Talk:The Bangles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sweetheart of the Sun discography link removed

I removed the link for "Sweetheart of the Sun" in the discography because it linked to the main "Bangles" article, not an article about the CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.20 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael or Michele

How do you spell a girl's name Michael Steele or Michele Steele?
A: With letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.217.215 (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Song subpages

I'm not sure their two big songs deserve subpages of their own; most people have a hard enough time making encyclopedia-length articles about an entire album (exceptions to perhaps Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club, Nevermind, and The Wall). I would like to be proven wrong, though.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

Name of the group

The band's official name is Bangles, not The Bangles. The singers stated that in some interviews. Their first name was The Bangs and when they learned of a another band of the same name they dropped the 'The' and added 'les'.

Do you propose that we move it? --malber 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually "The Bangles" appears to be the current official name: see the official site; the most recent album is also credited to "the Bangles" on the cover. Bangles already redirects here, so all is well. Jgm 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The "The" didn't star to appear until their 2003 release, and I'm pretty sure on all their album/singles during the 80s had just "Bangles" on the covers. Now I had this thing for Susanna Hoffs back in the day so I never missed her interviews and TV appearances and I can recall very well her saying that they dropped the "the" and added the "les" when the original The Bangs complained. I agree that we should redirect The Bangles to Bangles, not vice versa.--212.200.204.240 01:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have an excellent point and "The" is not on the cover material. Since this is a complex move, because the history of the pages needs to be rearranged as well, I'll put it up for a request move which means that we'll take a (quick) vote and see if there is agreement. KittenKlub 07:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All earlier album covers, album labels, Cds, Boxed Sets, etc. list the name as simply Bangles, not The Bangles. Only Doll Revolution lists the name as "the Bangles", with a lower case "the." So, it's a mixed bag. This is an issue on Gracenote, the site that lists band and track names for iTunes. All albums are listed as The Bangles, and this contrasts to what I have listed in my iTunes library for the band name. Sorting in iTunes can be set to Bangles, but if you try to load the CD again, it thinks it's a different album due to the primary name difference. - Parsa (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bangling on?

"Bangling on?" Is that encyclopedic? --malber 15:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Genre

How about throwing in a genre of music in there? "Independent all-woman band" hardly classifies as one. Shatha 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hazy Shade of Winter

"A Hazy Shade of Winter" isn't quite a "hit" song by The Bangles... Simon and Garfunkel recorded it back in the 60s. Maybe the article should be edited to reflect that it was a cover. Slavakion 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bangles → Bangles – Because the "The" part was not part of the name of the band and never mentioned on cover material, publications. (See discussion above as well) KittenKlub 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC) KittenKlub 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. KittenKlub 08:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Their official name now is apparently The Bangles, probably because that's how they were most commonly referred to anyway (despite what the album covers in the 80s said), which is what the article title should reflect. --Serge 19:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for 3 reasons (see discussion below). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Susanna Hoffs was recently interviewed by a Big L UK radio presenter and she explained how and why they renamed to Bangles. I renamed my mp3 collection after that interview!! --212.200.213.246 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Three reasons for not doing this move, at least at this time:
  1. What appears on album covers can vary considerably from album to album (check out The Carpenters' albums), and has a lot to do with the staff and artists hired by the record company.
  2. If there are reliable sources for the Bangles' position on their name, we should produce them before changing the article title from this most recognized form of the band's name, as best-known names are frequently the preferred titles for WP articles. (Consider: which is more likely to be said: "Ladies and gentlemen — Bangles!" or "Ladies and gentlemen — the Bangles!" Compare and contrast with The Grass Roots and Simple Minds.)
  3. We have reliable evidence for their current use of "the Bangles" as their name, and it is not unreasonable to use the current official name, especially if the old one is in question, unsupported, or ambiguously documented.

  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Since there is a redirect from Bangles and the definite article is on the official website, it's a little hard to see why there should be a move. There are more important things in the world! 86.135.89.125 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did Prince really write Manic Monday?

Last time I heard about this, it was still a rumour. Is it confirmed? Is there a source? --maf 17:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was confirmed ages ago. He is credited as Christopher. Just google for it and you'll notice that it is listed everywhere. On first glance I see that the Vocal Hall of Fame also mentions it. KittenKlub 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I googled for [christopher prince confirmed "manic monday"] and got 386 results, none of which gives a confirmation (nor a denial). As one of them wrote, "everybody knows that Prince wrote Manic Moday", which pretty much sums it all. Still, I'm going to put a {citation}, not on this article but on Manic Monday since it exists. Thanks. --maf 10:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I was editing Manic Monday, I found a history of the Apollonia 6 album, written and produced by Prince, which confirms Manic Monday had been recorded for that album and then pulled. That serves as source and lets me rest at peace with this subject. --maf 10:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's written everywhere that Christopher is Prince. We only need reliable sources. And if they publish it, it is a confirmation. You do not need an interview with Prince where he admits it. I put in my usual reference book which is Dutch, however it is the official publication of the Dutch Top 40, so that's about as authorative as you can get, and even they mention it.KittenKlub 10:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. I've added a citation from All-Music Guide, quite reliable by Wikipedia standards, and added a new References section so folks can add proper sources for the rest of the article's material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

During the commentary by Vicki and Debbie Peterson and Susanna Hoffs on the DVD Return to Bangleonia, the girls tell us that Prince wrote "Manic Monday", but for reasons unknown to them, chose to credit himself as Christopher.

They also discussed how the song was presented to them: It was around the time that the video for "Hero Takes a Fall" was in rotation on MTV that Prince offered the band two songs he had written which were delivered to the band on a cassette tape. The girls chose to recorded "Manic Monday". Prince had offered them a full mix of the song to which they could add only their vocals, but the band declined the offer preferring to record their version of the song from scratch.

Rico402 (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This person could not look this up on Prince's entry??? Unbelievable! (75.69.241.91 (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

Did Doll Revolution really get "rave reviews"?

Second QOTD, sorry... Was this right? I only recall seeing bad press about the CD when it came out, and the featured review on the album's article gives it 3/5. Again, are there sources? --maf 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As on most pages, the only addition is All Music. So if you have another review you can add it. Basically All Music is one of the few professional sources who keeps older reviews online, because newspapers tend to delete it after two years or so. KittenKlub 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Doll Revolution certainly did not receive rave reviews, it received mixed reviews at best. I made the change to the article. 69.157.184.173 08:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[email protected]

Lead image in danger of deletion

Image:Bangles 1980s.jpg is currently tagged as having its author unidentified. It's obviously a publicity shot and fair use is being claimed on that basis, so who owns the copyright on the image is kind of beside the point, but what can you do... Anyway, can anyone help track down any identifying information on this, so it isn't deleted by the overzealous among us? Cheers, Postdlf 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The overzealous are probably going to delete it anyhow. I've used another picture from their press/promotional section. Luckily they have identified it as such on their official website (unlike most websites) KittenKlub 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's good, but the 1980's image is a better illustration of the band, because it shows them during their...well, their "relevant" period. Maybe someone has a fan mag from the '80s? Or an autographed picture? Postdlf 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It'll be almost impossible to find anything which has a correct licence. You can't use fan mags, so that means you have to find a fan from the 80s who is willing to both scan and donate it into GFDL. Honestly the current image practice is to restricted especially since non-commercial images are no longer allowed and almost all non-copyrighted images are non-commercial only and for good reason as well. KittenKlub 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake it's Bangles not The Bangles

I have press releases from the band where the sentances start with 'Bangles are', not 'The Bangles are' and each press release is singed as 'love, Bangles' or something like that. If anyone wants to see it I can mail it to them. Would you now stop claming you know better than the band itself????????? Can there be a better proof than this? Please!! --212.200.212.171 15:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia where there is no such thing as common sense. KittenKlub 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? They are, and have been 'The Bangles' since the early 1980s. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

This matters because? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is typical Wikipedia BS..their website Official website www.thebangles.com repeatedly refers to them as The Bangles..next an " editor " will change the lead to " the Bangles is.. " bla bla bla and when it is corrected..again there will be another mindless discussion here on grammatical procedure...I is not an editor..if you am go for it. 2600:1702:2340:9470:11F:128F:5F38:5FDF (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Abby a Bangle?

She´s still in the band playing bass and doing chorus for more than a year.I honestly think that she is a member now.

No, she is not an official member of the band. Her name should be removed from the list. 69.157.176.139 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[email protected]

I removed Abby Travis from the Band Members lists. She is not a band member, she has been touring with the band. 69.157.184.173 08:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[email protected]

Quote:"I honestly think that she is a member now"

Ummmmm...Ok! I don't think we would use that as criteria for inclusion! lol! (75.69.241.91 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

Separate discography article

I removed the following tag just added to the article:

{{splitsection|The Bangles discography}}

because (A) there was no indication already on this discussion page of why the editor felt this was a useful change; (B) the current section isn't very long; and (C) I see no obvious reason why else a band's discography should be a separate Wikipedia article. But maybe I'm missing something. I invite discussion on the rationale and usefulness of a split. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Integrating trivia

I've collected most of the unsourced trivia from the "Trivia" section and integrated it into the article, in the section currently titled "In personal culture", by writing prose divided into two areas (their outside contributions, tributes to them) and placed in chronological order as a logical flow. I also located a reliable source for each item, although some of the information may need addtional sourcing. (Note that the mere existence of a song or album is not a source. We need a reliable publication, like Internet Music Database or All Music Guide, to be able to verify statements about TV shows and albums. It is not reasonable to expect our fellow Wikipedians to buy a CD or DVD in order to verify information.) Finally, I tried to retain interesting trivial elements — without bogging down the prose — by moving them into footnotes with the citations.

This is just basic high-school English composition. I hope that it provides an example of how a bunch of disconnected trivia can be turned into an arguably useful part of an article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Eternal Flame" not "inspired" by Presley's eternal flames"

The song "Eternal Flame" was not "inspired by Elvis Presley's eternal flames." In the commentary on the Bangles: Return to Bangleonia - and yes it is "the Bangles" now, with "the" in all lower case letters (see the following post) - Susanna Hoffs tells us that her songwriting partner Billy Steinberg simply took note of the phrase "eternal flame" while touring the Presley estate. The flame had gone out and its enclosure was flooded at the time, prompting a question like, "What's that... in that Lucite box?" To which the tour guide replied, "That's the Eternal Flame". Steinberg repeated the phase "eternal flame" a few times, and simply thought it would be a good title for a song. The lyrics, and the mood or emotion of the song, have nothing whatsoever to do with Presley's eternal flames.

Similarly, Vicki Peterson tells us that she wrote "Stealing Rosemary" as a song title in her notebook as a young teenager. While preparing dinner with her 13-year-old friend, the friend suggested "stealing" some herbs from the neighbors garden, such as "rosemary". The band first performed "Stealing Rosemary" live during their 2000 tour, nearly 30 years after Vicki had written the title and nothing else. The song appears on the Bangles, Doll Revolution (2003).

I'll edit "... inspired by Elvis Presley's eternal flames" to reflect the above statements and cite the source.

I'll leave the reference "Stichting Nederlandse", as it appears intended to be the source for "The single became another worldwide No.1 hit." rather than "... inspired by Elvis Presley's eternal flames." (Which leaves no source for this erroneous claim.)

(If Stichting Nederlandse is the source for the "... inspired by ..." claim, than either the article or the editor is in error. I know nothing about this publication, but citing articles in what are essentially fan magazines is poor sourcing. They're notoriously unreliable.)

Rico402 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I've listened to the commentary on Return to Bangleonia again, and found I'd gotten this wrong. Billy Steinberg wasn't with girls when they toured Graceland in the rain. According to Susanna, it was after she told Steinberg about the Graceland tour and flooded plastic box with an extinguished "eternal flame", that he got the idea of using "Eternal Flame" as a song title.

Rico402 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the "the" debate

Since at least the release of Doll Revolution in 2003, the band has gone by the name "the Bangles", with "the" in all lower case letters, and only the "B" in uppercase. The format is followed in the references cited below, except for the "vintage" tee shirt.

The cover art on Doll Revolution reads:

"the Bangles

Doll Revolution"

Similarly, the cover art on the 2007 DVD release of the band's 2000 L.A. House of Blues concert reads:

"Return to Bangleonia

the Bangles"

The band's Web site bears the title "the Bangles", and the new tee shirts, hat and tote bag sold on the sites "official store" also bear the new name.

The "vintage" tee shirt however, simply reads "Bangles".

Rico402 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the case of "the"... Currently, the band name at the top of the web page is stylized as "the BANGLES", and doesn't determine the case of "the". The title of all web pages begins with "::: The Bangles :::". The bags and cap at the website store show "The Bangles". The copyright message shows "The Bangles" or "the Bangles", depending on the web page (one would expect consistency here). In the website bio "The Bangles" is used when starting a sentence, otherwise it's "the Bangles". We should probably follow this last rule. CuriousEric^Talk 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The lower case is not an issue--that's a matter of graphic design. If the band's name includes "the," you call them The Bangles, unless you say, e.g., "the Bangles album", because "the The Bangles album" would sound awful. As for being "Bangles" or "The Bangles," this situation is clearly a tricky one. Sometimes bands inscribe the name without "the" for style's sake: e.g. first Ramones album just has "Ramones" on the cover but the notes call them "The Ramones." So is the album also called 'The Ramones' or just 'Ramones' as on the cover? Never been settled. Since the band in this case apparently would have called themselves "The Bangles" if not for the legal situation that arose at the time, and more recently have called themselves "The Bangles," I suppose we should choose the "the," but the alternate name should be noted for the pertinent releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.167.2 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid..what diffence does it make?..There are a billion kids starving in Africa and you care about this? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

How about considering how it sounds when spoken, as well as the fact that adding a "the" adds emphasis to the following word? "I bought a CD by Led Zeppelin." sounds right. "I bought a CD by the Led Zepplin." sounds wrong. From my perspective the "the" in front of "Bangles" is used because it suggest that it is the Bangles (a name), not bangles (worn on your wrist.) I saw bangles last night suggest jewelery. I saw "the Bangles" last night suggest more than just common wrist ornaments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.69.193 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1983 "The Real World" (remix)

The printing on my 12" EP 45rpm says 1982... Maybe that was the print date and it was released in 1983. Somebody, please verify that 1983 really is correct. U.S. Only release is a factual error. My copy was available in Finland: CBS 650961-6. Printed in Holland.

If it is the 12 inch. it would be 1983. I am looking at the promo copy that was sent out to media and radio stations. "Bangles. © 1983 Faulty Products. Inc". However if it was the non remixed version, and it was a 45, it could be 1982. Although I am not sure about any overseas releases as I do not know what Faulty Products distribution was in foreign markets. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a 12". It's not a promo copy, and it's the remix. No mention of "Faulty Products.". AFAIK this was an official Columbia Records release and I ordered it from a listing issued by one of the major Finnish record distributors through my small-town dealer (who hardly would have access to promos).Pnnielsen (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Something is not fitting with that. You said first "The printing on my 12" EP 45rpm says 1982..." but you say "this was an official Columbia Records release" in the reply. The group was not on Columbia in 1982. They were on Faulty until I.R.S picked the E.P up. Could you scan the label and post it? Based on the "650961-6" code you gave it seems to match the EP for the release, not the single. Bangles - I.R.S. Records (Netherlands), Catalog#: ILS 6509616. From what I can see the only "remix" single was the version I have and mentioned. (The Real World (12", Promo)) However, in 1988, IRS/A&M released a CD-3 single (Cat #CC31011) that contained three songs, one of which was, as printed on the CD, "The Real World (remix, previously unreleased)". Aside from these releases I am not aware of any other RW singles of the remix version being released so if you can get that label scan up it would be a help. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Guest bassists

Since there was a developing edit war happening over the guest bassists – one side favoring a short list with little further information, and the other replacing it with a longer, updated set of information including discussion of Abby Travis's mysterious departure – I split the difference and used the latter material to expand the section while keeping the short guest list. I also fixed several problems:

• fact-tagged the Austin Powers recording session because its source was a personal web page, not reliable by Wikipedia standards;
• expanded, formatted, and updated sources for easier editing and research;
• cleaned up the line breaks that thoroughly mangled the article formatting; and
• replaced the vehemently non-neutral conclusions drawn about Travis's departure and the Bangles' ethics (or lack thereof) with text supported by the sources given. (The concert announcement cited as a source was not actually a source for the statements that were made, just the existence of a concert.)

That last issue is important. There's an implication that Travis hadn't realized she'd "left" the band until she read about it, but we currently have no reliable source that actually says this, let alone claims she was "fired". Any such statements need to be backed up by cited, reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, these women are not "guest bassists" and referring to any one of them as such is just foolish sounding. Secondly, Abby Travis may be liked by the fans, but she like the rest are simply tour players and wasting space talking about them, beyond noting their inclusion and departure, is not warranted. Wikipedia is not designed to be a news room, blog or fan page. Travis should have minimal, if any, mention in the main entry. There are too many people here who post without having the slightest idea of Wikipedia protocols are. As with other Wikipedia entries for bands, There is no need for a "list" of "guest bassists" or other fill-in musicians and such lists should be deleted. (209.6.117.47 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC))

Despite the antagonistic tone, I have to agree with the anon user above. Touring players are never considered part of the band - just as session musicians are only listed in the footnote sections of album liner notes and not in the list of band members. My suggestion is that mention of all touring musicians be removed unless noteworthy to the larger article (such as bried mention of Abby Travis). Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Relevant?

The Bangles will be playing at a fundraising party in LA for an animal charity. Maybe a bit more expensive than some of their concerts, but a good cause all the same. http://www.bestfriends.org/lintrollerparty/index.htm Not sure if it's relevant info to their wiki page or not, but possibly in reference to their new upcoming album and "comeback" of sorts?

No, it is not relevant.(209.6.117.47 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC))