Jump to content

Talk:Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark/Archive 1

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

Untitled

"They should have been stars, but the US was not comfortable with any pop star(s) that wasn't blatantly hetero." This is not NPOV (saying "they should have been stars"), nor is the implication that they weren't "blatantly hetero". (This is debatable, as is the connexion between the two.) --Daniel C. Boyer


Surely it would be wrong to say that there were "not blatantly hetero" as Paul Humphreys is married. As far as I know, Andy McCluskey has never married, but I believe he did have relationships with girls at school, as he once narrated in the magazine Jackie. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV, true nonetheless.

Agree - article is notally non NPOV. I think it's best if fans don't write up their favourite bands - they get too carried away! Still it's better than nothing. Rewrite or edit called for here at some point I think. GRAHAMUK 07:10, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rewrite is the key word here: wholesale deletion of the text containing the statements Daniel C. Boyer pointed out was uncalled for. I re-inserted part of that deleted text, leaving out the questionable and overhyped stuff. Lupo 10:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not right to discuss Messages as a single without mentioning Electricity, their first single and from the audience reaction at the Hammersmith Apollo last night one of their 3 favourite songs - along with Enola Gay and Joan of Arc (Maid of Orleans)

There was a comment that "It is best if fans don't write about their favourite bands" above - but let's face it, that is probably how most articles on pop groups get created! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Singles

Why? what is the need to create articles for "Sailing on the Seven Seas", "Pandora's Box (It's a Long, Long Way)", "Then You Turn Away", "Call My Name", "Walking on the Milky Way". i can understand soem of these perhaps. A few months ago I created (or co-created) articles for singles like electricity, enola gay and if you leave. I deemed that these were important singles, which had interesting stories. They also were useful in reference to other articles, If you leave in reference to bratpack movies and the pretty in pink soundtrack.

What is the need for these singles which were not even hits, and thus far have no useful information written within them? Chadwholovedme 12:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "Sailing on the Seven Seas" and "Pandora's Box" "were not even hits" - both made the top ten in the UK. -88.109.63.214 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit of pedantry from a fan of the early stuff but it is my personal opinion that dazzle ships was their best ever work and i avoided buying the greatest hits because of the omission of tracks from this album. Commercial success allows for experimental stuff - but do not try to eliminate it from the regocnised works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.149.142 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They were an electronic rock band, as many bands in that era, 1975-1979, before terms like new wave or synthpop were invented Doktor Who (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

VCL XI is not a misread

The article states that VCL XI was a misread of "VCL 11" but I don't think so. Unless there is proof that it is, I'd rather see it as a homage to Kraftwerk's VCL 11, and a play on it, since V, C, and L are Roman numerals too. (A small issue, I know, I wish I could use a smaller heading style for it.) User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not a misread. And it's not a valve. But in typical Wikipedia fashion, obviously incorrect information will continue to be propagated because there's a "verifiable source" that commits the error. 71.200.35.243 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment on listing of genres

I would have thought that OMD were best remembered as an electronic pop group - therefore, I would urge the listing of the genres to put synthpop before new wave or post punk. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, we could add electronic music to their genres. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

I am not sure that this is encyclopaedic enough to go in the article, but because the Human League came from Sheffield and OMD came from Wirral, the former were seen as the working class group, the latter as the middle class group - and OMD were nicknamed "The Human League for people who like to go to garden centres". I shall leave it to others to decide whether this is beyond triviality enough to go in the encyclopaedia! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of Allmusic quotes to promote hagiographic agenda?

I notice that the edits made here seem to be promoting the fact that OMD's more commercial phase was "still innovative". I don't have any strong opinions on this, but it does seem that someone wanted to promote a position and chose the quotes to back that up.

While the referenced source is reputable, one can still promote a one-sided view by selecting quotes that suit it and by presenting them in a certain way.

Any thoughts?

Ubcule (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic and PopMatters cites were given to support the notion that OMD didn't sell out musically (something the band insist they never did [1]), two highly regarded sources on Wikipedia. There's hardly an "agenda". And as I stated in my latest edit summary (correcting your shift to an inaccurate quote), your addition of scare quotes was entirely superfluous, since all critical assessments of a band's musical direction are clearly reviewer opinion. By your logic, everything written about the musical progression of all artists should be in scares, which absolutely cannot happen. That said, your highlighting of the fact that the AllMusic piece is retrospective remedied an obvious error on my part and for that I thank you. Mallon dies, Harvey thrives (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Two distinct issues here. I'll address the original topic first.
Your repeated and specific reference to "scare quotes"- rather than simply "quotes"- suggests I was trying to imply a sceptical tone towards the quoted material (i.e. implicit editorialising and POV). This isn't correct- they were intended to draw attention the fact that they referenced one person's particular opinion. I have no particular agenda either way, beyond wanting the article itself to remain neutral.
As I commented above, one can still present a one-sided view by selecting which quotes one uses, even if those are from sources that are reputable in themselves. The ideal is to get a representative cross-section of opinion (of course, if that genuinely was mainly positive, that's fine).
The band's own opinion on the matter is certainly worthy of note, but- as with anyone!- isn't the final word on the matter
Anyway, I felt that your insertion of multiple quotes that seemed to support the "didn't sell out" case raised some questions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Secondly, to clarify the situation with your username when you say it was an error on "your" part, can I take this imply that you are the same anonymous- or not signed in- editor who made those original changes (referenced as 2.126.178.54)?
(I have to admit that I also suspected you of sockpuppeting when I saw User:Autumn harvest thrives mentioned in the edit list, but having looked into that I see you had your name changed recently for legitimate reasons, so no problem there). Ubcule (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic says the band were still a somewhat experimental act after 1983 ("the more adventurous side of the band steps up"[2]), as does PopMatters ("still-inventive but commercially calculating"[3]). There are also negative views cited on the shift in direction, from the band's autobiography along with online sources.[4][5]. Seems pretty fair. 125.212.217.154 (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why liken Gary Numan to Cliff Richard?

It makes no sense, it doesn't add anything to the article, it is clearly an opinion, not fact.

OMD may well have released 'Electricity' BEFORE Tubeway Army's 'Are 'friends' electric?' but it took Numan's international hit single to create a groundswell of interest in synth music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.29.189 (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's gone. 125.212.217.189 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


The Punishment of Luxury

The band have brought out a new record called The Punishment of Luxury (or at least, will be releasing it in September 2017)- this could go in article. Vorbee (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Impact on other artists

Please discuss the impact of the band on other artist. This needs to be quite specific, not a passing mention and requires multiple sources please. Journalists finding OMD to be an inspiration on one specific band is not sufficient. It requires reliable sources I withdrew several artists supposedly influenced by OMD only when nothing in the sources supported it. One needs a source with a quote from each musician. I'm gonna mention the legacy section at Kate Bush [6], one sees that there isn't any hypothesis of a journalist there. Woovee (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"Journalists finding OMD to be an inspiration on one specific band is not sufficient. It requires reliable sources I withdrew several artists supposedly influenced by OMD only when nothing in the sources supported it".
This is just mulish dishonesty, I'm afraid. You removed four artists – Robyn, The Killers, La Roux, The xx – each of whom are supported by multiple high-quality references (broadsheet newspapers, reputable magazines) stating that they have cited OMD as an influence. There may be no direct quotes from those acts, but there is no WP essay dictating that this is a requirement (I have repeatedly asked you to provide such an essay, to no avail). There is absolutely no journalistic opinion being used, only reliable, independent reporting from first-rate sources. 82.132.227.15 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Editors should know the rotating IP's edit-warring with Woovee are The abominable Wiki troll sockpuppets. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you accused me of this already, with no evidence. What exactly about my additions of reliable sources and desire to maintain a quality article make me a "troll"? Looks a lot like you and Woovee are the same person, if I'm being honest. 82.132.227.15 (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read "the legacy section" at Kate Bush @ [7]. We can see that for every act/singer/band mentioned at Kate Bush, there is a quote of the artist/musician available in the source. I don't have any consensus for the present article but this issue has previously been discussed with a rfc [8] for Suede where a fan of the group filled the legacy section with groups that never mentioned Suede in interviews. It was just theories of journalists and later that became circular information between articles. One article mentions this, the next one wrote the same thing without checking it first.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a platform of expression for fans of a OMD.
This anonymous ip using a proxy with the numbers 82.132 is a wp:single purpose account ip, for all the articles about OMD. the XX have given tons of interviews citing many bands, why have this fan of OMD been unable to find a quote of them in an interview whereas OMD is supposed to be an influence for the XX? same remark for the Killers?
Worse, I've just looked at the influence section at the XX and I see that the 82.132 account added OMD as an influence [9]. At the XX, there are quote of the members of the XX for each one of their influences, bar for OMD where it is a theory of journalists with no quote of the XX saying that they namechecked OMD. Woovee (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
"We can see that for every act/singer/band mentioned at Kate Bush, there is a quote of the artist/musician"
Yet, again, you simply cannot provide any WP essay dictating that quotes from artists are required.
"...theory of journalists..."
Please, drop the agenda. The references provided are of high quality and clearly state that these acts cited OMD as an influence. 82.132.227.15 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Which agenda are you talking about? You are an obsessive fan who only edits on wikipedia at OMD related articles. I'am not. I'am a registred user. In a matter of a few hours yesterday, I've managed to find interviews of many musicians mentioning OMD, after doing researchs on google. I've improved a lot the "impact on other artists" section which was such a mess, a C section really. It is now at a A level. I've also done researchs for The XX, La Roux, Robyn on google, reading interviews of those artists and sorry for your loss, but OMD's name has never been mentioned by any of those acts. The XX are fans of many acts but not of OMD: read their interviews. Sorry again to worry you Woovee (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Spare me the patronising garbage. There are multiple, high-grade sources stating that those acts have cited OMD as an influence. AGAIN, for the love of GOD, just show me the WP essay that dictates we need quotes from artists. Go on: show it to me. Oh wait, you absolutely CAN'T, and want to write the rules of Wikipedia yourself. Even if these bands have never praised OMD and in fact despise them, WP:VNT is satisfied. Give up. 82.132.187.238 (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but WP:VNT is an essay: it is not a wp guideline. Woovee (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Lol, so you now work by guidelines. Okay, I ask once AGAIN: show me where Wikipedia demands direct quotes from artists in relation to their influences. Go on. Do it. Come on. 82.132.187.238 (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
We always work with the wp:guidelines. Anyone can update essays like you the one you put anyday without getting a vote from the community. Guidelines are our rules, essays are not. One'll get opinions of other longtime users and one'll see what they think about this issue. You should registered an account as you've been constantly changing ips with 82.132 and some of them are used by others apparently.Woovee (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Where. Is. The. Guideline. That. Demands. Quotes. From. Artists? 82.132.238.241 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Read the consensus reached at here about exactly the same issue. The result was: « The consensus is to support the statement "One journalist finding [xxxx] to be an inspiration on one specific band is not sufficient. It requires reliable sources with quotes of concerned musicians". » The point of the present rfc is also to get a consensus and hopefully at the end of the discussion, the reader will know reading the section that it is opinions / theories of a journalist repeated in a circular way by several publications without any proof, present in an article to support the fact apart saying OMD influenced xx and YY. One journalist wrote an assertion; a couple of others reproduced it later in other publications but none of them actually brought a quote to their readers. This sentence from those sources saying OMD have influenced the XX.... sound like a commercial, a sentence taken from a press sheet written by a press agent of OMD. Woovee (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

So, where is it? Where's the WP policy supporting your claim that quotes from artists must be provided? I give up. You're going round in circles, reheating your previous comments and trying to hide the fact that you cannot produce any Wikipedia doctrine to support your position. I have absolutely nothing more to say, so have the last word. 82.132.212.236 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

In the "impact on other artists" section, there were several reliable sources promoting OMD that all contained the same sentence, asserting that certain groups "the XX and the Killers, have cited OMD as an inspiration/influence" without quoting any musician/act. We know that sometimes if one journalist first said in a RS "band A have cited band B as an influence", other articles would reproduce the same assertion, believing the assertion of the previous journalist and without doing any fact checking themselves. There have been many assertions in the press advancing that "Pet Shop Boys have cited Soft Cell as an influence" whereas Pet Shop Boys strongly denied it in interviews saying they didn't listen to Soft Cell.

So do you agree to only mention bands when strong reliable sources mentioning quotes of musicians, are available ? The "impact on other artists" section only includes at the moment names of the musicians that have actually hailed OMD in interviews or covered a song, that being supported by RS.---Woovee (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:

Comment: This seems to be a misunderstanding of wording. The two sources I looked at involved in the dispute both used the word "Cite" as in "This band cites them as an influence" This is not an opinion, the wording can really only be used if the artists themselves have mentioned that they were influenced by the work in the past. Also because of the weird wording of the question I am not really sure what we're voting on so I will abstain from doing so. --Deathawk (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Woovee's comment: In the past, reliable publications have advanced assertions about the legacy of a band that were not accurate. It sometimes happened that journalists had found that there was a lineage between 2 bands: whereas it was never supported by any quote of the band citing it among their influences. For OMD, I decided to make researchs last week. I've replaced poor sources that didn't include a quote of musicians proving that they had been influenced by OMD, by other better sources with interviews/quotes of musicians proving that they had namechecked and praised OMD. There were plenty of reliable sources saying that OMD have influenced Radiohead but none of them included a quote of Thom Yorke or Ed O'Brien or the Greenwood Brothers. Yet Radiohead have been very vocal about their influences; they have given tons of interviews over the years but to my knowledge they have never mentioned once OMD's name. So I withdrew the part mentioning Radiohead and wrote in the edit summary this: For Radiohead, we need an quote/excerpt of an interview from Thom Yorke or Greenwood and wp:stick to source [10]. I did that for many names of bands. Step 2, I made a lot of research to find interviews of bands citing OMD, to then include those sources in the "legacy" section. I also included quotes of the musicians when available and completely rearranged the whole section. To make it short, sometimes one writer advances a lineage that has never been supported anywhere by a quote of a musician but despite this, they announce it as a fact. Then other publications write articles basing their work on that inacurrate information. Someone like the anonymous ip says; if it has been written several times it is correct". I reply, no it is not always correct. Fact checking is something essential for an encyclopedia. This is why it is better to include sources with quotes of musicians in the legacy sections instead of sources just saying this band has influenced this other artist without saying why. This OMD "Impact on other artists" must be as 100% reliable as Kate Bush's and Suede's. -Woovee (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Woovee First of all sorry for the delay. My chief concern is that, looking at a couple of the links you deleted, you do not seem to understand that the word "cite" when used in the context of "X band cites y band as an influence" is not a journalistic opinion, it's a fact, which would then be up to the newspapers fact checking department to confirm prior to the article's publication. You seem hung up on the fact that you can not find quotes of a band specifically saying that this band was an influence, and that could be because these were told directly to the paper themselves and the quotes were never published publically. I suppose there could be an argument made for cutting down the section (I don't know, I haven't really looked at it much) but let's save that for another RFC. --Deathawk (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Woovee's second comment with the sources that all reproduced the same 3 names of bands:
Several journalists & websites always reproduced almost this same sentence with these same 3 bands who OMD are supposed to have influenced, see those instances:
"The XX, Brandon Flowers, Hurts, and LCD Soundsystem’s James Murphy have cited the Wirral electro pioneers as an inspiration" in liverpoolecho.co.uk in 2010,
"OMD’s influence has become ubiquitous. The XX, Brandon Flowers of The Killers, and LCD Soundsystem’s James Murphy have cited OMD as an inspiration, while the likes of La Roux, Cold Cave and The Horrors show traces of OMD’s DNA." in digitaljournal.com in 2010,
"the likes of Robyn, The xx and LCD Soundsystem citing them as a critical influence" in heraldscotland 2013,
"you've certainly felt their influence, having been cited by headlining artists such as the xx, Robyn, the Killers and LCD Soundsystem" in exclaim.ca 2013,
"Their reuniting for a tour a decade later helpfully coincided with the boom of synth-pop acts such as La Roux and The xx who all cited OMD as an influence" in independent.co.uk 2013,
"[they] began to detect a groundswell of interest in OMD, with young bands such as the xx, La Roux, the Killers and LCD Soundsystem namechecking them as an influence." in telegraph.co.uk 2013,
"Dazzle Ships [OMD's album], which may not have sold much at all, but is held close to the hearts of Radiohead" in thequietus.com
"[OMD] is recognised by renowned music artists such as The Killers, the XX, LCD Sound System" in timeslive 2013 for a concert,
"Cited as an influence by everyone from Depeche Mode and The Killers to James Muerphy and The xx," in sandiegouniontribune.com 2017,
Have all these journalists done fact-checking and found quotes of The XX, La Roux, Killers, citing OMD? We know how the journalists work these days: they all tell the same story telling at the release of each album of an artist and all reproduce the tale they read on the press sheet. LCD firsty cited New Order, Talking Heads, the Fall, PiL, tons of bands and just said a couple of times he liked a few OMD tracks. So asserting he was influenced by them, is overselling it. Other case, The XX have been very vocal too about their influences, they have cited the Cure, Eurythmics etc but never OMD once. So telling that OMD influenced the XX is overselling it too. There's a lot of sources with interviews of the XX mentioning their influences here [11]
The problem is, every concert venue reproduces the same press sheet/text written by OMD's press agent and the band's promoter with is exactly the same sentence including the same bands.
"Described by The Quietus as “not just one of the best synth bands ever – they are one of the best bands ever”, OMD’s influence has become ubiquitous. The xx, the Killers and LCD Soundsystem’s James Murphy have cited OMD as an inspiration". See those 3 instances for these 3 different concerts: [12] [13][14],
It looks that this sentence sounds like a commercial and comes from a press agency. This is why we should not include it in an encyclopedia and wait for better sources with quotes of musicians. Pet Shop Boys have always said in interviews that they were not influenced by Soft Cell but we can find very reliable sources saying that Soft Cell was a key influence for PSB! Journalists assert things that sometimes are false. @ Deathawk ---- Woovee (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this classed as a music video?

It's mostly a performance by the band, but an actress is playing out scenes appropriate to the lyrics on TopPop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhS3nzljL5I

ChewNaChunkx (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Excessive use of False Titles

Excessive and egregious by any standard. Wegesrand (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The overtly verbose "Influence on other artists" section

I'm relatively flattered that alot of people are into OMD as the legacy section cites (as they are one of my favorite bands and I mean, their music is amazing), but is it just me or does it feel like it's too much? What I'm seeing is essentially a large large laundry list of people who found OMD to be an influence (which can be easily shortened). Such mentions include groups like the Thompson Twins, Depeche Mode, New Order, Tears For Fears, etc, bands which were their well-known contemporaries of the time. It would be weird to list an entire paragraph of New Wave bands which supposedly took influence from them when you could just write a sentence saying "OMD was influential both within their contemporary sphere of New Wave subculture and later alternative movements", then go on from there.

For comparison, take a look at the David Bowie page and see the same paragraphs, it's far more eloquently described that he was vastly popular within rock music and they don't even list 50 bands in one sentence

TuaamWiki (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I was responsible for a lot of those additions. I'm not concerned about covering OMD's impact at length with reliable sources (WP:NOTPAPER), but I do agree that just listing band after band was poor form, so I have substantially trimmed the section. Paulie302 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orchestral_Manoeuvres_in_the_Dark/Archive_1&oldid=1029899221"