On Through The Night: 1 million High 'N' Dry: 2 million Pyromania: 10 million Hysteria: 16 million Adrenalize: 7 million Retro Active: 1.7 million Vault - Greatest Hits: 6 million Slang: 2 million Euphoria: 1.2 million X: 200,000+

Nick

Discography?

The article really needs a discography section, it would be exceptionally kind for someone to do it. Thanks - Patman2648 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

lou gramm live guest appearance with def leppard?

i've been told that in 1992, right after vivian campbell joined def leppard, former foreigner singer lou gramm made a guest appearance with them on stage. this seems logical because vivian campbell played with lou gramm both on a lou gramm solo album and in the band shadow king, before he joined def leppard. however, i've been unable to find any documentaion of this alleged event. does anyone on here by any chance know anything about this? Gringo300 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Motley Crue

Def Leppard paving the way for Bon Jovi , Poison and Motley Crue is true. and for Poison and Bon Jovi. Motley Crue were not a pop metal band and their sound didn't change with every album.

Motley Crue and Poison were the purest examples of pop metal. Motley Crue did change every album starting with Dr. Feelgood. Their self titled album had elements of grunge. Their earlier albums were pure pop metal and Dr. Feelgood, Generation Swine, New Tattoo and Saints of Los Angeles sound different from each other and different from the Crue's earlier albums. Even if their style changed or not changing your style every album does not make you a pop metal band. Pop metal is a heavy metal with 80s pop influence instead of blues or punk influence like traditional heavy metal or the NWOBHM Metalfan72 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Influences

David Bowie? Really?--71.56.145.54 08:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

re: chart positions, Guns N Roses, David Bowie

Chart positions: Billboard magazine is the oldest and most widely accepted source of chart positions for albums and singles, and I believe that is what was used for the singles rankings in the article. Of course, it's debateable just how accurately their charts measure popularity (in fact, Billboard has tweaked their formula in recent years to address this point), but they are as close to an official source as you're going to find.

GNR: Their greatest success came in the late 80s with Appetite for Destruction, which puts them (fairly or not) into the late 80s hair metal craze. Yeah, they managed some success in the early 90s with the Use Your Illusion albums, but by that time grunge/alternative rock had already taken over and they were definitely relics of a bygone era. And let's admit it -- Use Your Illusion I & II were 75% filler. You could take Lies, UYI I & II, and the Spaghetti Incident and come up with maybe 12 memorable songs, which still wouldn't be as good as the 12 on Appetite.

David Bowie: They've said as much in some interviews, and they covered a Mick Ronson (Bowie's former guitarist) song, "Only After Dark", which can be found on their Retroactive album.

British band = British English

A number of words like army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set that compose it. Thus, as H. W. Fowler describes, in British English they are "treated as singular or plural at discretion"; Fowler notes noted that occasionally a "delicate distinction" is made possible by discretionary plurals: "The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree."[4] Also in British English, names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place: England are playing Germany tonight refers to a football game, but England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom refers to the country. In North American English, such words are invariably treated as singular.

Line-ups.

The line-ups have been taken away repeatedly. The line-ups help Def Leppard viewers show who was in the band at what time. I was a Def Leppard roadie briefly in the late 1980's and continue to try to preserve the truth as much as possible. Where as I agree unneeded items should not be put on the page, the line-ups hardly take any room and are vital to Def Leppard's past and present. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.207.195 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The member history is available is a simple neat list. Someone who hasn't got 2 clues about Wikipedia editing policy/guidelines keeps adding a cluttered up ugly table that simply duplicates the information already avaiable in the article. Not only that it violates WP:MoS and contains either duplicate/repeat links(on Wikipedia a word need only be linked once in an article) Bad enough the links are dupes but, in some cases, the twit keeps switching the proper links IE 'bass guitar' for the dab link 'bass' which could be any number of things...including a fish. Some people shouldn't be allowed to edit until they've read all of Wikipedia's Policies/Guidelines...especially the clutter makers 216.21.150.44 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

'Dshizt'

There is an authorized user who edited the Def Leppard section incorrectly. I believe that this user should be blocked from editing, especially because he has done things like that before to such sections as "Santa" and "Jesus".

[Warchild Bootleg]

On Tony Kenning's biography page, it states a reference to a bootleg called "Warchild". This should be placed on the discography section, because "First Strike" is on there, and it was also a bootleg.

Tag needed?

Is a tag really needed by their legacy? What is wrong with it that makes it not true. They are actually rock pioneers of their own rights with respects to the way they made music (putting harmonies together as one) and all that, so why is that tag really needed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.136.219 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It's tagged because it reads like it was written by a 10 year old, starry eyed fanboy and there is not a citation in sight for what is essentially a peacock POV paragraph. See WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:AWW... it essentially ignores them all. 156.34.216.116 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Genre?

Def Leppard's music has changed in the past 15 years, and whatever genre it is, it's missing from the list. I've really noticed that on the more recent albums, they sound a lot less like hard rock and a lot more like current rock. I don't know what the proper term would be, but I find that a fair number of songs really have elements of alternative or pop or something in there, and we need to identify what it is and put it on the list. - Rock Soldier

In addition, the band did indeed play Glam metal in the 1980's, but anons keep removing it. I don't want to start an edit war, but I think that glam metal should be brought back into the infobox. Can anybody help please? FMAFan1990 06:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I added a reference FMAFan1990 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Your reference classifies glam metal as a "style" for them, the only genre it lists is rock. I don't see in any way how Def Leppard were glam metal. I definately think arena rock should be added to the genres though, and maybe pop metal.
--Rock Soldier 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

After going through all the Def Leppard albums, I am CERTAIN that there needs to be some changes to the genres. Their isn't a single reference to how much pop they worked into their music, and believe me, on albums like X there was a LOT of it. If you ask me, the only thing separating them from full-fledged pop was the lack of synthesizers. Here's the classification that I'd give:

--Rock Soldier 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal POV has no place on Wikipedia. Do you know what Pop is? The Beatles made Pop an artform and nary a synthesiser to be found. Only referenced content. And right now there are several referenced genres listed. No more required, none to be removed. 156.34.230.90 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just comparing their music to other pop music of the time. And I know I haven't referenced the genres, but I really don't think I should have to. If you take a listen to music by a band whose music has been pure hard rock 100% of their career, like AC/DC or Deep Purple, and compare it to Def Leppard albums like X, or Adrenalize, or Slang, you really gain a perspective of how much these albums are NOT hard rock. If you compare such a rock band to the first three Def Leppard albums, the music very similar. Maybe I'm not listing the right genres for the albums, maybe arena rock and pop rock aren't the right genres, but I know one thing for sure: those later albums DEFINATELY aren't best described as hard rock.
And, I think it's worth mentioning that the sources citing the band as hard rock, heavy metal, NWOBHM, and glam metal also mention pop rock under styles.
--Rock Soldier 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"I'm just comparing their music to other pop music of the time" = POV. "I haven't referenced the genres, but I really don't think I should have to."???? Have you not read WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE??? Wikipedia is built on these policies. It isn't built on "I really don't think I should have to". In fact, that is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is here for. Read policies.... they're there for a reason. 156.34.208.227 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is, the albums are so obviously not hard rock that it should be plain to see that it's not. Don't you agree? How can someone call those later albums hard rock?
--Rock Soldier 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You know the problem is, that everyone actually believes def leppard were heavy metal. And then they write articles about that. And then wikipedia cites these articles, making even more people believe def leppard were metal. But they're not. they're just plain ol' hard rock, perhaps glam rock. but it's not like anyone would listen to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[Pictures]

Who the hell keeps taking away the pictures that chronilogically fit with Def Leppard's history? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.193.46.130 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Singles dischography

Acording to Billboard Bringin' On The Heartbreak (original) charted at 81 on the Hot 100. Also, Rock Brigade peaked at 106 on the Bubbling Under chart in '80. Verify if you like, but the info is accurate.

Have you got a link? --Jamcad01 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Def Leppard Page Edits

I am a very active editor of the Def Leppard Wikipedia page and I'm disappointed in the fact that someone keeps messing up the grammatical elements that keep the story up to Wikipedia's standards. Everyday, some anonymous user edits it with bad grammar and things that aren't needed on the page.

For example, a couple of days ago, the line was: "2007: Def Leppard have started their Downstage Thrust Tour". Not only is this bad grammar but it doesn't meet the standards needed. Eventually, we will have to lock Def Leppard for a while, but I hope that considerate people will watch out for errors like this that always have to be fixed.

Also, the Jeff Rich comments about him being a member have got to be stopped quickly and without comment. If we comment about it, it only provokes them to change it. We should probably lock these users, but no action has been taken yet.

Thanks.

Jeff Rich

You see, I have a different opinion of this. I believe he should be noted as a key source of inspiration for Rick Allen's drumming career while he was resting, but he wasn't much of a touring musician or a member of the band. Besides, it takes out the loyalty image that is seen when someone thinks of Def Leppard. I think everyone's prepared to edit Jeff Rich in like that.

For more information, see Rick Allen.

Why does someone keep removing the Def Leppard band members link from the Band members section? Alterego269 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Def Leppard Template and Singles

  • Why does someone keep messing with the Def Leppard template? It is fine the way it is, and somebody keeps messing with the links for the singles, and they read as 're-directed'. Now I had them prepared so they direct straight to the page, NO RE-DIRECTING. Please stop Now. - Alterego269 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone has to keep correcting the format because you've never taken the time to read the Musician project guidelines and examples to see how its supposed to be properly done. If you would just learn policies and guidelines rather than tryinf to make up your own rules all your edits wouldn't have to be reverted or corrected. 156.34.215.210 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Def Leppard photos

Why the hell do people always keep replacing the Def Leppard photos with the stupid 2007 tour ones, and especially in the era while the band were getting recognition from High n Dry and Pyromania, and then the era when the band's recording for Hysteria was halted because of the drummer's accident?

Those 07 photos DO NOT make any sense, and I say change them because they do not make sense to the past.

  • AGREE TOTALLY. NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!
  • Sorry, forgot the bolded point. Wikipedia are not short of images, actually. You've just removed the ones that note the history of the band. Much more qualified users than you and I have removed the content, as per their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Here's an idea...how about you add them to the Downstage Thrust Tour page that someone has created. There, it will serve a better home because it is clearly devoted to the 2007 tour.

Pop rock

I don't think any of their first four albums were pop rock. I don't know about their later albums, but I think it should be noted that their first four were not part of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit wars over genre are starting to get out of hand. Now we have people citing them, as if AMG's opinion is somehow definitive. I say glam metal and hard rock and whatever else is being used at the moment are merely styles or subgenres, and all that needs to be listed is rock. Perhaps the various relevant WikiProjects (Music genres, Albums, etc.) will address this. —Zeagler (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to agree that any of the later albums are not pop rock. Just listen to them, there's nothing hard rock about them, and hardly anything glam metal! It's very, very pop, starting with Hysteria, and progressively increasing up to X, before returning to their roots with Yeah!. Hysteria and Adrenalize were still more glam metal, I agree, but the later albums like Euphoria and X were extremely pop. Can anyone really disagree with that?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think people can disagree with that. Really, though, who comes to Wikipedia to learn what subgenre a particular band or album falls into? That's why these genre listings need to be simplified... —Zeagler (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added the subgenres because I just couldn't stand to look at those pages and see those albums described as hard rock, as if they were 100% hard rock and nothing else, like AC/DC or something. Well, take a listen to band like AC/DC whose music really is hard rock and it'll become clear just how much those later albums aren't hard rock. Then compare it to the first three Def Leppard albums, and it'll come clear just how rock 'n' roll those first few albums really were. So I insist that pop rock stay mentioned as one of their genres, it was a much more prominent genre than heavy metal for them if you ask me.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, even though Hysteria was definitvely "pop rock", I still do think that songs like Run Riot, Rocket, or Gods Of War fit more into the "arena rock" subgenre, and ironically, Run Riot does sound like hard rock.. And it should be noted that Adrenalize is also mellow rock, because most of the songs on that album were a bit more "depressing" or "calming" instead of "happy" or "melodious".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.14.190 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to use "arena rock" to describe the albums, but a certain user decided to declare arena rock to not be an actual genre and just a term used for something, and deleted it from all the pages. Even so, even that doesn't quite fit for everything, because in the later years, some of the songs were just plain pop. Seriously. You could hardly call X a rock album. As for Adrenalize, I see where you're getting the idea of mellow rock, but I'd say it's still just pop-rock like the rest, and all those gentle songs are just pop/rock power ballads.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Quick comment: Arena Rock isn't a genre (Read the article's lead section for more information regarding that), buddy. ScarianTalk 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The only justification I'm seeing for any (sub)genre tag that people want to apply is "I think..." Well, that's not what Wikipedia is. And any citation you can provide (like All Music Guide) is just going to be someone else's opinion, so the most you can say is "AMG believes Hysteria is pop/rock and glam metal", or whatever. It's pointless to go any deeper than "Rock". —Zeagler (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if AMG won't be accepted, how can we list any other genre? If you look at it like that, calling any album any genre is going by someone's opinion. Who's to say which opinions should be cited and which shouldn't? And who's to say that saying "Rock" isn't an opinion? If you argue that citing a source for a genre is using someone else's opinion, any genre listed, no matter what, is an opinion. The first genre listed is the first guy's opinion, and any further referenced genres are all other people's opinions. So what are we supposed to do?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
List no genres until a consensus has been reached. (And no opinions should be cited unless they're presented as such.) —Zeagler (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Def Leppard sound is very unique;it's not always the same crap over and over again. They started out as a hard rock band by the time the new wave of british heavy metal bands were rising, and became pop-ish after hysteria came out. And it's not opinion, it's COMMON SENSE. Really, how can you even consider albums like X or Slang "hard rock"? Hard rock has to sound "hard", or reverse it so it looks like "rock hard". I heard that "rock hard" sound in OTTN, HND, and Pyromania. Hysteria only focused on producing a "hard rock" Thriller (Michael Jackson's best selling album in 82), since pop music was comepeting well against hair metal in the mid 1980's. 66.225.14.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU! That is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm glad to finally have found someone who sees things the way I do, though I must say it's long overdue. People don't seem to be able to get past the fact that Def Leppard is overall considered a hard rock band. No matter what, those later albums like X and Slang are pop-rock. If you were to hear a song from one of those albums on the radio and didn't recognize it as Def Leppard, would you say "man, that is hard rock!"? HELL NO! Those are pop albums! Face it! I dare one person here to step up and say "I think that X is a hard rock album." Really people, why is it so hard to agree on something that should be common sense?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Schizophrenia - a mental illness characterized by impairments in reality perception most commonly manifesting as paranoid hallucinations, bizarre delusions or disorganized speech. A common Wikipedia example is when a user posts an opinion under a false account or as an anonymous IP... and then returns the next day and agrees with himself. See above A false consensus attempt by way of sockpuppetry is usually frowned upon here. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholmes75 (talk • contribs)
Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder, not a joke. I don't know if Rock Soldier and the anon are the same person, but that was a bit too harsh. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Right...so now just because there's another user who agrees with me, all of a sudden I'm a sockpuppet? Don't be so quick to accuse people of things like that just because two users share a viewpoint.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. Silly me. Never mind. I am going to report you for personal attacks and a strong lack of civility though. ScarianTalk 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you call that comment a personal attack? I didn't insult the user, I just pointed out how unfair it is to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet just because they share a viewpoint with another user! What else am I supposed to say?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, all I did was say that I agreed with Rock Soldier about the fact that since the release of "Hysteria", they had incooperated more "pop" into their sound than they did in Pyromania (even though it was still hard rock).. I think it doesn't seem right to remove "glam metal" or "arena rock" from Hysteria, Adrenalize, or Retro Active because those songs had a "theater atmosphere" compared to Slang, Euphoria, and X. Although Retro Active should still maintain "hard rock" because of Fractured Love and Desert Song. Meh, whatever.. 66.225.14.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Genre is too relative... The problem is that what is hard rock, heavy metal, etc is different depending on the listener. Think about Led Zeppelin? One could say they're hard rock, classic rock, metal, pop, etc. The only notable genre is heavy metal in that they were part of the same movement as black sabbath. (Just as Iron Maiden and Def Leopard are considered to have been part of the NWBHM movement.). On to Def Leopard, I always associated them with the rest of the hair bands (but that's me). I would say the best manner to resolve this is find out what movements they were part of? Without source I would think NWBHM (there is a wiki on that btw), and 80's hair band/glam metal/pop metal. Bloodycelt (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously all that is known is that Def Leppard WERE part of the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal movement, alongside Iron Maiden and Saxon, following Judas Priest's success in the late 70's. Def Leppard became a part of the MTV days only because it was so big and it helped sales. Since music videos were pretty popular at the time, alot of bands started changing their images so their albums and singles sell better.. Def Leppard are in NO WAY glam TBQH.. Hysteria is a pop rock/anthemic rock album and is far different than that of Skid Row, Motley Crue, or even Bon Jovi themselves.. "Hair Metal" is usually songs about just having sex and going to parties.. The closest to glam in Pyromania is obviously Photograph, but to me it sounds a little more classical than glam.. Because the chorus is so much like Boston's More Than A Feeling. NeoExDeath123 (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I support people who want to include glam metal in the genres of Def Leppard. There is a big discussion on this subject. People who claim they were not glam metal say they never wore make-up and glossy clothing. However, glam metal was a musical style and not only a way of dressing up. Def Leppard themselves have claimed they never have been glam, but this does not mean it is true. It is like the case of Lemmy claiming not to be heavy metal but rock n' roll. People say they are pop metal, but what does this mean? The song Pour Some Sugar on Me is glam metal more than anything else. I agree that only some albums are glam, but this doesn't mean the genre should not be included among the others. Help me change things by supporting this point. FateForger (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2008 Tour

I dunno why, but a BUNCH OF ASSHOLES keep reverting the "2000-present" section and removing the 2008 tour info. Then they call it "vandalism".. Well, I'm just adding what it said on the bands' OFFICIAL FUCKING SITE!! They already scheduled their 2008 tour and more locations may be added later on! Please stop removing it.. If you don't think I'm telling the truth, well why don't you visit their site at www.defleppard.com and look at the "Tour" page.

66.225.14.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, guy. Recentism is a legitimate concern. —Zeagler (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WHITESNAKE IS NOT COMING TO INDIA ALONG WITH DEF LEPPARD.. NO NEWS ON THEIR SITE.. please edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.28.221 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Glam Metal

I have a little issue with this genre that people keep in Def Leppard's pages.. They never were glam metal at all;they never did use make-up when they played live and they surely didn't go Poison or Motley Crue.. I think that the only genres that should stay are heavy metal, hard rock, and pop rock.. But I still kinda hate seeing "glam metal" there because I seem to associate it more with bands like Poison, Cinderella, Twisted Sister (even though they're more of a shock rock band..

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoExDeath123 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol @ you. Glam does not always have something to do with the image... --203.115.131.72 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever says Def Leppard aren't glam metal is obviously deaf, or I should say, def. Glam metal =/= flamboyant Poison and Pretty Boy Floyd looks. Pyromania, Hysteria, Adrenalize, and X are POP-METAL as described by critics and many websites, and more importantly, are by definition that. "pop" metal in the '80s = glam metal, even the wikipedia article says so. In addition, their two main albums have many "glam metal" elements and even INFLUENCED MORE GLAM METAL BANDS than pure heavy metal bands, as "pure" heavy metal was dead by the late '80s pretty much. These guys have more "glam" elements than many of the "hairband" bands anyway, as many "hairbands" don't use glam rock as a large influence in the first place (or even generic heavy metal, moreso plain "rock n roll"). I hate it when people stereotype glam metal after Poison and their image, as the majority of "glam metal" bands don't actually have flamboyant makeup looks, and some are even total badasses, such as WASP and Skid Row. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever says Def Leppard aren't glam metal needs to get a chainsaw gutfuck is obviously deaf, or def, lol.

First I strongly suggest you to watch your language and take a look at the rules of civility. Franky speaking, all you’ll get by being uncivil is getting blocked (once again) eventually. Anwyay, it’s up to you.
Apparently you seem to react to the recent deletion of the glam tag in the info box and you seem to believe this discussion is related to it. As you argue as if it was NeoExDeath123( the starter of this discussion)who deleted it. But the reason why this tag has been deleted by ME is not related to the issue of this discussion.
Frankely speaking, it doesn’t matter what my opinions on Def Leppard style is and I really don't care what you think of people who claim Def Leppard isn't glam. But if you cared to read my justification concerning the deletion instead of insulting people, you would realize the current issue is not particularly a stylistic issue. The issue is about the fact the claim isn't supported by the source. Period. Just find another source. You shouldn’t have troubles to find that, Since it is described as such by SO many websites and critics.
For the moment you don’t prove anything. You just argue with your personal opinions with futile arrogance. No offence but I really don’t care what your opinions are concerning this band’s style. Wikipedia is concerned with sources not with personal opinions. So just provide sources. That’s about it.

even the wikipedia article says so. In addition, their two main albums have many "glam metal" elements and even INFLUENCED MORE GLAM METAL BANDS than pure heavy metal bands, as "pure" heavy metal was dead by the late '80s pretty much.

Because the wikipedia article says so doesn’t prove anything. As the said article can be biased since it isn’t properly sourced. Using wikipedia to prove a point in wikipedia is perfectly irrelevant. I really suggest you to take a look at the wikipedia’s rules including rules of verifiability.
Just provide serious sources and I’m glad. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


"First I strongly suggest you to watch your language and take a look at the rules of civility. All you’ll get by being uncivil is getting blocked eventually (once again). Anyway, it’s up to you."
First I strongly suggest you to take in mind when someone isn't being serious and added a bit of a joke. Anyway, it's up to you. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"Apparently you seem to react to the recent deletion of the glam tag in the info box and you seem to believe this discussion is related to it."
...No. I wouldn't argue here just because of something like that, I would simply just revert it or put it back in. Which is what I'll do when I stop being a lazy ass. All I argued against where NeoExDeath123 and all those stupid stereotyping people who use opinion only and not fact. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"The issue is about the fact the claim isn't supported by the source. Period. Just find another source. You shouldn’t have troubles to find that, since "it is described as such by SO many websites and critics". "
Yes, it IS described in many websites and such. I've been lazy and no one else is doing it ATM, 'tisall. And your deletion is still unjustifyable, as you don't freaking DELETE a genre from the infobox just because the source is wrong. Simply put [citation needed], discuss it first, or just not have a source for that time, as the entire article may support the band being that genre and most infoboxes don't source their genres in the first place. Please keep this in mind for many things. Lastly, the source DOES support it. If you actually read the entire thing, the "contributing more to early 70s" stuff is just one sentence, and the styles that describe the band on the side line list "hair metal" and etc., aswell as album reviews stating glam/pop-metal stuff (as stated earlier by me, '80s pop metal = glam metal). Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"For the moment you don’t prove anything. You just argue with your personal opinions and futile arrogance. No offence but I really don’t care what your opinions are concerning this band’s style. Wikipedia is concerned with sources not with personal opinions. So just provide sources. That’s about it."
I didn't state a SINGLE opinion at all, except for saying "I hate when people stereotype glam for Poison and flamboyant stuff...", which is valid as I supported it by the fact that there's more non-flamboyant glam metal bands than flamboyant ones. And that's not directly regarding a reason why glam metal should be re-added to DL's infobox. Def Leppard are glam metal by FACT, and I simply explained why. Everybody else are the arrogant ones, as they don't use facts. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Because the wikipedia article says so doesn’t prove anything. As the said article can be biased since it isn’t properly sourced. Using wikipedia to prove a point in wikipedia is perfectly irrelevant. I really suggest you to take a look at the wikipedia’s rules including rules of verifiability.
Your quote mostly contains a statement (in reality, a fact) that isn't supported by a wikipedia article, so your comment doesn't make sense for that. And the small "even the wikipedia article stays so" part has "even" at the beginning, meaning it's not a primary support and just something additional. Besides, "pop metal" that isn't glam metal is like a thrash metal band adding pop elements like Metallica did with the black album, which didn't happen truly until the '90s. And since pretty much all glam metal bands are pop-filled metal (and some don't even use glam rock influences), '80s pop metal = glam metal, which IS supported by the AMG source you deleted. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just provide serious sources and I’m ok. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and you stop assuming wrong things about me and face the truth that the things I stated and Def Leppard being glam are completely by definition, not anybody's opinion. And shout at the other Poison-stereotyping people who say that DL aren't glam, as they don't state facts like I do. Then I'm ok. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
5 reliable sources found by me so far, without even too much effort, simply by using Google. Plus sources for Pyromania, Hysteria, and Rock of Ages compilation saying their glam, AND plenty of unreliable sources. 5+3 major albums is way more than enough, wooooooo Angry Shoplifter (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It IS ok to delete content from an genre field if it conveys false information? Yes, of course. This is Wiki. Beyond the consensus that it be removed... glam metal isn't a genre of music. And the field is for genres. So deleting it goes straight in with Wikipedia's quest to become a reliable resource. Glam metal is just heavy metal or hard rock played by bands with big hair. You can look glam... but you can't actually play it. Take any glam metal band and put them in a dark room. What are they playing then you can't see what they look like? They're playing plain ol' hard rock or heavy metal. And Def Leppard as a glam metal band is leaning towards 13 year old MTV influenced POV rather than a referenced fact. I have never seen a photo of Def Leppard looking like Warrant or Poison.... ever? Based on numerous discussions across several Wikipedia music projects Allmusic is NOT to be used as a reference for genres. Why? If you look at the Def Leppard page from Allmusic look really close to the genre they are listed as. It says Rock. It has no other entry under genre other than Rock. Their is a style column. But style and genre are two completely different things. The infobox doesn't prompt for style does it? No... it says genre. And glam metal isn't no more a genre than British Invasion or NWOBHM or arena rock. So with Allmusic eliminated as a a reliable source for glam anything on Wiki.... does a valid citation exist that says that this band is a glam metal band. Consensus always wins on Wikipedia. And the consensus for this article over the years always falls back to this band being a Rock/Hard rock/Heavy metal band. Lets try and leave the teenybopper MTV opinions out of it and just try and focus on "reliable encyclopedia". Libs (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, SO LIAK, if ZZ Top grew long, bushy hair, wore glam metal clothes, and shaved their beards, then their music would be glam metal because they have the looks, play hard rock, and talk about sex right? And if classic Motley Crue (before their self-titled album) took off the make up, had short hair, and wore Judas Priest-style leather, they wouldn't be glam metal right? AND some pure heavy metal or hard rock bands have big hair and spandex, so that means they're glam right? AAANNNDDD we should remove glam metal from every single musician/band infobox, as it's not a genre right? lololololololololololololol
Your argument is so contradictorial that it barely even has any valid points. First, glam metal may not be as defined as other genres, but you're confusing it with the term "hairband". Hairband simply means the flamboyant Poison and Warrant-esque bands, the criteria being almost completely image-based. Too Fast for Love isn't considered the first "true glam metal" album because of Motley Crue's looks, but because it "combines heavy metal, glam rock, and punk rock" toghether with "lyrics about sex, drugs, and alcohol". Glam metal wouldn't even be listed as a genre anywhere if it was just image-based, not even Wikipedia infoboxes, and the article for it wouldn't be written in the way it is now. Not just that, many of the so called new glam metal bands, such as Buckcherry don't have the flamboyant looks. Image, music, lyrics (which are found in many genres, but specifc to glam when combined with other characteristics), and overall attitude/placement, k? For further explanation on why DL is glam metal, read the bottom paragraph of the section.
Apparently you don't know how Allmusic works. Allmusic is a reliable source for anyting except for "Judas Priest are NWOBHM" and their singles discography sections. They list the BROAD genre of a band on the side, like Itunes does, so if you weren't so impulsive you would notice that, Poison, U2, and Morbid Angel, all unrelated bands, list "Rock" ALSO on the side, so your point there doesn't make sense. The styles are simply MORE SPECIFIC genres of that, so that's where you'll see Heavy metal, hardcore punk, New Wave, Reggae rock, etc. True styles are listed under "moods".
Consensus ALMOST always wins... true. But, often the consensus on something is reached by retards who don't know dick about what they're discussing (which could happen to this consensus, but I'm not talking about people in this section ATM as they have mostly reasonable arguments), and then is regarded as "what should be edited" because they all agree on the same wrong thing. It's nothing BUT "teenybopper" to reach a consensus like that. Consensus's like those, or even ones agreed by 5 reasonable people that's somewhat correct, certainly DOES NOT make Wikipedia a "reliable encyclopedia". You need large consensuses, continue them after people correct each other on certain things (which is happening now), and use reliable sources (which I did, which could actually cancel out a consensus).
Now that your logic holes have been filled in, reconsider your argument or leave. Thanks. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There are too many Wikipedia music related articles that are the site of constant arguements like this by people who insist on inserting their own opinion as to what a certain band "is" and "isn't". Find a reliable source and attribute your material to that source. If your opinion is actually factual, experts on the subject will have written about it. If your opinion is a fringe minority and you can't find a source - it doesn't belong here, no matter how much effort you put in to argueing it. --Quartet 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are too many opinion-asserting people who decide what something is, especially here, with all those people who say a band isn't glam because they don't have flamboyant Poison-esque looks and know nothing about glam metal music. Luckily, there's no good facts to support that, only a bunch of fans who say "LEPPARD AREN'T HAIR", while there ARE sources for Def Leppard being glam metal (which I provided). Which is certainly not my opinion, since there's no reason why I would want to assert a band being "glam metal" other than them being factually that, as I listen to plenty of other genres of metal and my favorite bands are Judas Priest and Exodus (both aren't glam metal bands). Angry Shoplifter (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, Def Leppard have continuously and still do decline themselves EVER being called a glam band. Do you see Joe Elliott wearing a mascara or Rick Allen wearing lipstick and eye-liner? NO. Def Leppard's musical style is heavy metal/hard rock/pop rock. The pop rock resulted with Hysteria and since then on. I mean, listen to their tenth album, "X". It sounds nothing like glam and it sounds straight pop-influenced. Just because they enjoyed David Bowie or T. Rex or Queen that DOESN'T mean Def Leppard wanted to play glam metal. Their musical styles were more far-driven towards bands like Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, or Led Zeppelin, but ESPECIALLY Thin Lizzy, and they're not glam at all. So how can you say Def Leppard are glam just because they were influenced by David Bowie? They enjoyed their music, but detested the fashion. 66.225.14.190 (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lemmy says Motorhead aren't heavy metal. Skid Row, Bon Jovi, Dokken, Whitesnake, and Ratt don't wear make up (especially the latter, who's more "hairband"-like than the rest). X is only one album out of like, 10, with Pyromania and Hysteria mattering more than all their mid-90s to present material. And not just that, but they weren't even glam for their first two albums, making half or more of their catalouge not glam. lolololololol? Guess you're one of those ignorant "if you don't have flamboyant makeup + spandex + shit, then you're not glam" people, or perhaps I'm missing something valid? Oh yes, being influenced by glam yet not being glam metal... well you win that one. DL certainly isn't up to the level of Poison-esque bands, BUT. Their lyrical themes fit glam metal's in every way pretty much: sex, alcohol, and generic rocking. Their image, minus the make-up, is glammy: a lot glam metal bands have jean-heavy clothes, and most of the band members have bushy glam-like hair (it's just Phil and somewhat Elliot that pretty much don't; remember I'm talking about before the mid-90s, as many glam metal bands since then cut their hair and dressed casually). Plus being influenced by glam rock, not just Bowie. And more importantly, all of that combined into pop-metal, which as I explained before three times is pretty much glam metal if in the '80s, even if there's little glam rock influences (and DL has more than "little", and even Poison doesn't use any glam rock influences yet they're still glam). It's not all fashion, ok? Angry Shoplifter (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I call that BS. Def Leppard and all other non-glam bands have always applied the "sex, drugs, and rock n roll" theme to their music. Just because glam bands like Poison or Motley Crue used it too doesn't mean that theme should generally belong to only glam rock. It's like calling Guns N' Roses GLAM, and they're hard rock, just like Def Leppard. Sure, alot of bands had worn spandex and ripped jeans in their heyday, because IT WAS THE 80s. Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne, Pantera, all THESE metal bands went through the 80s phase with those pretty boy haircuts, but just because they did all this didn't MEAN that they were glam. Glam is a type of fashion that exposes the performers more to the female audience with their extremely showy and colorful clothing with their make up on. Def Leppard dressed like a typical hard rock band, they wore clothes that weren't at all flamboyant. Yes, alot of bands had to modern up during the grunge era, that's why they had those awful haircuts and those smelly flannel shirts. Alot of bands did that. 66.225.14.190 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if all this energy were redirected towards improving the text of the article? I mean, who's coming to Wikipedia to find out what subgenre of rock Def Leppard falls under? —Zeagler (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that Angry Shoplifter will not be satisfied, even though he appears to be the only one on the yes side while everyone else who has contributed to this discussion is on the no side. So why don't we request speedy deletion of the entire article, and we can start again from scratch.Andy Johnston (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion? Nah, too much of a hastle. Some parts of the article are in good shape, while the main body just needs clean up. I mean it's not that bad- there's much worse articles and it's just the history section. I can assist in clean up if needed, as not many others are doing so. In fact, I'll start now. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[To Andy Johnston] Fairly reasonable request :). If Angry S would just concede to consensus, follow WP:RS and stay out of his sock drawer the article would be at peace. But when these 13/14 year old users get an edit vendetta in their head it's hard to stop them from edit warring. Libs (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus" isn't over/is still ongoing so there isn't anything to "concede" to yet. It's not even that obvious, as glam metal was equally favored in previous discussions and many people still do favor them, it's just that they aren't here right now. ATM, this consensus is pretty much as I described in my argument towards you (about consensuses), as many people here are misunderstanding things or aren't responding back to my counter arguments to them (which are reasonable and valid regardless if they're right or wrong). Which, if they don't counter back in adequate time, make the consensus favor my side as "a long period of silence could mean what the consensus is" according to WP:CON. The only people who made a real argument here are two annonymous users, while everybody else either misunderstood something or has a half- or quarter-assed argument. However, yours is completely flawed. If anybody is 13/14 years old here, it'd be you as you're clearly denying my valid arguments that show that yours is illogical in many ways by saying "just abide to the consensus..." and calling opposing opinions "teenybopper" when yours is, as you say "would be found in a school-boy book report". Seriously, if you simply said "oh yeah, didn't realise those things, but Leppard still aren't glam metal because [reasonable argument]" then I would believe that you are 46 as you say you are. If you're not 13/14, I please ask you to that now, read my argument towards you earlier and reconsider yours. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
[To Libs] I mostly agree with you on this issue. But using personal attacks insinuating he's an immature kid won't help to stop those childish edit wars. Yeah I imagine I can understand that his agressiveness and his arrogance may be irritating for you, especially when he's taking his own opinions for facts. But I don't think you need to use personal attacks against him because: 1. You play his petty game acting like him. 2. It is useless (rational arguments, sources are sufficient) 3. such attack could degenerate for nothing 4. It goes against Wikipedia policy. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, what opinions (besides that one/two I mentioned to you)? Recall as I said earlier: "Which is certainly not my opinion, since there's no reason why I would want to assert a band being "glam metal" other than them being factually that, as I listen to plenty of other genres of metal and my favorite bands are Judas Priest and Exodus (both aren't glam metal bands)." Why the hell would I, or really, anybody, want to have a band categorized as a genre because it's my opinion that they're that genre? A person categorizes anything as something based on facts, whether those facts are correct, twisted, or wrong, or are from other people or not. If my argument wasn't good, then it's because it's WRONG, not OPINION. Besides, I provided reliable sources like you asked me to earlier. It's just that they're deleted by assholes members ignorant of the Wikipedia source guidelines (who didn't even look at the sources and realise that at least 3 are reliable), and that I + some of those other users who support the glam metal label are abbiding to the 3RR rule.
I don't see that much arrogance anywhere here, even from Libs. Aggresive? Yes I am, but not in the way you're thinking, as I must since many people are so damn ignorant about what they're talking about.
Don't be like Libs- I ask you to please actually read my arguments that are toward you and realise you were mistaken on a few things. They're valid and reasonable, whether they're right or wrong. And FYI, I'm 24- born April 12, 1984. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I maintain your attitude is arrogant, uncivil and aggressive. I maintain your pseudo innocent “jokes” contain overt personal attacks. Yeah, you can take refuge into denegation if you will, all you’ll get is being blocked eventually, if you keep on calling people “assholes”, ...if you keep on “joking”. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not joking though. Sure, it's uncivil to call people assholes, but not as much as other things, as I rightly should say that here. The reverters are only generally knowledgable of the source or consensus guidelines (they're not aware of the little details and exceptions that make my sources just fine) and don't even read the sources, not realising at least 3 of the 5 are reliable, and the album thing I stated. As for any other joking around, I already "stopped" as I only put one joke here and I only do that in a few discussions (notably on ones where other people joke first). Lastly, I won't get blocked, as there's FAR more uncivil people around there (if you think I'm uncivil... then you've never seen uncivil) who use blatant and constant insults, yet many of them don't get blocked. And those people usually don't have a good and persistant argument like I do or contribute like I do. So yeah. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Again, what opinions (besides that one/two I mentioned to you)? Recall as I said earlier,"
I don’t doubt you’re convinced what you claim is a fact. But because you’re convinced of it doesn’t necessarily prove this is a fact. For some reasons YOUR Fact is highly debatable. Of course the users are all ignorant and you’re THE one that knows the truth. But in wikipedia, this is not that simple. Sorry, but because you claim so, doesn’t prove it’s a fact. Your fact could be a POV even if you ignore it. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a fact because I'm convinced... ok, that's slightly true here, as many things are debatable. However, as stated earlier, the things I would be saying are still "twisted or incorrect" facts, not opinion. It's not just because I see it that way- it's because what is... what is. Also, not all the users are ignorant, but MANY of them are, and that's not impossible just because I say so. By your logic, THEY'RE ALSO asserting what they're saying are facts because they're convinced. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You provided sources? That’s true, thanks for that. But remember online sources are generally considered as less reliable than published ones. I’m not necessarily implying they shouldn’t be used. But in such a controversy, you should rely on more reliable sources. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Books over online sources, yes. But I don't have any books on glam metal or Def Leppard, or time to go to the library, so I'm using just the internet. There's still enough reliable sources there; but maybe if I get a book source then the label won't get assholicly reverted... *goes to Borders* Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Among the sources you provided the only one that could be considered to be the “most“ reliable (since it related to a trustworthy magazine) is the Rollings Stones one, but this source doesn’t support your claim concerning the fact the band is glam… the site classifies them as pop-metal. Yeah, I know some consider pop metal being a synonymous to glam metal. But this aspect may be controversial. Because many people also consider them to be distinct (including one of your source: allmusic.com.) Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Mostly makes sense. But that's why there's other sources there, like the allmusic one, which claim glam metal. It's this whole "bulk of info", you can say, rather than an individual source, that asserts that Def Leppard are glam. It's undeniable. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, unlike other people around here I take in account your main argument:
THANK YOU!!!!! I have deep respect for you now... you have a reasonable argument and aren't like the ignorant guys. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
you claim glam metal should not be restricted to American bands with flamboyant makeup looks and stuffs. Because you think this is a misconception of what glam really is. Glam shouldn’t be reduced to this image, according to you.
I also note that you consider Glam metal as an equivalent of hair metal. Don’t you? (Yeah, that could appear as self evident for some, but I need to explicit it here for the present discussion) Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is correct. It's just that "hair metal" is an insult rather than an official term. In addition, I didn't explain this clearly before: I (or many people if they think about it) DO NOT consider "hairbands" to be any "hair metal" band. Hairbands are the flamboyant make-up guys with lighter music like Poison and Britny Fox, so Leppard aren't a "hairband", but they do play "hair metal" as that equals glam metal, but it's just that the term sucks. Make sense? Even Motley Crue or WASP aren't true "hairbands", as they're grittier, tougher, and heavier than the others. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I note You use allmusic.com as a source to show Def Leppard is hair metal (that is to say glam metal, isn’t it?)
But for some reasons Allmusic.com also describes hair metal as “Wearing flashy clothing, heavy makeup, and large, teased hair”
Does Def Leppard can be described as such? No.
You still consider this site as reliable when it describes hair metal as “Wearing flashy clothing, heavy makeup, and large, teased hair”? Strange... Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so there is a sense of contradicition here with the statements provided. However, it's not me that's being hyprocritical, it's allmusic that is. Whether or not they say glam metal bands are reduced just to their image, THEY LIST DEF LEPPARD AS SO. Besides, you have to remember one thing: If glam metal is more than just the image, any source or website will STILL mention the flashy clothing and heavy makeup first before anything as that's the most defining trait. But that doesn't mean you have to have that to be glam. Nobody has answered this yet: If glam metal is just image, then what about Skid Row, Dokken, Bon Jovi, Whitesnake, L.A. Guns, White Lion, and Ratt (the latter being almost or if not a "hairband")? Even if most of these bands had huge hair or even spandex, it's because it was the '80s, and many non-glam bands had those looks then, as one other user here put it. More importantly, even if some had makeup, certainly it wasn't that noticable or to the extent of the "hairbands". So I don't see how Def Leppard fits outside of the aformentioned bunch by enough to not be considered glam metal on Wikipedia. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer.Com as a reliable source? Come on, this is can't be regarde as a primary source. This site collects sources from anywhere in the web, including Wikipedia....Sorry but I can't take this seriously. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That was the most dubious one anyway, hence why I said "at least 3 of the sources are reliable". I'll delete it since it'll decrease the chance of reversion, and I've found a better website. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway do what you want, actually I don't care, beside I don't have time enough to waste it discussing in futile discussions like this. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this discussion is pretty futile. I even don't want to use my time to educate clueless fools. I'm only "enjoying" talking to you, as you have a good argument. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Elliot discusses "glam bands" [1]. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lemmy says Motorhead aren't heavy metal. Because he says so, he's correct, right? Besides, Elliot is stereotyping glam metal bands as stereotypical pretty boy bands, whose lyrics aren't much different from Leppard's anyways. There were plenty of what he would call "high quality" glam metal bands, such as Skid Row, Dokken, and White Lion. They aren't as famous, that's all. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The Lemmy argument seems to be the favourite common place every user around likes to use... Unfortunately this is a fallacious argument:
Because Lemmy is wrong doesn’t prove Joe is not right. Lemmy IS NOT Joe. I mean you just can’t make a general rule out Lemmy’s example. Just because Lemmy isn’t reliable about his music doesn’t necessarily prove other artists can’t be reliable. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course Lemmy saying so doesn't mean others are wrong. But the whole point is that a musician's view on what a band is or is not doesn't mean he/she is correct- even you imply that you're aware of this. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
When Kirk Hammet considers Metallica’s early music as thrash metal, I’m sorry but He IS right and HE can be considered reliable, no matter how wrong Lemmy could be concerning his own music. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
He's right because... he's stating something right, not truly because HE is stating so. A large difference between Hammet and Joe: Hammet was more of a "genre establisher" than Elliot, so he's somewhat more reliable. Besides, Lemmy has been active in music before even all Judas Priest-era heavy metal bands, who predate all other metal bands except for the proto '60s ones, so that's a pretty big wrong there for a veteran like him to not call his music metal, considering he's more experienced (to an extent) than Hammet. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So no you can’t take the Lemmy joker to discredit any artist’s claim that is not convenient for you.
This said I’m not necessarily claiming Joe is correct. I’m just saying that your argument is irrelevant and you just can’t dismiss these claims that simply. On the other hand, no offense but if I had to choose between the claims of a simple wikipedia user and the claims of the artist himself, for some reasons I tend to consider the latter more reliable. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
None taken, as that make complete sense and the same goes for me. Doesn't mean I'm wrong and Joe is more correct than me, however. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I don’t doubt, you’re going to explain me that you never implied this…Let me guess, actually this was just a joke...Yeah sure! Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was just joking around all along. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Def Leppard is not a metal band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't accept that they were one of the leading Glam Metal artists. And just because a band doesn't dress up and wear make-up doesn't mean they aren't Glam Metal. Glam Metal refers to the subgenre of metal that includes NWOBHM riffs and speed, but with a much lighter atmosphere. Check your references, I don't think Rolling Stone is enough of a source for you to say they aren't Glam Metal, and that is the source you keep citing when you change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeforhire (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I support people who want to include glam metal in the genres of Def Leppard. There is a big discussion on this subject. People who claim they were not glam metal say they never wore make-up and glossy clothing. However, glam metal was a musical style and not only a way of dressing up. Def Leppard themselves have claimed they never have been glam, but this does not mean it is true. It is like the case of Lemmy claiming not to be heavy metal but rock n' roll. People say they are pop metal, but what does this mean? The song Pour Some Sugar on Me is glam metal more than anything else. I agree that only some albums are glam, but this doesn't mean the genre should not be included among the others. Help me change things by supporting this point.FateForger (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Release of "On Through The Night" and "High 'n' Dry"

I heard from the owner of my local guitar shop (he's in his early/mid 40's), and he's told me that Def Leppard's first album released in the U.S. was actually High 'n' Dry, so americans didn't find their records on shelves till around 1981, but seeing as On Through The Night was already released in the UK in 1980, then the band seeing that High 'n' Dry sold so well, they went ahead with releasing On Through The Night as their second album in the US. The same, he's said, for Aerosmith's first two albums being released in wrong order in the US.
Hope this helps! 66.225.14.190 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

legacy

you know something they need a legacy section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.105.35 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Law album

Def Leppard hit the radio airwaves with "Miss you in a heartbeat" in the Summer of 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.137 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DEF LEPPARD ARE A HARD ROCK AND HEAVY METAL BAND *ONLY*

HELLYEAH THEY RULE THE F***ING CRAZY METAL TRAIN! \m/>_<\m/!!!! They're so heavy they can still get away with love ballads! THAT'S AWESOME! They're like Pantera: they just keep getting on heavier-and-heavier throughout each album..

OMG DUDE ROFL I can't stop headbanging HARD to the heavy metal songs (which were/are NOT pop rock songs in anyway! They are facesmashers 101% of metal up yer asse!)Pour Some Sugar On Me, Let's Get Rocked, Armageddon It, Have You Ever Needed Someone So Bad, Promises Long Long Way To Go& Nine Lives.

Who would've thought? Def Leppard should ONLY be considered hard rock & heavy metal. They aren't pop! Taylor Swift & Tim McGraw got their ONCE and ONLY moment of heavy metal.

Please do not add the "pop rock" term to Def Leppard's genre, aswell as not removing "heavy metal" because it's their legacy! They wear their NWOBHM badge (along with OMG Iron Maiden!)like they've never bitched about it before!

If you go to Def Leppard's official site, you'll see nothing but skulls bleeding in pain & agony as part of the layout in red RAW bluuuuuud.

After Ozzy Osbourne saw this article, he immediately invited Def Leppard to attend his Ozzfest '09! And guess what did the 9-armed Leppard say? "Um? Huh? What?"

Long live heavy metal Def Leppard from 1977-PRESENT. Thehuntersmetal (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NWOBHM???

The intro to the Def Leppard article says they're New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, yet the NWOBHM intro says they precede NWOBHM. WTF? --216.164.138.111 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of Nowhere

Steve Clark isn't mentioned until the point where he gets chucked out of the band!

Can someone who knows better than me put him in properly. I could based on half-remembered stuff and his article, but better if an expert does it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.116.240 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop metal

You see this is why I feel we can't have "pop metal", "sleaze rock", and several other '80s metal terms all link to the hair metal page. Def Leppard were definately not a hair metal band, they were NWoBHM, but their style was poppier than many of the other NWoBHM bands. We are going to need a separate page for pop metal if we are going to include it in Def Leppard's infobox.Rockgenre (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have all of those slang terms, but from a Metal standpoint they wou;d be considered GLam Metal. If you call them Heavy Metal, you are grouping them in with the early metal bands such as Black Sabbath, Steppenwolf, Thin Lizzy, etc. You call them NWOBHM, which is true, but NWOBH doesn't describe the genre really. It describes all of the metal bands coming from Britian at the time. Like Iron Maiden, they would be considered NWOBHM, but they are Heavy Metal. Def Leppard is NWOBHM, but it's Glam Metal. I have a hard time seeing them grouped in with the likes of Iron Maiden and Saxon, when their style is completely different.

Also, if you want to put Pop Metal on there I don't understand why you wouldn't just put Glam Metal on instead, because Pop Metal is a term for Glam Metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.169.209 (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pop metal isn't the same thing as glam metal and Def Leppard were not hair metal. Ted Nugent has even been described as pop metal. Wrathchild were the lone hair band of the NWoBHM. Rockgenre (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, they weren't Hair Metal. They were Glam Metal. Hair Metal is yet another slang term for Glam Metal. What makes you so qualified that you can determine the genres of all of these bands? You're sources aren't even good ones. Rolling Stone is the biggest joke of all time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.169.236 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would "pop rock" be an accurate genre?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Pop rock would be fine, but its more accurate to call them pop metal, which I'll make a page for it sooner or later. I wouldn't have much of a problem with you putting it in the infobox, but we're going to need an exact source that says they are pop rock. Rockgenre (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I did see in the Rolling Stone article, that they described Def Leppard as being "pop metal." LOL!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And I have another piece of proof that pop metal is not just a term for hair bands. Metallica's black album was also cited as a pop metal album in a book called A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000 By Piero Scaruffi. I just have to change the pop metal page for a redirect to an an acutual genre and then we can put pop metal in Def lep's box. Just wait until I do okay. Rockgenre (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I also don't feel "heavy metal" describes Def Leppard, since (according to wikipedia's own page) heavy metal is Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, and other bands with a dirtier 70s sound. But I'm not sure "glam metal" fits either, because glam is associated with outrageous outfits, poofy hair, makeup & things like Motley Crue did. I did some googling and found that Rolling Stone magazine does indeed refer to Def Lep as "pop metal" on the biography page, so there it is straight from the rock bible itself! I'll go ahead & make the change. Chazella (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I only changed the introductory sentence which incorrectly called them heavy metal associated with NWoBHM (which I think we all agree they're not). If someone else wants to change the infobox, be my guest. I don't want to mess with it. Cheers Chazella (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I say if there is a reliable source that cites a genre, we should stick with those (the more recent the better). Genres are way too subjective, anyway, and anon IP editors love to come in an change them to whatever genre they like. (God, Emo is such a pain in the ass) My comments don't agree or disagree with the suggestions above, but I think it should be something to strive for. Angryapathy (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. That's the way wikipedia is intended, so we should stick to it. Rolling Stone writes "The members, barely out of their teens when their first album debuted, soon became one of the most consistently successful pop metal bands..." Ironically, this source was cited by the wiki author who listed them as "heavy metal. The article does indeed mention *touring with* heavy metal bands, but it never suggests that Def Lep was a heavy metal band. The wiki author probably got confused with the wording. By the way, direct link not allowed, but you can follow the link to Rollingstone.com and search for "Def Leppard". Chazella (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I always felt that the term "pop metal", which I dislike, is more closer to Hard Rock rather than Heavy Metal. 99.248.120.62 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

Well, I had a feeling this would happen as soon as I moved Atomic Mass to the Associated Acts section instead of Also Known As. Here is what Template:Infobox musical artist says about associated acts:

Associated acts This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. This field can include, for example, any of the following:

For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together Groups which have spun off from this group A group from which this group has spun off The following uses of this field should be avoided:

Association of groups with members' solo careers Groups with only one member in common Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer) One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song Groups that are merely similar

Most of what was recently added were one-off solo bands from members or former members of Def Leppard. This band has been around for nearly 3 decades, and the band members have done a lot of side projects, so I do not think there is enough room to put all of the projects the guys have been in into the infobox. I am removing the recent additions. We can discuss if any others should be added here on the talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Would Girl amd Roadhouse be allowed to be added? Roadhouse is the only full length album Pete Willis has done after Def Leppard and Girl was Paul Collen's first band. I know only one member was involved in each but it would make that information more easily visible.

I wouldn't have a problem with Roadhouse being added, I just want to make sure the associated acts section doesn't get too unwieldy, so it's not a bad idea to stick to the parameters set by the template. Angryapathy (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Man-Raze and all of Vivian Campbell's past groups too as well as Taylor Swift since they have toured and performed together on many occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.241 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping Pong Reference

I removed the Ping Pong reference - any idea where or why it was in the article??? Karnak (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?

I don't get how Def Leppard is considered heavy metal or NWOBHM. They sound nothing like the other metal bands from that time. Seriously listen to Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Diamond Head or Motorhead and compare it to songs like Rock of Ages or any other songs from Def Leppards early albums and you'll see they have much more of a hard rock sound and very little heavy metal influence if any at all. Metalfan72 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Even read the Wikipedia page on the NWOBHM. It says "NWOBHM bands toned down the blues influences of earlier acts, incorporated elements of punk, increased the tempo, and adopted a "tougher" sound." Def Leppard obviously had no elements of punk whatsoever and did not have an increased tempo compared to early metal bands like Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. They sound much more like hard rock or arena rock like Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, AC/DC or Kiss. I believe the genre should read hard rock, arena rock and maybe even pop rock, not heavy metal Metalfan72 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Def Leppard was actually heavy metal/hard rock (hybrid) on their 1978 demos, the 1979 self-titled EP, and the 1980 debut LP. Songs supporting my claim that they were a NWOBHM band are "Wasted", "Rocks Off" (or "Getcha Rocks Off"), "It Could Be You", "Satellite", "Good Morning Freedom", "Answer to the Master", "Beyond the Temple", and "On Through the Night" (which is ironically off High 'n' Dry).65.103.136.200 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Genre

I believe they're closely related to AOR due to the progressive-ish sound (choruses being different than main riff, etc) and the melodious vocals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.126.254 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed repeated refs

The references "Rolling Stone entry" and "AMG entry" were used twice to source hard rock and heavy metal in the infobox, so I removed their second instances. --189.194.168.209 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Album sales

According to Rolling Stone they have sold 100mil+ in album sales http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/how-def-leppard-and-poison-mended-fences-for-summer-tour-20090305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.195.77 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Added it. --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism much???

I have a feeling this sentence from the main article isn't a factual statement: "Def Leppard was known for being a gay band."

Unlinked Album

I would do this if I knew how. Unfortunatly I do not, But I'm willing to learn. The Compilation Album Vault: Def Leppard Greatest Hits (1980-1995) On the main page is not linked to the album's page. It should be linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault:_Def_Leppard_Greatest_Hits_%281980%E2%80%931995%29 . Thanks Nightowl20 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the link - unsure if the date in brackets should be italics but someone can correct that if wrong. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Man Raze should be added as Phil Collen is part of it and it is frequently mentioned on the Def Leppard site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcad01 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, Man Raze should not be listed as there is only one band member in common. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 01:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections ? Archive up to and including Out of Nowhere. Seems awful long and old. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review :P, it seems no discussion is really necessary. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Def_Leppard/Archive_1&oldid=1140243307"