Jump to content

Talk:The Cranberries/Archive 1

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

Q & A

What do you call that kind of singing Dolores is known for, (similar to some of Sinéad O'Connor's singing)? Or is there a name for it? --KQ

The way Dolores O'Riordan often sings is called yodeling.


Article Improvements

Should we have a information box ( Infobox_band ), stating vital stats. This is the case for most bands and artists? -SDF Also the picture on the article is messed up Tpoore1 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have only heard "Linger" in the super-market. Shouldn't it be noted what becomes of pop songs. There are too many rules here. 4.238.208.21 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Bhal

The first article (origins) is poorly reworded from the third reference. The citation needed about them feeling ill is a misinterpretation, the article says they felt ill at ease. 25 March 2010. meatr0o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.196.173 (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Studio Albums

The third album listed under this heading gives the UK as both ranks, rather than one UK and one US. I'm not going to guess the listing convention didn't change, so I'll leave it to someone familiar with the group to change it. Ryan 1 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Her singing could be described as keening.

Several edits have expanded or revised the sentence about Britpop bands in this article, but what's the point? If you feel the need to classify, the Cranberries would be pre-Britpop. Those bands don't have much to do with the Cranberries. I've deleted that sentence.

Added to the fact they are not British. Snowbound 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No Need To Argue

This section is horribly opinionated and reads like an album review. It needs to be revised. --Skillz80 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)----

Oh god I agree. I removed 'This was not the type of music expected from this group at the time, and that makes it an eye-opening triumph in my opinion.' and everything following it as it was incredibly unencyclopedic. even the text above that needs rewriting, unfortunately i dont have the time. Anyone?

Actually i just removed the whole no need to argue section of the article, the album has its own page. Unfortunately this leaves a gap in the history section, which will need to be flled.

MTV

The MTV Unplugged was recorded at Brooklyn Academy of Music, New York on the 13th of February 1995. -- Simplicius 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Charts

The chart section of this article is good, but I think it should include the lists from the UK. I dunno if I can get them, I think so, but I don't know how to create tables in here. If someone wants to do it, please do so. I'll post the lists once I find them.

I made the charts and I'll be happy to edit the UK data in if you find it. Allmusic.com only provided me with the US Billboard info. --Ptparatroopa 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing Animal Instinct, Just My Imagination, and Analyse on radio and/or VH1 or M2 here in the US. Did they not chart at all in the US? There're none listed in the singles list.

I found the following in a Cranberries Forum (zombieguide.com). I copied entirely:

From jszmiles

Chart runs for: THE CRANBERRIES (through February 28, 2004)

UK SINGLES

1. LINGER Date: 27/02/1993 - Run: 74 (1 wk) Re #01: 12/02/1994 16-*14*-15-14-16-18-19-26-29-36-54 (11 wks) Total # of weeks: 12-11c () (US:#8/24/1)

2. DREAMS Date: 07/05/1994 - Run: 36-*27*-31-40-58 (5 wks) US:#42/20

3. ZOMBIE Date: 01/10/1994 - Run: 20-*14*-17-29-35-58 (6 wks)

4. ODE TO MY FAMILY Date: 03/12/1994 - Run: 38-*26*-43-58-56-71 (6 wks)

5. I CAN'T BE WITH YOU Date: 11/03/1995 - Run: 35-*23*-39-60-70 (5 wks)

6. RIDICULOUS THOUGHTS Date: 12/08/1995 - Run: *20*-41-67 (3 wks)

7. SALVATION Date: 20/04/1996 - Run: *13*-22-43-65-74 (5 wks)

8. FREE TO DECIDE Date: 13/07/1996 - Run: *33*-36-53 (3 wks)

9. PROMISES Date: 17/04/1999 - Run: *13*-21-37-52 (4 wks)

10. ANIMAL INSTINCT Date: 17/07/1999 - Run: *54* (1 wk)

US SINGLES

1. LINGER Date: 23/10/1993 - Run: 91-77-65-49-38-30-22-19-18-16-16-16-16-12-12-12- *8*-17-23-26-28-29-34-48 (24/1 wks) UK:#14/12

2. DREAMS Date: 02/04/1994 - Run: 79-66-55-51-50-50-*42*-43-47-48-55-55-69-61-59-63-58-67-79-86 (20 wks) UK:#27/5

3. FREE TO DECIDE / WHEN YOU'RE GONE Date: 23/11/1996 - Run: 66-52-48-48-45-44-42-38-32-29-29-26-*22*-22-22-27-31-36-46-52 (20 wks)

UK ALBUMS

1. EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING IT, SO WHY CAN'T WE? Date: 13/03/1993 - Run: 64 (1 wk) Re #01: 12/03/1994 3-7-6-9-14-13-17-17- 9-7-6-4-3-2-2-*1*-3-6-8-10-12-14-16-18-23-26-28-46-64-49-26-23-31-34-36-42-52-59-71-0-0-70-64- (42 wsf) 07/01/1995: 52-46-44-44-46-48-47-53-63-70-54-50-55-54-53-52-64-48-53-64-55-50-52-56-58-58-67-58-46-59-50-40-39-30-32-45-42-35-37-60-59-52-64-67 (85-46c/16-15c/1 wks) Total # of re-entries: 2 (Top 10: 1) Total # of weeks: 86-46c (Top 10: 16-15c, Top 20: 24 Top 40: 38, #1: 1) US:#18/130

2. NO NEED TO ARGUE Date: 15/10/1994 - Run: *2*-4-6-10-17-20-30-33-31-30-24-23- (12 wsf) 07/01/1995: 17-12- 10-8-12-14-14-16-13-14-13-12- 9-7-4-5-3-4-7-7-8-11- 10-12-17-18-23-18- 10-10-10-10-9-8-11-14-14-18-21-25-25-21-29-34-47-56-66-65-66-66-65-56- (64 wsf) 06/01/1996: 55-51-55-49-56-53-66-62-73-62 (74/22-18c wks) Re #01: 27/04/1996 63-63 (2 wks, 76 wsf) Re #02: 28/09/1996 58-67 (2 wks) Top 10 re-entries: 4 Total # of weeks: 78-74c (Top 10: 22-18c, Top 20: 43 Top 40: 56) US:#6/90/9

3. TO THE FAITHFUL DEPARTED Date: 11/05/1996 - Run: *2*-7-10-15-16-20-26-31-37-32-34-35-38-42-41-42-46-48-67 (19/3 wks) US:#4/51/5

4. BURY THE HATCHET Date: 01/05/1999 - Run: *7*-16-26-36-60 (5/1 wks) US:#13/10

5. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE Date: 03/11/2001 - Run: *61* (1 wk) US:#46/4

6. STARS - THE BEST OF 1992-2002 Date: 28/09/2002 - Run: *20*-36-55-66 (4 wks)


US ALBUMS

1. EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING IT, SO WHY CAN'T WE? Date: 17/07/1993 - Run: 200-149-128-98-114-108-87-71-60-52-51-45-41-36-35-28-28-25-*18*-25-25-22-24-26- (24 wsf) 01/01/1994: 27-25-21-21-20-23-26-30-32-34-33-41-44-43-46-46-45-43-42-47-56-60-56-64-81-86-88-99-115-120-122-136-134-135-128-127-157-177-168-179-164-174-180-180-174-176-170-167-169-173-162-167-152- (77 wsf) 07/01/1995: 137-127-123-118-114-113-106-110-119-118-127-124-118-118-137-125-125-115-127-131-129-111-119-113-135-137-137-136-143-130-136-136-134-111-97-112-133-142-155-153-161-175-170-177-175-193 (123 wks) Re #01: 30/12/1995 192-180-176-188-195-196 (6 wks, 129 wsf) Re #02: 11/05/1996 197 (1 wk) Total # of weeks: 130-123c (Top 20: 2 Top 40: 22) (UK:#1/86/16/1)

2. NO NEED TO ARGUE Date: 22/10/1994 - Run: 12- 9-13-14-13-12-18-14-14-15-13- (11 wsf) 07/01/1995: 12- 10-12- 10-*6*-9-10-9-9-10-11-12-14-14-18-16-15-15-16-18-18-17-19-24-29-30-32-36-39-37-31-35-38-32-33-32-38-43-54-49-69-80-86-86-98-103-111-115-116-115-112-104- (63 wsf) 06/01/1996: 95-98-103-115-110-123-132-150-162-143-169-162-125-140-148-140-140-146-133-153-159-166-173-177-181-181-195 (90/9-7c wks) UK:#2/78/22

3. TO THE FAITHFUL DEPARTED Date: 18/05/1996 - Run: *4*-7-8-10-10-17-20-23-27-29-30-31-30-34-33-34-36-40-38-44-45-50-55-62-60-74-93-98-96-108-108-96-88- (33 wsf) 04/01/1997: 77-79-89-93-98-95-101-107-112-118-127-130-139-145-150-161-179-168 (51/5 wks) UK:#2/19/3

4. BURY THE HATCHET Date: 15/05/1999 - Run: *13*-29-39-54-76-95-111-136-167-193 (10 wks) UK:#7/5/1

5. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE Date: 10/11/2001 - Run: *46*-88-133-169 (4 wks) UK:#61/1

Wow

Wow, this article sucks. It needs a major POV rewrite. 66.231.130.102 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

-I was thinking the exact same thing. *sigh* All of my useless knowledge about them would help, but it's so bad it would take forever to clean up. Maybe I will over the weekend. Something needs to be done about that '90s section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.121.31 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

serious amount of NPOV

I was shocked at the amount of POV included in this article, for an internationally-renowned band like the cranberries this the article was very poor. It was obviously written/eddited by a Cranberries fans who was reluctant to include the criticism, especially with the bit where she described the third album as being released to rave reviews, as far as I remember it wasnt very well received and I saw it was included in Q magazines 50 worst albums ever. I've eddited it as much as I can but I would hope someone could scan over the article and see if anymore POV can be found. I'm a big Cranberries fan, but I dislike it when people show biased views especialy on encyclopedic sites like Wikipedia.

I still dont think the article is great and for a band like cranberries who have sold around 40 million records it should be a lot better.81.153.14.1 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate use of material from other source

http://www.cranberries.com/read/bio_monoband.html contains the exact phrasing of the last paragraph of the article on the break-up. Is the rest of the article original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.40.213 (talk)

Good point. The third paragraph of the origins section (beginning "The demo tape earned the attention of both the U.K. press and...") appears to come from here. And that's the first test I've done! I'll have a look later (when I have more time) and try to cut out what seems to have been lifted from elsewhere.--A bit iffy 10:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Genres

At what point in their career have The Cranberries sounded even remotely nu metal? -Xlator 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please include their contributions to the movie "You've Got Mail".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.89.238 (talk)

'untraditional non-Irish Irish rock band'? Who came up with that? That's the most convoluted and misleading description I've ever heard. I'm guessing you're trying to distinguish them from a Celtic rock band, but putting in 'non-Irish' makes it seem as if the band members aren't originally from Ireland, and 'untraditional' gives the impression that they're some sort of experimental rock outfit. Conversely, 'Irish rock band' is much more succint and not nearly as liable to cause confusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Byan85 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how The Cranberries can't sound grunge-y. ESPECIALLY "Zombie". Can someone explain why it's not in there genre listing? -Risdio51 8:42 2 December 2019 (ET) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

New release

They have a new release (actually 2006) -> Colour Collection. Any one knows what type of release is it? I cannot find much info on their official web page.--Scheibenzahl 15:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing came out in 2006. They were supposed to be releasing an EP or something in March, but O'Riordan backed out of it. --> www.zombieguiders.com <-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.121.31 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is post-punk not included in the list of genres? Their early recordings were definitely post-punk/ethereal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.232.105 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethereal

Would anyone argue for the fact that The Cranberries have an ethereal style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotsko (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC) i dont concur, I think Enya is Ethereal, Explosions in the Sky is ethereal-ish and so go on, but cranberries is more... kinda nostalgically romantic than ethereal. Goldensox (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

References for Genres

It looks like WesleyDodds and I disagree about whether references are needed for genres, so I'll paste our edit comments here so we can discuss it with longer comments, without starting an edit war:

WesleyDodds: You don't need to cite the genres, because they aren't widely disputed Angelastic: Added back refs for genres... they may not be widely disputed by experts, but people sometimes change them in this article, and without refs it is difficult to tell whether an edit is vandalism. WesleyDodds: Simply restore the genres if they are changed. The references are unnecessary, and certainly don't belong in the infbox.

My response to 'simply restore the genres...': I did that once, and I checked the reference first to make sure that I was doing the right thing. Music genres don't seem to be very well-defined, and I don't know what most of them mean, so even though I'm a fan of The Cranberries it would have been difficult for me to know whether to revert that edit if I hadn't had the references. I'm sure WesleyDodds, and many other editors, would have known immediately that The Cranberries weren't Post-Punk, but although I suspected as much, I couldn't immediately be sure (they did, after all, come after punk) and it was easier and more accurate to check a source than to read the Post-Punk article and make a judgment. Surely the more people are able to confidently revert vandalism or POV-pushing (and there are a lot of different points of view out there when it comes to music genres, if not in the music press then amongst the general public who edit wikipedia, which is why it helps to use the former as a source), the sooner such things will be corrected. I've seen similar edits on other articles where there haven't been any references to check, and it's very frustrating. Furthermore, I don't see how having references for things causes any harm. Although, perhaps it would be better to check other sources for the genres, or change the genre list, since the Allmusic article actually gives 'rock' for the genre and 'Alternative rock' and 'Celtic rock' as two of many 'styles'. What do people think? --Angelastic (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

became a high commercial success

I don't know anything about the music business, so I'm reluctant to change the use of this phrase in the article, but it sounds odd. If this is a phrase used in the music business, then perhaps it's appropriate. I would think that "highly successful commercially" or something would be better. JordanHenderson (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Mike Hogan

This article contains a link to the page Mike_Hogan_(The_Cranberries) which in turn redirects to this page. For this no further information can be found about the musician. Either there is no need of it and the Mike_Hogan page and link should be removed, or one of both pages should contain information about this person Vloody (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

RemovedStratocaster27 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Earlier in the article, Mike and his brother are described as descendants of the nineteenth-century Irish poet Michael Hogan; but the Wikipedia article on Michael Hogan says that the poet and his wife had no known children. It may be that his siblings, etc. had children, so they could be descended from his family; or he may have had children with another woman. But in any case, these can't really be called descendants in the strictly genetic sense.
Nuttyskin (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Main article image

Rather than changing it back and forth anymore, can we get some consensus about the main article image? I've reverted it back to the image its been since (at least) the beginning of the year. Any editors have thoughts on the image that should be used here?Caidh (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Caidh, this has nothing to do with choosing a picture. The pics that keep being inclued cross wiki and then removed since not OK are always done by consecutive socks of this long time structural cross wiki vandal. Please read the description there. This vandal costs many vandal fighters including me as global sysop much work alas. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This long-term abuser has been uploading low quality images for quite some time now and replacing the good ones with the bad quality equivalents he uploaded. This is vandalism as he does not reach consensus and keeps on reverting, that's why we are still reverting him. Further accounts will be locked as this is clearly sockpuppet abuse. TBloemink talk 10:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks MoiraMoira & TBloemink for clearing that up. Since the image had been here since the end of last year (or longer) I hadn't realized there was an issue with it (I didn't look back at the original uploader of the image, and didn't see the username you referenced as being the one changing it recently). I understand now.Caidh (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

To The Faithful Departed (reviews)

Did TTFD really attract "favorable reviews"? I just remember the album getting a thorough kicking, chiefly because of the clumsiness and banality of the lyrics. "He had perceptively known that it wouldn't be nice / Because in 1980, he paid the price", that was a cracker. Oh yeah, and "Sarajevo erects an undertune" as well. CulturalSnow (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Cranberries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cranberries in Film

Their music is in a lot of soundtracks, I'd love to see a list of what films feature the Cranberries. To begin with - Chunking Express — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.39.36 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Cranberries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Cranberries. 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) 10:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Cranberries. 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) 21:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection

This article can definitely use protection from IPs for 24 hours right now. --Stephen"Zap" (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Musical influences

The section about the band's musical style quotes O'Riordan as saying, in an interview with Paste magazine, that Peter Harvey's yodelling was an influence for her own vocal style. I'd never heard of Harvey prior to reading this, but I've removed the wikilink to the page for Peter Harvey (baritone), as I find it fairly implausible that a baritone would yodel (I'm going to take a guess that she was mis-heard and she actually said "PJ Harvey"). I've added a comment on Peter Harvey's talk page inviting editors familiar with his style to respond. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

DOLORES listed as PAST MEMBER

why she is listed as PAST MEMBER without any explanation ?

She deceased and it should be noted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:CCE:2109:728F:3883 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC) But the band declared they wouldn't continue without her. She's the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.5.184 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Cranberries was/were an Irish rock band

Why is this article written in Irish English (like it says in the source at the start)? I understand that the Cranberries was an Irish band, but when would that ever mean switching dialects just talk about them? Should all articles on people who were from the Appalachians be written in that accent, or every article on someone that spoke or speaks Scots be written in Scots? I'm not 100% sure what the reasoning for this decisio isn, because I'm sure for most people outside of Ireland reading the first line of the article it just reads as incongruent with the style of much of the rest of the site. I'm not necessarily saying there is no reason for it to be written this way, but I'm just saying there's no reason given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustard, huh? (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cranberries/Archive_1&oldid=1244448939"