Jump to content

Talk:Mötley Crüe/Archive 1

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversy and complaints

This section of the article has been tagged as unreferenced since August 2008, since there have been no sources found for this information in over nine months i have removed the section. I have also put the text underneath my comments here just in case anyone can find sources for this section and wants to re-insert into the article.

"Mötley Crüe's personal record label has filed complaints that the counting of Mötley Crüe's worldwide record sales was mishandled. When the band was confronted by the company, they immediately contacted their previous label. As it turns out, the band signed their names as rott, rotter, root and rooter as a show of affection towards the two uncooperative sides. Therefore, Mötley Crüe never had a record label for their first album "Too Fast for Love". The band had their own label named "Leathur Records", so the album was produced, however the band did not hire anyone to keep records or documents referring to the album. Mötley Crüe songwriter and bass guitar player Nikki Sixx as well as singer Vince Neil issued a very explicit letter of intent to the Worldwide Music Incorporation on November 12, 2001. After this message was suspiciously not received, the band wrote a new, clean version of the document hoping to receive the credit they deserved for their debut album. On March 6, 2008 the band received an extra 23 million copies sold to their record at Worldwide Music Inc. This left the band at a total of 80 million copies sold worldwide, just peaking them over many official lists beginning at 80 million.[citation needed] This caused a nation wide worry for current and past bands that may have encountered the same, or similar, issues. However, no news has spurred since this case with either Mötley Crüe or any other top-selling U.S. Artist.[citation needed] To date, Motley Records has an estimated net worth of over $980,000,000.[citation needed] On June 11, 2008, the band and manager Burt Stein filed suit against each other. Stein was Vince Neil's personal manager and also, according to the band and rival manager Allen Kovac, served as the band's manager at one time. The band and Kovac sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming Stein was not entitled to a cut of Motley Crue's earnings. Stein sued the same day in Nashville's federal court, saying he is entitled to 1.875 percent of what the band makes."

DrMotley (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Motley Crue have sold 80 million

Motley Crue have sold 80 million, I have used a source and there are numerous sources on the net that list them at 80 million because thats what they sold, yet some keeps deleting this sourced information, despite it being well known there now at 80 million. If it gets reverted by whoever again, i would appreciate it if it was reverted back, coz thats wat they sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnom (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The source you added fails WP:RS. Also, you deleted a valid source that passes WP:RS in order to add your false content. If you continue to do so your account and your IP address will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a false comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnom (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The new links still do not beat the validity of the link that was already there. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Height of Fame section

I'm seeing some errors/poor writing in this article. The first big thing that I'd like to see rewritten is in the "Height of Fame" section. The passage calls three of Crue's albums "best-selling", when none of these records ever topped the US charts. How can they therefore be "best-selling" albums? The specific passage is quoted below. I hope someone who contributes to this page can rewrite this more accurately: "Their mixture of heavy metal and glam rock stylings produced several best-selling albums during the 1980s, including Shout at the Devil (September 26, 1983), Theatre of Pain (June 21, 1985), and Girls, Girls, Girls (May 15, 1987)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.43.126 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Band Members

In the "Band Members" section, Mick Mars is listed as performing "lead guitar, backing vocals, talkbox". I have removed the talkbox item since the talkbox is not a musical instrument. Rather, as defined on Wikipedia, it is an effect device for the guitar. Just because he sometimes uses the talkbox to modify his guitar sound or provide distorted vocal sounds on songs, doesn't warrant its inclusion in a listing of instruments he plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.43.126 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

  • Why was the article moved here from Motley Crue? Are we supposed to avoid special characters? --Jiang

This is to whoever deleted all the external links except the official site: Why did you do that? Thanks for your answer. And I have re-added the Hit Squad. I don't remember any of the others though.

I would like to know who keeps deleting these links as well.I have added the HitSquad website into the external links part over a dozen times..The hitsquad keeps getting Deleted.Cant you track the ip and bann them from modify?


Another thing...The link that says its the official store is not the official store.

Perhaps if you didn't keep erasing the link to the official website (or worse, keeping its name but pointing the link to your fan site) people would be more inclined to leave your link alone. GentlemanGhost 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the idiot who keeps erasing the HitSquad website would stop doing that others wouldnt touch the official website link.

one more thing and you guys wont here from me again...that link that says the official store for sixx and vince is not the official store.

Actually Swagrox.com says for Nikki and Vince.. not Motley Crue.. becaue it is. Go to sixx.net or neil.net both Official personal websites. and that is their store. Not Fanfire.

The www.motleycruehitsquad link was Removed again from external links..This Link Should be added because of the History..Another thing For the admin who keeps deleting this link should probably learn and do history on motley crue before he starts deleting things he knows nothing about.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.168.36 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre

In my opinion Mötley Crüe is more of a hard rock band than a heavy metal band. They ae possibly the best example of a "Glam Metal" band. Will231982 09:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Will231982

I think there heavy/glam metal, but there most famous for being glam rockers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.64.4 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Bowie, New York Dolls, Eno & Roxy Music were examples of "glam" rock (which later inspired much new wave, including the short-lived but influential "New Romantic" style). Motley Crue are a different thing altogether, something inspired by KISS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.114.236 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronunce Mötley Crüe? As stated in the article Heavy-metal_umlaut, the members of Mötley Crüe were haunted several years by mispronunciation of their band's name (... but the article doesn't state how it's pronunced correctly). Maybe someone can help out and give an IPA pronunciation for Mötley Crüe? Thanks, --Abdull 22:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's pronounced "Motley Crew".

Phonetically its pronounced Mot-Lee-kroo not MAHT-lee-kroo as someone seems to think

Well, if you disregard that it really has Ö and Ü instead of O and U, then it shall indeed definately be pronounced only as Motley Crew. As it's likely just American "germanification" (heavy-metal-umlaut), this is probably also their proper pronounciation.
The current version of the article has a pronunciation ['mɒtli kru] more appropriate for British varieties of English than for American ones. Wikipedia policy indicates that pronunciation should be given that is as close as possible to that used by the subject of the article, ie an American variety of English. One way around this problem is to avoid a phonetic transcription (which is what the brackets [] indicate) and instead give a phonemic one, using slashes //. Giving /mɑt li kru/ will probably be the best solution. Interlingua 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Semantics in Introduction

"Despite their notoriety, Mötley Crüe is considered one of the most successful American hard rock bands" - despite their notoriety? Isn't notoriety a state of being well-known? Why would you describe someone as successful despite being well-known? Beeeej 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to comment to that effect. Someone's obviously got their words mixed up or something. Suggest this is changed ASAP. Lots of love, Tim


they were well known partiers, drinkers, self destructive, and basically deviants. that type of noteriety. the bad kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.205.251 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal umlaut

Mötley Crüe are perhaps the best-known users of the heavy metal umlaut

Not entirely true. Motörhead also use it and they're also very famous.

It's arguable, but I think Motley Crue are more famous than motorhead.

To avoid generalizations and unnecessary arguments, the use of "qualifiers" and the avoidance of superlatives are almost always safe tools in writing feature articles. Instead of pitting Mötley Crüe and Motörhead against each other--both of which are anyway pioneers and popular in their own respective rights--why not simply write: "Motörhead and Mötley Crüe are among the best-known users of the so-called Heavy Metal umlaut"? And concerning which band is more famous--the two bands are both famous anyway in their own rights. Besides, do we not all yearn for a fightless competition to make this world a better place to rock? Elf ideas

Quaternary

In the discography section an album is listed as Quarternary. This subsequent article was made by an IP address that has made a number of slyly false contributions which I have been tracking down. I checked Chronological Crüe website and saw that there was a special EP Quaternary (different spelling) but some details in the article were contradicted. If you look at the history you can see there was even more blatent vandalish stuff which someone cleaned up already. Could someone knowledgeable about Motley Crue take a look at Quarternary (album) and make sure there isn't false info there.--BirgitteSB 00:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

When I bought the cassette tape for Motley Crue's "Decade of Decadance" album in 1991, there was an insert to send away for the special EP "Quarternary." It is also credited in the liner notes for the 1999 release "Supersonic and Demonic Relics" which was a kind of a greatest hits album. (I don't remember seeing that listed in the discography either.) Anyway, the tracks "Planet Boom," "Bittersuite," and "Father" are credited as originally appearing on "Quarternary."

Alas, I never acquired a copy of Quarternary myself so I have no other information on it. 67.186.54.146 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


There was an EP called QUATERNARY (no "R"!) in 1994. The songs were: Planet Boom, Bittersuite, Father, Friends, Babykills (plus: 10,000 Miles Away, Hooligans Holiday Extended Version, Hammered Demo, Livin' In The No Demo on Japan-Only-Version). Released by Electra and Mötley Records. Crüehead KMS Germany --84.44.148.127 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Quaternary" EP was offered for sale via an insert found in the "Motley Crue" album -- the one recorded with John Corabi, NOT Decade of Decadence, as indicated above. For starters, to say it was in a 1991 release totally negates the styatement, as Crab wasn't even in Crue until after Vince Neil was fired 1992-1993. The Motley Crue album wasn't relased until 1994, when the Quaternary EP was offered as a bonus mail-order only release.76.214.217.251 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Quaternary was, as indicated above, a mail-order only release in 1994. If you bought the original pressing of Motley Crue (1994), it had a coupon inside for you to mail off. You could order either cassette or CD. There are also 2 versions of Quaternary. The USA release had 5 songs - Planet Boom (Tommy Lee), Bittersuite (Mick Mars), Father (Nikki Sixx), and Friends (John Corabi). The 5th track was a band effort called Babykills. The Japanese version of Quaternary has 9 tracks - Planet Boom, Bittersuite, Father, Friends, Babykills, 10,000 Miles Away, Hooligans Holiday (Extended Holiday Mix), Hammered (Demo), and Livin' in the No (Demo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.115.111 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


please explain to me how yall came up with the statement that motley is an influential band. success does not equal influence.

For a LONG time the magazine Guitar (previously called Guitar For The Practicing Musician) listed Motley's Shout at the Devil album as one of the most influential guitar albums of all time. See also http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/50.html#guitaral for top metal albums of the 80s and http://www.muzieklijstjes.nl/KerrangVanaf1982.htm for most influential albums of 1983. Motley's on both. wbm

>>>>>It's safe to say that any band with the success that Motley Crue has had, has influenced other bands. And if you want proof, I'm sure if you went to myspace.com, there'd be numerous bands who have listed Motley Crue as their influences.

facts

In the list of records labels there very first label "Leathur Records" is missing, it keeps disapearing every time I add it, to whoever does this...Do some research 

   -I corrected this, including the link to Leathür Records (where the origin of the band's label is     
    detailed). A Sniper

In 1999, Lee left to pursue a solo career (Due to increasing bad tension between himself and frontman Vince Neil (read Tommy Lee's autobiography Tommyland for more details); he was replaced by Randy Castillo, drummer on several Ozzy Osbourne albums.

Is this a marketing ploy or something? this is an encyclopaedia article. Why must readers be asked to read extrnal publications as part of the article. Maybe this can be given as supplementary information? (Re-phrased?)

Kash --getkashyap 04:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll re-read that section of The Dirt, and paraphrase details so as not to infringe.

Dudewhiterussian 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Trippe

As a huge Crüe fan from the 80s, I remember reading a story late in the decade about a guy named Matthew Trippe who claimed to be Nikki for a time. I actually forgot about it for at least a decade before tonight. I Googled him and came up with the following link: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~cruekiss/sixxpakk.htm. Anyone know if there's any truth whatsoever about Matthew replacing Frank for a period of time? I find it hard to believe he went through so much trouble if there was absolutely no connection between him and Crüe at all. I'm not saying he replaced Frank for a while ... but it's likely the truth is somewhere in the middle. Just curious.

He's just some stupid attention seeking idiot. He was never involved with Motley Crue.
The Matt Trippe thing is bullshit. The pictures from the shout at the devil era and the Theatre Of Pain era are the same. The shout at the devil album was released in 1982 I believe so this new Nikki Sixx couldn't have wrote some songs he claimed to write {such as "knock 'em dead kid} plus if you read the dirt there are stories behind that song and songs like dancing on glass {another one he claimed to write} from Nikki and there's a bunch of stuff from the period of time where nikki suppossedly was replaced by this guy. Something this big couldn't have been kept a secret especially to the diehards. The lyrics were defintely Nikki's cuzz they were his stories and his style. All concert footage , music videos and pictures from that era clearly have Nikki. No impersonator has every single feature the same or hair and Nikki had his own special method of doing his hair. -JJ

Motley Crue influential?

why is motley considered and influential band? that term should be reserved for ground breaking artists such as bob dylan or hendrix not a bunch of jerk offs who cant write a song from any perespective other than that of a penis.

Because they basically invented glam metal, which opened the door for other artists who ripped off their style and turned it into radio friendly pop. They were also one of the first commercially viable heavy metal groups. Oh, and Bob Dylan is an overrated hack.
They invented Glam metal? Ever heard of the New York Dolls?
New York Dolls influenced glam metal and such but their music certainly wasn't it.
Yeah. NYD didn't even played heavy metal music. One thing is being an influence and other being glam metal performers. Motley Crue started Glam Metal along with other bands of the time.
KISS invented galm metal they took glam rock infuence and fused it with metal making glam metal but KISS will always be a heavy metal band to me.Zakkman (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Motley Crue is heavy metal. Motley Crue has always been heavy metal and they regarded as one of the best metal bands of all-time.
MOTLEY CRUE IS NOT HEAVY METAL MOTLEY CRUE IS JUST GLAM METAL OR GLAM ROCK
Bob Dylan isn't metal and neither is Jim Hendrix.

Whether they are groundbreaking or not, whether they play heavy metal or glam rock or hair metal or whatever, they are certainly an influential group. There have been plenty of popular, well-known bands over the years who cite them as a major influence. Their sound and image was copied by thousands. That makes them influential. Thee darcy (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Home Sweet Home chart position

According to Billboard's website, Home Sweet Home peaked at #37 in 1992. This is the remixed version. The original version didn't chart.

Please allow tme to be specific with the chart history for Home Sweet Home. The song, Home Sweet Home, peaked at #38 on the Mainstream Rock tracks and failed to make the Hot 100 in 1985. It was not until 1992 did Home Sweet Home chart. It peaked at #37 on the Hot 100. This information is obtained directly from Billboard.com.

HOME SWEET HOME (THE ORIGINAL) NEVER MADE THE HOT 100.

Pictures

All of the pictures on this page are of Motley Crue now and as a band that's image is defined by the 80s, wouldn't it be logical to try and find a image of them in the 80s that could be put on wikipedia and maybe replace one or two of the images? what do you all think? (Revo 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

>>>No. The band no longer looks like they did in the 80s...just stick to the present. If they weren't currently together it would be fine to use pictures from back then, but since they're doing "stuff" now, I think current pictures should be used.

>>> YES!. i strongly disagree you have lots of other pages with pictures of people in there "hey day" and not just present photos so i disagree with teh noob above me and think we should have atleast one picutre of the crue in there prime from the 80`s

The picture up at the moment doesn't really give any indication of what the band looks like at all. If anyone has a better one, please upload it. Thee darcy (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you survive a fatal overdose?

"In 1987, Nikki had a fatal overdose of heroin and passed out."

Even if Nikki overdosed to the point where he was clinically or "legally dead" (presumably he wouldn't have actually been legally dead unless a death certificate had been issued but clearly that didn't happen), the very fact that he eventually recovered means that his overdose could not have been fatal.

I've therefore chyanged the wording to "near-fatal".

it should read "injected a fatal dose of heroin and passed out." just because you inject a fatal dose does not mean you will die, have you heard of adrenaline?

also, why even say that he survived a "near-fatal" overdose? thats kinda repetive

Legacy

Someone added something about Motley Crue being labeled "hair metal" and it being shown negatively on them during the 1980's. This contradicts the glam metal page, which points out the fact that the term "hair metal" was created in the 90's during the hey day of grunge. This doesn't make much sense, considering they were one of the original bands to form the glam metal sound. Also, it said something about being critically panned, despite the fact that both "Too Fast For Love" and "Shout at the Devil" were given praise when they were initially released. Only "Theatre of Pain" and "Girls Girls Girls" were panned, which was because they softened their sound as they gained fans. Also, on an off note, Faster Pussycat doesn't fit in with Warrant, Poison, and Whitesnake at all. I mean seriously, they were never as pop as those three.

Motley Crue is heavy metal. The band is generally regarded as one of the top 20 metal bands of all-time. Motley Crue is HEAVY METAL.

-I'm not the guy who posted earlier but Motley Crue aren't heavy metal. The Shout album borders on metal but compared to today it's not metal. Crue are a hair metal band by some but I just put them in the general hard rock category because their sound varies. Motly Crue are NOT generally regarded as one of the top 20 metal bands of all time, you're just being a fanboy. In fact a lot of people write the crue off as just a hair-metal band. While I disagree with that it doesn't make it less true that a lot of people think the crue is a joke.

---To refute your remarks about MC not being regarded as one of the top 20 metal bands of all time, VH1 classic lists them as #11 on their list of the top 20 metal bands of all time.

I completely disagree with your remarks. I have a recent Hit Parader magazine which named the top 100 metal bands of all-time and at #15, was Motley Crue. If you have listened to any of the music like DR. FEELGOOD, KICKSTART MY HEART, SHOUT AT THE DEVIL and Looks that Kill, you would understand that Motley Crue is indeed heavy metal. Motley Crue is heavy metal and for the record, the song, Home Sweet Home is the #1 power ballad of all-time. Motley Crue is heavy metal and most stores have their albums in the Metal section- not the rock section. Generally speaking, Motley Crue is considered heavy metal and one of the best metal bands of all-time.

---"One time we saw some hookers, but when we got closer, we realised it was Motley Crue.": James Hetfield about Mötley Crüe. Yeah, that's heavy metal...

Yeah cuzz James Hetfield is metal. Two words: St. Anger. I would call Motley Crue either hard rock or heavy metal depending on who you talk to and what you're listening to. Their albums were considered heavy metal when released but aren't considered so now. The self titled album had some metal elements and so did generation swine so it's hard to define.

Well, Mr. Hetfield said that in the eighties. There was no 'St. Anger' but 'Master of Puppets'. And that is supposed to be metal. Anyway, the statement should not be taken too serious.

Umm, even St. Anger was a metal album. You're not seriously trying to say it was hard rock, are you? It may have sucked really bad compared to older Metallica releases, but I don't think it being metal can be disputed much. James25402 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This information is credited to Hit Parader Magazine dated: April/May 2006:

20. Iron Maiden 19. Rush 18. Alice in Chains 17. Soundgarden 16. Def Leppard 15. Motley Crue 14. Ozzy Osbourne 13. Cream 12. Aerosmith 11. Nirvana 10. Deep Purple 9. Judas Priest 8. Metallica 7. Van Halen 6. Jimi Hendrix 5. Kiss 4. Guns N' Roses 3. Black Sabbath 2. AC/DC 1. Led Zepplin

This is a list of the top 20 metal acts of all-time.

MuchMoreMusic had a Listed special and Motley Crue was listed as one of the top 20 heavy metal bands of all-time. The facts are clear: MOTLEY CRUE IS ONE OF THE BEST METAL BANDS OF ALL-TIME.

Black Sabbath is the best metal band of all-time and I completely and strongly disagree about Led Zepplin. MOTLEY CRUE IS HEAVY METAL. THE LEGACY OF MOTLEY CRUE IS THAT THEY ARE ONE OF THE BEST METAL BANDS OF ALL-TIME. Shout at the Devil, DR. FEELGOOD, Kickstart my heart and Live Wire proves it. MOTLEY CRUE IS NOT HEAVY METAL,I DONT CARE HOW MUCH YOU WATCH MTV AND BELIEVE THEIR GARBAGE AND THAT "HIT PARADER MAGAZINE"THAT CALL NIRVANA METAL?

As for ST. ANGER, IT IS THE WORST METALLICA ALBUM.

JCH, MAY 2007

NOT members of Motley Crue

O'Dean, Robin and Greg Leon DID NOT play in Motley Crue, period. make sure to remove it on site if it is re-added.

Guitar player Leon played with Tommy Lee in a pre-Motley Crue band named Suite 19, that is all.. through vanity reasons he is just trying to boost it up by pretending he was a part of a major selling band.

Vince Neil, Mick Mars, Tommy Lee & Nikki Sixx was the original line-up playing under the Motley Crue name (They were originally called Christmas with this line-up too). Mick Mars was the one who brought the name "Motley Crue" into the group (see his article); so if people like Leon are added as "former members of Motley Crue" then it is simply false as they have never stepped out on stage under the name "Motley Crue", ever. - Deathrocker 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Metallicker isn't a sockpucket of mine, doofis, though we're friends. Greg Leon has no connection with us whatsoever (although we're fans). However, every credible bio on MC includes Leon as an instrumental member responsible for getting Nikki and Tommy together. He rehearsed with them, doing both vocals and guitar before having a falling out with Sixx. His bio refers to a connection with the band, not that he was in it. And as far as not being in MC under that name, many bands go through various incarnations of names and members. Your banter has been condescending and not based on historical fact. My complaint about you will include all of these negative snipes, similar to others complaints about you. A Sniper

Learn how to spell the word "doofus" if you are going to attempt to insult somebody. As I stated on the other article, we will see in regards to your sock case... there is very strong evidence. This is an article about Motley Crue; whether Leon rehearsed with Tommy Lee before is irrelevent. He never once played in Motley Crue... or Christmas (the band before the name change); thus he doesn't belong here. He is simply not a former member of this band (look at the article title), but a member of Tommy's highschool band Suite 19. - Deathrocker 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to jump out on a limb here and say that this passage: "Sixx also added that he wishes Lee no ill will and has no problems with him and will be bringing in Francis Stinchcombe a good friend of Sixx's as a replacement drummer, stinchcombe will help the band add the final touches to the 2008 album and drum on the next tour. However it is uncertain wether stinchcombe has a future in the band because lee may make a return if so this will be after the next world tour." ... should probably be removed entirely. Looking up the name "Francis Stinchcombe" on Google brings you to this: <a href="http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=15070986">http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=15070986</a>, and this guy has the nickname "Sixx-Drugs-rocknroll". And he's 14. But I'm sure he's a lovely man. Er, teen. -- TullyDawg 22:33, 30 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TullyDawg1 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Girls, Girls, Girls.jpg

Image:Girls, Girls, Girls.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 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 04:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mötley Crüe.jpg

Image:Mötley Crüe.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 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 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Too Fast.jpg

Image:Too Fast.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 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The boys..jpg

Image:The boys..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 01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Band picture

Marketing aspects

Several sections of the article deal with stunts and image creation. I think these should be united in one section. From a popular culture standpoint, Motley Crue represents an increasingly corporate attempt to manufacture 'bad boys,' and sell them. This section would be created with almost no bearing on the way that the current article reads. I think the constructed, stagecrafted rudeness of Crue is an important part of the band's history. --Dylanfly 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you are not that familiar with the band in question. You make a valid point, but the fact remains that the band themselves created their own publicity, image and ideas (as opposed to the label) at a time BEFORE hair metal happened in America. They started the entire trend at least two years before the onslaught of LA band signings flooded the market with clones. My objection to your edit is that it sticks a new heading in an inappropriate place. I would suggest you have a section below where you can cite some examples, if bona fide. Taking the elements away from the band chronology does a disservice to those reading it, as these events are quite well-known and widely reported in the rock press at the time. A Sniper 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The pieces put into the marketing section were a pretty small violation of chronology. Right now, the article is a bit verbose. It belabors each little event. There's a kind of biblical effect here, as if each event was sacred. That's fine for fan pages, but serves little purpose on WP. The 'marketing strategies' section begins the process of treating the band as an encyclopedic object: a thing to be described, not an idol to be worshiped. I don't see how the fact that the band was marketed takes away from their originality, their importance, or the fact that the helped to shape the recording industry. Both are true: they were marketed and staged, and they were influential. --Dylanfly 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about existing research and not about personal opinion, new research or a random hypothesis. If you have found information that is not referenced, note that a citation is needed. If you have dug up information that happens to prove your marketing theory, add them in to the article, even under a new heading. What aren't needed are personal ideas or theories without any reference. A Sniper 10:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting up to Wikipedia standards

Right now, this article seems too much like a fan page... like the 1000 fan websites out there. It's pretty light, filled with anecdotes, and generally presents the band in a way that the record label would be very happy with. I think the trivia section needs to be cut for sure, and we need to remember that this page is not to celebrate the band or its members but to provide an objective encyclopedic entry. --Dylanfly 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that elements of the page are more press release than encyclodic, but some of us have worked tirelessly on the history (now changed by you to 'Origins', which is a good edit in my opinion) section and a change in chronology (and insertion of a new heading - see my previous entry above) isn't helpful. Try changes on this Talk page because you'll certainly get feedback before the edits... A Sniper 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see how the section now titled "Miscellanea" is appropriate. It pretty much defines WP:TRIVIA: it's the textbook case of trivia. The whole page is clearly dominated by adoring fans who think that every word Vince or Nikki says is akin to a prophet. There's no sense of objective distance from the band. The trivia section has simply got to go. I respectfully await those who believe that it does not count as WP:TRIVIA. --Dylanfly 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA is not intended as a means of purging relevant information from an article. It is a cue for editors to take the time to incorporate the random information into the general article and not to merely leave them as bullet points. Many editors took the time & effort thus far in contributing those snippets of info. If you want to do something constructive, try working these items in chronologically or in new headings, the way you attempted with your 'marketing' angle...don't just DELETE A Sniper 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear A Sniper, I'm just trying to help Wikify this piece. Motley Crue is a significant band and deserve a decent WP page. But a trivia section? You say, let's integrate the stuff, but can you see ONE thing in the trivia that's worth keeping? Seriously. Pinball game? Some cricketer's favorite song? It's all well and find for a fan's web page, but for an encyclopedia? All I'm saying is this: if you think there's ANYTHING that needs integrating into the body of the article, please do so ASAP. Then we can delete the rest. Ok? --Dylanfly 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I did not say that I was going to do the edit. YOU are the one has deleted an entire section without making any attempt whatsoever to include relevant info. For someone who mentioned the 'popular culture' aspect of MC, you also seek a wholesale elimination of bits of info that support the very idea that MC have permeated that culture. It is merely your opinion that every line of that section is fit only for a fan page. I would suggest you ask for a mediator on this one - there is nothing whatsoever that puts the onus on me to do the edit myself 'ASAP' on threat of deletion. A Sniper 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Brother, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Let me just ask you directly: do you, personally, see a single thing in the trivia section that merits keeping? Myself, I don't see one thing--but I'm just one editor. I think Crue's influence in popular culture is already firmly established in the article (best selling albums, tabloid news, attention of MTV, VH1, etc). I'm not trying in any way to harsh on the other editors' work or on the band. I'm just saying that the trivia section is bogus. --Dylanfly 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Flag

Where is the Trivia section that keeps getting flagged? Where are the attempts to incorporate general information contained in the Popular Culture section into other parts of the article? I question Dylanfly's POV...A Sniper 11:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Brother, it feels like you're so angry with me. Can you please just integrate whatever it is you think is worth keeping? Or do you really think we need all of that section? Should we keep the tidbits about pinball games, what some album might have been titled, and whatnot? I mean, seriously. If you think it should stay, how about helping to integrate it? The "pop culture" section is exactly what is described as a no-no in WP:TRIVIA. I'm not trying to fight; I'm trying to improve this article. Dylanfly 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)--17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any anger whatsoever towards you personally, Dylanfly - I don't know you - I merely object to mass editing while hiding behind a WP edict, by you or whomever. I agree with some of your points, including placing the flag where you have it now - but I don't believe that you or I should purge obviously relevant information that folks have dug up and placed there. OK - info on pinball games, etc. is a bit OTT, but some people would find that 'encyclopedic', as long as it is accurate and not new research. A Sniper 14:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok--glad we're cool. I agree that people on WP often use WP policy to rule over the edits. That's really not my style. I truly feel that the pop culture section has very little of merit, whether or not people have worked hard on it. I mean, we could have a Motley Crue article 100 pages long, with every twist and turn of the band's career, and with every name that each album might have instead been called. So, my call to other editors is: Let's find what's worth keeping in the pop culture section, integrate it, and ditch the rest. Just because Crue is a glam/pop band doesn't mean that their WP page has to be lite and trite. Let's give Crue the page they deserve. --Dylanfly 23:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture Reference

Don't the Chilli Peppers dress up like Crue in a scene from the song Dani California? It mentions Bowling for Soup did it in pop culture references... just wondering if the Chilli Peppers can go in there ? WeLsHy 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

From the 2000s section

"A 2001 autobiography entitled The Dirt carefully packaged the band as "the world's most notorious." The book made the top ten on the New York Times best-seller list, and spent ten weeks there. From a marketing point of view, Motley Crüe is positioned as outrageous, rebellious, and irresponsible; an image carefully constructed by the recording industry."

This whole paragraph needs rewriting. Their 'outrageous' image certainly wasn't constructed by the recording industry. In this case, their notoriety was, and is, well deserved. Incidentally, I was somewhat surprised that The Dirt doesn't have its own article. SteveRamone 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And now The Dirt does have its own article. SteveRamone 21:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

We can't say Tommy Lee's left the band when there's official information stating he has (the legal injunctions) AND Nikki Sixx, the closest thing the band has to a leader, has said he's out? It's pretty obvious Tommy left. All that's open to debate is if he'll be allowed to join again or not now he's changed his mind. People keep changing this so I thought I'd put it in the talk page. (The Elfoid 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Actually Tommy Lee is a founding member the same as Nikki. Nikki is not the leader.They both has ownership rights in the name "Motley Crue" for use as a band name. On Tommy's Official site he released a statement saying he has NOT quit the band. Also if he had left the band. It would be reported on Motley's official site, which it is not there either. As he is a founding member and has never officialy left the band. The times Motley toured and recorded without Tommy it was with his consent. They band Motley Crue cannot move forward without Tommy unless he officialy lets them, as he has a stake in the bands Name. So as of now Tommy is in Motley Crue because he says he is. If the band tries to move forward without Tommy it will have to be with a different name.Aladdin Zane 17:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the band actually rests entirely in the hands of Mick Mars and Nikki Sixx, you'll find. The band were signed collectively, and when members left rights were in the hands of anyone left. So when Vince Neil left in 91, he lost his rights. When Tommy Lee left in 98, the same. You'll find on stuff like Red, White & Crue, New Tatoo, more recent DVDs, The Dirt and various other things that Sixx/Mars own Motley. It's a common deal with bands - everytime someone left Black Sabbath, the band bought their ownership rights so in the 80s Tony Iommi could legally use the name by himself without consent required.

The band was lead by Nikki not on an official basis, but anyone who knows anything about Crue knows really, he was in charge. That's why he got the songwriting credits - he decided on what songs happened and what songs didn't.

Do you honestly think when Vince Neil left in 1991, and the entire band hated his guts, he'd consent to them using the name with his permission?

(The Elfoid 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Tommy Lee did not officialy leave the band in 1998. He did other things and allowed Motley Crue to move on with his permission. He never gave up any of his rights to the name. The Vince situation was totally different as his name was NOT on the registration of the trademark. Also it is NOT a common thing with bands that when a founding member with rights to the name leaves(note: i did not say quit). The band can just carry on with out them. Which is why so many bands get sued by other members, for trying to use a name or part of a name. Tommy Lee has NEVER given up his rights to the band, or name. He did his own thing, The same as Nikki did. Its just Tommy's side projects got more attention. And while his projects were going on if Motley wanted to go on tour or record under the name Motley Crue permission had to be granted by Tommy along with royalties. Can they kick him out of a band Nikki, Vince, and Mick want to play in "yes" can he stop them from moving forward using the name Motley Crue "yes", unless they try and sue him to remove his name from the trademark rights. Also over the years different companies have been formed in relation to the group here are a few / Motley Crue, Inc. / Motley Crue Music / Motley Crue Music Company / Motley Crue Publishing and he can't be removed from all of these at one time UNLESS he (quits) them. So the next the next thing you have to go to is to Tommy himself. And he says he has not quit. A situation like this is handled almost like a divorce. If one person wants it, and the other refuses to sign. The first person can move on, but just can't get married. And the only way the situation can be resolved is through court. which is the reason on Tommy's official site he released the statement that he has NOT quit the band. Which in turn is the reason the CANNOT put it on Motley's official website, and the reason Tommy is still in the background pic on the main page, as well as all over the rest of the website. And any true fan knows the reason Nikki has gotten most all of the song writing credit over the years is because he writes the majority of the songs himself. Also I am an original true fan, first seeing them in concert in 1984. I still have all the bands ALBUMS including the RARE picture album. I still have a black satin Allister Fiend jacket bought on the Shout at the Devil tour. Have seen them in concert in 26 times in 3 different countries. So yea, I know my Motley Crue.Aladdin Zane 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mötley Crüe is Glam

I don't know why people keep changing Mötley Crüe's genre to heavy metal. MT is heavy metal, as Blind Guardian is heavy metal too, but that's a superficial, and sometimes confusing, description for them. To give a better idea of how Mötley Crüe sounds is much better to say they are a glam metal band. They along with other bands of their time started what now we call glam metal. Just look for "glam metal" at Google image search and tell me which is the favorite band (Mötley Crüe of course). I used to change the genre to heavy/glam so that I'll not have future genres war to deal with, but there's somebody that keeps doing it.

Mötley Crüe neither is a heavy/glam band. By saying they just play glam metal, you don't have to make clear that they play metal too (heavy metal). It is self-explanatory (glam metal is a subgenre of heavy metal). If you say that they just play heavy metal, you'll have the possibility to compare them with bands like IRON MAIDEN, that's wikistupid. To give a good example of a heavy/glam metal band, I'll call W.A.S.P. But Mötley Crüe is just glam Metal and, as some one said previously, it's probably the best example of a glam metal band.

(I've disable my cookies for Wikipedia so don't send me "I'm important. I tried to block you, but now I realize that I couldn't" messages using "my IP", I won't receive them and I'll not get noticed about it in the future). (Somebody blocked me for 3 hours. They haven't passed and I'm still writing. I'm cool :D). 155.136.224.10 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And you have been reported as a sockpuppet. The consensus here says that they are Heavy Metal, not Glam, this is why you keep getting coverted. You are welcome to discuss this here in TALK after your new (likely) block is over, and if there is a concensus, then it can be changed. Pharmboy (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not a sockpuppet and I don't know who reported me as that and I don't care. What I know is that this person should check for what's a sockpuppet before using the term.

Second, there are mixed opinions of what is Mötley Crüe here. People call them Heavy Metal cause is much easy for them an other people to tag them as that. ~~

I'm giving my opinion of why it should be named glam metal and I'm the second one that give an opinion specifically about it.

They key is to discuss BEFORE changes are made when the concensus disagrees with you. Only when the concensus agrees to the change, do you make a change. I don't care one way or another, but the concensus appears to disagree with you. And you can read about sockpuppets by following this link. Reverting back articles 3 times in a day for reasons other than vandalism/reporting is considered abuse. Also, be so kind as to sign your posts with ~~~~ Pharmboy (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK got it. I'm not changing Mötley Crüe's fucking genre any more. But who is the concensus and all of that shit. Who the hell has to say "yeah it is Glam"?.

I do know what is a sockpuppet and I'm pretty sure that I'm not one by using proxies. It has no sense to call in some articles motley crue as a heavy metal band and others as a glam metal band. The articles naming them as a glam metal band are greater. Somebody said that it's heavy because in cd stores they locate them in the heavy metal section... :S 155.136.224.10 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you would do good to read up on some policies at Wikipedia before editing. You don't just get to go here and change anything you want, how you want, and tell others to "lump it". If you need help defining WP:Consensus, please follow that link. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you will do better by pursueing others to you opinion rather than trying to beat them over the head with it. Pharmboy (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've written my reason of why Motley Crue should be called a glam metal band. And this is the second threat talking about it. The opinions about Motley's genre are just a few. Just search for heavy metal term in this page and you'll see. Of course Motley crue makes part of the heavy metal scene as they also are a rock band or much better a rock n roll band to finally call them a music band. What I say is that Calling them a heavy metal band is not very specific. Only few people have commented about the fact and some wrote that it's a glam metal band too. 155.136.224.10 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

please sign your posts using four ~ marks, like this: ~~~~ This will autosign and date your posts, so we know who is talking, without the bot having to do it for you. Consider signing up for a user name as well. Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, you could actually poll the question and let it run for 3 or 4 weeks. That would tell you what the concensus is. Pharmboy (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I poll the question? 155.136.224.10 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:Poll is the policy that covers that. Your text/question should be objective, clear, simple and honest. Let it run at least a couple of weeks, then close the poll. It isn't a 12/8 vote process. It is about which SIDE presents the best arguments, quotes actually USAGE of the terms in media, etc. Polling is tricky in that you need to truly be objective about it, but I have faith you can muster it. Doing the poll is easy enough if you read up on that page. Pharmboy (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're heavy metal. They were a big part of the glam scene in the mid-1980s, in the Theatre of Pain era, but the band's entire body of work is more heavy metal than it is glam. Mötley Crüe was a long way from being Poison, for example. There's not much glam about Shout At The Devil, and nothing at all in either the 1994 self-titled album or Generation Swine. (Although a lot of casual MC fans may not even know those albums exist!) Calling them metal/glam is certainly OK. Jsc1973 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Mötley Crüe be called a heavy metal band?

Heavy Metal~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Which genre fits better for a band like Mötley Crüe: glam or heavy metal?

note: it is helpful to start each entry with '''short answer''' then explain in detail. Pharmboy (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally I think they are heavy metal but obviously everyone has their own thoughts on the matter. If the consensus is that they are glam metal, then fine but I would just like to stop the constant changes on the topic. Jonesy (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Heavy Metal I can see both sides, but I lean toward Heavy Metal. I was a night club DJ in the mid 80s/early 90s (I'm old...) and we always considered bands like Cinderella and Poison to be 'hair bands' (glam) but not Crüe. I'm not saying they didn't glam it up some, and not exactly AC/DC in metalic quality, but I always thought they crossed the threshold into what was true metal rather than pretty boy 'glam' status. Pharmboy (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For Wikipedia the lead-in is to be a general overview and avoid specifics and soap operas that can be detailed in the article content including references. Glam metal is not a true genre it is a term. But it has been identified incorrectly on Wiki as a sub-genre of heavy metal. Following Wikipedia's own manual of style and avoiding unreq'd fine details the lead should be free of sub-genres and superfluity. The term glam metal is overused as a descriptor throughout the article. There should be some effort to make the lead-in encyclopedic since the rest of the article is written poorly. The parent "metal" genre is heavy metal and neutrally covers all bands no matter what their sub-genre is. Try to edit like its an encyclopedia and not some schoolboy class report or a dumbass amateur fansite. Leave the fanboy crufty glam metal description for an appropriate sub-section that details the band's influence and musical style. 156.34.210.254 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think they are part of the heavy metal genre; but to be more accurate, it's better to call them a glam metal band. Specially because there are only a few real well-known glam metal bands and 'cause Mötley Crüe could have started this genre too, as is stated in the glam metal page. There are bands that just fit in the heavy metal roll, normally because they were part of those who started this: Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest among others. Or they follow the styles of these bands that were just an influence to others like Mötley Crüe. By mixing these heavy metal sounds with other hard rocking influences like KISS, Aerosmith and Alice Cooper, glam metal was created. Treating them as a heavy metal or hard rock band is half of the truth; glam metal, instead, is the perfect non-too-specific blend to classify them. I think that if we call them a "glam metal band" that will improve the explanation of how it sounds, their roots and lifestyles in two words. It's not clear when you -156.34.210.254- state that "glam metal is not a true genre". When you talk about "true" in heavy metal you might be alluding the term coined by Manowar, stating that genres as nu metal and glam metal aren't real heavy metal. If that's the case, I can't assume what was said by a group of 4 and some followers. If it is not the case, I can't understand what you've said. We could be as general as we want. We could call Mötley Crüe just a Rock 'n' Roll band, but that's a really poor explanation. Some bands avoid complexity defining their genre as AC/DC, and make themselves being called a Rock 'n' Roll band; sometimes this is for commercial proposes. If we treat them -since the beginning- as a glam metal band, we're not just saying that they are a heavy metal band too, we're giving the reader extra (but not worthless) information of how this group could sound. And I think it's important specially if they were the beginners of the genre. As heavy metal covers this genre, Rock music also covers it, and Rock 'n' Roll does too, and if we continue... It seems that being a little bit more specific is better. Heavy metal doesn't covers completely the glam metal genre (@156.34.210.254: Glam metal is a genre. An encyclopedia is like a puzzle and each piece (article) should match others, so everything would make sense. If you said that glam metal is wrongly taken as a heavy metal sub-genre, that's your opinion and you can give it in the glam metal talk page. We're building this article upon what was said and stated in Wikipedia). Glam metal also have some glam rock and hard rock influences. Using just heavy metal will avoid this pieces. 200.116.128.56 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Before you can invoke WP:Ignore all rules policy, you need to show why the existing rules are too broad or narrow or why it is improper to go by standard policy in this particular instance. Just a thought. Also, your reply is a bit confusing, as you seem to be saying glam at the beginning, and metal at the end. This is why it is good to start with a single [name] followed by explanation. Pharmboy (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment OK dude, you'll have to understand I'm not that Wikipedia gurú. I said that if we treat them as a glam metal band since the beginning of the article, we are making clear that they play both heavy and glam metal. This is because glam metal is a sub-genre of heavy metal that combines other hard rock influences. If we just say that they play heavy metal, nobody will guess that they play glam metal too and It could be confusing because readers might think -or, at least, their first impression would be- that this band is like Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne and/or other similar bands. Everyone doesn't read and article form the first word till the end, sometimes one only want to get a brief description of the concerning subject. In this case, someone could just read the first sentence to get an idea of what the hell Mötley Crüe is and he/she will get something like "Mötley Crüe is a heavy metal band"... that doesn't say too much. If we say that they're a glam metal band we're giving a much better explanation giving the reader ideas of how they look, lyrics themes, when the band could have started, music slyle, etc.200.116.128.56 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem on not being a guru, I'm only trying to keep things clear and on track. Your edit was a little confusing, didn't want your opinion to be read incorrect. My goal was to take what was an edit war, and turn it into this conversation so everyone can be heard. So far, so good. The system works, whodathunk. Pharmboy (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Solving this debate is easy. Find sources. If you have sources calling them Heavy Metal, cite the source, and call them heavy metal. If you have sources calling them Glam, cite the source and call them glam. If you have sources calling them both, cite the sources and call them both. What you or I or anyone else posting above thinks about which genre they belong in is moot. We are not published music critics. Someone who IS has written about the band, and should be cited in solving this conundrum. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This it isn't a debate, its a discussion (see (WP:POLL). You can likely find references that use both terms, that is the problem, and why gaining WP:consensus is exactly the right thing to do. The purpose is to air out all sides under equal terms, and avoid edit wars and arguments. Pharmboy (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why this (insert your own word here) cannot be resolved by citing said sources. No reason to have the page express the opinions of its editors; it can express the editors of those outside sources, for example "Motley Crue is a musical group known for playing heavy metal[1] and glam metal[2] music." If you can find sources, cite them. Let other references decide the resolution of this (insert your own word here) and don't try to make it about the opinions of editors, which of course, is original research. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please actually READ my first reply. I am pretty sure you can find references for both terms. The purpose of the poll isn't about the content of the article, it is about the CATEGORY. The purpose of the poll is absolutely not about debating the poll. Pharmboy (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First off, I just want to note that it does not help the RfC process for the editors involved in the dispute to argue with the respondents. Just let people make their points. Haranguing everyone who gives an answer you don't like just makes the RfC harder to follow. You can continue your discussion elsewhere Secondly, an RfC is not a poll. Finally, I don't see what wrong with using both terms, as long as they are sourced. Dlabtot (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In a concensus framework, we have to take into consideration how the term glam helps locate the band in a temporal and cultural atmosphere, beyond the much broader heavy metal label, both labels do not exclude each other, so glam would be a much more useful tag for this particular band, as they took part of glam in time, aesthetics, community and sound. it describes the band a lot better, which should be the objective of its classification; also, in musical terms, the chord structures and lyric construction are coherent with glam customs Yupi666 (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree. Glam goes beyond heavy metal and gives a broader explanation of band's style. 200.116.167.148 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Like Pharmboy, I can see Mötley Crüe being both a heavy metal band and a glam band, but glam defines the group's sound and aesthetics a lot more than heavy metal does. I don't see any problem with Mötley Crüe being both, though. --Blahstickman (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heading Shortening

I deleted parts of the headings to remove the pov.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

American Zero

I have a copy of the track "American Zero" and I don't remember where I got it from. In doing an internet search to find out which album it came from, I found information that it was going to be on "New Tattoo" but didn't make the cut. So I'm at a loss to figure out where it came from. I was hoping to find some info here on it and it looks like it hasn't been touched on. I'm wondering if anyone out there knows how the song was released, since I somehow have a copy. 67.186.54.146 (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was realeased on the Japanese edition of new tattoo, quite a good song as well, wish it had been properly put on the album....Drmotley (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Crue really need a wp:template for their albums, tours, members and related articles. Examples: template:Nine Inch Nails, template:Gary Numan. Someone make one, please. StevePrutz (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I think they are called navboxes {{navbox}} StevePrutz (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Imagebox Picture

This new picture is really awful. You can barely see anything in it. It should be changed. Thief12 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but am otherwise useless in this regard. Carry on. Thee darcy (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

DVDs missing

Their "Video Hits" and "Carnival of Sins" DVDs are missing from the discography entry. Martinbr66 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The picture

What the hell is the use of that picture? It's like some green smoke, you could at least have a picture where you can see the band members, particularly their most reknown look on the shout at the devil album art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.195.215 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mötley_Crüe/Archive_1&oldid=480949674"