Jump to content

Talk:Duran Duran/Archive 2

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


Genres

Someone keeps messing up the genres section. Can we leave them as they are? Nothing wrong with the one's listed right now, they've done them all at some point in their career. Though Electropop and Synthpop are the same thing aren't they, as are New Wave and New Romantic? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong...New Wave is Americentric, New Wave is another term for 'Punk rock' Even Nick Rhodes has said this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well even still Duran Duran are Electropop (Electric Bareberella, Big Bang Generation), As well as Synth Pop (they are noted to making the music more danceable and bring it to Mainstream), New Romantic(there known to be the most successful New Romantic band of the era), and of course New Wave. Somebody is taking all these tags off and putting ALternative pop on there. They are also Alternative Rock but Alternative Pop? But thats not what bothers me is the fact that someone is erasing New Wave, New Romantic, and Synth Pop off the genre listing. If you honestly think they are not those genres you really need to read up more on your Duran Duran. They are also Pop/Rock (Ordinary World) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Pop? Didn't even know it existed lol GNRDemocrazy (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


They also in the past stated that they are New Wave on there own official Website. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is still vandalising the page. I've reverted the genres back to Rock, New Wave, New Romantic, Synthpop, Electropop and Alternative Rock. There is nothing wrong with these genres as they have done them all. I added Funk Rock as well as the Notorious album was heavily influenced by funk with heavy brass and bass sections. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be a music genre as well because if it seriously wasnt it would not be reconized as a music genre sites such as all music guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This discussion has already been had on this talk page, WP:Genres and probably on every 1980s bands article talk page. New Romantic is no more a music genre than is Black Music or Gay Music it is a generalism given by the media to some Synthpop groups of the early 1980s who dressed a certain way. It is in exactly the same genre position as Mod (lifestyle). You don’t label say Madness (band) as a MOD genre in the infobox they are Ska and or Two Tone. MOD was the fashion cultural influence but Ska and Two Tone were the music genres. New Romantic is the cultural fashion influence and Synthpop and Electropop the music genre. The reason that New Romantic is not considered a genre is simple, explain how New Romantic SOUNDS different to Synthpop? This article is now protected to stop idiots messing with the genres, the more people mess about by adding their own genres the more edit wars are created, first go to that genres project page and see if they consider Duran Duran to be New Wave then add the label rather than randomly adding your own original research. Archivey (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said...I think atleast Pop/Rock and Synthpop should be added as well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...have a hissy fit and lock the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's normally what happens when a page gets vandalized isn't it? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

yah people making up there own genres like Alternative Pop lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.6.102 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


PLEASE, IN THE MAIN OPENING LINES, LET'S STOP CALLING D.D. A "ROCK" BAND. THEY ARE A BAND, PERIOD. They have done many genres in their career, granted, but Rock certainly isn't the main one and not even among the top five they did. Calling them a Rock band is totally inappropriate. Just having a guitar in tow, and hitting a distortion pedal once in a while don't qualify as "rock". Thanks.

What? How is rock music NOT in the top 5 of anything they did? Have you listened to the Wedding Album, Medazzaland and Pop Trash etc? And don't forget they are in a game called...ROCK BAND 2 GNRDemocrazy (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The three genres listed as of 23:13 on 3rd March 2009 should stand and be left alone: pop rock, synthpop, electropop. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I fixed this just now. Ronark (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No actually Alternative Rock should be listed as it was one of the main sounds they used in their later career. And New Wave is one they used throughout their entire career from the beginning. New Romantic could be added as well. There are plenty of sources that list them under these genres for example http://gighit.com/artists/duran-duran/. I'm adding them back in. They've only done Synthpop and Electropop with Big Thing and some songs of Medazzaland and Red Carpet Massacre, so why do them two genres get special preference? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, keep Alternative Rock and New Wave in the Genres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.148.225 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Synthpop is per definition as sub-genre of New Wave, so the latter is redundant and need not be there. New Romantic was not a music genre but a fashion movement. – IbLeo (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that's no reason to leave New Wave out is it? in Synthpop music the synth is the dominant instrument. Duran Duran have always used real drums, real bass and real guitars as well as a synth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.81.10 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but so did tons of other acts in the list of synthpop artists. The point I am trying to make is of logical character: When you say something is a cat you don't also have to say it's an animal, as it's implied in the definition of "cat". It's the same with synthpop and New Wave; as synthpop is defined as a subgenre of New Wave, there is no need to mention the latter. – IbLeo (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New Wave is Americentric. There is life outside the United States of America. Places even produce bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Duran Duran call themselves 'New Wave' on their | official MySpace page. I'm British and to me Duran Duran are definitely 'new wave', so I feel the allegation of 'americacentricism' is unfounded. Maybe you could explain why you feel so strongly about this label, which might help to resolve this matter amicably. Jammycaketin (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Their MySpace page is run by an American called Nathan Stack. You want a better source? Ask Nick Rhodes, he said 'New Wave' is 'Punk' music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable source for that, such as a published interview? Otherwise, I'm sorry, but it just sounds like hearsay. My point was that the band seems happy enough to be described as 'new wave' on an official site of theirs, regardless of who is responsible for updating the website/profile (I doubt there are many bands who maintain their own websites). I'm sorry, but the matter has yet to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Jammycaketin (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Duran Duran ARE New Wave! Google search New Wave Bands and you will see Duran Duran in most, if not all lists. "New Wave is Americentric" says 66.194.44.250. The Cure, Eurythmics and Depeche Mode, as well as newer bands like Kaiser Chiefs have it listed as a genre and they are...wait for it...BRITISH! A-Ha are from Norway. And Duran Duran sound no different from the other early 80's New Wave acts. So that silly claim does not mean anything. And Nick Rhodes' official MySpace has him listed as a New Wave artist. It's about sources, not one person's opinion.

Has nick Rhodes ever denied that the band are New Wave? This debate is becoming, and I'm going to be honest, stupid. Just because a music genre sounds American is no reason to remove it. Bullet For My Valentine are Metalcore, which sounds American even though they are from Wales, and fellow countrymen Lostprophets are considered Nu metal, even though it was created in America. It seems that Wikipedia is all about one person's opinion, rather than the facts. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One person? >

The three genres listed as of 23:13 on 3rd March 2009 should stand and be left alone: pop rock, synthpop, electropop. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I fixed this just now. Ronark (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's turned into the old "I'm a member of Wikiopedia so I am right and you're unsigned so you're wrong" Always remember, if it's on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dom Brown

Can someone look into the status of Dom Brown related to his current billing on WP as an official member of DD? I have seen no evidence anywhere that he is an official member. The DD official site, as well we their official myspace page do not indicate that he is such. Therefore, he should not recieve this false billing on WP. This should be rectified asap, both for the integrity of WP as well as for DD. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.184.26 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing that says Dominic Brown is actually a member of Duran Duran. He is listed as one in the infobox, the navigation box at the bottom of Duran Duran-related pages, and in the chart of the band's membership, but this is not supported by the text of the Duran Duran and Dominic Brown articles nor by any of the sources they cite. This should be changed, or if a reliable source says he is a member of the band, this should be explicitly stated with proper citations.

(Moreover, their Web site does not seem to treat Brown as a full member, showing only the four remaining original members on the splash page and referring to him as a "touring guitarist" and various similar phrases when he is mentioned in the News section.)

Note that I am not asking that all mention of him be purged; there is nothing wrong with acknowledging his recent contributions (as both of the above-mentioned articles do perfectly well). He just shouldn't be listed as a member of the band. 69.154.180.230 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no idea and no preference about this. It sounds like you might have a valid point, so I propose you contact the user who added Brown as a member (looking at the article history (it seens to be Mad Hatter in this edit) and ask him about his rationale. – IbLeo (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If mad hatter can arbitrarily add Dom Brown as a member, then why can't one of us just as easily remove him from the band members lists and chart? (I have done an extensive search and I have found no place, whatsoever, where Brown is mentioned as having officially joined Duran Duran. He should therefore be removed from the members lists and chart ASAP! The integity of Wikipedia is being further comprimised as each day goes by.) Why cant someone deal with this? Doesnt WP have authority figures who can deal with such things? It is practically vandalism, in my view.

Removed from infobox, timeline and template. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough — if nobody comes around and changes it back, then consensus has been reached. It would be even better if you added a reliable source to support the statement that he is only a touring guitarist. I propose you read some of the policies and guidelines to better understand how Wikipedia works. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


I hope is stays like it is now. There is no source saying he is only a touring/session guitarist, much as there is no source to say that I was not born on Mars. By default, although you dont know anything about me, you do know I was born on Earth. Same idea with Brown. He is known to play live and in studio with DD. But, at the same time, we know that the official DD site, as well as their myspace (plus the liner notes from their most recent release) all clearly state that the current official members are LeBon, Rhodes, J. Taylor and R. Taylor. It is just that simple. This automatically makes him a session/touring guitarist. I would think that we can take THEM at their word as to whom is in their band and whom isnt.

Even John said when ask if will Dom will be in the 'line up' and JT replied 'Never, he wouldn't want it' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.119.242 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We had this problem a few years ago. Why is Brown again listed as an official member when the official DD website and their official Facebook page clearly show that there are still only four official members currently with none of them being Brown???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.211.179 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Timbaland and Justin Timberlake are members of Duran Duran?

Is this someone's idea of a pisstake? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I made my point.

Don't do disruptive shit like that, for any reason. It had nothing to do with my removing Brown - I wasn't aware of your little shenanigans until after I had changed it - so there's nothing to pat yourself on the back about. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I made a good and useful point, so I will continue to pat myself on the back, as long as I like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.184.26 (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just me saying that, it's a well-established Wikipedia policy. And considering that no-one appears to have made the connection you were trying to make, no, your behaviour was not "useful" in any way, shape or form. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in any event, I am glad that I brought this up and it finally appears to be resolved, which is a good thing for everybody, I would think.

Agree. So now that everyone is happy, let's all work together to improve the article further. – IbLeo (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much agreed.--65.9.140.183 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Official Tenure of Campbell and Cuccurullo

These two members both officially joined the band in 1989, during the recording of the Liberty album. I believe that the timeline of official members' tenure, as well as the text of the article, should be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.212.241 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article's text already express clearly this fact: "The next album Big Thing (1988) (...). By the next year, after touring for the album finished, the band regained a five-man membership as Cuccurullo and tour drummer Sterling Campbell were made full members of Duran Duran". The timeline, I guess, reflects the fact that they both played as session musicians on earlier albums before gaining full membership. – IbLeo (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is my point. The official timeline should not include their time as session players.

I personally agree with you. I propose you give it a couple of days to let other people speak up, and if nobody disagrees, go ahead and do the change. – IbLeo (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy Wickett, Simon Colley, Alan Curtis, and Jeff Thomas

I removed Andy Wickett, Simon Colley, Alan Curtis, and Jeff Thomas as "former members" as I don't see this claim backed up by the article. The infobox should not contain any information not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, none of these guys are mentioned in any of the album articles. – IbLeo (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that is definitely not a good thing you did there. All four of these members are specifically mentioned by Rhodes as being former official members in their 2005 official tour book. And there is also an officially authorised book called "Duran Duran: Their Story" from late 1982, which talks specifically about the tenures of these four. Plus one of their biggest hits, Girls on Film, was co-written by Wickett, while he was their lead singer, which is specifically stated in A. Taylor's book. And Colley was their ORIGINAL bass player. (J. Taylor was lead guitarist at that time.) These two, especially, should not be deleted. But, I also think Curtis and Thomas should be kept, as they WERE official members at one time, which again, has been verified in official sources.

WP should be added to, not dismantled piece by piece, on a whim.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should incorporate this info into the main article, but I don't think that their names should be removed beforehand, in the same way that a stub article is not deleted first before someone adds to it

Again, let's add useful info...not take away. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?--65.11.212.241 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article is now taken care of. (Although, if someone would like to help with the links to sources and whatnot, that would be appreciated.) If one looks at the info for Girls on Film, however, one will already see that the account of Wickett's involvement , specifically, with the co-creation of that song is covered, along with links to audio, as well as visual, documentation.

Further, I believe the official timeline should be extended backwards, to the band's origin in 1978, to cover these four ex-members.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Basically I removed these people from the infobox because their presence were not supported by the text and backed up by a reliable source. Now you have removed my objection by improving the text and that is a great beginning. You certainly seem to be more knowledgeable about the subject than me (the most recent album I own is Rio :-), and you apparently have the right sources to back up your claims. However, if you don't insert your sources in the text, you risk that another editor will remove your edits by referring to above policy. In order to correctly cite your sources, I can recommend you to read WP:RS (for the guidelines), WP:CS (for the style) and use the great templates on WP:CIT. It's not that complicated, really, it just takes a little time and practice to get into it. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me and I appreciate your above comments and input. To be honest, I am not terribly tech savvy, as for proper means of inserting references and the like. (Also, I have no idea how to properly cite a tour book.) Nevertheless, these things are out there, as I'm sure that thousands (if not, perhaps, millions) of DD fans must have copies of the same sources as I do. So, in light of that, I was hoping that one of those people could cover that part of it (ie..properly shoring up all of the proper references, in the proper WP manner.) And since I did specifically mention those sources by name, in this forum, at least, I am counting on them to come along very soon and, I would think, do just that. If not, I suppose I will have to try to tackle it, myself, as best as possible. Thanks again and cheers to you, as well.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil discussion here, and cooperation towards proper citation. These members, although they were only briefly part of the band, are listed on the band's official site (there's a FAQ link under the "Ask Katy" section which leads to http://www.duranduran.com/wordpress/?page_id=12779 ):
What are all of the “”official”" line-ups in Duran Duran?
The official line ups are:
Stephen Duffy, Simon Colley, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor (1978-1979)
Andy Wickett, Alan Curtis, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor (1979)
Jeff Thomas, Andy Wickett, Alan Curtis, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor (1979)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor, Andy Taylor (1980-1985)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor (1985-1990)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Warren Cuccurullo, Sterling Campbell (1990-1991)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Warren Cuccurullo (1991-1997)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, Warren Cuccurullo (1997-2001)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor, Andy Taylor (2001-2006)
Simon LeBon, Nick Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor (2006)

Hope that helps to clarify! — Catherine\talk 09:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input. But, I know the above contains, at minimum, two errors. I know Katy seems like a good source, but using my above mentioned sources, plus JT's site's archive section, plus a bit of logic, one can fairly easily see this.

Firstly, the second lineup mentioned above existed for a time, sans Curtis, as JT played guitar on their first demo. So, the second lineup was actually Wickett, Rhodes, JT and RT. Secondly, in the above listed third lineup, Thomas is listed along with Wickett, but Thomas was their last pre-LeBon singer, having replaced Wickett, for a brief time. According to my sources, they were not together in a single lineup. This would seem to make sense, because why would they have TWO lead singers at once?

In any event, the above is still a good (if not completely accurate) source, as it does originate from a current DD employee, which does, at the very least, contribute one more source which shows that these four members WERE, indeed, official members.--65.11.212.241 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourced information

Someone is removing sourced information from this article. Sureley this is vandalism. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any specific examples? Maybe then we can look into the issue more closely. Jammycaketin (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
After looking through the article edit history, I guess you're referring to the edits made by 66.194.44.250. I don't believe this is vandalism, as he/she seems to object to your use of the terms 'New Wave' and 'Alternative Rock' and questions the reliability of your sources. Maybe it would be best if you could discuss the matter with each other, either on your own talk pages or here, and attempt to come to an amicable solution. Jammycaketin (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Nick Rhodes of DURAN DURAN: "The Clash, The Buzzcocks, Sham 69 and all the other New Wave acts of the time" - Nick Rhodes" ......ie New Wave = Post-Sex Pistols 'punk rock'. If one of the founders of the band uses New Wave as another word for Punk, surely Duran are not 'New Wave' ....right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sex Pistols are listed as one of the bands influences on their official MySpace, on which they are also listed as New Wave and there are plenty of other sources that list them as New Wave. Furthermore not all their music was simply "Synthpop" so why does that get special preference? In "New Wave" music the primary instruments are Drums, Guitar, Bass Guitar and Keyboards, all of which Duran Duran use. And they are known as one of the mainstream New Wave bands. Look up New Wave bands and you will see Duran Duran listed on many music sites. So I see no reason to remove it. Alternative Rock featured in their later material listen to the likes of First Impression, Too Much Information, White Lines, Playing With Uranium etc. And there are music sites that list them as Alternative as well. A-Ha have New Wave and Alternative Rock listed as genres and their music sounds no different. So yes removing this sourced material because of someone's personal opinion is vandalism.

Wrong, pure and simple.

Post-Punk

Should post-punk be added to the list of genres? They started around about the time Post-Punk was big and Nick Rhodes has called them "a group of art school, experimental, post punk rockers"

Not really, they may have started out as Post-punk rockers but they're not really thought of as Post-Punk, I may be wrong though! Thanks for the suggestion by the way Discoh8er (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Maybe....if you ask me Careless Memories is borderlining Post Punk. ANd the band does get mention with Depeche Mode, OMD, NEw Order but then again maybe its because there all under Synth Pop too.....But also I bought I think it was Echo and the bunnymens second album which features rare demos and rcording in the book they mention New Order, U2 and also Duran Duran. So maybe but sometimes when people say Post Punk they are also referring to as New Wave and vice versa. ANd there are also classified as Alternative rock which is a evolution of Post Punk some people say the same thing about New Wave. I dunno I think the closest Post Punk they got was there first album. By Rio they made synth pop music hooks warmer and catchier which made more danceable. It was definatly New Wave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They're debut album was the closest they got to post-punk music. But one album's style doesnt make it enough to list on the main Duran Duran article's genres, unless they did it on more than one album. That's why the likes of Synthpop, New Wave and Alternative are listed, but funk isn't because they only did it on one album (Notorious). Medazzatrash (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Genres, Part 2

Page is locked down, thank you! No more vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.222.29 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.

Nick Rhodes, a member of Duran Duran, has quoted on the official Duran Duran site about 'New Wave' bands such as Sham 69 and the Sex Pistols and peopel can't get past the idea that these were punk rock bands...ie New Wave? Time to do your research. It's easy, unsubscribe to the fact that Wikipedia is always right, especially if you are a member and research other pages. Read books, read other parts of the internet. Write to 'Ask Katy' and Duran Duran and get her to ask Nick what he meant.

Go on, see if you can do this before making edits purely for personal reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/04/14/readers-rock-list-eighties-new-wave/
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/TheScientist/new_wave_outposts_top_100_new_wave_artists/
http://www.43things.com/entries/view/182136

Actually I did research the internet and look what I found. Check out the links above. Even Rolling Stone thinks they are a New Wave band. There's plenty of other websites that list them as New Wave. Has Nick Rhodes or the band ever denied they are New Wave? I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you or editing this page. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


"I will not waste any more of my time arguing with you or editing this page" is another way of saying you're wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Your research is Americentric. Try reading what I wrote. Nick Rhodes is a member of Duran Duran, start with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No the reason I said that is because I've realised that sources do not matter on Wikipedia, just one person't personal opinion. Why don't you find some proof that DD are NOT a New Wave band? And can you find any proof to back up what Rhodes said? Website, magazine article? GNRDemocrazy (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just one? Read the bold text above. Check Duranduran.com for the Rhodes quote, or would that be wasting you precious time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah but did Nick actually deny that the band were new wave? their official myspace lists them as new wave and im sure the band have seen it. if they disagreed then new wave would be swiftly removed from it. if this page keeps getting reverted and reverted over and over its gonna end up locked down.

66.194.44.250 seems to be forgetting something. The New Romantic fashion movement was part of the early New Wave scene, and Duran Duran were one of the bands that brought it into mainstream popularity, and the other bands that sported the fashion were New Wave bands. The video for Planet Earth is a fine example. And 66.194.44.250 I checked out DuranDuaran.com and found articles describing the band as New Wave. 92.20.192.211 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


I found this interview on duranduran.com between Nick Rhodes and Tim Follos from the Washington Post/Express, under the headline Stay Beautiful: Duran Duran. Check it out for yourself.

» EXPRESS: Were you most responsible for putting that song together? » RHODES: Well, no, we did it together. Actually, it came out of a jam between John [Taylor], Roger [Taylor] and I with [producer and Timbaland protege] Nate Hills. We were just playing around and it started to develop. It had a real New Wave feel to it that we liked.

Rhodes has more or less confirmed that they are indeed New Wave and the rest of the band see themselves as New Wave. So 66.194.44.250 I took your advice and checked out duranduran.com and I found exactly what I was looking for. GNRDemocrazy (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed Electropop from the genres list, feel that Electropop and Synthpop sound more or less the same. Anyone object? Please feel free to discuss it, thanks! Discoh8er (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. But I do agree with ElectroPop and Synthpop sounding the same...both mechanical rhythms, both Robotic or voice arrangment, and both futuristic. NOt mention the influence to Techno, House music. The only real difference is the scifi lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Synthpop should be given more preference, as Duran Duran's "electronic" sound is more dark (Big Thing being a perfect example) than Sci-Fi. The only song with sci-fi lyrics I can think of is Electric Barbarella. So I see Discoh8er's point, there is no point listing 2 genres that sound the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.87.203 (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Planet Earth also has Scifi Lyrics. Anyways just for the record Duran Duran has ALWAYS BEEN SYNTH POP!!!! Even before Big Thing...look on AMG music.com it even saids that the band has been responsible for making it warmer, and more danceable. There first 3 albums were Synth Pop. They also have to be considered Synth Pop espically since people on Wiki no longer considers New Romantic a musical genre. Really how is that bands from the same era that also used drums, bass and guitar as well as synth get to pass as Synth Pop but some reason Duran Duran doesnt get credit until Big Thing....and thats ONLY on Wikipedia. Synth Pop isnt just mechanical rhythyms or voice arrangments or all Synths music. Synth pop isn't just mechanical rhythms. Its Synth driven Pop music where the syntheiser is just as important as guitar and drums but using the syntheiser to create not only mechanical rhythms but a unique sound that brings something more to the table. Duran Duran is very Synth driven. EVery Duran song has synths even if its not a Synth Pop song. However if you think that Synth Pop is just mechanical rhythms and voice arrangements lets review some songs here. Doesnt Planet Earth has mechanical rhytms? As does Rio, the Chauffer, Sound of Thunder, Union of the Snake, Seventh Stranger? Notorious they seemed to move away from Synth Pop and concentrate on Funk and Dance pop (which also should be added in the genre list because Nile Rogers is a Dance Pop producer) The band has stated Notorius was influenced by Prince. Big Thing is Dance Pop, and Synth Pop and many even call it the Duran House album. Serious, Wedding album is more Alternative Rock and Pop Rock. Thank you is a cover album...the only song that really has a hint of Synth Pop is White Lines. Medazzaland BIg Bang Generation and ELectric Barberella are the Synth Pop/Electropop songs. Pop Trash Hallucinating Elvis I would say is the Synth Pop track. Astronaut the band retains there elecric sound. Want you more has some Electronica in it which was noted in many articles about the band reuniting with the original 5. the articles even stated that there synth pop and there music had "early Electronica" which can be heard in Want you more, Taste the Summer, and NIce. Astronaut is also a Electropop song the lyrics are so scifi. If A flock of Seagulls can pass as Electropop so can Duran DUran cause both use drum and bass and guitars. Red Carpet Massacre has some synth Pop as well and the first track the valley I think border lines Electropop. Another trait of Synth Pop is vocal arrangements...well doesnt The Reflex use this? Also Nice from Astronaut? and Want you more? Futhermore alot of todays Synth Pop and Techno artist are usually influence by acts that are Synth Pop and many site Depeche Mode, Human League and yes DURAN DURAN! as influence. do you need any more examples that this great band called Duran DUran is also Synth Pop. Remember there one of the most innovative groups ever to be formed. Synth Pop music is very Innovative. Do you guys need anymore examples!? They are Synth Pop. Electropop I can let go but they were always Synth Pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for the big rant, nobody ever denied that Duran Duran were Synthpop. Medazzatrash (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That was actually to reference to up above I think in the first Genre topic. There was big denial if they were Synth pop or not being Synth pop until Big Thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Carpet Massacre = failure?

Is Red Carpet massacre a failure or not? Most music sites gave it average reviews and sales were bad. is it too early to mention it in the article? 92.11.12.116 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been mentioned Discoh8er (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Lay Lady Lay and Instant Karma are listed as singles by D2, yet they were never released at all by the band, only covered. Could someone fix this? Also should we create pages for singles that were released only in certain countries like Last Day On Earth, Breath After Breath and Drowning Man? Thanks! Discoh8er (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Discoh8er (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic

Seriously, whoever added 'Duran Duran are an English New Wave band' is exceptionally childish. It has been proven beyond all doubt that Duran Duran are not New Wave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.5.195 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove this? Discoh8er (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

12.42.5.195 Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and in this case New Wave has been. Check the internet (including their own website) and you will find that Duran Duran are indeed a New Wave band. And you're claim that New Wave is "Americentric" is ridiculous, it never stopped fellow British bands like Depeche Mode and Tears For Fears from being described in that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.15.102 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Depeche Mode and Tears for Fears (along with Duran Duran) were never described in Britain as 'new wave' believe me (which had become an obsolete term by this stage of the 80s). This whole issue comes down to the very different usage of that term in the UK versus America and other parts of the world. See the wikipedia article on 'new wave' especially its discussion page. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This page has been protected in the past because of continuing vandalism from anon users. It may have to be protected again if this continues Medazzatrash (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Duran are hardly new wave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.148.189 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, please do not delete comments from this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.5.195 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Google search New Wave bands and you will see Duran Duran named on most sites. Go to duranduran.com, search new Wave and you will see hundreds of articles naming the band as New Wave (including the quotes from Nick Rhodes above) Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion. The New Wave claim has been researched and should not be removed. Continual removal of the genres box is vandalism and will lead to the page being protected. Thank you. Medazzatrash (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the references are a bit weak, but this article, published in Korea Times, a reliable source, clearly identifies them as a new wave group in the last paragraph. If the unregistered editor from Orlando doesn't stop removing the references, I will semi-protect the article. Horologium (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that, I'll add it to the list of references and perhaps remove a few to tidy the list up a little bit. Medazzatrash
Since when has a Korean journal become an authority on seventies British music? That statement that DD were one of the biggest New Wave band in the 80s needs thorough examination. New wave came straight after punk. It was spearheaded by Stiff Records, A&M, and a number of indie labels DD were signed to the mainstream EMI label. DD were certainly more pop/rock; they were only maybe New Romantic or Art Rock (Roxy Music), but nobody would put Bryan Ferry into the New Wave category. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

but nobody would put Bryan Ferry into the New Wave category.

The last two albums from Roxy Music have been put there, however (with "Avalon" and "More Than This" considered New Wave hits).

I would consider Duran Duran to be New Wave on their first album only. It is obviously modeled on the likes of '78-'80 Japan and Ultravox who created the New Romanticism (which was part of New Wave at the time) DD spawned out of. Plus Wiki articles have to based on what can be cited by research, so even if the U.K. has never referred to them as New Wave, the U.S. pretty obviously has and that can be easily be cited. Theburning25 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre fact

Nowhere on duranduran.com does it say that Duran Duran are a new wave band. Nick Rhodes has called Punk Rock as New Wave (do your research)

To the person who edited ' Duran Duran are a new wave band from England' you are implying that they only have this single genre. In your eagerness to get the ' upper hand' you have made a big mistake.

Don't be Americentric...there is life beyond your borders (look it up) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.5.195 (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Type "New Wave" into the search box in the press section and you will find lots of articles describing them as a New Wave band. A postcard from Roger Taylor published in 2006 said that Red Carpet Massacre would be a return to the band's New Wave origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.123.79 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

^^ See new section that rubbishes this last post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Location

Using a WhoIs search to give a users location is against Wilipedia policy. You have been reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.5.195 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, do your research instead of editing for personal reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.5.195 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2009


12.42.5.195 maybe you haven't noticed but there has been research done to back up the claim. What you are actually doing is editing the page for your own personal reasons. Please stop vandalising the page or it will be locked down. Medazzatrash (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre - Duran Duran are not 'new wave'. Fact.

Duran Duran are not 'new wave'.

New wave is another term for punk rock.

Need an example....ok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Trap

Whoah! It's from WIKIPEDIA! That bastion of truth and knowledge that you all bow down to!


Duran Duran are not punk rock, so therefor not new wave.


Oh, and watch VH-1's Classic Albums about 'Rio' Nick Rhodes says that Duran Duran are a 'rock' band. So when the edit drama queen unlocks the Duran Duran page, the genre should be corrected,

End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it says on that article it was the first punk or new wave single. It does not say that they are the same thing. Read the New Wave article. It says that "New Wave was basically the reinvention of rock 'n' roll of the 1960s but it also incorporated various influences as well as aspects of mod subculture, electronic music, disco, and funk." It also says "The term New Wave itself is a source of much confusion." There are sources to back up the claim, including ones from Duran Duran's own website. Medazzatrash (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


"It is notable as it was the first official UK #1 single by a punk or new wave act" - The use of 'or' in this sense means they are the same thing (as well you know). There is NO mention of any member of Duran Duran saying they are 'new wave' on any part of their website. The only mention of 'new wave' is made by American sources, which back up a previous point about the genre listing being Americentric. As stated before, Nick Rhodes says that Duran Duran are a rock band. You can't get any more proof than the FOUNDER of the band saying so...right?

Duran Duran are not 'new wave'

End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a mention of a member of Duran Duran mentioning New Wave on their official website. Roger Taylor said that Red Carpet Massacre would be a return to their new wave roots. Check the link http://www.duranduran.com/postcards/rogerstudio.html

Also you said "The use of 'or' in this sense means they are the same thing (as well you know)" Are you seriously saying that if a person says "black or white", black and white are the same thing? And cut all this "Americentric" crap. Alot of British bands are classed New Wave. Depeche Mode being a perfect example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.131.35 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre part 769

Duran Duran are a rock band. Nick Rhodes said so in the Vh-1 Classic Albums show last week.

Nothing else needed, just 'Rock' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.5.195 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the 'New Wave' label bother you so much? You may disagree with the way people use it, but it is used in relation to Duran, as shown by the references in the article. I don't understand why you're getting so worked up about it. Jammycaketin (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC

I agree with Jammycaket. Why does it bother you? Anyways lets face the facts. THEY ARE NEW WAVE. They live along side other bands where you would mention Visage, Culture Club, Depeche Mode, Human League, Mission Persons and all of those bands are classified as New Wave. Yes its true it is americanistic and yes its true Duran Duran is a Rock band. But that doesnt mean you cant be a Rock and New Wave. SOme simple defination of new wave is rock bands with Synths. Also when you look up duran duran on a search engine you find there official site link and right under it 80s New Wave band. There are credited for bringing it to a main stream audience and making Synth Pop more danceable. Which brings up another point. Theere two sub genres New Romantic and Synth pop. guess what Duran DUran is classified as both. Like it or not there New Wave. Go to AMG music, and go to Rollingstone go to any music guideline facts they are new wave. There even featured in New Wave and classic ALternative stations I just heard Girls on Film in one of them last night. Seriously. I cant prove this but I've read interviews on the bands site espically when the original 5 got back together where they said they were New Wave. Like it or not the New Wave tag s not going anywhere so just go with the flow and learn to live with it. Theres nothing wrong with being New wave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.131.253 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 July 2009

The New Wave tag will stay as long as there are sources to back it up. If it gets removed it will be reinstated. Jimmycaketin and 76.119.131.253, thanks for backing this up. Medazzatrash (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


^^ Utter utter rubbish. Poor reserach coupled with a personal agenda. Duran Duran are not New Wave. Get over it. Move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? And where is this proof? I checked the sources (one of them being duranduran.com, their own website) and found them to be perfectly satisfactory Medazzatrash (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Poorly researched. Nick Rhodes has stated that 'punk' is 'New Wave' Duran Duran are not a punk band. Simple. Not too hard to understand I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So Depeche Mode, Culture Club, Tears For Fears etc are all punk rock bands? Catch yourself on! Is an article by Roger Taylor, an actual member of the band, from duranduran.com poor research? Find a source that is not your personal opinion that says Duran Duran are not New Wave, otherwise New Wave stays and will stay as long as there is research to back it up. Medazzatrash (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor resercah. Duran Duran are not 'New Wave' get over it, move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your research is poor. As medazatrash said, find a source yourself that says "duran duran are not a new wave band". The article is not a place for you to list your personal bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.220.218 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


^^^ Utter rubbish. It has been proven beyond any doubt that Duran Duran are not a new wave band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And where is this "proof"? It has been proven that they are indeed New Wave. And Roger Taylor seems to think so as well, if you read the article on duranduran.com Medazzatrash (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what it is, because you just deleted it, which you're not supposed to do...right? Here it is again:

Duran Duran are not 'new wave'.

New wave is another term for punk rock.

Need an example....ok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Trap

Whoah! It's from WIKIPEDIA! That bastion of truth and knowledge that you all bow down to!


Duran Duran are not punk rock, so therefor not new wave.

__________

Try not to delete it this time ok? Grow up, seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Um yeah? I did read it, and I saw the words Punk or New Wave act. Note the "OR". It did not say they are the same thing. If you honestly think that's proof you need to take a reality check. And I did not delete anything, check the heading "Genre - Duran Duran are not 'new wave'. Fact." and you will see the same thing you just posted.Medazzatrash (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Duran Duran started out as New Romantics. And New Romanticism was a part of the New Wave scene. I hope that clears this up

Format of album track lists

Most of the track lists of albums of theirs are simple lists, however for Carnival, Red Carpet Massacre, and Live at Hammersmith '82! I noticed that the {{Tracklist}} template is in use. Are these track lists going to all be reformatted to the template or should the latter be converted to the simple lists? LA (T) @ 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I know for a fact that once this page is unlocked, the anon users that were constantly vandalising this page are going to return. Something must be done for the long term to prevent this from happening again. Medazzatrash (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Seriously, get over yourself. All changes have been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Medazzatrash. This situation is ridiculous. Jammycaketin (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Only because you've turned it into a crusade and personal agenda. You need to stop taking it so seriously.

Eh? Sorry your the one who's turned it into a personal agenda. And you're the one taking it seriously. Everytime someone mentions about the evidence backing up the New Wave tag, you cry about poor research and all that crap. Medazzatrash (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This is by no means a personal crusade, at least not on my part. I simply believe that referenced information should not be removed from an article without good reason. Claims such as "Duran Duran are not 'New Wave' - fact" are nowhere near sufficient for an encyclopedia. Unless you can support your claims with reliable, verifiable sources, your edits will continue to be reverted. Please, take your own advice and "stop taking it so seriously". As I've asked you before on this discussion page, why does the term 'New Wave' bother you so much? Jammycaketin (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my comment above 'jammycaketin' I do believe you're not supposed to remove comments from the discussion page...right?

Seriously, you need to get over it and stop taking it so personally. I suggest you take your head out of your backside and read the whole of this page where the proof has been posted several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Following the bout of vandalism from anon user 216.246.164.118, I have had no option but to apply for page protection. Medazzatrash (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

When an editor finds him or herself so at odds with content as to include a "citation needed" comment after every[citation needed] stinking[citation needed] word[citation needed] in[citation needed] it [citation needed] I would propose that it would be more responsible for the editor to remove that content than to allow it to remain in an entirely unreadable form.

People view the page to read the article. If you are making it so that readers can't read it, you are causing more problems than any potentially inaccurate information. This is childish, disruptive behavior. In short, please grow up.

I know absolutely nothing about this music or Duran Duran except that I've heard "Rio" played in about four different public venues (lobbies, waiting rooms, restaurants) over the past two weeks. The song is stuck in my head and I wanted to know who to add to my list of people to have shot (welcome to the list, Duran Duran) when I become world dictator. I came to this page for a midday distraction and I found a complete disaster in the "Influences" section. Will someone with some measure of common sense and a modicum of actual knowledge please straighten this out? 12.19.84.33 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia where people stalk you from behind a keyboard. (Against regulations to delete this, btw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.164.118 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also a place where anon users like 216.246.164.118 constantly vandalise pages by removing sourced material, all to suit their own personal opinion. Medazzatrash (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you two have your own issues to sort out. :P J.M. Archer (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to end argument

Duran Duran are not NEW WAVE. End of arguement.

Well, there's a well thought-out response that unquestionably brings any debate to an end. Smurfmeister (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My contributions in the trash, too

A few months ago I contributed with some notes about David Sylvian's Japan's style, fashion and sound living on, and thriving, in Duran's early years. This is not my opinion, it's a fact, as you can easily see by pairing a Sylvian's pic alongside one of Nick Rhodes from that period, and you can do the same with the other members of the band; I was 15 at the time, saw both bands in those years, and know that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE aknowledged the legacy at the time, press included. I cannot substantiate this with references and footnotes, after 30-odd years I wouldn't know where to find them, BUT DO I REALLY NEED TO? I mean, whomever removed my contribution based on lack of web references acted as an obtuse, pedant bureaucrat that won't allow any elbow room. On the other hand, the same individual apparently inserted a similarity between Duran's style and that of Adam Ant, based on the fact that both acts wore sashes...??? There was a huge difference in the two acts fashions and style, and don't get me started on the sound! Honestly speaking, while I know we're not supposed to write any partisanery or personal opinions in these pages, I am sure that common knowledge isn't going to lead history astray. Loosen up, people. 

  Max Ventura, Italy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.19.177 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sales

No way Duran Duran have sold 100 million! It's more like 45 million max. It's the news websites that say they have sold 100 million and they are always wrong! If one was to say they had sold 200 million you people would believe it and edit in the page! in 2004 it was 45 million records sales (Singles and Album) so how the hell have the band sold 55 million records in 7 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.110.70 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the references for 100 million is sales is from the band's own website -- Foetusized (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a lie, I'm going to get on to the Duran webmaster to fix the error. The band know they have not sold 100 million and have said it to be around 50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.111.140 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you had some genuine, verifiable sources this comment would have some value. Smurfmeister (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys... the band have sold over 100 million records, even the WB records said that Andrea-gm5000 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to state that. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing it back to 100, it's no where near 100 million. worldwide certified album and single sales are about 40 million, but lets keep it on 70 million as we don't want to hurt Katy's ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.209.247 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Hello, in the book 100 years of British music says the band have sold over 100 million records!!!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicflash2000 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi friends, Duran Duran have sold over 100 million recods, not 70.... Here is the proof, and It is a very very reliable source... Thanks!Musicflash2000 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC) MusicFlash2000 http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7556897/duran-duran-ascap-awards-golden-note-award-london

Here's proof? is that all? Maybe you should check all the chart companies around the world first, and then post proof of sales. most articles use a 'round figure'. These are not the official sales. If i remember correctly DD have sold 24 million albums and 16 million singles WW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.46.68 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No, we won't need to "check all the chart companies around the world". Billboard is clearly a reliable source for this claim. 100 million is verifiable.
If you have another equally reliable source reporting a different number, we might need to report both. Feel free to bring any such source(s) here for discussion. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide certified album and single sales are about 40 million, I dunno how many times I have to keep telling people. 100 million is used by a lot of media as they get their sources from this fucking god awful wiki page.

Once again...

Once again we are getting faceless and cowardly people re-editing the page to suit their own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.2.83 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear blocked anon. I have a face, and it's looking at you. If you choose to go about Wikipedia assuming that anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda,you are never going to get anything but more blocks. There is such a thing as honest disagreement, and we don't settle those disputes by letting the most arrogant among us decide how the article should be. We follow dispute resolution instead. So you can do that, and we can have an actual discussion, or you can continue to assume that I have a hidden agenda, and I will fulfill your prophesy by having you blocked yet again. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.149.200 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

New Wave, Pop Rock and Synthpop. 3 genres that should be in the infobox as they have used these styles for much of their career. Other genres like Dance Pop, New Romancticism, and Alternative Rock should be left to individual albums which feature these styles, although since their music from the Warren Cuccurullo days featured Alternative style songs and was for more than one album (Liberty, Wedding Album and Thank You being examples), maybe it could be added as a reference to that era as a fourth genre? At least then the info box is not cluttered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.244.77 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too stressed about. Alot of anon editors out there like nothing more than to push their own opinions - such as labeling Rush (band) with the "jazz/blues" genre simply because Neil Peart collaborated on one Buddy Rich tribute album. Pretty typical... Ckruschke (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Vandalism on the Duran Duran page

Despite concrete proof to the contrary, Someguy1221 and now Hiddenstranger are allegedly having a personal agenda with the genre. A shame. Maybe they need to forget the mantra 'It's on Wikipedia so it's true' and move on. Just a thought. No reply needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.105.204 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have undone your vandalism of completely removing the genre and origin fields from the infobox. I have also restored New Wave to the list of genres in the infobox, as it is sourced. For better or worse, many people consider Duran Duran to be New Wave, and there are reliable sources to back this up. I did go with the more general "rock band" for the first sentence of the article.
Everyone, please stop edit warring. I have attempted to come up with a solution somewhere in the middle; let us attempt to discuss this here in the talk page instead of all the reverting being done in the article, in which other information (like the origin of the band in the infobox, which seems non-contentious) is also being damaged. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Not vandalism, it's fact. Try some research(but don't use Wiki-not-always-right-pedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.29.93 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted same change. IP's need to discuss here rather than choosing their own versions of the truth/vandalism. Ckruschke (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

There's really no need to discuss this. The Duran Duran vandal briefly entertained the idea of discussion ages ago, it was made clear that plenty of sources refer to the band as New Wave, and then he entered an endless cycle of "Edit war / blocked / evade block / edit war / blocked /..." Maybe one day he'll tire out, but until he stops trying to force his point of view, the only thing we need to do is revert, block and ignore. Although if someone else wants to discuss, that's fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And when he continues to revert the "correct" version (like he did yesterday), we do...? I'm not reverting it anymore because I have enough of these IP's pushing their POV on other pages I more actively watch, but just letting you know he isn't stopping. Ckruschke (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Just reverted vandalism again, both the infobox in the article, and removal of part of this talk page section. Perhaps semi-protection would be the way to go -- Foetusized (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The current semi-protection seems to be working. Our IP vandal has been reduced to vandalizing this talk page since he cannot get at the article. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Duranduran in 1989?

I distinctly remember that the band were billed as Duranduran rather than Duran Duran for their 1989 releases (definitely on "All She Wants Is..." - why isn't this mentioned anywhere? Smurfmeister (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can supply a source to back this up, you could then work on inserting this information. Ckruschke (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

More vandalism

The article is being ruined by various people with personal agendas, intent on being right when they are quite clearly wrong. Maybe they can get it into their heads that Wikipedia is not right 100% of the time, get off their heavy moderating backsides and actually do some research. For the Americentrics, try researching outside of your borders, believe it or not, there is actually a world beyond the US border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.29.83 (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To quote my response above (which you have attempted to remove from this talk page a couple of times), "For better or worse, many people consider Duran Duran to be New Wave, and there are reliable sources to back this up." I still stand by this conclusion, and judging from the others editing the article today, it appears to be the consensus position. As someone who has been resistant to the overuse of the term "New Wave" for any English band of the right time frame, and has removed it from several artist article's infoboxen, I have to go with "New Wave" in this case. Even if I think it is probably wrong, there are reliable sources that state it is so.
Also, making claims that others are vandals whilst you are continuing to break the parameters in the article's infobox, doesn't help your credibility at all.
On the other hand, the record on this talk page shows that you have been resistant to reason, so I won't bother with a longer response, as it would appear to be useless. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You've been on the same issue for over a year and your arguments are no better/clearer. So how is it our fault that you cannot produce any references to back up your claims other that your own POV and/or OR...? Ckruschke (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Not just over a year; as of last month he passed the four year mark beating this dead horse. In those four years, the only argument he makes is that Duran Duran never called itself a New Wave band, and that apparently means we aren't allowed to. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Are there any reliable British sources that call them "New Wave"? There may be a disocnnect between the US and UK understanding of this term. I don't know about the very early days (say pre-1980) but the abiding perception of the band in the UK is definitely not, in my opinion, that they were "New Wave". Does "New Romantic" count as a genre? That would make a hell of a lot more sense than "New Wave". 86.128.2.151 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but you're fighting the Americentric and in turn xenophobic Wikipedia. The quote from the Guardian below was written by a..guess what....American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.113.233 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Guardian: Duran Duran (named after a character in Roger Vadim's sci-fi classic, Barbarella) is an electronic pop-rock band that was part of the new wave music movement in the early 1980s Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, that raises another issue. Can we change "English rock band" in the first sentence to something else, like "English pop group"? To me, "rock band" means groups like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Guns N Roses, etc. I always have problems with it being applied to groups like Duran Duran. 86.151.119.17 (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes by wp:reliable sources (RS), not our wp:opinion. If you wish to change, I would suggest starting a new section with what you want to change in quotes and what you want it changed to in quotes. Include RS to support your changes. The RS would need to be authoritative enough to override the existing "rock band" / pop rock genre. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia articles and their citations on the subject. Jim1138 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

'Prettiest boys in rock'

Duran Duran were not know by this term, it was used by one journalist:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/8257981/Duran-Duran-interview.html

Note it also says pop and Rock, not New Wave in the address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.113.233 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to pick sources that match your opinion. There are four sources that call it "new wave" the country of origin is irrelevant to the source being reliable. Jim1138 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what happens here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.113.233 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


oddity of touring members list as it currently stands

It seems odd to me that only two of their all time touring members are listed. I think we all know that there have been several over the years. I propose they either all be listed or none of them. But, I believe Dom Brown should still be listed as a current touring member.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Duran Duran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of video screens during live performances

The article states that, "In 1984, the band were early innovators with video technology in their live stadium shows; they were the first major act to provide video screens above the stage to bring the action closer to the audience in the rear". There is a reference for this statement, but the fact remains that Pink Floyd started using a large video screen - nicknamed 'Mr. Screen' - during their 1974 'Dark Side Of The Moon' Tour, and they then used Mr. Screen in every concert tour thereafter. So ... unless someone wants to argue that Pink Floyd are not a major act - which would be patently ridiculous - I think the article needs to change somehow. Pink Floyd tended to use Mr. Screen for pre-recorded videos that synched with the songs, but I'm not sure whether they ever projected live footage of themselves playing. It's possible that they didn't, because they tended to virtually remove themselves from the live experience and focus people's attention on the music and light show. In other words, it might be the case that Duran Duran were the first major act to project live footage of the current concert onto a video screen, but if that's the case then the article should be updated to specify that. Otherwise people might come away with the erroneous belief that Duran Duran were the first band to utilise a large video screen, when in fact that distinction goes to Pink Floyd (along with numerous other live concert firsts)... FillsHerTease (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

More Information!
OK, so, it turns out that Led Zeppelin, during their 1977 tour of the United States, hired a company called TV International to shoot three shows - Pontiac on 30 April, Houston on 21 May and Seattle on 17 July - which were projected live onto a giant video screen. So ... unless someone wants to argue that Led Zeppelin weren't a major act (Ha! I DOUBLE DARE someone to argue that!!), the statement that Duran Duran "...were the first major act to provide video screens above the stage to bring the action closer to the audience in the rear...", is clearly false... FillsHerTease (talk)
I think you're on the wrong track here. You seem to be trying to prove the statement is not true. On Wikipedia, the standard is verifiability, not truth. If we used "truth" as the standard, we would be constantly dealing with "proof" that the Moon landings were fake, George W. Bush is an alien-human hybrid and similar garbage, along with more rational concerns: is it "true" that diet x is the healthiest, most natural diet for humans or is it true that it completely lacks B12 and will result in loss of basic mental function?
Under WP:V, the question becomes whether or not the statement can be attributed to an independent reliable source. Yes, the source says "they were the first major act to provide video screens above the stage to bring the action closer to the audience in the rear." We could pick this apart and say: Where they first? Did Pink Floyd/Led Zep have the screens "above the stage"? Were Pink Floyd/Led Zep's screens specifically there for the audience in the rear? This, however, is putting the cart in front of the horse. We're trying to fairly report what the source says before looking at what the source is.
The sources are:
  • ..."the band were early innovators with video technology in their live stadium shows." 8notes.com - Who? "Free Sheet Music, Riffs, Lessons and Tools for musicians who play."; "The main focus of the site is sheet music, but we offer a wide range of resources for musicians, from tuners, to chord charts, to lessons." More to the point: the article is an earlier version of this Wikipedia article. We can't very well be using this article as a source for itself...
  • "In 1984, the band introduced video technology into their live stadium shows by being among the first acts to provide video screens above the stage." archived page from duranduran.com - Why are we using an archive of the page when it's live at http://www.duranduran.com/wordpress/new-site-timeline/? I couldn't tell you. The archived version says "They are the first act to utilize live video cameras and screens in their show." The current version says "Duran Duran becomes the first act to utilize live video cameras and screens in their show. They break every existing merchandise record during this tour." Neither of these matches exactly the claim, but I think we have reason to be more concerned with the question of puffery from the band's own site. They broke every existing merchandise record? Most t-shirts sold? Highest price per shirt? Highest profit margin per shirt? Most watered down soda at concession stands? Unlikely. This is why we use independent reliable sources when possible. If McDonald's website says they have 18,000 restaurants in the UK, that's likely accurate and, unless there is some indication of dispute, we'd be OK sourcing them for the claim. If McDonald's website says they offer the healthiest kid's meals, that's advertising. The current claim is somewhere in between. There might be a truth buried here somewhere: Maybe they were the first to incorporate screens in every stop on a national tour. Maybe they were the first to have the screens above the stage. Maybe they were the first to do it specifically for fans in the back when video wasn't being shot for another purpose. Maybe they were the first to use multiple, moving cameras. Who knows? My basic rule of thumb is that if the only reliable sources are primary sources, the statement is usually trivial. If the statement matters, an independent reliable source will cover it. The lone exception I use is basic facts that we simply aren't finding elsewhere, such as where a lesser-know actor was born.
From where I'm sitting, I'd say your clear to remove both claims. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your long reply (no, I am not being facetious; I am genuinely grateful). I fully understand what you're saying and couldn't agree more. When I wrote my first comment - concerning Pink Floyd and Mr. Screen - I didn't feel comfortable making a change for two reasons; firstly because I didn't have a reference and secondly because, as I explained, and as you have pointed out, it's very possible that Duran Duran were the first to take a video screen on tour - or whatever - and because Pink Floyd didn't project live concert footage onto Mr. Screen (as far as I know and, as you pointed out, what I do or don't know is irrelevant and only verifiable sources are important). What I should have mentioned in my next comment is that by complete coincidence I happened to be reading about Led Zeppelin's 1977 tour of the United States and, in that article, it mentions that they projected live onto a giant video screen AND there is a source. So ... I can see why it appeared as though I was on the wrong track and trying to prove the statement was untrue - a criticism I take onboard and will be more careful about in future thank you - but in reality I actually did have a source which directly refuted the claim in this article but I didn't know how to edit that source across to this article. If that makes sense? FillsHerTease (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016

Duran Duran has sold over 100 million records. You are using data from 13 years ago.

Andre D. Below is my source..

http://www.ellentv.com/2011/03/25/a-legendary-80s-band-still-going-strong-duran-duran/


Over 30 years ago, musicians Nick Rhodes and John Taylor decided to form a new band. They soon added Roger Taylor, and later Andy Taylor and Simon LeBon -- and became Duran Duran. Since then, they've sold over 100 million albums worldwide, have had nine Top Ten hits, and earned two Grammys. They've proven that throughout all the ups and downs, they've still got unbelievable talent!


Andooraboy (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find a single reliable source which states that Duran Duran have sold more than 100 million units. An anonymous article, from someone at the Ellen show - who doesn't supply a reference for the 100 million albums claim themselves - is not a suitable source for the claim here. In fact ... I cannot even find a single reliable source which states that Duran Duran have sold 70 million units; so that number may need to be removed and/or reduced itself! FillsHerTease (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The change he is requesting is for the article to state that Duran Duran have sold 100 million albums worldwide (the article currently says 70 million), and he has provided a source which backs the claim. In response, I am saying that the change should NOT be made because the source he cites is an anonymous article on the Ellen TV Show homepage - which doesn't have a source itself and is therefore invalid - and I have hunted high and low on the Internet but cannot find a single RELIABLE source which backs the claim that they have sold 100 million units. The requested update should NOT be made. FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Success"

This section needed help. The original version read: "The band achieved commercial success[vague] from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s."

As was noted, the sources did not support the material. We were translating "pop stardom" and millions of albums sold into "they made money" While this was likely true, it was not saying what the source said and was conceivably not true: It was not werifiable.

Using the same sources, a change has been made to:

"The most successful period for the band spanned from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s."

This is still a good deal of reduction and restructuring. I think we need to be a bit more expansive and direct.

One of the sources says:

"Between 1982 and 1984, they rocketed from underground British post-punk sensations to teen idols. But their fall from grace was equally fast. By the late '80s, the group's lineup had fragmented, and the remaining members had trouble landing hit singles. Nevertheless, the group pulled off a surprising comeback in the early '90s as a sophisticated soft rock quartet."[1]

I propose: "The band grew from alternative sensations in 1982 to mainstream pop stars by 1984. By the end of the decade, membership changes and lost popularity pushed the band to near obscurity before a resurgence in the early 1990s as a soft rock act."

Thoughts, comments, etc.? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No comments. I've boldly made the change. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 court case

I've added a couple of sentences on this as in was in the news today. DD and copyright law are not among my AoE though so you guys may want to add some more detail. Tigerboy1966  12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Boy Band?

I recently reverted an edit to this article that classified Duran Duran as an International Boy Band. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything credible that supports this notion, and since they kind of pre-date the term it seems strange to classify them this way. Any thoughts? Lizzius (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Duran Duran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duran_Duran/Archive_2&oldid=1089873556"