Talk:Faces (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name and disambiguation

Is there any reason not to move this to the unambiguous The Faces? As well as "faces" being the plural of face, there's also a 1968 John Cassavetes film called Faces. This should be a disambiguation page pointing to the three, imo. --Camembert

The band were called The Faces. The entry for their previous incarnation The Small Faces has the "The" in the title so it's inconsistent not to include it in the title of this article. Lee M 00:20, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all bands take the article as part of their name (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards), and I think this is one that doesn't (though The Small Faces definitely does). In many cases, it is possible to google to see what the standard is, but I can't come up with any combination of search terms that is particularly revealing. Allmusic.com doesn't include the, however, but does include it for The Small Faces. Of course, given that there are disambiguation issues, The Faces might be the best title even if it isn't the correct name of the band... I'm rather agnostic on that front (get it?... music joke... Agnostic Front). Tuf-Kat 03:49, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've never seen an official representation of the band name with the article. For example, all of the album covers have only 'Faces'. --patton1138 22:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's definitely Faces and NOT The Faces. --Bonalaw 12:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the band has no article, but in sentences where the article is appropriate in regular English, the article should remain (not capitalized, though). This is probably all due to the fact that in a sentence, removing the article makes it an awkward utterance. So, most of the edits you have made in removing the article should be reverted. I use as evidence the article by Ian McLagan in the Five Guys Walk into a Bar... box set: '...and it's a shame the Faces never recorded it,' emphasis mine. --patton1138 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking over my edits, I think there's only one that makes a sentence sound a bit stilted, which is "Although they enjoyed relatively modest success compared to contemporaries such as The Who and The Rolling Stones, Faces played a vital role in the birth of what would eventually become punk." And I think even that slight awkwardness is a reasonable payoff for increased accuracy. --Bonalaw 07:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

it's not increased accuracy, it merely sounds awkward. the band's de facto name (as always used in speech) is the faces. if you want to include "the" as part of the band name, whatever, but it is always said beforehand. it is not at all helpful to a wikipedia article to use bizarre english. 67.172.61.222 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One year later, this sentence reads: "Although they enjoyed modest European success compared to contemporaries such as The Who and The Rolling Stones, but in the USA and the UK The faces surpassed the live succes of The Who and The Stones by miles." This is a nightmare for several reasons, and I can't believe it's been allowed to stand. I think we still need something strong here.

The name of the band is The Faces. No one ever calls them just 'Faces'. they probably never even looked at the album covers before release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The band's name was "Faces" despite the tendency to want to put "The" in front of their name. Their albums said "Faces", not "The Faces". Journalists or fans can say The Faces if they'd like to but that doesn't make it accurate. --Davidp (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, i agree with your point about what's on all the albums, but i have mixed feelings about cutting out "also known as The Faces", since (see above) people keep disagreeing. the band members themselves share the natural tendency to add "the" when it sounds normal, so stating that they are "also known as The Faces" isn't inaccurate. maybe a compromise would be "Faces (sometimes referred to as The Faces)"? thanks for thinking about it Sssoul (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A good comparison is the band Buzzcocks, who never prefix their name with 'The' in print, but, in the spoken word, and when referring to the members of the band, rather than the entitiy of the band itself, they say The Buzzcocks. This band is called Faces, and the members are The Faces. Pollythewasp (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• .... and the web site is www.the-faces.com (probably because www.faces.com is already registered) but the site name is Faces Reunion News, in the site the band members refer to Faces (not the Faces). The press always call them The Faces but the name is Faces. Boatman (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved

I moved this page from "The Faces" to "Faces (band)". There is no "The" in Faces. Introducing an error isn't the way to go. --Davidp 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is very silly. The article should be at "The Faces", which is already a redirect. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faces-A Nod Is as Good as a Wink...To a Blind Horse (album cover).jpg

Image:Faces-A Nod Is as Good as a Wink...To a Blind Horse (album cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oohlala.jpg

Image:Oohlala.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Smallfacesfirststep.jpg

Image:Smallfacesfirststep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the genre question

since this seems to be the subject of some disagreement lately, can we discuss it here and see if some kind of consensus can be reached? to me listing "rock, blues-rock & hard rock" is a lot like saying "bread, toast and rye bread". it's not a huge deal to me, but my vote would go to simply "rock & blues-rock". Sssoul (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Genres are pointless, in my opinion. What about a song like "Debris"? Wouldn't that be folk? What is "Ooh La La"? Hard rock? TuckerResearch (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

my sentiments exactly ... but since the info-boxes seem to require that a genre should be listed, i'd rather stick to the one[s] people can all agree on - eg rock - rather than repetitive additions/reversions of ones that are less clearly appropriate.

the info-box isn't supposed to be "all-inclusive" anyway, so it would be cooler if someone felt like adding a section to the article about the various styles of music the Faces played (with all due references etc, i mean, not just a personal point of view). Sssoul (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought of them as a rhythm and blues band, something like "R&B/rock" would sum it up I think.Pollythewasp (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits/"Active 2009"

An IP just performed this edit, claiming that the Faces are/were active in 2009. I haven't reverted it, but I'd like to know what others think: does one reunion concert with half of the original members present qualify as temporary "activeness" worthy of mention in the infobox? Any feedback would be appreciated. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

... does it do any harm to mention 2009 in the infobox? three fourths of the living members were present for the reunion gig. Sssoul (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The info on the musical artist template doesn't offer much help on this, only to list years the artist(s) was active! As they were billed as the Faces, introduced on stage as the Faces and played Faces songs my vote would be that they were active in 2009, even without Rod and Plonk!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both of you. Perhaps we should add a footnote after the date, to mention the reunion gig directly so others don't believe it suspicious (it is mentioned in the main text of the article, however). I think we should let "2009" stay in the infobox. Thanks for the input! - I.M.S. (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

i don't think any footnote is needed (or appropriate); the article is there to be read, after all. Sssoul (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Horrible. I see that Mick Hucknall and Glen Matlock are now apparently members of the Faces, and Rod Stewart and Ronnie Lane are not. The extent to which Wikipedia privileges the line-ups of oldies circuit reunion tours over members when bands were actually releasing albums is absurd and outrageous. john k (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Associated Acts: Humble Pie?

Wouldn't Humble Pie be an associated act? That band and "Faces" are more or less siblings, since they come from a common parent (i.e., "Small Faces").

Rstinejr (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)