Jump to content

Talk:Mötley Crüe/Archive 2

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

Years Active

Why does the article conclude years active with all dead when, as far as I know, all the former members are still alive...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.81.190 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Is Tommy Lee still a member of the band? They seem to be involved on lawsuits and trials: http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0912_motley_crue_wm_01.pdf. Aren't they? 83.33.29.132 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (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)

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)

History

Vince's former band was spelled ROCKANDI. Not "Rock Candy". There is even a reference to this at the bottom of the page, #4 Chronological Crue.

If accuracy is important here, please do not change this anymore!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.5.168 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are a hair metal band.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, image does play a factor in genre. Removing hair metal from the Crue's, Twisted Sister's, or any other hair metal bands genre is like removing glam rock from T. Rex. Rockgenre (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as hair metal on Wikipedia. It is a re-direct link to glam metal. And glam metal is a term describing a band's look not a band's music. Glam metal bands are just hard rock bands or heavy metal bands with spandex and teased hair. Spandex and teased hair has nothing to do with sound. 142.167.163.133 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Glam metal is IMO not the right term to describe these bands. The "glam" is the title was used because a majority of people confuse glam rock with the '80s hair bands. And image is a part of music. A goth rock band is a goth band for a reason, a glam rock band is a glam rock band for a reason, and a hair metal band is a hair metal band for a reason. It does have to be mentioned in the article that they at least had the image. Rockgenre (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As posted earlier by the anon, hair metal is a re-direct on Wikipedia. There is no article. Previous discussion and consensus among regular editors was that hair metal and pop metal should both re-direct to glam metal. Which is an article about fashion trends. Details about the style of music that glam metal bands play can be found in the main heavy metal article. Hope that helps your confusion. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I know that Hair metal and glam metal are the same thing(pop-metal I disagree with though), but because of the word "glam" in the title of glam metal it has caused a lot of confusion to mainstream America. I was watching the local news one day and they said that White Lion were playing in local club and they said it was for, "fans of '80s glam rock" which we all know glam ROCK is T. Rex, David Bowie, Slade, Sweet, etc. I still feel that hair metal(or glam metal depending on whatever you like to call it) should be mentioned on Motley Crue's page because image plays a factor. Thats why thier are goth rock bands, glam rock bands, hair metal bands, etc.Rockgenre (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How about a compromise. I won't put hair metal in as a genre, but in the opening paragraph I can write something like, "The band's image has made them associated with glam metal". Fair enough?Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 02:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Motley Crue IS, not ARE

The article had multiple instances of MC used as a plural subject. Since MC is an American band, the proper convention (posted in detail on other WP music talk pages) is to refer to MC as singular (thus, "Motley Crue IS an American band"!) There were other instances of MC being used correctly as a singular subject. I changed everything I could find (it's possible I missed some) to singular; the article is now internally consistent and is consistent with WP conventions. For those who have not seen the other talk pages, the proper name of a band may be treated either as a singular or plural subject, based on the convention of the country/language of origin of the band. For example, Judas Priest, being English, would correctly be plural ("Judas Priest ARE an English band").

Also, a common sentence structure problem crops up in many music articles because it is difficult to decide what subject to use when you don't want to say "the band", "the members of the band", or "Motley Crue" (the proper name of the band) twice in a sentence or repetitively in a paragraph. The problem is that if you start off with "the band", you can't later refer to "they, them, their" because "the band" is singular (and the appropriate subject would be "it" or "its", which is sometimes awkward). Since "Motley Crue" is also singular, "it" or "its" would also be appropriate (rather than "they, them, their") later in a sentence or paragraph. If you start with "members of the band", then "they, them, their" would be fine. Sometimes the awkward use of "its" (like "The band performed ITS classic song "Dr. Feelgood"", which sounds weird even though it's grammatically correct) can be avoided altogether (just say "THE classic song ..."), or else you might be starting with the wrong subject. For example (not a direct quote from the article), "THE BAND's success was threatened by THEIR decadent lifestyles" doesn't work because "THEIR" should be "THE MEMBERS'" ("THE BAND's success was threatened by THE MEMBERS' decadent lifestyles"). Or, "THE BAND wanted to perform THEIR favorite songs" should be "THE BAND MEMBERS wanted to perform THEIR favorite songs".

Sorry for the grammar lecture but I hope this helps future writers and editors. Tigger-ibby (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They Are Also Glam Punk And Alt. Metal

Their debut Album, Too Fast For Love is considered Glam Punk, Glam Metal and Heavy metal. The Glam Punk page also claims that they are Glam Punk. And if you read The Dirt, the bands autobiography, Nikki Sixx (If I remember correctly) also considers them Glam Punk. I think that that is good enough to get glam punk added onto their list of genres without it being deleted. Also, anytime I add alternative metal, it is too deleted. In the 90's when Grunge became popular, Mötley Crüe experimented a more alternative style in their album Generation Swine. Again, I think this is good enough to have alternative metal to their list of genres... along with Glam Metal, Heavy Metal, Hard Rock and my addition of Glam Punk. I aslso would lie to add Shock Rock onto their Genres, because like many of their influences, They use live shock value in their shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.46.101 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Until you have consensus here, please quit changing the infobox. If you keep changing it before you have a discussion and consensus here, the only thing your going to accomplish is getting yourself blocked from editing. Mlpearc powwow 18:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My personal opinion is that the infobox should only contain a band's most recognizable genre, in this case heavy metal. If reliable sources exist to support other genres, then a separate section within the text, 'musical styles', can be added. J04n(talk page) 21:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Any add-on's or changes have to be backed by Verifiable sources and be applied to a good portion of the bands anthology and not just a song or two. Mlpearc powwow 21:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Motley Crue formed in 1981, not 1980, and stop adding speculations that they will break up by 2014

Someone keeps editing the page to give the impression that the band formed in 1980, a year prior to their actual formation. No explanation is being given as to why this edit keeps appearing, no source, no edit comments, nothing. There is a source in the article that clearly states activity began in 1981.

And there is no news yet as to when the Motley Crue farewell tour will happen, yet I've also seen speculations that they will break up by 2014, and will have an album out by 2013. Where is this coming from? Again, no source is being given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrIpodz (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Note by a Motley Crue Fan. I can prove that Motley Crue formed in 1980 i watched the Motley crue uncensored movie and when the band watched thier first ever video of Take me to the top the bass guitartist Nikki Sixx said what year was that 1981 or 1980.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.44.47 (talk • contribs)

Hi Motley Crue fan. You will have to provide a reliable source for your edit, not just your recollection of what someone said in a movie. Please provide a source to a newspaper, magazine, book, or website. I am reverting again. -- Dianna (talk) 22:38, 4 Ap

Note by Motley Crue fan. An interview with vince neil in 2013 he said that the Motey crue farewell tour will happen in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.233.65 (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What interview, and where do I find it? I can't find any proof of Neil even talking about Motley Crue breaking up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrIpodz (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note by Motley crue fan. You guys still keep on editing the page saying that Motley Crue Formed in 1981 i keep on telling you guys that Motley crue formed in 1980. If you really want proof go on Answers.com and type in in what year did Motley crue start and you'll see the answer will be 1980. Even i also see you put Vince Neil Lead vocals 1996-present in the band members section insted of 1997 in the years of turmoil 1992-2003 section it says the Band reunited with vince neil in 1997 not 1996 so why do you put 1996-present not 1997 write back anytime.

Hi, I see you've changed it back again. Do you have any reliable sources you can give that support the 1980 date? I've already added two that support January 1981. – 296.x (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note By MOtley Crue fan.

I saw your note that says you added two sources that support January 1981 what does sources even mean. Even i still want to know why in the band members section it says Vince Neil 1996-present in the years of turmoil 1992-2003 It says the band reunited wint vince neil in 1997 not ,96 why does it say vince neil 1996-present not 1997. write back anytime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.233.65 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. A "source" means something like a trustworthy news article or a book that helps support information you put in a Wikipedia article. So, for example, here I found two books that say that Motley Crue formed in January 1981. I then cited the books as references next to the sentence that says that. If you look at the sentence that says "Mötley Crüe was formed on January 17, 1981", there should be two numbers after it. Clicking on each number will take you to the bottom of the page, where you can see the information about the books I cited, such as "Bang Your Head: The Rise and Fall of Heavy Metal".
I'm not sure why it said "Vince Neil: 1996–present". I've changed it to 1997–present as it does seem that's when they reunited.
Also, please do not change or remove comments other people have left; it is usually not okay to do this. You can read more about this at the talk page guidelines page. – 296.x (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I went on this Answers.com website and asked for myself when Motley Crue formed - it told me 1981. Just saying. −MrIpodz —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note by Motley Crue fan. When you went on Answers.com you problaby didnt type in the word i told you to type in if you want proof

Here's what you have to type in look below type this in

IN What Year Did Motley Crue Start

Type in that and you will see that answer will be 1980

even if you want more proof watch the Moley crue uncensored documentry movie from 1986 watch most of the movie when it gets to the band watching thier first ever video of Take me To the Top you will hear the bass guitarsist of Motley crue Nikki Sixx say what year was that 1981 or 1980 write back anytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.233.65 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! What difference should it make as to how you type a question on answers.com? Why should one way of asking the question be of more reliability than another? I typed it as "When did Motley Crue form?" I don't see why that shouldn't have yielded the same answer. You know what? I don't even know why I'm trying to play your game. Answers.com is hardly a reliable source, and is definitely not more reliable than the sources that have already been given to prove that their formation date is 1981.

Also, grow up and stop changing the section headline from "Motley Crue formed in 1981, not 1980..." to "Motley Crue formed in 1980, not 1981..." I hope you're not immature enough to alter this too.

Another thing...You've used the documentary argument already. Like Diannaa said, "You will have to provide a reliable source for your edit, not just your recollection of what someone said in a movie" yet you have failed to do this. Look, if you are incapable of providing a reliable source (a link to a news article or a RELIABLE website, or a book, newspaper or magazine), then please, just give up. You're not doing yourself any favours here. −MrIpodz, 1st May, 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note By A Motley Crue Fan.

HI Motley crue did'nt form in 1981 they formed in 1980 let me tell you something i even met motley crue in New york when signed autographs and I even asked them when did you guys start and Nikki Sixx said 1980 write back anytime.

Yeah, I don't see any reason to trust your word. You can't prove to me that you met Nikki Sixx and he said that. Is the word "SOURCE" not entering into your mind at all? You seem to have a new story as to how you "know" Motley Crue formed in 1980 every time. To me, it seems as though you're lying.

Also, when I clicked on your I.P. address and then clicked "talk" I found several notices repeatedly asking you not to add or change content on the Motley Crue article, as well as other articles, without citing verifiable and reliable sources. I also see several final warnings and temporary edit bans. Are none of these things a sign that you should stop and just accept the fact that as far as everyone knows, Motley Crue formed in 1981? – MrIpodz (talk) 3 May 2013

Note by Motley crue fan.

Im not the fucking one who's lying you are you're always the one who's lies about when motley crue formed. 1980 is when the Crue formed not 1981 even my family knows that motley crue formed in 1980 even my friends we all think that you're the lier.

Oh my God...We're clearly not lying if we're using reliable sources, which you're not. I'm sorry, am I supposed to feel threatened that your friends think I'm a "lier" because I certainly don't. You can't claim to tell the truth when you've recieved so many warnings and edit bans. If it was up to me I'd ban you from editing pages altogether. Stop making yourself out to be a more reliable source than everyone and everything else; you're not. Give up.

Note By Motley crue fan.

You're right im sorry for calling you a lier im just upset right now i hope you aceapt my apoligy. But like you said a SOURCE means like a website or a book or newspaper well im not lying im series i have a book thats called The definitive illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock Motley crue is in it but on the page it says motley crue 1980-present like i said im not lying write back anytime.

Well okay, I'll forgive you. For your source to be accepted you need to include the details of the book in a reference template e.g. title, date/year published, author, page number etc. That way, it can be checked to be true or false by someone else who has the book. Adding in the 1980 date without giving a source means it cannot be verified, and since the sources already in the article support the 1981 date over any other, it will keep getting reverted back to this.

Also, don't keep changing my initial comments at the top. Yes, we disagree on the matter, but I don't change your comments.

Note by Motley crue fan

Hi the book was writing by Elvis Presley's guitarist Scotty more and the book was written in 2005 but they made an updated version of it in 2010. The book has 5000 pages with some other cool bands like Kiss Ac/dc The Ramones The Rolling stones and like I said Motley Crue. And I do not know what the word verified mean sorry for asking you these questions but some of these words you're saying I do not know what it means. Also I heard a interview with Vince neil there's no video of it but you can hear it on the internet he said that their Farewell tour will happen in 2014 and 2015 the reason why he said 2015 is because tours last about two years you got to the US Canada Europe Asia it take some time.So if you're a regestrated user maybe you can put in the motley crue tour section Farewell tour 2014-2015 write back anytime.

Note by Motley Crue fan

Hi I have 2 Sources that Motley Crue formed in 1980 1. The Definitive illustrated Encyclopedia of rock 2. The Greatest groups of Heavy metal. I have both books in each book it Titles Motley Crue was formed on January 17 1980. Please write back anytime.

Terrible last paragraph in Recent Years section

Whoever added the paragraph about a Nikki Sixx interview on 2/4/14 really needs to go back to grammar school. Someone with some writing talent and the time to do it, please clean this up. It makes the page look horrible.Brakoholic (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorted :) Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Terrible first paragraph in Early Years section

It reads: "Mötley Crüe was formed on January 17, 1980,[4][5] when bass guitarist Nikki Sixx left the band London and began rehearsing with drummer Tommy Lee and vocalist/guitarist Jacob Waxman. Lee had worked previously with Leon in a band called Suite 19[6] and the trio practiced together for some time with Leon eventually deciding not to continue. Tommy took over from previous drummer Butch Brusco. "

This is confusing. Who is Leon? Well you have to go to the footnote to find out it's Greg Leon. The article should use a full name when someone is first discussed. The part that says "the trio practiced" is really unclear. Is that referring to Suite 19, which according to the vague interview with Greg Leon could have been a trio, or is it referring to Lee, Sixx and Waxman and then how was Leon involved? Was pervious drummer Butch Brusco in the proto-Mötley Crüe or in Suite 19? According to the footnote the previous drummer in Suite 19 was Gary Holland. One shouldn't have to go the footnotes to decipher what an article means but to verify that it is accurate. But even with going to the Leon interview I still am unsure what this is all supposed to mean. I can't rewrite any of this because I don't know anything about the band nor have any reference works to check. But it sorely needs a rewrite here. Plus from the above discussion it seems to me very unlikely the band formed on 1/17/80. People keep saying it was formed 1/17/81 and cite sources. Someone else cites a film and says it's was in 1980. Was just the 81 changed to 80 here? I don't know. I'm ignorant here and came to the article to learn about the band. Miranda Meagan Keefe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So when the footnotes didn't explain this I decided to look at the previous edits. Well I found out that some vandal had been putting Jacob Waxman, using a strange spelling, in for names of the band members and the band itself. Somehow this vandal's substitution of this for Greg Leon's first mention got missed by the editors undoing the vandalism, maybe because he spelled the name more normal. The vandal took out the hotlink to Leon's article and the footnote verifying the information. Since I followed the old footnote and verified it while doing this, I felt like it was appropriate to restore this. Now it reads fine. Funny how one bad edit can ruin an entire paragraph.Miranda Meagan Keefe (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

re-visit formation date

I Told you I Have 2 sources that says Motley crue formed in 1980

Motley Crue formed in 1980 not 1981 see that number 4 after the word thats my source that says they formed in 1980 now someone put 81 instead of 80. i even have another source that says they formed in 1980 a book called The Greatest bands of Heavy Metal can someone please fix this please id sure appreciate it

Drayke Quinn (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Reference from RollingStone magazine states they formed in 81. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well my Sources say they formed in 1980 so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drayke Quinn (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Drayke Quinn Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Mlpearc (open channel) 02:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't you find a better photo and tattoos so?!?

The first question is just a little a complaint. Can't you guys find a better photo of the band? And if not can you tell me how to get a better for the band for Wikipedia. Now the second question is in regards to the line and they are heavily tattooed? I do not see how that is relevant. They are heavily tattooed... So!?! Who cares!?! Lots of people are! This statement almost reads like a 5 year old wrote: "They drink and they smoke and they have tattoos. That's wrong!" Who cares if they are heavily tattooed how is this relevant compared to another rock band who are covered in tattoos and their tattoos barley get mentioned?? Why did you find time to even make this statement?!? (120.149.122.82 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

Yes indeed we need better photos meaning photos of the band in the early days. Always missing on Wikipedia it seems.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.83.52 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we stop with the speculation about their break up?

I know they signed something saying they won't tour beyond 2014 or whatever, but how many times has rock bands done a "goodbye tour" and not broke up? I think we should wait until they are actually broken up before we post what year they broke up. So the template should say 1980-present until they actually break up. Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa44 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Members section

I don't know what to do with this section, where ever I put it just hides what ever sections are under it. Sombody please help! Campingfreak3599 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mötley Crüe. 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) 11:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

The article states that Vince and Tommy went to Charter Oak High School. They went to Royal Oaks High School, the adjacent high school. Shagene (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Genre.

The headline says “Mötley Crüe is an American rock band” You do realize they are a Heavy Metal band, right? AustinDeLarra (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Is decade of decandance a studio album?

Someone put in the discography but l'm not sure it's counts as a full album Queenfan194 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Save Our Souls

It might be worthy to mention that their song Save Our Souls from Theatre of Pain was featured in the 1985 horror film Demons. Mzimmerle (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like that might not be notable enough for this article, but consider adding it to the Thatre of Pain article. Don't forget to source it. SolarFlashDiscussion 17:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Years active

If I am not mistaken, the band has said that The Final Tour of 2014-15 was a retirement from touring, but that they never broke up and intended to keep recording. So even though they weren't "active" in the sense of performing or releasing work from 2016-18, it could be argued that they were still together, given that they didn't do anything from 1992-93 for example, and we still group that in since they hadn't officially ended the enterprise. What does the community think? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

I found a typo on the Wiki article about Motley Crue under "2018-present" The film portrays many of the adventures the band went on including touring with Ozzy Osborn and the "Theater of Pain" tour. The film has a 39% freshness rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's actually "Osbourne", not "Osbourn" MusicDude2020 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 15:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Search result for band on mobile subtitled “American Sleaze Scum Rock Band” 2601:40C:4002:84B0:65F8:D6E4:8A9B:9FA0 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

inclusion of section in regards to Feuds?

I feel there is enough information to warrant adding a section highlighting the feuds Motley Crue shared between bands such as Metallica and Guns n Roses PontiacAurora (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that you added the section. Very nice. HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

John 5 a touring member or official member?

General consensus was made to continue having Mars as a current member with an efn provided that he retired from touring, prior to the later feud months after.

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.

Regarding the sources that I have seen regarding John 5's new involvement with Motley Crue, I have seen different sources online, with one saying that he is a touring member for them, and another stating that is now a member of the band. Is there a way we can come to a consensus to decide whether he is a member or if he is just touring exclusively with them? Please elaborate your thoughts. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

My two cents' worth -- per the main page article in the 2018 section, "In that same interview, he (Neil) also ruled out the possibility of further studio albums, stating that they were "strictly a touring band"". If Crue is now strictly a touring band, and John 5 is the touring guitarist, then IMO that makes him a full member. Mars will always be considered a member of Crue (he helped found the band) in spirit, but I don't think he should be considered an active member any more. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that at the moment John 5's inclusion should be kept as touring/live guitarist. If you look at the statement that was put out by Mars' representatives it says "....he will no longer be able to tour with the band. Mick will continue as a member of the band, but can no longer handle the rigors of the road." [1] I understand @SanAnMan's point about no further studio albums are being made in reference to past statements from Vince Neil, but Crue's statement only alludes to covering live duties. Motley Crue have not updated their band line-up on their website, so it just seems a safer bet to say "touring/live" for now. If anything more clear comes from either camps, then it can be stated 5 is a full-fledged member, imo. EmmaJL5 16:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this, it would make a lot more sense, as the descriptions in the sources do cover on John 5 being a touring/live member. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed this on other wiki pages and thought I would get everyone's thoughts on this before I add it.
How about we add John 5 but put under him (touring)? That way people will stop adding him and removing mick mars. Raiders01 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
He already is under touring in the "Band members" section, so it is kind of a bit pointless. Best that can be done however is a hidden note that says not to add John 5 as a current member, which if I recall correctly, there is in place already. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone seems to have moved Mick to being a former member. I don't see any citations or anything on him leaving the band as a full time member. This definitely a mistake. 80s Sam (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So I think the general consensus at this point seems to be that Mick should still be listed as a member, but with a notation that he is retired from touring, and that John 5 should only be listed as a touring guitarist pending any other changes. Does anyone have any further issue/discussion on this? If not, I think the changes should be posted. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this is the general consensus and is backed up by the statements made by Mars' representation and Crue (as a band). Of course this could change in the future but for the moment seems like the most factual way of addressing the recent news. EmmaJL5 15:33, 1 November 2022 (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.

John 5/Mick Mars

Mick Mars retired from touring but is still in the band! John 5 is replacing Mick on tours only! Mick Mars is NOT a past member! ISoldier92 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

genre

"Mötley Crüe is an American heavy metal" - "heavy" is an odd way of spelling "hair" Vstitle (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Mick Mars Is Not Permanently Quitting.

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.

The source from Variety provided in the article states that Mick Mars will continue to be a band member (probably for studio obligations and media appearances), and he appears to only be retiring from touring. (For reference, here's the source: [2])

The relevant part of the statement reads, verbatim: "due to his ongoing painful struggle with Ankylosing Spondylitis (A.S.), he will no longer be able to tour with the band. Mick will continue as a member of the band, but can no longer handle the rigors of the road."

Based on that, I don't think he needs to be placed under "Former Members." He's staying in the band, just not for touring. I absolutely think this needs to be changed. Afddiary (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Also agree @Afddiary - As I mentioned on 28 October, unless Crue/5 camps say otherwise we can only go on the very clear statements that have been put out by Mars and MC where they both say that Mick Mars has only retired from live touring and not from the band as a whole. Crue have said that 5 is there to fill his shoes in live shows. IF in time this changes then John 5 can be added to a permanent band member but to me there is no ambiguity on this. I just think people have misinterpreted what was put out.
EmmaJL5 13:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Second discussion

Recent sources have come out recently, with Mick Mars saying that the band is "allegedly" trying to remove him as a member, although there are sources that say he retired from touring but is still a member. I would like to know what everyone's opinion is on this, and if we can see if we can work out a consensus to see if he still is technically a member of the band or not. My stance would be that unless the band comes out and says that he is no longer a member of the band, Mick Mars is still definitely a member. I shall leave a few sources below:

  • Schaffner, Lauryn (April 6, 2023). "Mick Mars Sues Mötley Crüe, Says He Was Unilaterally Removed From Band + Gaslighted". Loudwire.
  • Willman, Chris (April 6, 2023). "Mick Mars Files Lawsuit Against Motley Crue, Alleges the Band Is Attempting to 'Gaslight' and Fire Him". Variety.

What are your thoughts? HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Afddiary: and @EmmaJL5: as they were involved in the first discussion regarding this. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I would say at the moment, in early stages of litigation, nothing is changed on the status of band members until things have been resolved. There’s a lot of back and forth with statements from each camp at the moment, that do not resolve the matters. Let’s wait for the time being. Maybe something can go into effect on the main article that covers what is happening but that asks people editing the page to not change band members status until the outcome of litigation or final agreed statements from both sides. EmmaJL5 10:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Until closure comes in and it is decided that Mick Mars is either no longer a member of the band or to a certain extent, still counts as a member. A hidden note that tells editors not to edit certain parts until the lawsuit is over may work. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a tough one, but I definitely lean towards waiting until there is something more concrete to confirm Mick Mars's status in the band.
For what it's worth, I think the band's statement (coupled with Mick Mars explicitly saying he was "unilaterally removed" from the band) confirm that he is actually no longer a member, but I think it would be safe to just wait. The parts of the statement that make me feel this way are the following:
(1) "After the last tour, Mick publicly resigned from Mötley Crüe."
(2) "the band offered Mick a generous compensation package to honor his career with the band." (heavily implies his career with the band is over)
(3) "during the last tour Mick struggled to remember chords, played the wrong songs and made constant mistakes which led to his departure from the band."
(Statement here, bottom of the page: Loudwire) Afddiary (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I can agree with you that it would be safe to wait. It is an ongoing lawsuit (which kind of just started) and until it concludes, we won't know for sure if he still remains a member of the band. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I would say that he isn't as he has said he was fired and also they are only touring now as shown in the saints of Los Angeles article so I wouldn't say he is a member. I would not consider John 5 as a official member yet tho even tho he was writing riffs with Nikki Sixx that could be for any project. Not just Motley Crue. Ynw juvy (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting John 5 is also becoming involved in the studio writing songs with the band as well which suggest his membership is looking to become permanent.

Unless the band comes out and says that John 5 is an official member of the band and is covered by multiple reliable sources, he is by all means, a session/touring member. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/mick-mars-claims-motley-crue-has-tried-to-replace-him-for-decades/?amp the statement in this article, from Mars, states that John 5 is his "replacement" 80s Sam (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
If that was the case, then the band would have made an official announcement, stating that both Mars is no longer a member of the band; and that John 5 is now a member of the band. So far, there has not - as there would have been multiple sources covering on that. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Bands don't "make announcements" for Wikipedia editors. He's in the band. Of course he's never going to be at the same level as Mick was at this point. People who join established bands much later in their career are always considered lesser members with no real authority in the band. Besides as the person above me pointed out they've literally already said Mick "publicly resigned" from Motley Crue but apparently that's not good enough for Wikipedia. Also Nikki's statement of "Mick will always be a part of Motley Crue" is sentimental at best and not a realistic statement from a business point of view. 80.189.121.239 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
80.189.121.239, by announcements, it means that there has to be multiple independent reliable sources that are covering on that subject. It is still speculation at the point, so until the lawsuit comes to a conclusion and the band releases a statement on Mars' status and where he lies in the band, he is still a member regardless. There are multiple sources saying that Mars "resigned from touring" prior to the lawsuit:
I'll keep these sources here to back my claims. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Last month, the band has very much confirmed that John 5 is now officially a member of the band and have ruled out any possibility of working with Mick Mars again, as mentioned in this article. Other than a bit of IP vandalism to remove John 5 from the current members, I haven't seen any back-and-forth edits on if he is or isn't a member, but now that it is confirmed - things have come to a calm as a section about Mars' feud with the band is there in a new section. That being said, I think the discussion can be closed if there are no objections regarding those edit changes. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2023 (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.

Greg Leon an official member?

Is Greg Leon considered to be an official member of the band? There are sources that say he was in the band from its inception, but there is not much detail on his time in the band. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mötley_Crüe/Archive_2&oldid=1175222513"