Jump to content

Talk:GRIMMS

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

Untitled

[edit]

It's nice that Grimms is an acronym for our favorite six members of the band and that somebody sometime apparently explained that that's where the name came from but, like it or not -- Adrian Henri, Brian Patten, Zoot Money, Michael Giles, & John Megginson -- are also listed in the band on the Help 11 album (which I take it is being shown as "Grimms"), while Roberts & Stanshall are not. Likewise Patten, David Richards, Megginson, Ollie Hadsall, & Gerry Conway are listed in the group on the Rockin' Duck album, while Stanshall again is not. I don't know what was behind those anonymous changes of your member list but I think that dismissing the other band members with that simple, "there could be as many as another six additional members at a performance," is equivalent to listing Pete Best as a Beatle but ignoring Ringo. If you must have your acronymatic list effect, I would suggest that those six members be listed first and set apart from the other members by a blank line, if you wish (even though those six members are mixed in with the others in each [I don't have the 3rd album.] album's members list). I may get around to creating individual pages for the first two Grimms albums but, even then, I would say that that list shouldn't be limited to those six guys, unless YOU can back up your setting them above, all the other Grimms members, with some source making a good case for them NOT all being equal. IanHistor 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notability; possible AFD

[edit]

The article as it stands does not provide any reference that can be used to provide the article with notability, and I have not been able to find one with a short search. If we can't find a credible reference to satisfy wp:notability. I will nominate it for deletion if a real source can't be found.Mrathel (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be a good idea, as the list of its members includes some of the best known and most popular UK poets of the last 40 years. It suffers from being short-lived and existing in the pre-internet age so contemporary coverage will be in print form.
The Grimms is mentioned on the official sites of the members and often in articles about them. I found quite a few, but IE crashed and I lost them, so I'll just give some pointers. I searched for Grimms + Roger McGough, in order to cut out the fairy tale results:
Google books
Google news
Google search Relevant mentions e.g. in The Poetry Archive
News UK (subscription) has 14 results in newspaper archives going back to 1991. Here are three quotes:
"The acronymic collective that was Grimms was the format that introduced many to the reality of poetry as fun stuff that could share a stage with rock'n'roll - more so than the chart-topping frivolity that was The Scaffold, although the latter fed the success of the former. There is a clear path from that to today's poetry slams and, yes, dammit, Eminen's Stan, if not more of the entire hip-hop genre." - Why poetry is in motion; The place of the poet needs to be defined, and no-one does it better than Roger McGough. The Herald (Glasgow); Dec 13, 2003; Keith Bruce; p. 6
"ROGER McGOUGH, poet: In the Seventies I was in a band called Grimms. Our record company paid our new managers an advance and we went off to make an album in Cornwall. The managers came down, gave us lots of tins of beans to keep us going, and disappeared to America with our advance - 15 or 20 grand." - When were you last ripped off? The Independent on Sunday (London); Feb 19, 1995; p. 23
"Later The Scaffold fused with The Bonzo Dog Doo- Dah Band to form Grimms. It was licensed anarchy and inevitably the late nights and long hours on the road took their toll. McGough's first marriage, which yielded two sons, floundered and he moved to London, where poetry took precedence over his pop career." - The scan man; There once was a Scouser McGough, whose poetry really took off. Alan Taylor found out the extent of his clout and how his raw talent paid off (or how a docker's son from Liverpool put McCartney straight on Hey Jude, gave Hendrix a few tips and became a national treasure) Sunday Herald (Glasgow); Dec 7, 2003; Alan Taylor; p. 15
That should be ample to keep the article.
Ty 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that it does; the second is a statement by a band member in a publication than includes the band's name, but not about the band itself. Promotion of the band by a band member, even if in a major newspaper, fails to meet the notability guidelines. The first one is a bit iffy as well: I am not sure as I have yet to read the entire article, but it seems to be about something other than the Grimms, with a brief mention of the band. Notability isn't about mention but about sustained critical reference that goes beyond a mention in a biography. Below are the requirements in WP:notability for music
  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[2] except for the following:
      • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[3]
      • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
      • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
  2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
  3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[4]
  5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  6. Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.
  7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
  8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
  9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
  10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)
  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

All three of the quotes you gave fall victim to number 1. But if the band had famous poets, and by poets I assume you mean men who went on to be actual poets (I am not very well versed with the band or the names of its members) then I will have to look to see whether a band can be famous for having had an artist who later received notability in another form of art. Either that, or you could find a source about the band.Mrathel (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy whole chunks of guidelines: link to them if you must. It just clogs up the page. I am familiar with them. Three of the members were already famous poets, being in one of the all time best selling anthologies. You've completely ignored these links. Click on them:
Google books
Google news
Google search Relevant mentions e.g. in The Poetry Archive
If that doesn't do it for you then just apply #6 "Contains at least one notable musician". They were all notable musicians from The Scaffold and Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band. FYI this was a combined ensemble of musicians and poets.
Ty 04:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
  2. ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
  3. ^ For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist.
  4. ^ This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past significant discussions: 1, 2 (permalink).

notability by membership (sorry for making a mess)

[edit]
Alright, well I did skip the google book, news, and .uk link because i didnt look to see that they were specific links and was a bit annoyed that you just gave me three generic links as if to say "look here", but that was my mistake. I am coming at this from the WP:Poetry project and was directed here because the artice came up for having the word poet in it. What I did fail to realize by the article's wording is that it is an ensemble of poets and musicians, and thus completely out of my jurisdiction and interest. I'll admit to having a limited knowledge of British poetry beyond Bunting, but McGough is notable as a poet. The band didn't come up to any great extent in any search without adding his name into the key words, and thus I was curious about its notability, which is wholly through its members. Please forgive my intrusion, I tend to get into a bit of a frenzy when I see poet and band in the same sentence:) Mrathel (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an ongoing tradition in the UK (I don't know about elsewhere) for the pairing of poets and music from 1950s jazz onwards, through the 1960s, then punk and to the present day. Even John Betjeman recorded with musical backing. I would see Grimms as essentially a "poetry band", because of the importance of words in their oeuvre. Ty 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the band also had three albums released on major labels, which meets the criteria for music notability, in addition to the fame of its members (and not just McGough). -AyaK (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grimms. 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) 08:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grimms. 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) 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of article title?

[edit]

It's a tiny, miniscule point, I'll admit, but... shouldn't the title of the article be capitalised, seeing as GRIMMS is most definitely an acronym? It might also help to deliniate GRIMMS as an entity in itself for anyone who might want to debate their notability in future. HippyGumbo (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GRIMMS&oldid=1200744697"